×

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!

OS X

michael posted about 13 years ago | from the apt-get-install-OS_X dept.

Apple 416

So, now that OS X has been out a few days and people have had a chance to put it though its paces, let's take a look at it. Upside.com wonders if the new OS was released half-baked. Ars Technica puts it through its paces with a very thorough review. O'Reilly plans to release tech books covering OS X, so if your bookshelf isn't full yet, you can add a few more. Certain major software projects are already being tried on OS X - look out Adobe. And finally, we know it's not April 1, but we thought the picture of OS X on a Visor was cute. Any other good links to reviews? Post them below.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

416 comments

Re:Or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#319146)

Does anybody know what karma an OS needs to be reincarnated as OS X ?
Is this good or a punishment ?
And when reaches an OS the nirvana ?
And how can 2 OS merge on reincarnation, when one of the two is not even dead up to now ?

X and X (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#319147)

I've compiled and installed a number of X-Windows things for OS X, including glib, gtk+, imlib, jpeglib, etc., XEmacs, WindowMaker, AfterStep, Xfce, XV, rxvt, Freeciv, Dillo, gFTP, and Postilion. (To start X-Windows, you need to type ">console" at the login window; login to the console, type startx, and away you go.) Apple added a number of symbolic links at places other flavors of *NIX usually have their system libraries; the links point to the location of said libs in Apple's distribution. Hence you no longer need to hack the hell out of the configures and makefiles to get things to compile. In fact most things just require a simple ./configure, make, make install, without any modifiction aside from occasionally needing to specify --host=powerpc-apple-darwin1.3 or --host=powerpc-apple-machten.

Go to gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net] or fink.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net] for more information on getting X to run under OS X. For that matter, if anyone's interested in running X without having to shutdown OS X's native window manager first, check out the XonX project at mrcla.com/XonX/ [mrcla.com].

Re:Common threads. (2)

stripes (3681) | about 13 years ago | (#319164)

Another one is that IE performs really badly in its beta-carbonized form.

I think IE is worse in the OSX release then it was in the public beta. Not really slower as much as it crashes way more often, and the "page holder" has stopped working. I have more or less switched to OmniWeb.

P.S. I dig the new finder, but maybe that is because I like the new list view (well the NeXT list view).

P.P.S. umount -f seems to cause lockups pretty easily. Too bad, all the other BSDs are stable after one.

Re:My thoughts on OS X (2)

stripes (3681) | about 13 years ago | (#319165)

Applications - well, I hardly ever have to run anything in Classic. I've found an email application, an mp3 player, a web browser, AIM, a LiveJournal client (addict? me? never...) and other things that I need for daily happiness, all either Carbonized or already Cocoa. The only things I need Classic for are things like Photoshop and Dreamweaver - and it works just fine for those. Not every application I'll ever use is available yet - but stuff I need on a daily basis is all already supported in OS X.

I pretty much agree with you, for two reasons:

  • Classic may not be the ideal solution, but it does work for the vast majority of applications. Hell it even works for pre-release 1980's versions of MacDraw that are written for a different CPU!
  • I really believe that a lot of places have been dragging their feet on doing OSX ports until there was a release. Not delaying the release for 3rd party apps was a good idea. Also not installing it on new Macs is a great idea, because the thing ain't finished.
Plus, if you think something's missing - add it. Apple couldn't get ssh included, but many many people have gotten OpenSSH installed and working with a minimum of hassle.

I heard the govm'nt didn't OK Apple's paper work until about four hours after the golden master was cut. Beats me if it's true, but it makes a good story. It was only modestly harder to get compiled and installed on this OS then on others. I was kinda looking forward to a mass release OS with ssh built in though.

Re:Been playing with it (2)

stripes (3681) | about 13 years ago | (#319166)

Being able to call up a terminal which is actually part of a Mac system absolutely rocks. Although, has anyone been able to replace the default shell with bash?

Have you tried chsh /path/to/bash? It worked for switching to zsh.

Re: RAM/Paging usage (2)

stripes (3681) | about 13 years ago | (#319167)

In the older OSes, as I understand it, you have a set amount of virtual memory (set in a control panel). Each application reserves a set amount of memory (which in theory is the maximum amount of memory it would ever need) when it launches. So, IE might reserve 16 megs of memory, but only be using 7 or 8 at any given time. This way, each running application will never had its memory used by another app (in theory). The down side is that since the amount of memory an app has reserved is fixed, you don't get as many apps in physical memory as you do in an OS with a real VM system.

FYI, you can do (almost) that on OSX and other Posix systems (like Linux). Use "setrlimit". It won't pre-allocate the memory though, just limit the apps.

Re:Indeed (3)

stripes (3681) | about 13 years ago | (#319169)

The fact is, it has little in common with bsd other than the fact that there is a bsd interface to the mach kernel that is there for the sole purpose of allowing it to run unix programs such as apache, sendmail, etc.

Sure, it has little in common except the whole 4.4Lite source base. Oh, and all the shims so it can use FreeBSD device drivers and filesystems. Oh, and the systemcall interface, which native OSX applications can/do use (unlike WinNT where you wither have a GUI, or you have Posix, but it is almost impossible to have both).

Most people seem to think that it started out as BSD and apple built their own window system on top, which is far from the truth.

How do you think it started out? It was MACH when NeXT built it, which had a BSD single server on it (not 4.4 at the time because 4.4 wasn't available). NeXT put their own windowing system on top because they felt (like many others) that X sucks.

The BSD stuff is a convenient way for apple to use existing software, nothing more.

Duh. What do you think Linux is? It is an easy way to use all that existing Unix app code.

Actually that is a bit far from the mark since Apple isn't getting a huge amount of mileage from existing Unix apps (mostly they don't have a friendly UI, and the ones that do need to use a new API for the UI anyway!).

Why should it matter that Apple chose BSD to reuse existing code? Isn't that the reason to choose an OS? What's next? Bitching at Red Hat for choosing Linux so they can use all that existing Linux software? Well, duh, of corse.

Re:Should I get one? (1)

Colin Simmonds (4017) | about 13 years ago | (#319177)

I'm using NFS between my Linux server and my OS X workstation, but it's a bit flaky. OS X can import NFS filesystems if you set some options (look in the forums on macnn.com for details), but I've found that I need to stop and restart the NFS server processes every time the OS X box tries to import a new filesystem. OS X can export via NFS so long as it's from a partition formatted as UFS (the default is HFS+ for Classic compatibility, which does not work with NFS).

There is no fancy GUI to enable NFS, so you have to be familiar with the Unix command line and the NeXT-derived NetInfo system in order to get NFS working.

In the Public Beta, I found some problems where non-Unix applications could not see NFS-imported filesystems, but that appears to have been fixed in the Final Release.

Larswm on OSX? (1)

asn (4418) | about 13 years ago | (#319180)

I'm a diehard larswm fan, and also love the look of the new Apple Titanium Notebooks... Could I be running larswm on top of OSX and still be able to run both BSD and Mac apps (specifically, allt eh movie and DVD stuff)?

lmbench results anyone? (1)

pp (4753) | about 13 years ago | (#319181)

Has anyone run lmbench on it btw.? I'd be really interested in seeing some figures (compared to Linux 2.4 on the same hardware).

NeXT OS/Mac OS emulator 0.63b (was Mac OS X 10.0) (1)

Mumble01 (5809) | about 13 years ago | (#319191)

From a UI perspective, Mac OS 9.1 is nice and easy to use. Not perfect, but good. OS X 10.0 isn't just a few steps back, it is on a pretty escalator that goes sideways. Check out all of the reader reports on Macintouch [macintouch.com] for details. I bought the beta but I'm glad I didn't plunk down $129 (or $99 with the rebate) for the retail version.

I never thought I'd see the day when I preferred the current Windows GUI to the current Macintosh one. But there you go.

MacOS-Unfinished (3)

IRNI (5906) | about 13 years ago | (#319193)

Ok I am going to try to lay this all out without sounding anything like a flame. This OS release is sort of the poster child for unfinished software releases. This OS is for all purposes Public Beta II. If you go read the discussion boards for installation on Apple's site or the forums on MacFixit you will see how many problems this OS has. It won't even run on my G3 Lombard Powerbook. There are so many threads on what could be causing it. Ram, Processor, Font folder in the wrong place. All suggesstions give tips... none of them make the OS get past installation on my system. The install took 2 and a half hours on my laptop. 9.1 runs fine without any problems. I have used recent internal builds of OS X without a problem either... except for kernel panics... which I figured would go away with the release version but they haven't according to the discussion threads. So DP4, Public Beta, 4k56 and 4k60 all ran nicely on my powerbook. But the Official release will not run at all. Apple says they do not know but are working on it. I don't see any progress. And another pet peve I have developed is that Apple has all but forgotten the lombard powerbook. They only care about the pismo and Ti. The lombard is probably the most needing of a firmware update but every firmware update is for the pismo. Anyway. I love OS X.. just waiting for it to actually work and for Apple to get their heads out of their asses. :)
IRNI

Re: What's wrong with this title? (2)

fireproof (6438) | about 13 years ago | (#319194)

Actually, Apple officially calls it "OS X 10.0" from what I understand. That's sort of redundant, if you ask me, since they've insisted all along that the "X" is pronounced "ten" . . .

I'm all for calling it "OS X 1.0" personally, since it's really a different animal from any previous Mac OS.

Re: What's wrong with this title? (2)

fireproof (6438) | about 13 years ago | (#319195)

Well, I was thinking that they could have the X just be "ex", and not refer to ten. Then you could have "OS X 1.0.1" or the like. That, of course, would be confusing since they've insisted that the "X" is really "10", but it's no less confusing to your average person than "OS X 10.0" . . .

Re: RAM/Paging usage (3)

fireproof (6438) | about 13 years ago | (#319197)

In the older OSes, as I understand it, you have a set amount of virtual memory (set in a control panel). Each application reserves a set amount of memory (which in theory is the maximum amount of memory it would ever need) when it launches. So, IE might reserve 16 megs of memory, but only be using 7 or 8 at any given time. This way, each running application will never had its memory used by another app (in theory). The down side is that since the amount of memory an app has reserved is fixed, you don't get as many apps in physical memory as you do in an OS with a real VM system.

From my experience, you run out of memory pretty fast. I've got a old 7100/80 at work I kick around on every now and then, and it has 64 megs. Right now, the OS has reserved 15.1 megs, and it's using about 95% of that. IE has 11.9 megs reserved, and is using about 80% of that. Outlook is using about 50% of the 8.8 megs it. If I launch Excel and Word, then all my physical memory is suddenly "used" and if I run other apps, I have to use the virtual memory.

Most copied interface? (1)

shaka (13165) | about 13 years ago | (#319207)

This just occurred to me: The Aqua interface must be the single most copied interface before release.
I mean, when I look at it now, when the product is released, it just looks like some old stuff I've seen a thousand times before. I've been running it under Enlightenment and GTK and all that.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not talking about the actual look & feel sitting at the box, it's just the feeling I get from looking at screenshots.

Re:My thoughts on OS X (1)

ethereal (13958) | about 13 years ago | (#319209)

Yes, I have to boot into OS9 to watch DVD's. Windows doesn't ship with a DVD player (Media Player doesn't count. I don't use it to play my mp3's, I won't use it to watch my DVD's) and certainly has issues, and Linux has been not-ready-for-primetime since its inception.

Well, Windows Media Player DVD support wouldn't be in great shape either if Microsoft had to fight off the RIAA, the US court system, and the Norwegian police :)

Re: What's wrong with this title? (1)

ethereal (13958) | about 13 years ago | (#319210)

The problem is that if the "X" means "10", then for incremental releases you would have "Mac OS X.0.1", "X.1.2", etc. and that's really confusing. Plus there's no way they're calling the next major release "Mac OS XI"!

More Mac Games Now? (1)

Jethro73 (14686) | about 13 years ago | (#319211)

I, for one, would like to see more games for Mac on OS X. Things have been getting better, but it still isn't good enough for an addicted PC Gamer to switch over...

Is there still only one mouse button on Macs? 8^)

Jethro

Re:hillarious interview with Steve Jobs about OS X (2)

Mindwarp (15738) | about 13 years ago | (#319213)

I believe that the PHB's reply to the 'what color Database would you like?' was:

"I hear purple has more 'RAM'"

--

Re:More Mac Games Now? (1)

BWJones (18351) | about 13 years ago | (#319218)

Westlake Interactive is porting several of their recently released games and future titles to OSX (Tomb Raider etc...depending upon what Aspyr and others want)

Also as for the multibutton mouse issue: OSX supports multiple button mice right out of the box. Two, Three, Four button mice seem to work here on OSX just fine.

Developer tools (3)

BWJones (18351) | about 13 years ago | (#319220)

One of the most impressive things about this OSX release for me is the developer tools that are included. You get Project Builder and an Interface builder that are IMHO some of the best damn tools I have seen for rapid project development. NeXT is definately showing its presence here.

Re:OT: Powerbook, not OS X (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 13 years ago | (#319226)

> Now you can have the 500MHz powerbook for the price of the 400MHz one.

Steakhouses don't normally charge more for "well done", either.

--

Indeed (3)

rm -rf /etc/* (20237) | about 13 years ago | (#319231)

This whole "bsd based" thing has gotten way out of proportion. The fact is, it has little in common with bsd other than the fact that there is a bsd interface to the mach kernel that is there for the sole purpose of allowing it to run unix programs such as apache, sendmail, etc. Most people seem to think that it started out as BSD and apple built their own window system on top, which is far from the truth. The BSD stuff is a convenient way for apple to use existing software, nothing more.

Re:Runs Office in "Classic Mode" (1)

acomj (20611) | about 13 years ago | (#319232)

OS X has a classic mode that will allow the user to run ma OS8/9 applications like Word/Excell etc.

I think you'll need alot of memory as to boot into classic mode means to be having 2 OSs in memory at once (at least 192 megs...)

I think the performance would be fine once you're in classic mode.

If you can wait OS-X native office is supposed to be comming in the fall..

Progress, definetly better than os 9..... (1)

acomj (20611) | about 13 years ago | (#319233)

I haven't actually tried OS-X yet, but I'm looking forward to someday getting it. I'm waiting till version 10.x.. so bugs will be squashed etc. Apple had to ship, even if its not completely done to get developers aboard. Name one OS thats "Done" and doesn't need more work.

Being a mac user at home. I've had no problems with it and have to say they make everything really easy (adding ram/ upgrading the processor and adding a 2nd video card all went flawlessly and took about 15 minutes...) I have to say I'm looking forward to a more stable system, although I have MacOS running pretty stable right now. Also it will be nice to get Unix underneith, but I don't think I'll be giving up on linuxppc right away, especially since it runs well on older hardware.

I think it will be nice to have a unix box with gnu tools that runs photoshop and apache..

Or... (1)

Levine (22596) | about 13 years ago | (#319235)

As some people refer to it, the next incarnation of NeXT. With a BSD core, I suppose.

Cheers,
levine

Re:Should I get one? (1)

kennylives (27274) | about 13 years ago | (#319242)

Don't know about NFS.

NFS (Client) is there, and I believe I've seen mention (try Google) about making MacOSX an NFS server. As a client it seems to work ok, but I havn't tried some of the combinations that would likely be a problem (like running a 'classic' app under MacOSX, accessing data on an NFS-mounted directory. I strongly suspect that Creator/Type would not be shared with the app properly through NFS); casual access seems to be fine.

Also, I recall there being an issue with exports from Linux needing the 'insecure' directive in the export to work with the public beta, but I don't know if that's true with the released version of MacOSX.

Re:OS X software (1)

CSC (31551) | about 13 years ago | (#319250)

See, I can buy that $500 box and use any old POS monitor I have laying around.

You're lucky to have monitors lying around. To me it seems the only thing I *never* have is a spare monitor.

Re: RAM/Paging usage (1)

CSC (31551) | about 13 years ago | (#319251)

This is almost exact, but not quite true. The memory "slice" of applications is actually a bite of the whole (fixed-size) virtual memory, not physical memory. The part of it which is never touched has no reason to be ever allocated.

This you can see easily with a little piece of software called MemMapper. (no URL handy, sorry... google it if you want).

Re:OS X software (4)

yomahz (35486) | about 13 years ago | (#319266)

And let me know where I can buy that $500 Duron/Celeron with that nice big 17" monitor.

From pricewatch.com [pricewatch.com]:

$95 - 533 celeron w/ MB
$31 - 128 M RAM
$7 - Mid Tower case
$134 - Geforce 2 64M GTS
$4 - 100Mb ethernet card
$42 - DVD Drive
$15 - Logitech Keyboard
$3 - Logitech Mouse
$119 - 17" monitor
$66 - 10 Gig HD
=================
$516


--

A mind is a terrible thing to taste.

Ars Technica (1)

Uri (51845) | about 13 years ago | (#319269)

"Ars Technica puts it through its paces with a very thorough review."

Thorough and interesting, yes, but also quite opiniated and arsey. Every point seems to become a 'huge, glaring misfeature', and they often assume that their way of doing things is automatically the right one.

For example, they got rather annoyed at Finder for truncating long names in the middle, rather than at the end (which, they claim, is clearly correct behaviour!). Personally, I quite enjoy being able to differentiate between "Complete System Backup - 01-04" and "Complete System Backup - 95-01". In fact, since the important information is usually either at the beinning of the name or at the end (version number, date, etc), Finder's approach seems quite sensible to me.

Ah well. At least they had lots of nice screenshots :)

For more info on GIMP and GTK under OS X... (3)

Uri (51845) | about 13 years ago | (#319270)

...visit www.macgimp.org [macgimp.org]. Presently, it's all still a bit fiddly though - so be warned. A screenshot of the GIMP (running fairly happily, it seems) can be found here [geocities.com].

Re:OS X software (3)

NetCurl (54699) | about 13 years ago | (#319275)

I mean, even if this OS produces everything it claims to, is it really worth an intel user to switch over when you can get a duron/celeron box for 500, and the cheapest way to get a mac is an iMac for about 8 or 9 hundred and then you have to suffer through a 15" monitor?

So your Duron/Celeron box for $500 comes with a 17" monitor? Really? That's incredible.

At least the iMac has a monitor, while it may be overpriced, there is a price-point that is very succesful in all platforms of Computer sales that is right around $800-$1000. The iMac isn't geared toward the power user, rather, toward Joe Friday who wants a computer for the internet, word processing, email, and his 5 year old kid to play "Reader-Rabbit" on.

And let me know where I can buy that $500 Duron/Celeron with that nice big 17" monitor.

Re:OS X software (1)

Zoop (59907) | about 13 years ago | (#319281)

Only for people with more stock options than salary :-).

Seriously, it's not that much more expensive. Certainly you couldn't get an x86 multimedia system capable of running the latest stuff (and let's face it, this still means running Windoze until Apple ports Quicktime to FreeBSD (gotcha!)) for much than $100 less than an equivalent Apple system (caveat to x86 zealots, I use both daily so I know whereof I speak).

Take one of your current monitors and get a used Smurf (blue and white G3) on eBay if the $100 premium over an equivalent x86 system is that dear. You'll still get a speedy system (in os 9.1) with the cool case design and you won't spend that much.

Re:OT: Powerbook, not OS X (2)

lizrd (69275) | about 13 years ago | (#319291)

Overclocking a laptop is interesting and all, but why would you do it? That can't be good for battery life. In addition, that's a pretty hefty clockspeed bump it must get really hot when it's sitting on your lap.
_____________

Re:MacOS-Unfinished (1)

Knobby (71829) | about 13 years ago | (#319293)

It won't even run on my G3 Lombard Powerbook.

Uhm.. It works great on my Lombard g3/400, and the Lombard g3/333 in the office next door.. If I had to make a suggestion, I would tell you to pass DiskWarrior over everything before (make sure the directory structure is correct first), and after (clean up the diretory structure after the OS X install stomps all over it) the install..

Good luck!

I agree that Apple has sort of left Lombard and Wallstreet users out in the cold, but that could be said for beige and b&w G3 desktop users as well..

Re:Reviews, OSX,TiBook Overclocking on TekMage.com (1)

marz007 (72932) | about 13 years ago | (#319296)

Damn subject size limits...CLOCKING.. OVERCLOCKING....yeah..

Some tech background (4)

hub (78021) | about 13 years ago | (#319300)

To answer questions asked here:
  • MacOS X is the descendent of NeXTStep. Call it NeXTStep 6.0 (version 5.0 was MacOS X Server aka Rhapsody). OpenStep APIs are here. They have been renamed Cocoa.
  • MacOS X has a BSD layer on top of Mach like its ancestor NeXTStep. It is like OSF/1 too (from Digital). Note that this is NOT a microkernel architecture but more a macrokernel. Mach kernel version evolved compared to the version found in NeXTStep
  • MacOS X is the descendant of MacOS 9. This is tru and false. In fact, speaking of architecture, this is completely false. Speaking of user experience and API, it is a great step forward, but it shows its roots: menu bar on top, Finder to handle files, etc. Carbon is also here to provide legacy support with some cleanup, and Classic is here to really provide legacy support.
  • MacOS X foundations are open source. This true if we restrain on the core OS. Starting with the graphic layer (CoreGraphics aka Quartz), it is completely proprietary. This open source part is called Darwin. See uname and Apple Public Source web [apple.com].
  • MacOS X is NOT FreeBSD. While MacOS X borrows utilities from the various BSDs (Free, Net and Open are all represented), it is not in anyway binary compatible. But at source level, it works quite good, unless it depends on X11 or any library that depends on it.

Common threads. (3)

barneyfoo (80862) | about 13 years ago | (#319304)

The biggest problems with OsX so far are speed, which is the #1 complaint, especially with native OSX apps, ironically. A problem also is the actual decline in usability from os/9 to os/x, which stems from changes to the finder and the general methodolgy of the thin. Memory consumption is a big issue that all reviews seem to note. Another one is that IE performs really badly in its beta-carbonized form.

On the bright side, most reviewers seem to agree that the Unix underbelly really gives os/x strength in terms of usability, and a VM subsystem that is more robust and general purpose, rather than the flakey patchwork that was os/9. Most reviewers seem to agree that OS/X has alot of potential yet to be fulfilled on the usability side and the performance side, and thus suggest waiting until July or thereabouts, when apple will start preloading computers with a newer version of os/x for the masses.

Re:RAM/Paging usage (1)

dondelelcaro (81997) | about 13 years ago | (#319305)

The differences is that MacOS is intended for clueless users. Clueless users don't
I'm going to ignore this troll.
realise that running umpteen applications at the same time is going to adversely affect performance.
Actaully, on classic MacOS before VM, running N processes doesn't affect performance. (If you can run N processes in the available memory... ;-)
I suppose OS 9 got around this issue by simply crashing if you loaded too many apps, thus training users to run fewer
Actually, OS 9 just gives you an out of memory error. See this comment [slashdot.org] for explanation.
but OS X degrades gracefully will stick work even if the harddrive is thrashing to keep up.
Quite right. This is why ide hard drives are quite annoying. You will eventually run out of memory, but it takes quite some time. (Course, you'll be hard-pressed to reach it if you have 4G of swap as they had in the test)

Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"

Re:More Mac Games Now? (1)

Ciannait (82722) | about 13 years ago | (#319306)

That's a possibility. If so, it's likely just a generic one, because every optical scrollie mouse I've used (several) has worked out of the box with OS X.

It's still a damn sight nicer than having to load an extension or control panel to get it to work - less work for me. ;)


"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."

Re:More Mac Games Now? (2)

Ciannait (82722) | about 13 years ago | (#319308)

There's some Mac games for OS9, but not a whole ton for OS X. (Diablo and Deus Ex came out in a timely manner - read: within six months of the PC version - and versions of the Sims and Livin' Large exist, for example. These are all OS9 games though.)

As far as mouses are concerned, my two-button scrollie wheel optical mouse works *out of the box* in OS X - no need to load extensions or control panels anymore. It works lovely.
"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."

Re:OSX has more jewlery hanging on it than Mr. T (2)

Ciannait (82722) | about 13 years ago | (#319309)

Naw... We've got OS X running on an old beige G3/233.. It's not perfect by any means, but it works. The performance isn't as stellar as on my G4 Powerbook, but it's serviceable.

And the beige G3 is considered by many, including myself, to be an old machine.

Windows XP's system requirements aren't going to be much better, but I know that Microsoft and Apple are like twin anathemas to most /. denizens.


"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."

My thoughts on OS X (5)

Ciannait (82722) | about 13 years ago | (#319310)

I read the Ars review with some interest.

I've been running OS X since March 24th or so, thanks to Staples selling it early, and I've personally been very impressed with it.

I'm a long-time UNIX geek and recent Mac convert. (Despite the initially seemingly-high pricetag, the quality of the hardware and support is unbeatable.)

I don't think it's fair to say the OS was shipped "unfinished" or "half-baked". From time to time, you have to decide what bugs and problems you can live with, and get stuff out the door. (How long was 2.4 in development? If I'm not mistaken, since I'm not a Linux person, Linus finally slapped a code freeze on it, did he not?)

Yes, I have to boot into OS9 to watch DVD's. Windows doesn't ship with a DVD player (Media Player doesn't count. I don't use it to play my mp3's, I won't use it to watch my DVD's) and certainly has issues, and Linux has been not-ready-for-primetime since its inception.

Aqua is eyecandy, and a lot of it is probably overkill to some of our more utilitarian users, but there's a whole lot of config files and resource forks just waiting to be hacked. Lots of sites exist, as a matter of fact, devoted to such things.

Applications - well, I hardly ever have to run anything in Classic. I've found an email application, an mp3 player, a web browser, AIM, a LiveJournal client (addict? me? never...) and other things that I need for daily happiness, all either Carbonized or already Cocoa. The only things I need Classic for are things like Photoshop and Dreamweaver - and it works just fine for those. Not every application I'll ever use is available yet - but stuff I need on a daily basis is all already supported in OS X.

The only real caveat I've heard about its support, in fact, is a lack of real MIDI support. But I've heard that's being worked on.

Plus, if you think something's missing - add it. Apple couldn't get ssh included, but many many people have gotten OpenSSH [stepwise.com] installed and working with a minimum of hassle.

It needs a bit of work, but the potential within OS X is huge. I'm looking forward to watching it grow.


"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."

MacOS X (5)

iso (87585) | about 13 years ago | (#319317)

i've been using MacOS X since Developer Preview 3, and following the Ars write-ups as well: they're always very well done. this latest review of OS X final is excellent, but i think John goes overboard on bashing the interface. the issue with Aqua is that it borrows a lot of interface workings from the UNIX, NeXT and Windows world, and isn't 100% Mac. this is infuriating to Mac die hards, but to people like me who have only owned a Mac for a couple of years (with a primarily UNIX background before that) i'm right at home with Aqua.

the reports of MacOS X being "half-baked" are over the top. yes there are some things missing from OS X, and yes it's not as "polished" as MacOS 9, but it's hardly as "unfinished" as many of the reviews would suggest. first of all any of the "unfinished" bits are interface-only; the guts of MacOS X are excellent. of course to Mac people the interface is the computer, which is where all of these reports come from.

so why is it unfinished? well first of all the UI is quite slow for certain functions. mostly it's the transparencies and other Aqua-isms that can't be accelerated with a typical 2D graphics card, so the CPU is working overtime to render the screen under heavy loads. many of the slow downs can be directly seen in the Mac's most important application, the Finder, which is why you'll hear the Mac folk screaming bloody murder. many have suggested that as Quartz (the UI rendering engine) is optimized for 3D cards, the interface will speed up substantially.

admittedly there are some bugs in the interface, especially related to classic applications (as noted in the Ars Technica review). sometimes these can cause UI lockups and stalls that for Mac-users, looks like a complete OS hang. Apple of course needs to work these thigns out before OS X gets pre-installed on all Macs in July.

all in all i'd say that MacOS X is an excellent operating system with great potential. but at the same time this release was not highly trumpeted by Apple for good reason. it's not designed to instantly replace every Mac-users desktop tomorrow, but rather to bring in the early adopters and determine what the priorities are for everyday Mac users. it's still a fully-functional OS, and i use it every day outside of work for general net use and development, and to that end, it works phenomenally.

but the question is, should the current release of OS X be the "final" release? i'd say yes. again, i'm not a long-time Mac user (and really, i only got a Mac to use OS X), so i don't see the interface as lacking substantially. and while the MacOS 9 interface is nice, it's not the be-all and end all, and things needed to be changed. the UI as it stands is extremely useable (for instance, i prefer it in its current state to every single Linux interface i have ever tried), and any changes from here on in have to be made by getting it in the hands of as many people as possible to make it better. it's a painful process for Mac users religiously tied to their interface, but in the end i think it'll make for a better UI.

so the bottom line: i wouldn't suggest it to my not-so-computer-savvy Mac friends, but to anybody even reasonably familiar with UNIX, you'll feel right at home.

- j

Re:Indeed (2)

mr (88570) | about 13 years ago | (#319322)

This whole "bsd based" thing has gotten way out of proportion.

And on what basis do you form this opinion?

Apple pointed out in thier own documentation that the product was based on FreeBSD.

Here is a URL that says Apple® today announced the release of Darwin 1.0, the advanced operating system core at the heart of Mac® OS X, .....The new Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD [apple.com] (it would have been nice if Apple also noted they used parts of Net and OpenBSD, but they didn't)

On what basis did you draw your conclusion? Me, I read what Apple says about their own product, and has been saying for over a year.

The BSD stuff is a convenient way for apple to use existing software,

The carbon interface is the way to use existing software.

CP/M is still alive! (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | about 13 years ago | (#319323)

> Bring back CP/M.
Have you ever seen a ":\" in file paths? There you will find CP/M! At least (cloned) parts of it...

> That was a real operating system.
By most definitions I've seen for operating systems it's not. But so MAC OS 9.* or Windows ME aren't either...

Re:out for a few days? (1)

artemis67 (93453) | about 13 years ago | (#319326)

i didn't even realize this was on the market yet. no advertising, nothing. not even on the front page of the latest best buy/compusa ads.

There's a reason for that... Apple acknowledges that OS X is still missing a few key features, like DVD and CDRW support. Right now, OS X is only for the early adopters.

According to the rumor sites, Apple is going to wait until MWNY this summer to do the big advertising campaign on OS X. That's when it will start shipping pre-installed on all Apple systems, and when most of the major software vendors are going to sell OS X versions of their apps.

Re:out for a few days? (1)

artemis67 (93453) | about 13 years ago | (#319327)

Well, two things. One, OS X may be missing a few minor things, but other than that it's a fully functional OS. I'm using it right now. It just doesn't have all the spit and polish Apple wanted to give it for the launch.

And two, when you figure that an OS 9.1 CD is included (a $99 retail value), you're basically getting OS X for $30. Not a bad deal.

Personally, I'm glad they shipped it. Have you used it?

Re:Or... (1)

Sc00ter (99550) | about 13 years ago | (#319339)

As other people have pointed out in earlier OS X articles. OS X runs on a Mach microkernel (same as NeXTStep) with some BSD interpretation layer. So it's more like Next Step then they would want you to think.
--

OS X software (3)

peteshaw (99766) | about 13 years ago | (#319341)

Well, I have heard a lot about OS X and it sounds impressive. And while I would be the envy of my neighbors with one of those cool looking cubes, I just can't get around the hardware cost.

I mean, even if this OS produces everything it claims to, is it really worth an intel user to switch over when you can get a duron/celeron box for 500, and the cheapest way to get a mac is an iMac for about 8 or 9 hundred and then you have to suffer through a 15" monitor?

I am sympathetic to Apple's plight. They probably rightly feel that by adanoning a unique hardware platform they destroy the gravy train.

Apple has a superior product. No question.

But until I can buy OS X for my cheap and available hardware platform, my interest is going to be limited to reading these interesting threads on /..

Sorry if this is not directly germane to the topic at hand. But its the everpresent problem, right?

As a Gen-Xer.... (3)

GodHead (101109) | about 13 years ago | (#319342)

I like OS because it's X-tream. I also want to run Windows XP! And Linu-X! I'll be so XXXXing leet....

G.H.

ALL YOUR BASE ARE OVER ALREADY

Re:Should I get one? (3)

demaria (122790) | about 13 years ago | (#319357)

Emacs. Yes, it has emacs. Runs in text mode.

Porting, sure you probably can. It includes developer tools. Thank you Apple! :)

No built in X-Server. "There is no X in MacOS X". You can use an X server as a standalone application just like you can in Windows and OS9.

Don't know about NFS.

It runs a beta of IE now, and Office is being ported.

Re:RAM/Paging usage (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 13 years ago | (#319363)

The differences is that MacOS is intended for clueless users. Clueless users don't realise that running umpteen applications at the same time is going to adversely affect performance. I suppose OS 9 got around this issue by simply crashing if you loaded too many apps, thus training users to run fewer but OS X degrades gracefully will stick work even if the harddrive is thrashing to keep up.

Re:MacOS-Unfinished (1)

carbondave (130488) | about 13 years ago | (#319367)

My Lombard has had no problems with the installation which took about 15 minutes but has had one kernal panic while running in a dual monitor configuation. One thing that is not working is video mirroring. The option is there to use it but is greyed and Apple tech support says the freature is not yet avaliable.

As for firmware updates being needed.. the main thing they have been made for is updates for firewire support.. which the Lombard does not have. I personaly see no need for a new firmware update. If you are update crazy.. buy a new powerbook.

Re:OS X software (1)

chrischow (133164) | about 13 years ago | (#319368)

celerons are crap, last year i bought my wife one at the same time i bought a new iMac, they cost the same (and the PC has lots more MHz so gee it should be faster!!) but hell the PeeCee is soooo slow, its the fastest PC we ever had but compared to a G3... and this is the slowest available Mac btw. the iMac monitor is better than the crap one that came with the PC too.

basically iMacs rule

Mac people don't know how to use top (1)

El Prebso (135671) | about 13 years ago | (#319374)

I read the review on Ars Technica, and they think it's a problem that top shows that the system is using 253mb of ram on a system with 256mb ram in total. It's not, my Linux box does the same thing, even when I don't really run anything. I don't think Mac users are ready for Unix memory management :) We all know that that does not mean that the system is about run out ram and being using swap files. A Unix system will release the memory it needs.

Just pointing it out to scared Mac users, it's not a problem.

Re:Or... (1)

iainl (136759) | about 13 years ago | (#319375)

Does anyone know why Apple are so shy of the NeXTStep links? Personally, I thought NeXT was one of the nicest machines I've ever used, and the thought of OSX being similiar is the main reason why I've been considering getting a Mac. My experience of pre-OSX versions of MacOS has been abysmal; its not that its particularly non-intuitive, but its just similiar enough for someone who had an Amiga and then Windows and later Solaris boxes to let you do real damage. It looks like it, but if you use it in the same way then the OS gets thoroughly confusing, leaving multiple copies of files around, deleting stuff you meant to move and other generally unpleasant things.

Re:Be's mistake (2)

Nohea (142708) | about 13 years ago | (#319377)

Yeah Apple "blew" it's chance, but so did Be lose it's chance to become the next Mac OS.

Jean-louis Gasse was probably demanding too much from apple. I guess they chose one big ego (Jobs) over another. Actually, when Gasse was in charge of Apple's tech, he was the most vocal in not licensing the Mac OS to other platforms, like PCs, mainly to keep the Mac uncorrupted and on top. This was smart short-term stupid long term. I think in doing Be, unfortunately, he replayed some of the same mistakes. Be is about to go kaput, and selling to Apple was their big shot.

I agree BeOS is rock-solid engineering, but as usual, that's not the whole story.

Re:More Mac Games Now? (1)

Rura Penthe (154319) | about 13 years ago | (#319390)

Westlake Interactive [westlakeinteractive.com] has announced that all their titles currently under development will have carbon versions (and they will do some carbon versions of older games as well depending on the publisher). Check here [westlakeinteractive.com] for the projects they are working on and here's the announcement [macgamer.com] from Westlake Interactive about OS X support.

Re:More Mac Games Now? (1)

BlowChunx (168122) | about 13 years ago | (#319421)

No, but I bet if you check with Apple System Profiler, that there is a 'kext', or kernel extension, that is responsible for the responsiveness of your scrollie wheel....

Re:Been playing with it (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | about 13 years ago | (#319424)


Although, has anyone been able to replace the default shell with bash?

Stepwise [stepwise.com] has a utility that does this. Stepwise is also a good source of other X Client and Server stuff; they're old NeXT Step folks that have kept the flame alive (and seen their page hits jump hundred fold in the last week, no doubt.)

There's plenty of other places that I've seen bash; don't forget to check Versiontracker [versiontracker.com] for other Mac OS X goodies, a long standby of Mac users.

Been playing with it (2)

Fervent (178271) | about 13 years ago | (#319431)

I've been playing with it the past few days and I'm pretty impressed. If you're all going to debate the kernel underneath, don't bother. That's not what Mac users care about anyway. The GUI is everything.

It's a resource hog (don't bother running it below the 128 MB required) but it is perhaps the pretiest OS around. The Dock is fairly robust actually. You can put just about anything in it, and the OS includes options to resize it and hide it completely.

Being able to call up a terminal which is actually part of a Mac system absolutely rocks. Although, has anyone been able to replace the default shell with bash?

By the way, a few Mac users new to Unix have loved this little quirk of the shell (which is typical of the shell they are using in the Unix world): try typing Bill Gates at the prompt.

Re:OS X software (2)

Fervent (178271) | about 13 years ago | (#319432)

And let me know where I can buy that $500 Duron/Celeron with that nice big 17" monitor.

CompUSA. Get a package deal with a Duron/Celeron 500, 15" monitor and printer, and swap out the monitor for a 17" one. You'd still be well under the $800 barrier (can probably through a DVD-ROM in there too).

Re:OS X software (3)

danheskett (178529) | about 13 years ago | (#319435)

I think his point was that you can add a 17" monitor later on. How could you do that with an iMac? See, I can buy that $500 box and use any old POS monitor I have laying around. In a few a months, I could buy a 21" monitor if I wanted.

Thats the point, I believe.

Mouse bashing... typical! (1)

pressman (182919) | about 13 years ago | (#319442)

ah yes, the oblligatory one-button mouse bashing!
Don't bring up anything useful, just bash the mouse!
---------------------------

OS X Server (1)

jmu1 (183541) | about 13 years ago | (#319443)

We have been running OS X Server here were I work link [gasou.edu]for a few months(file server for ye ol' G4's/G3's) and it is great. I can bolt it down like any of my Linux/*BSD boxes, and I can control it with the 'ease' of a Macincrap. I have only used the workstation OS X once or twice, and all I can say is... too much eyecandy! It is pretty and all, but how is that stuff going to increase productivity? I'm sticking to the monitor off server version... I'll keep on sshing in, or using the nifty web-based java-encrypted controls!

OT: Powerbook, not OS X (3)

grammar nazi (197303) | about 13 years ago | (#319456)

I found a link to step-by-step instructions as to how to overclock your G4 powerbook. Now you can have the 500MHz powerbook for the price of the 400MHz one.

Here's the link [voelker.com]

out for a few days? (2)

mark_lybarger (199098) | about 13 years ago | (#319458)

i didn't even realize this was on the market yet. no advertising, nothing. not even on the front page of the latest best buy/compusa ads. anyway, hope this gives a boost to unix software.

Re:OS X Server (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | about 13 years ago | (#319459)

ok now mabe you can send me some documentation on NetInfo and how to set it up....I seem to be unable to find any documentation on networking on the Apple site.

RAM/Paging usage (1)

sasha328 (203458) | about 13 years ago | (#319461)

In the ArsTechnica article, there was a mention in the RAM Usage section about the system's virtual memory

Yes, there are many more important advantages to a "real" VM system as found in OS X versus the cobbled together OS 9 implementation, but the bottom line is this: OS X will give users enough rope to hang themselves.

How does the last comment compare with other OSes. I have used Redhar 6.2 for a while now, and I never gave this a thought before.

be careful with character mappings (1)

wmulvihillDxR (212915) | about 13 years ago | (#319465)

I'm on OSX right now and it IS pretty sweet. Nice to have a stable multi-tasking environment finally, blah blah, (insert everything else good about OSX). BUT, if you install openssh (see www.stepwise.com [stepwise.com] for installation instructions), be careful using scp. If you use funky characters in your perl scripts, it could bungle the character translation. But more importantly, the translation of line breaks into "^M" is extremely annoying. I've reverted to using NiftySSH in Classic mode to avoid the issue.

OS X on an iBook - impressions (3)

u2zoo (213839) | about 13 years ago | (#319467)

Well I have been running OS X on my iBook (firewire) since March 27th and personally I'm quite impressed. Just to give some background:

iBook (firewire) G3 366 320mb of Ram (okay so that is a little more than average) no DVD or CDR/W

I upgraded OS X to build 4L5 (10.0.1) [macnn.com] ( http://osx.macnn.com/news.php?id=4812 ) with the "unreleased" update that is floating around. Now for me . . . OS X is light and snappy . . I hear quite random things when I read through all the boards and newsgroups though.

Classic apps are not as fast . . but are certaintly usable. SO far I have played with Photoshop 6, Dreamweaver UltraDev 4, and Freehand 9 in classic emulation mode.

Also . . I should probably point out that I have used linux before . . I also have a full time BeOS (please don't go bankrupt!!) box at home too . . that said I use the command line and unix functions everyday . .

The default shell is TCSH . . which I found odd . . but whatever . . I think it comes with ZSH and CSH installed too. This site [savagetranscendental.com] ( http://www.savagetranscendental.com/data/OSX/bash- osx.html ) has a precompiled Bash install for you . . which is quite nice. And for you Python freaks a precompile version is here too [lownds.com] ( http://tony.lownds.com/macosx/ ).

I have installed the hack called Docking Maneuvers [mac.com] ( http://homepage.mac.com/isleep/ ), which lets you move the "dock" to the right, left, and top . . instead of just the default bottom.

I've had to go through and make some "compability" fixes . . creating symlinks for things like cc to gcc . . or /Users to /Home . . but those are just little geeky pleasures I find that make it more user friendly . . I'm sure my mom as a mac user would care less.

Speaking of which, the OS install in about 10 minutes, I rebooted . . configured the PPPoE to work with my Verizon DSL and walla I was on the internet . . so for my mom . . that being done in like 12 minutes is purty nice.

Hmm . . I'm quite enjoying it . . I haven't expierence the number of problems with IE 5.1 beta that most people have . .in fact I really have expierenced many problems at all . . it hasn't crashed once. I was sad to find out that Fortune wasn't available . . "sniffle" . . but I just grabbed the source from somewhere and compiled it. wheeee.

Re:MacOS-Unfinished (2)

update() (217397) | about 13 years ago | (#319469)

I can't speak for your Lombard problems (although it sounds like other people aren't seeing them) but I think it's pretty clear that this is a bleeding-edge, take-your-chances release. Apple isn't preloading OS X, isn't advertising it in mass media and isn't pushing users to upgrade.

I received my OS X box and am still trying to decide on a safe place to try it out. Put it on the 8.6 box I'm using now at work? Not a chance, and I'd be responsible for any resulting problems if I did.

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

Most of you are missing the point. (1)

TJPile (220972) | about 13 years ago | (#319471)

You guys are all GEEKS. The Macintosh isn't aimed at you. The main reason X is based on a *NIX is because Apple couldn't waste time coming up with it's own OS that had all the buzzwords. So stop saying Linux or BSD or anything is a better Unix or server OS. It's meant to be. As long as OS X is easy to use and install, it will NEVER be accepted by the geek community. You guys LOVE keeping the complicated stuff around so you can try to out-do one another with your set-ups. Just remember that 90% of computer users aren't as "31337" as you ego-maniacs.

Re:Been playing with it (1)

SpyceQube (224045) | about 13 years ago | (#319482)

So when will Scott Anguish release LaserPositive for OSX (snicker-snicker-chortle ;)

Grumble grumble... (1)

HongPong (226840) | about 13 years ago | (#319489)

I find it rather odd that slashdot has decided to take a while to let others reflect on OS X's status before posting a story, especially since /. didn't even announce its release AFAIK. It just seems unusual to me that slashdot, which prides itself on lickety-split fast news is becoming all pondering and introspective. Perhaps Taco is growing up and maturing... Or maybe VA Linux going down the hole has something to do with it. :)

--

Re:Or... (2)

billybob2001 (234675) | about 13 years ago | (#319492)

With a BSD core

This is an Apple joke, right - you pipped me to that one.

Also, is the next NeXT the same as next^2?

OS X ROOOLZ! (1)

davechen (247143) | about 13 years ago | (#319498)

I've been playing with it since it came out. As a Linux/Irix hacker at work and Mac guy at home, I have to say that OS X is so F***ING COOL! You get the best of both worlds, mac easy of use and Unix power. Speed-wise the unofficial 10.0.1 update that's floating around made a world of difference for me. Also doing things like reducing the # of colors and renicing the GUI make it much more usable. The Developers CD includes all the GNU tools you'd want, a load of examples and plus some Apple tools. Just started playing with Apple's Project Builder yesterday. That's their integrated development tool. Looks pretty nice, although I'm more of a makefile type. Built and ran a couple of the OpenGL examples. Did I mention that OS X is way cool? Every time I use it, I just think to myself, this is so F-ing cool. dave chen

I love it. (1)

megaduck (250895) | about 13 years ago | (#319500)

After living with it for a few days, I'll say that Apple's got a winner on their hands. Here's a short list of things that I like:

It's stable. I leave my computer on 24 hours a day and it hasn't crashed on me once or even gotten flaky.

It uses bundles for apps. Bundles kick ass.

It's flexible. Don't want to run Aqua? Want to run X? No problem.

Two words. Command Line.

Comes with Emacs and gcc.

Unicode to the bone.

The included dev tools are awesome.

Aqua's pretty. Sue me.

Sure, it's got some (minor) problems, but it was still enough to convert me from a raging x86 bigot to a Mac user. That's pretty damn good.

Re:Indeed (1)

megaduck (250895) | about 13 years ago | (#319501)

Which BSD are you comparing it to? Darwin has a different architecture than FreeBSD, but according to Wilfredo Sanchez they used NetBSD as their reference platform for Darwin. Darwin is it's own animal, but it's definitely part of the BSD family.

hillarious interview with Steve Jobs about OS X (3)

xlurker (253257) | about 13 years ago | (#319504)


BBspot Interviews Apple CEO Steve Jobs [bbspot.com]

this reminds me of the immortal Dilbert comic where the boss walks in from some idiot leadership meeting and suggests they install a "SQL". Dilbert then (knowing his boss doesn't kown diddly) asks him if he already knows in which color he wants the server ... which of course makes things for the pointy-haired boss *very* -if not to- complicated...
the point to the whole story is the joke about the colors isn't so absurd anymore...

____________________________________________

Re:More Mac Games Now? (1)

drzhivago (310144) | about 13 years ago | (#319530)

Your two-button mouse will work fine out of the box, but there are hardly any apps that will work using the wheel. The only one I could find was IE, but the IE for OSX is slow and a CPU hog right now. Not even the Finder works with the wheel.

Greg

Re:OSX has more jewlery hanging on it than Mr. T (1)

tb3 (313150) | about 13 years ago | (#319531)

Windows XP requirements are worse, much worse. Their offical position is that you only buy XP pre-installed on a new PC, to make sure you meet all the hardware requirements. They don't recommend upgrading an existing system at all.
-----------------

The Great Multimedia OS! (1)

strictnein (318940) | about 13 years ago | (#319535)

Yes, it's _finally_ out! Thank goodness for that, the latest iteration of the greatest OS for multimedia functions ever. Now, I got OS X installed. Let's go watch some DVDs! ... oh... er... wait.... no initial DVD support. Heck, watching DVDs isn't that big of deal. I think I'll just burn some new CDs to listen to in my car! ... oh... damn... again... uhm... shoot... I think I'll just look at the pastel colors... woop.

Re:out for a few days? (1)

madfgurtbn (321041) | about 13 years ago | (#319538)

In other words, they are selling the beta for $129 because they had promised OSX was coming out in March come hell or high water. Then when March came around they weren't ready, but they couldn't push the date back any more because it would be another failure on top of their other problems and the stock would have gone back down to to $14 again.

Re:Should I get one? (1)

alex_siufy (411363) | about 13 years ago | (#319549)

Let's see:

. Emacs works just fine. vi too :)
. Python (1.x) is included, 2.0 compiles fine. Perl/PHP also works. Don't know about PostgreSQL, but mySQL compiles, no problem.
. No built-in X Server. You'll have to install XFree86 yourself, and use a hack to run it along with Aqua.
. NFS works fine.
. Yes. The Office applications will be run on the "Classic" environment, which is basically MacOS 9, but they will be made fully OS X native by summer. IE is already native, but it's horrible. You can use it if you absolutely must to, but I'd rather use OmniWeb or any of the alternatives.

Re:OSX has more jewlery hanging on it than Mr. T (1)

alex_siufy (411363) | about 13 years ago | (#319550)

What are you talking about...
I've ran my two laptops, side to side. PowerBook G4 500 with the default 256mb RAM and OS X, and a Toshiba Tecra, 750mhz, 192mhz RAM, with Mandrake 7.2.
*Everything* under both Gnome AND KDE was so much slower. Launching apps, moving windows, typing, browsing, everything.

Get over it. OS X is what Gnome/KDE should've been if they weren't so busy trying to emulate the flawed Windows interface.

Re:Apple's mistake (1)

alex_siufy (411363) | about 13 years ago | (#319551)

BeOS is leaner, faster, has no software, and probably won't exist 6 months from now.

Unix OTOH is big, bulky, has tons of software, has been around for ages, and probably will exist for a good bunch of years.
Complicated APIs? Carbon is basically the old Toolbox, with a few things missing (for improvement's sake). It's there just so the new MacOS doesn't suffer from the BeOS syndrome of lack of developers.
Cocoa is the NeXT/Openstep APIs. They've been around far longer than the ever changing BeOS APIs, and with them, Apple gained a number of experienced developers who are providing great software, stuff that was totally out of reach of Mac users (as well as Be users). I'm using one of those applications right now, and it's a complete joy to use (OmniWeb).

Overall, I'm glad Jobs ditched Gassee and its half-baked OS (yes, Be is the half-baked OS).

My experiences with OS X so far... (1)

A Sarcastic Bastard (414144) | about 13 years ago | (#319556)

I was working with OS X for the last couple of days and I am quite happy with it.
The userinterface is really advanced IMHO and it didn't crash a single time until now. *knocking on wood*. I can't wait to look how Apache actually works (I hear network connectivity helps, if you want to use a Webserver, find reason below)

The only reason I can't really work with it is the fact that PCMCIA is not yet supported and thus non-apple airport cards (i.e. Lucent Technologie's orinoco Card) don't work. Since I need Airport to access the net at home and in office, there is no way of using it productively at the time. But I am definitely looking forward to that
Also I hear that Lucent is not planning to implement the driver for OS X, so I guess I'll have to wait for Apple to do so.



Remove your opinion to email me!
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...