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!

Apple's OS X Leopard In Depth

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the leopards-like-to-rest-in-trees dept.

624

jcatcw writes "Computerworld begins its Week of Leopard with an in-depth review and image gallery covering Apple's newest version of OS X. Is it worth the wait? Well, Yes. It trumps Vista, of course; the Finder, Quick Look and Cover Flow provide better functionality and eye candy; Time Machine is the biggest undelete ever and the restore function is one of the coolest things we've ever seen; it has iChat; and has lots of updates under the hood. The answer might be no if you're lacking in the hardware department - an FAQ on how to get ready for the new version will help."

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

Computerworld Developers (0, Offtopic)

Mikey-San (582838) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120695)

Maybe the guy at Computerworld could give us seeded developers a copy of the GM before release. Apple sure didn't bother.

Re:Computerworld Developers (3, Informative)

laddy (159448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120751)

Doesn't look like they got the GM. Their dock is on the side and isn't sporting the revised look. [macrumors.com]

Re:Computerworld Developers (4, Informative)

_Pablo (126574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121011)

The 2D dock can be enabled using the following:

defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock

Re:Computerworld Developers (5, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121117)

The 2D dock can be enabled using the following: defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock

This is a feature that should be high on anyone's list: the ability to direct someone else to change system settings without having to give them a long GUI script along the lines of "Open this, click here, click there, this should say X, type Y". I just love being able to package up these types of changes into a command-line like that.

Re:Computerworld Developers (5, Informative)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121047)

Tech-Recipes got a copy. Here are their first 20 tutorials about the new features of Leopard. [tech-recipes.com]

If you prefer the old dock style, Mac OS X Hints [macosxhints.com] has that tutorial now as well.

Anybody going for a T-shirt tomorrow?

no surprise there (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120739)

Yes. It trumps Vista, of course

Is that really a big accomplishment? I mean, really? XP trumps Vista.

Re:no surprise there (1, Offtopic)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120873)

Vista's definitely a step forward from XP, especially on the backend. They've really gone all-out on the "hybrid kernel" idea and it really works to keep things stable and organized. It's certainly prettier than Gnome :/ For programming and the command line, give me bash. For anything graphical at all, I'll take vista any day. Linux just doesn't have a mature desktop environment available, and that's the point of a graphical interface! We'll see how KDE4 turns out..

What's wrong with KDE 3.5? (1, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120929)

I would sure as hell take KDE 3.5 over any Windows environment.

Also something must be wrong with the news post, how can finder be better than anything?

Re:no surprise there (4, Interesting)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120985)

Sure, Vista is great - if you hated the actually useful features that were promised for Longhorn that were stipped out, having your OS use fifteen frikkin gigabytes of space, a big performance downgrade, and DRM hooks all over the operating system as Microsoft puts the MPAA over you.

Re:no surprise there (5, Insightful)

daybot (911557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121075)

For programming and the command line, give me bash. For anything graphical at all, I'll take vista any day.

Clearly you haven't tried OSX. You get a consistent, fluid and high performance GUI. When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose. Beats having to run Cygwin on a Windows box.

Linux just doesn't have a mature desktop environment available, and that's the point of a graphical interface!

Er, who's talking about Linux? This story is about Mac OSX Leopard...

Re:no surprise there (0, Flamebait)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121285)

Clearly you haven't tried OSX. You get a consistent, fluid and high performance GUI. When you want a shell, you get a Unix one on a certified Unix OS; in a fancy translucent window if you so choose.

Probably because the version of OS X that potentially meets those standards was only released today. And I'm sceptical about the "fluid and high performance GUI", since 'teh snappay' of 10.4 would need to have increased *massively* to qualify.

Re:no surprise there (2, Funny)

Penguin Follower (576525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121411)

What's wrong with *your* 10.4? Mine is quite snappy. (MacPro Quad 2.66GHz 2GB RAM 250GB HDD)

Re:no surprise there (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121143)

If you argument for pro Vista is that it has a more mature desktop then Linux,in a Mac post, then things are truly sad for Vista.

I would also argue on you use of the word mature. I don't think it's desktop is old enough to be mature.

Good software mature, bad software ages. MS OS ages.

Re:no surprise there (1, Interesting)

Wolfrider (856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120951)

--Dude - Windows Two KAY trumps -Vista-! :P

Re:no surprise there (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121103)

Windows 98 freaking trumps Vista as a game machine.

Re:no surprise there (5, Funny)

Rufty (37223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121587)

But Vista still beats WinME!
(kinda...)

Multiple Desktops (3, Interesting)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120771)

Does anyone know what holds MS back from adding the Multiple Desktop feature? I know it can be had with 3rd party software, however last time I used one it really slowed down my machine and caused some crashes.

The lack of such a feature that has been around for eons in the Unix/Linux world drives me crazy!

Re:Multiple Desktops (4, Informative)

chuck (477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120797)

It's available with 1st party software. It's kind of lame, but it does the job.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120963)

Thanks, didn't know it existed (1st party). I did just install it and lame doesn't even cut it. All it does is mirror my desktop 3 more times. Sure, by definition I now have 4 desktops, but far from the functionality of what every other OS provides.

Re:Multiple Desktops (2, Funny)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121013)

Ok, Nevermind, I guess you can...I had them shared. Better than nothing I guess...thanks again.

Re:Multiple Desktops (4, Informative)

Liberaltarian (1030752) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121017)

It is quite a hack indeed. Microsoft's Virtual Desktop Manager relies on bundling groups of windows that are minimized and expanded simultaneously (along with a different desktop background for each bundle). Not only do most programmers not anticipate this (and due to the hacky nature of the implementation it can cause major headaches for end users), apparently MS programmers don't either, as even IE acts ridiculously with it. You also can't move a window in one "desktop" to another.

I'm happy XP finally brought real multiple-display support (something the Mac has had since System 7 at the latest), but who knows when robust multiple-virtual-display support will come along.

Re:Multiple Desktops (5, Informative)

david.given (6740) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121631)

I'm happy XP finally brought real multiple-display support (something the Mac has had since System 7 at the latest), but who knows when robust multiple-virtual-display support will come along.

I don't think it will. I've been hunting for a decent virtual desktop manager for Windows for ages now, and they all have horrible issues. The best one I've seen so far is Dexpot [dexpot.de] , but even it is annoying to use.

As far as I can make out, the problem is this: Windows doesn't have a window manager in the traditional X sense. Applications handle their own resize, show and hide events. This means that for the desktop manager to switch desktops, it has to send the appropriate show and hide events to the applications... and the applications can take their own sweet time dealing with them. If the application's busy, the window won't change state. One desktop manager I tried to use (briefly) would actually wait for all the applications to process the events, which meant that if you tried to change desktops with an unresponsive application visible, the desktop manager would hang. Not great on a developer machine.

It gets worse: Desktop managers don't appear to get the opportunity to mediate when an application tries to show or hide itself. Certainly, it was all too common in Dexpot for an application to make itself visible when it was already visible on another desktop, with the result that Dexpot would get confused and think that the window was visible on two desktops simultaneously. I tend to run Thunderbird in #1 and Firefox in #2. Clicking on a link in Thunderbird would cause Firefox to become visible in #1 and #2, which isn't really what I wanted.

I eventually gave up and now when I have to use Windows I don't use a desktop manager. The irritation of having to deal with all my windows on one desktop is actually less than the irritation of having to deal with a broken desktop manager.

Re:Multiple Desktops (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121461)

One of the many blackbox clones for windows beats that thing hands down. It also speeds up the entire OS, even application start times. Ironic that for many years, one of the first things I've done to make "Microsoft Windows" usable is install a port of a unix window manager. Pfft, Microsoft!

Re:Multiple Desktops (5, Funny)

Mahjub Sa'aden (1100387) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121601)

Finally, a multiple desktop application made by Microsoft itself. Now I don't have to put up with half-assed, buggy, slow 3rd-party solutions! I can use a half-assed, buggy, slow 1st party solution!

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120845)

They do have MSVDM [microsoft.com] . I have it installed, but don't use it since it's sort of a bolt-on hack (no easy way to move an existing window to a new workspace, for example).

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120983)

Same here. Microsoft's virtual desktop power tool crashes Vector NTI [invitrogen.com] reliably, which makes it entirely useless for me.

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

Wolfrider (856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120997)

o Minimize window

o Switch workspace

o Maximize window

--works for me...

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121233)

yes... but that only works if shared desktop is enabled (which defeats the entire purpose, imo). If shared desktops are off, you need to
  • turn on shared desktop
  • minimize all your windows
  • switch workspace
  • display the windows
  • switch back to original workspace
  • turn off shared desktop
That's about 4 steps too many. Right clicking in the menu bar/taskbar and sending it to another desktop would be good. A keyboard shortcut would be good. Having a VDM pop up window that let you move windows would be good. The above, not so good.

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120909)

Microsoft is asserting its stranglehold on the real solution to the multiple desktops problem- excellent multiple physical monitor support. Get a nice big second monitor and install UltraMon.. you'll be totally unable to go back to mere "multiple desktops"

UltraMon kicks ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121041)

UltraMon may be slow to develop Vista support (really it seems like UltraMon is a 1 man show & the forums are harsh on that 1 man ... killing his motivation I assume).
But UltraMon for XP kicks ass.

Mostly UltraMon "just works" Once you setup a few things, it really just stays out of your way.
How the Hell did MSFT miss a SmartTaskbar on the non-primary monitors?
How the Hell did MSFT miss "open in monitor X" options for shortcuts?
How the Hell did they miss the other few things UltraMon does so well.

The only feature UltraMon is missing is found in Shove-It an old Win9x program (which still works, but has trivial multi-monitor issues).

Re:UltraMon kicks ass (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121101)

UltraMon has vista support now.. matches up with the main monitor taskbar perfectly. Also, I never use the other features besides smart taskbar- in fact I just run ultramontaskbar.exe directly to save memory :)

Re:Multiple Desktops (2, Interesting)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121095)

Microsoft are *years* behind everyone else on multiple desktops.

I was working with multiple monitors on System 7 many years ago (and the implementation was *better* than the one that XP and Vista have - you could move your desktops around, even lay them out vertically or in a grid.. on Windows the position is hardwired to the graphics card and they must be next to each other).. around the era of Windows 3.1

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121153)

Why on earth would you want your monitors to not be flush with each other? You want to have to keep moving your mouse across 10 inches of empty air before it appears on the next screen? And you -can- lay your monitors out vertically and horizontally in a grid in XP/Vista too...

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121279)

Err? I can't say if XP and Vista's implementation is better or worse than System 7, which I've never used, but, unless i'm misunderstanding what you're saying... I most definately can move my desktops around, lay them out vertically or in a grid, or in a straight line, or in a L, a T, or whatever I bloody wish. Could you clarify please?

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121323)

I was working with multiple monitors on System 7 many years ago (and the implementation was *better* than the one that XP and Vista have - you could move your desktops around, even lay them out vertically or in a grid.. on Windows the position is hardwired to the graphics card and they must be next to each other).. around the era of Windows 3.1

Even Windows 98 could do what you describe out of the box - and NT4 before that, albeit dependent on vendor drivers (which is not as long ago as Windows 3.1, but the reality is certainly a hell of a lot better than your fantasy).

Re:Multiple Desktops (2, Informative)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121121)

VirtuaWin [sourceforge.net] kicks ass. Have you tried that one?

I learned about it from a Slashdot post, so maybe I can return the favor.

Re:Multiple Desktops (1)

WallyDrinkBeer (1136165) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121529)

Nah, microsoft can't do multiple desktops, there is a patent owned by IP Innovations LLC. Although, with so many microsoft employees on IP Innovation's payroll they are kind of microsoft's patents too.

Could be the best ever... (1)

graviplana (1160181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120773)

This is definitely on my list to buy. First looks seem to be positive. I read through this and found some features and touches to look forward to: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/liveblog/leopard-liveblog-the-first-two-hours-315093.php [gizmodo.com] I'm personally excited about the changes under the hood with respect to multithreading as this is purported to take advantage of multicore and multiprocessor hardware even more than Tiger. This could be the best OS X yet, if not the best OS ever. :)

Geez... (-1, Flamebait)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120789)

Why is it that any product made by Apple is automatically the most super-fantastic thing ever?

Re:Geez... (2, Funny)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120861)

Like the Lisa, the Newton, OS9, those ipods with the super scratcable screen, the puck mouse?

Apple has pulled its share of boners. Having a string of good products doesn't mean they are automatically super fantastic. They just happen to be super fantastic.

Re:Geez... (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120933)

Puck mouse... *shudders*

Thanks a lot, I had repressed that memory.

Re:Geez... (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120945)

The inexplicably single-button mouse? That's a "boner" (...) but apple fans swear by it for some reason

Re:Geez... (2, Funny)

graviplana (1160181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120991)

You wouldn't understand...

Re:Geez... (0, Troll)

winkydink (650484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121005)

And I'm sure that people who have only done laundry by beating their clothing against rocks in a river swear by their method too.

Re:Geez... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121169)

The handicapped mouse...

Re:Geez... (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121431)

If there is only one button to press there is never a question "which button". I suspect that question alone has driven countless PC support tech's to their graves. I walked someone through a short process over the phone a while back and they asked me that like 20 times... because i said 'click' for 'left clicks'; half way through I started explicitly saying 'left click' but it didn't matter they'd either ask anyway "you said left right?", or click the wrong button anyway. "oops".

Not everyone benefits from multiple buttons. Some people are better off with just one. A lot of people, even.

I personally couldn't live with a one button mouse, but I applaud MacOS for requiring that every feature of the OS be accessible from one button. And of course, the Apple supports multiple button mice just fine, and uses those buttons logically.

My -only- complaint is that I can't get a powerbook with a right button on the trackpad.

Why the translucent menu bar? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21120801)

Of all of the new features of Leopard, I really cannot appreciate the addition of translucency to the menu bar. As a long time Mac user this really seems like one of those "because we can" features rather than it making any sense.

Great review (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21120805)

In depth for sure. Balls deep.

Spotlight enhancements (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120809)

I'd like to see what they've done with Spotlight - if they've just added boolean search capabilities, or if they've made it even more central to using your computer (for example, make it easier to use as an application launcher).

Re:Spotlight enhancements (4, Informative)

Malekin (1079147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120863)

It's pretty damn easy to use as an app launcher now - hit apple-space to open it up, type the first few letters of the app's name in, then hit apple-return to open the top hit. Out of interest, how would you suggest it be made better?

Re:Spotlight enhancements (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121099)

One of the improvements is that it does math. That's pretty cool.

Re:Spotlight enhancements (2, Informative)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121123)

1. I did not know that apple-return selects the top of the list! Thanks. 2. Spotlight is fast, but not as fast as a dedicated application launcher (Namely [amarsagoo.info] is the one I use). When I type something into Spotlight, it searches the index of the entire drive. With Namely, though, it's searching a list composed solely of applications, which means it is very fast - Spotlight gives a second delay. Also, because it's a more limited list, I can type just a few characters and narrow it down to just a few items in Namely, whereas Spotlight brings up everything that might have to do with that letter combination - no clutter. I know, I know, these are extremely petty complaints - Spotlight provides the same functionality that an application launcher does (and more!). It's just not streamlined for that, I guess.

spotlight enhancement suggestion (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121151)

This is a real easy-to-fix interface improvement. From the results list, support right-clicking contextual finder menu. When I want to right-click > Open With > My favorite application, I can't do it directly in Spotlight. I have to right-click > Reveal in Finder > right-click > Open With > My favorite application.

Seth

Re:Spotlight enhancements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121281)

It's nice after a clean install, but a few weeks go by, and for some reason it takes a few seconds to show even the first results which makes it pretty annoying as a launcher.

If they speed it up, I might finally switch to it from QuickSilver.

Re:Spotlight enhancements (1)

CasaVacas (720327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121049)

I just checked that out. if i spotlight search for "Emil" (i.e my name) i get a ton of hits of me AND my wife's friend "Emilia" mixed in. But when searching for "Emil NOT Emilia" i only get hits on myself. Dont know if that was what you meant, but for me it was a nice addition.

More interested in John Siracusa's in-depth report (1)

Malekin (1079147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120817)

Pah. Call me when John Siracusa has posted his in-depth review up over at ars.

Also, single-page link for the ComputerWorld Article:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9043838 [computerworld.com]

Re:More interested in John Siracusa's in-depth rep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121473)

Amen brotha! The Ars article on OS X 10.4 was superb quality. Between the Ars articles and the stuff on kernelthread, there really isn't anything left to learn about Mac OS X without going into the source code and manpages. (It was really strange to be tracking down a resource fork bug in tar and see John Gilmore's copyright in the source)

List of Leopard's new features (1, Informative)

pswnet (614841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120849)

There are 300+ of them [apple.com]

.. of which tabs in Terminal counts as 4! (1, Troll)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121239)

Subject says it all.

Quiz (-1, Redundant)

trifish (826353) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120869)

It trumps Vista, of course;

The above indicates:
1) Unbiased balanced opinion (and adverbs, such as "of course")
2) Fanboy
3) Troll
4) Shill
5) Uh, nm I have karma to burn.

Let's state the obvious (0, Troll)

adept256 (732470) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120875)

The difference between Mac and PC is like the difference between driving an automatic and a manual. Mac's are easy and cool to use, pc's give you some more power and are more difficult.

My secretary uses a macintosh. It's pretty neat. Every time she's asks me to fix it I laugh to myself a little. It is a Fischer Price PC.

If history was different, I might even prefer the apple guys to dominate the OS market. Well, it doesn't work that way.

Re:Let's state the obvious (3, Interesting)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120995)

Haha, fisher price PC, that's a good one.

Btw, my FisherPriceBook Pro has a UNIX core, I ssh into my CS university account from home to do my work, do my programming in what is IMO the best IDE I have had the pleasure to use.

What "more power" do you have that I don't?

Re:Let's state the obvious (-1, Flamebait)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121225)

Huh, my non fisher-price PC sports the same "Unix Core" (you mean kernel) that apple "borrowed" from the BSD world, allows me to SSH into any one of the servers in our datacenter (not to mention remote desktop in to the domain controller, and any of the client computers) it has the capability of functioning as a full-tilt web server with PHP and a MySQL backend. It has been used as a web proxy, an intrusion detection system, and wireless access point, a file server, and a coffee table.
ALl of this done with what IMHO is the GREATEST window manager out there and it seems like apple agrees ....they once again "borrowed" most of their "new" features from it.

Its called BSD, it was free, and i don't have to get special permission from ANYBODY to run it on just about any architechture i want, in any way i want, they'll even hand me the source code, pay for the hosting, and support any questions that i have about it if I get confused.

FOR FREE!

Re:Let's state the obvious (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121349)

ALl of this done with what IMHO is the GREATEST window manager out there and it seems like apple agrees ....they once again "borrowed" most of their "new" features from it.

Which window manager? And which features did they borrow?

Re:Let's state the obvious (0, Troll)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121593)

KDE on top of xorg.
Transparent, dockable menu bars with widgets that can be attached to them. The site seems to be slashdotted, so I can't give you a slide by slide from the image gallery, but that article seriously read like a KDE press release from 3 years ago.

Re:Let's state the obvious (0, Flamebait)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121429)

Word to the wise here, OS X has a built in web server as well, you tick the box under the web sharing pane in system preferences to turn it on. It's the same as yours, apache.
I can share my internet connection over wireless frequently when there isn't enough wired to go around at university, and no wireless AP.

What BSD window manager is as good as the new leopard finder?

And no I didn't mean kernel, don't fucking tell me what I mean you pretentious little twat. there's more to a UNIX-like OS than the kernel.

Re:Let's state the obvious (-1, Flamebait)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121517)

And no I didn't mean kernel, don't fucking tell me what I mean you pretentious little twat. there's more to a UNIX-like OS than the kernel.
SO you mean, what, then? The kernel, the userland that runs on top what is in layman terms called "the core" (the kernel)? Incremental backups? Are incremental backups what you mean by a "unix like os"? Or did you mean that SSH client?

i can see this now, the next press release of "innovative" apple features:

incremental backups!
tranparency!
ssh!
indexed searches!
a WEB SERVER!

now I just wish the the open-source world could catch up! THEN WE'D HAVE SOMETHING SPECIAL!

Re:Let's state the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121509)

Actually it doesn't have the same kernel. The same userland, yes, same kernel, no. OS X uses Mach with BSD compatibility layer. Quite a bit different from any of the other BSD kernels (unless you're running Darwin, which is OS X without *all* of the OS X userland, including but not limited to Aqua).

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121421)

I think you may have just fallen for a very old troll. I'm not sure, but I'm think I've seen that exact message a few times before.

But otherwise, no real complaint with your post.

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121045)

It's more like the difference between a corvette and a custom job.. the corvette costs far more than its worth, works well with good performance. It's a designer item, and that appeal only lasts while its vanilla. But the custom job you build from the ground up, with the community writing every scrap of code (you putting in every single part), and you can end up with a perfectly-tuned monster that will smoke the corvette. And the point is that the worthwhile part's not driving- it's building. So the corvette buyers totally miss out, and the custom guys have no taboo against tinkering because they're not afraid of changing a perfect little designer item to something that's not Popular (TM).

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121213)

". the corvette costs far more than its worth, works well with good performance."

What? Are you high? the corvette is a DEAL at it's cost. It our performs cars that cost twice it's price.

I would put the Corvette against any other street legal custom car. It will smoke them.
505 hp off the floor and up to 700 hp with the 08/09 model. Good luck building a car with that HP with the same or less weight then the corvette for less then the corvette.

http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/?seo=goo_corvette [chevrolet.com]

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121277)

"So the corvette buyers totally miss out..."

"So the corvette buyers have better things to do with their time..." There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121053)

Apple == PC

Apple != Windows

Apple IS a pc (personal computer).

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

operato (782224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121339)

and definitely not a commodity computer which most pc are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_computer [wikipedia.org]
and that's where microsoft have their monopoly. -_-

Re:Let's state the obvious (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121219)

Mac's are easy and cool to use
Not really. I find OS X to be quite annoying from a usability standpoint. It forces me to manage applications, when I want to manage documents. Let the OS figure out whether an app should be running or not - I don't care. The holy One Button design is a constant headache (especially on my MacBook - arrgh). Will Apple please get that crappy Finder figured out? JH Christ on a cracker, it sucks! And what about network browsing? What a PITA. What I don't need is eye candy. What I do need is usability. Are you listening, Steve and Co? If I want eye candy, I'll run Beryl/Compiz on my Linux box.

Where Apple shines is in its applications, such as Garage Band, Final Cut Pro and Keynote (for example). They're just wonderful, albeit hobbled a bit by the Apple GUI conventions that hide important functionality instead of making it easy to find and use. Apple gets some things right. I hope they decide to take a look at competing OS's Gutsy Gibbon to see what others are doing right.

pc's give you some more power and are more difficult.
More power? What do you mean? OS X is plenty powerful, IMO. Just annoying to use.

I personally think Windows XP (not Vista) is one of the most usable OS's ever crafted. It is *much easier* to use than Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Yes, that's what I said.

But my new favorite OS is Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon. Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121303)

That would be the certified UNIX Fisher-Price PC, yeah?

Oh exploitable! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21120905)

Someone has got to take the time machine visualizer [computerworld.com] and change the background image to Goatse :D

Extra features? (1, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21120915)

What ever happened to those "extra features" Steve promised way back when Leopard was announced?

Can they please please please rewrite the Finder and the associated Open/Save controls from scratch? Managing files on OS X feels so awkward compared to every other OS out there. Hopefully the leopard finder will at the very least be properly multithreaded.

That said, I wasn't terribly excited for Leopard, as I had no real interest in Time Machine or the other "blockbuster" features. However, looking over the official feature list [apple.com] reveals some tantalizing treats. There are some especially nice developer/unix features -- DTrace, extensive support for Ruby, and 'bridges' to allow Ruby and Python apps to enjoy Cocoa and the OSX scripting interfaces. The Cocoa bridges should be immediately drool-inducing to Ruby and Python developers.

It's not in the list, but perhaps the biggest technological advance (in my opinion) is that Leopard will supposedly be completely resolution-independent, paving the way for very-high-resolution displays.

Looking to the future, Apple's next big move *needs* to be the implementation of a true metadata filesystem (preferably using ZFS). They can't let Microsoft beat them to it, and ZFS is simply too cool to pass up.

Re:Extra features? (1)

graviplana (1160181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121055)

"...Can they please please please rewrite the Finder and the associated Open/Save controls from scratch? Managing files on OS X feels so awkward compared to every other OS out there. Hopefully the leopard finder will at the very least be properly multithreaded...." I don't know what bizarro planet of funhouse organization you're on, but your opinion is completely out there. It's extremely easy to navigate around OS X. I can navigate the open and save dialog boxes with my eyes closed using only the keyboard. Perhaps a refresher in the Keyboard commands will help to get you up to speed? http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75459 [apple.com]

Re:Extra features? (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121199)

Looking to the future, Apple's next big move *needs* to be the implementation of a true metadata filesystem (preferably using ZFS). They can't let Microsoft beat them to it, and ZFS is simply too cool to pass up.
Seconded. I keep considering MacBooks, but a native no-hacking required ZFS filesystem would be the clincher. Oh, and on the hardware front, ECC memory support please (yes, I know it's a notebook, but I favour correctness over speed).

Re:Extra features? (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121481)

As a long time mac user I look at this OS with ambivalence, maybe even trepidation, if I may use another four syllable word. I look at the 3-D Dock and think meh... ugly. Maybe the little grid for large directory sizes will work, but maybe not. Regardless, I don't see much improvement over the current way the dock treats folders. As for the Finder, I see the continuing march to the sidebars, which I don't prefer, and the "rooting" behavior (this last part is unconfirmed, I don't know if 10.5 does this). Basically: if you are in column view (my favorite), and you click on a "special" location, like your home directory, the Applications folder, Documents, etc., you are rooted to that spot. That is, your horizontal scroll bar disappears. WTF?!? Why should the OS be hiding the directory hierarchy from me? That there is windoze-type behavior because it basically assumes the user is an idiot who can't comprehend what a directory structure is. There are workarounds [macosxhints.com] for 10.3 and 10.4, but 10.5 leaves me blasé. I must be getting old.

What I'd really like is a native konqueror because it rocks and is my favorite mix of flexibility vs. bloat.

Re:Extra features? (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121293)

What ever happened to those "extra features" Steve promised way back when Leopard was announced?

Which features are those?

Re:Extra features? (1)

G-funk (22712) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121545)

ZFS is already (read-only iirc) in Leopard, so I imagine it'll be fully supported very soon, and probably the default for XServes in a year or two.

Re:Extra features? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121571)

Actually, I think the biggest development treat in Leopard is Objective C 2.0, which supports garbage collection. I've done a bit of Obj-C development, and a fair bit of C# as well, and I think that the majority of the productivity gains some developers experience when going to languages such as C# and e.g. Python from C is from no longer having to worry about memory management. This is huge news, and I'm wondering why I haven't seen more about it out and around.

Anfack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21120989)

"An FAQ"? "An FAQ?" What, was this dictated by a duck? There are still people out there on the net that don't know that "FAQ" is not pronounced "eff-ay-cue"? It's pronounced "fack"!

Dude, lay off the Starbucks, k? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121363)

You're working too hard. You hoped to jump into a fanboi fray, and all you can do is dis someone's choice of a correct article to describe an abbreviated word.

Dude, you're losing it. Go play some XBox, quick, before you implode!

Re:Anfack! (1)

vallette (762759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121483)

Yeah, an FAQ. a FAQ would be gramatically incorrect since the pronunciation of "F" is eff and "an" is used before a word starting with a vowel. For instance it's an "S" curve not a "S" curve.

Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition? (2, Interesting)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121319)

A quick question for those of you who have been running the Leopard betas... will I need to dedicate an entire drive (or partition) for Time Machine's exclusive use, or is it possible/okay to tell Time Machine to put its data into a subdirectory inside a drive/partition that is also used for storing other data?

Re:Does Time Machine require a dedicated partition (4, Informative)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121539)

It makes a directory for itself on the root of the drive, no partitioning needed. :)

I have to know the answer to this... (-1, Troll)

logicassasin (318009) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121337)

Mac users: Why are you guys so quick to buy minor point releases (ie. bug fixes and a few little extras thrown in) of your OS rather than demand that they be freely available like Windows? OSX was a major point release for MacOS, like XP was for Windows, yet, you've had to pay for what amounts to "service packs" in the world of Windows. Every time Apple fixes stuff with their minor point releases, you purchase it (with the lone exception of 10.1, which Apple gave away free of charge). When M$ fixes stuff, we download it (after going through the WGA crap), install it, and are on our merry way without dropping so much as a nickel on it.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, I really want to know the rationale behind purchasing bug fixes. Yeah, they slip a few goodies in for you (which M$ did for us with XP SP2), but is it really worth yet another $129???

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (2, Informative)

vallette (762759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121399)

Just because it's a point release doesn't mean it's minor. The "point point" releases (i.e., 10.4.10) are free and contain bug fixes and the occasional new feature--more akin to the a MS SP. The point release are major releases and always include goodies worth paying for.

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (1)

logicassasin (318009) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121563)

When I think of major point releases I think of Win NT4.0, Win2000, WinXP, WinVista. Minor releases are NT4 SP3, 2000 SP4, XP SP2, or Vista SP1.

Hell, we can go to Mandrake 7, 8, 9, 10, 2006, 2007, 2008 and under that are minor point releases like 7.2, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, etc.

Major software revisions should get major point releases.

Major MacOS point releases are new, fully updated OS's (i.e. System7, OS8, OS9, OS10/X), minor point releases are bugfixes wit a few goodies, i.e. System7.6, OS8.6, OS9.2.2, OS10.5.

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121455)

The issue here is really over what a point release should be. An Apple point release includes new features as well as being for bugfixes. It's like something half way between a new Windows version and a service pack.

Windows service packs are not supposed to include new features outside of supporting new hardware. SP2 was an exception but the "features" were mainly one big bugfix dealing with a bunch of bugs related to security.

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (1)

wanderingknight (1103573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121465)

Windows users: Why do you even have to buy your OS?

--Linux user.

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121547)

Funny! But also a good question. On my x86 boxes, I run Linux. All free. I have a dual-boot box that does have XP on it but it will never be upgraded to Vista. I hardly boot into Windows any more. One day, I will just reclaim the space with another Linux partition. ;-)

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21121523)

Windows XP was a minor point release. 2000 was 5.0. XP was 5.1. That's beside the point. (Heh. See what I did there?) Version numbers work differently for different systems. What you see as a minor point release is actually a major upgrade. The 10 is irrelevant. It will probably never change. the .5 is the actual major version. The .0 that will be at the end is the patch version. Patch versions are similar to Microsoft service packs. They are free. They don't often add major functionality, like service packs. They are also free. There have been 10 for Tiger (10.4.0-10) with 11 (this one goes to eleven!) on the way. Don't be obsessed with numbers. Look at the feature set of each version before calling it a service pack. The difference between Leopard and Tiger is more like Windows 98se vs. Windows 95.

Re:I have to know the answer to this... (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121581)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac trolling fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while you attempt to rephrase a old troll from kottke.org. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be trolled more often, I'm rarely trolled once a year. If that.

In addition, during this trolling attempt, I can not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even my assistant is straining to keep awake as you type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while waiting for your various trolls, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Wintel troll that has been posted faster than its Mac counterpart, despite Wintel users generally having less of a life, and more time to hang out on Slashdot. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs circles around you, and a small Perl script could out troll you most times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh troll is a superior troll.

Mac troll addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to troll a Mac user over other faster, cheaper, more stable people.

Dear Apple and MS (1)

RegTooLate (1135209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121345)

Please give up on your crappy 2.5D desktops. Give me a cube to spin around and I might be excited. Let me make it a dodecahedron and I'll be impressed.

Nice Stuff! Beats the Heck Out of Vista! (0, Troll)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21121471)

Sorry all you Bill fanbois...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?