MacOS X Beta Sneak Preview 257
Ruddy writes: "ZDNet has screenshots
and a preview of Mac
OSX beta being released Wednesday at the Apple
Expo in Paris, as well as a list of some apps
and utils that will ship
on the beta CD (apparently no download). Some of
the leaking details are a very NeXt-ish file browser, No Airport
support yet, only partial USB and only partial Firewire; Full
Java 2, Full OpenGL, Full SMP; Choice of Aqua or Graphite eye candies;
New Dock choices; installing on G3 & G4s only--requiring the OEM
video cards (no Voodoos or 3DFX) and single monitor systems only; installs
alongside OS9 with no major speed hits for Classic apps. The screenshots look fab and it all sounds pretty heady except for the connectivity shortage, but will
it look and feel? And will it plug and ...play? Highlights from
the rollout will be webcast here
starting Wednesday."
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:1)
Sheesh!
-- Shamus
This space for rent
i like the dept. (Score:2)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
And why would you spend that much to do that? (Score:1)
Re:Project Builder? (Score:1)
It's $99 per year for students. Yes, that's affordable, and yes, I'm whining. But I don't feel like paying $99 per year for what basically amounts to do Apple a favor. =:p
And I still maintain that if apple wants to be successful they'll have to attract new developers to the new platform. A great way to do that would be try to attract BSD developers, even casual ones (like me). And I doubt they can do that if their developement tools aren't free.
Just my two cents.
--
Lagos
Re:Pronunciation of "OS X" (Score:1)
Re:Looks interesting.... (Score:1)
Also, and I may be in the minority here, I think Aqua is just plain butt-ugly and hard on the eyes. *shrug*
Re:Oh sweet goodness :) (Score:1)
Re: the hard reset button (which you need on the mac) is on the bottom of the box so you have to lift the thing, put the top on a soft surface (don't want to scratch the lucite) and pop the button. Not cool.
If you're not running it already, you should install MacsBug (easy to find via google.com/mac, for example). In "hard reset" conditions, it drops you into an ugly-ass shell and you can, 99+% of the time, type your way out of it. I don't even know where the reset button on my box is.
You can also send prolix AppleEvent commands from MacsBugApp instead of using your Finder menus, if you're into that dorky sort of thing. I am, sometimes. In fact, my "version" of MacOS is customized enough that I get confused when I have to use the standard setup. Don't let
Virtual desktops exist in the Mac world, too. Search, boy! Search!
Re:Anyone.... (Score:1)
By the way.. (Apple OS related) (Score:2)
A recent register article mentioned British protest over MacOS [theregister.co.uk] and its terminated British-English version. I thought I'd mention it, even though their protests will do little good. Then again, they'd just have to change their spelling component under OS X to get it checking properly again.
Re:Very nice, but... (Score:1)
Only if "several" means "less than one".
I don't know what kind of supercomputer you own, but my Classic.app takes 5 minutes to start, blocking the system (if you don't count some seconds response time on every click as work).
I've got a 300MHz G3 w/ 192MB RAM.
At least I've got many MacOS X-Apps, so I don't have to start it that often (Stuffit Expander is one of those apps, but it seems like this issue is solved!).
Depends on the monitor (Score:1)
Security? (Score:1)
Crack city.
Now Apple is going to give every housewife, PAX family and elementary school a BSD box. Is this a good idea?
Actually, I think is IS a good idea but I think Apple is going to learn some painful lessons in OS security along the way. I'm betting Apple doesn't have the security infrastructure in place (not to mention the support infrastructure) to support a (potentially) full featured Unix based OS.
I mean, look at Sun. Sun has been in the Unix business MUCH longer than Apple and Sun still has problems keeping a head of the Bad Guys. How can Apple ramp up that fast?
OS 9 had two pretty serious DoS holes in it when it first shipped. Yes, these were fixed but how many Mac users knew to patch their systems? Yeah, there's Software Update but I've seen MANY cases where Software Update is never used (and then don't get me started on fooling Software Update).
It's definitly going to be interesting
Re:i like the dept. (Score:1)
Nope. Was this ever the case? I must have been asleep for the last 20 years. I guess I missed all the great, totally finished open source programs floating around. Personally, I can only think of a couple.. You listed most of them.
Re:The fact that it's a lot of ram for an OS to ne (Score:1)
Run Netscape -- I just dare ya! X Apps? 16MB? Eh? [grin]
To be fair, OS X is more akin to running Linux + X + KDE/GNOME, which really doesn't start to work well with less than 64MB. Another point is that Apple tends to be more realistic about their RAM requirements than, say, Microsoft. When Apple says 64MB, you can probably swing with 32 or 48 plus virtual memory unless any single app (say VIrtualPC) needs a large chunk of memory.
The RAM requirement for Windows 95 was four megabytes (seriously, read the side of the box!); for NT 4, its sixteen. I don't have a copy of Windows 98 or 2000, but I recall (in Win2K's case) that the box requirements aren't really truthful.
Re:Half finished? (Score:1)
Does the designation "Beta" mean anything anymore? Or do we need to call it "Alpha" to get people to treat it as a "beta" product? This isn't a "launch" - it's a public "beta preview".
I can't say that OS X supports multiple monitors - I thought it did - but if it does you'll need multiple ATI cards or ATI built-in plus an ATI card as it currently only supports ATI hardware.
Macs have supported multiple monitors for many many years - well and free of charge I might add. I'm sure that OS X will extend this tradition as soon as they get a chance - hopefully this means 1.0 but we'll have to wait and see...
=tkk
PS Half-finished? From Apple? Unlike highly polished M$ 1.0 products? 8)
Re:Yeah, so? (Score:2)
Re:Looks interesting.... (Score:1)
For many graphic professional it's verry important that the windows are neutral grey. Graphite is verry close to that.
Re:Why OS X will have a tough go of it... (Score:3)
When Steve Jobs built the NeXT, the goal was to make the GUI easy for the developers. They were quite successful and many NeXT computer were sold to shops where they needed to build custom software. NeXT's biggest customers were banks and other financial institutions that needed custom trading software. Their single biggest customer was the CIA who needed custom image processing tools. NeXT wasn't successful in the general consumer market and custom apps weren't enough to carry it. All of their customers loved the NeXT computers but they needed Word and Excel and couldn't put two boxes on each desk so the NeXT's had to go. Now Mac is NeXT or NeXT is Mac or something like that, and all of the Microsoft apps will be available.
I predict that we will see some very innovative apps come out for OS-X/Cocoa in the near future. Much in the same way that we saw such innovative apps for the NeXT back in the '90-93 timeframe as Lotus Improv, Diagram, Notebook, SBook, and even the NeXT Mail app (attachments? how quaint...).
Burris
Re:Steve Jobs spawns a new, fruity type of user (Score:1)
If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you link to screenshots of OSX? Without proof, you're just a troll.
Why OS X will have a tough go of it... (Score:2)
Re:It'll be at least a year before Mac OS X matter (Score:1)
The only thing that needs to happen is for Apple to start bundling OS X with all of its computers (the several million machines it sells every year). Consumers will be using OS X. Your grandmother will be using OS X.
This will have the rather frightening effect of making Apple #1 in unix OS sales.
Re:Blah! LinuxPPC for me.??? (Score:1)
It's because of the Classic compatibility kludge. Classic runs in its own memory space. The old MacOS doesn't do malloc the way other OSs do, so a huge fixed(?) memory partition is going away to house Classic (at least 64mb).
Since there are so few Carbon or Cocoa apps, most everything out of the gate has to run in the Classic virtual machine.
blessings,
Potential OS/X problems (Score:2)
Certainly the new killer app for the system is digital video, what with both iMovie and Final Cut being made only for the platform. That and my high hopes for MacOS X are the main reasons I bought this system.
Using iMovie, I made a 47 second quickie horror film, complete with sounds, music and cheesy special effects, and it turned out well enough to impress a potential business partner interested in making a real, he-man style moneymaking project with me. Now, Final Cut is much better, and I'm looking forward to using it, but I think that's a good testimony to the merits of the platform and system.
There are two interesting problem areas for X that I haven't noticed anywhere, but are interesting:
* MacOS Classic users are going to miss features such as the Apple menu. Within hours of buying my spiffy new system, I was able to easily customize it to work the way I wanted. The new system is totally different in this regard, and I've heard a lot of grousing about the Dock being unable to replace the old features. I think they have a point, and this is allegedly one of the major reasons this is a beta and not a final release.
* I'm surprised Adobe and others haven't come out with carbon versions of their software yet. It was said to require but minor modifications, and they even showed a Carbonized Photoshop earlier this year. So why is there no Carbonized Photoshop yet if they already know how to do it? This concerns me a bit.
Thoughts?
D
----
I'm generally a Netscape booster ... (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to using Omniweb, though. They claim to have full JavaScript support and all kinds of goodies, which I'm certainly anticipating with glee.
D
----
Very nice, but... (Score:2)
It still has some work to be done (as expected with a Beta), as a lot of peripheral standards have yet to be implemented, and it can only handle a few different types of video cards. And it won't install on several types of systems, including ones with more then one monitor.
Also, it won't be available for download, but CDs with the OS will be made available for a 'nominal' charge. Me, I'd wait for the full release unless you absolutely have to have it. Check out what it can't run here on ZDNET [zdnet.com].
Kierthos
Re:Macs suck (Score:2)
Well, there's a brilliant comment for ya. Would you take a P3 laptop over a g4 cube? How about a Gateway Astro running a P3? Those things have even less upgradability than a cube does! You aren't making a fair comparison, as you're using two different form factors. Try comparing a g4 tower to an average mid-tower case, and then you might have an argument. And yeah, g4's have less pci slots - but keep in mind the ethernet, modem, usb, firewire, video out, and sound out are all built-in, so none of those need to take up pci slots.
corrections...? (Score:2)
Re:Another beta? (Score:2)
Let me know when it ships as the standard OS (Score:2)
Remember when Apple bought NeXT because BeOS wasn't ready yet? Remember when Apple killed MacOS 8 (Copland) because it was taking too long? Hell, remember OpenDoc? New stuff from Apple doesn't mean anything until it ships in volume.
Re:Why OS X will have a tough go of it... (Score:2)
Steve Jobs believes that desktop video is the next desktop publishing. Witness his iMovie 2 demo at MWNY.
Also witness Apple's purchases of MPEG2 compression technology and of DVD utility software writers this spring.
Also witness the fact that QuickTime 5 is codenamed 'Capra'.
And now we're sheeting pretty close to the NDA wind, if you know what I mean and I think you do
Re:Good god! (Score:2)
- some users are blockheads (no, not cube users, blockheads)
- Some times, keyboard shortcuts and a black terminal line is enough to make some users cry for their mothers
- some users don't know or barely hear the fact that this is BETA and coo and go "pretty!"
- that those same users, when the BETA doesn't quite work with everything (including that same pirated copy of Photoshop 4 ALL mac users have 'cept me) they are going to bitch a cacophany that will heard far and wide.
- with this knowledge, Apple's going to hold back the unwashed (but not smelly, cuz our poo don't stink) masses
Hence, Apple's playing the scare card and saying "Don't look directly at the CD, it'll blind you unless you're willing to fork over 1.5 GB of HD space, 128 megs of ram, your first AND second born, etc, etc, ad nauseum, MIGHT CAUSE DATA LOSS don't operate Air Traffic Control system or Nuclear Power Facilities, blah blah blah.Fact is, there will likely be some hairy moments coming out in the next coupla weeks (or, whenever they ship the things). Best leave it to the professionals who:
- Will read the user documentation
- understand they is a good liklihood of some sort of breakage.
- Realize they're helping upgrade the standard for an end-user operating system
- Can get themselves out of the trouble they get themselves into
Dig?It'll be at least a year before Mac OS X matters (Score:2)
First, it needs to be officially released. Hopefully, Apple will support all the hardware in the supported systems. Then, software vendors need to make OS X native applications that take advantage of certain features.
And then users have to wait for it to become stable. Considering all this, maybe a year is too soon.
--
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:2)
IBM PC clones came about because the BIOS they used was primitive and relatively easy to reverse-engineer in a legal fashion. The popular OS (there was originally a choice between DOS & the UCSD Pascal system) was licensed from MS under a non-exclusive contract. Thus once Phoenix came out with a good clone BIOS the market jumped from almost-alikes to out & out clones running a functionally identical BIOS and the same OS.
IBM sued folks for years trying to kill the clone market, then when it was clear they were unsuccessful they tried to come out with another 'standard' that they had complete control of. By that time however the architecture was entrenched & IBM simply moved themselves into a niche market from which their PC operations never really recovered.
On the other hand Apple put a large chunk of it's code into proprietary ROMs installed on the motherboard. These ROMs contained many of the routines critical to operating the Macs and they were both heavily legally protected and difficult to reverse engineer. There was no particular genius in this - it was simply how Apple built their boxes and it turned out to be fortuitous way of keeping their hold on their market.
Apple did have a licensing program, often incorrectly characterized as clones (in licensing the product is authorized under terms and the license holder is compensated - clones are simply legal knock-offs with nothing going back to the inventor.) The program was intended to supply Macs to markets Apple considered insufficiently profitable for it (Apple at the time had terrible supply management problems and an astonishingly high overhead.)
Unfortunately the licensees didn't remain focused on the small-margin educational market, super-high-end graphics market & burgeoning but very price sensitive foreign markets as originally intended but began to cannibalize Apple's high-profit mid/high-end domestic Mac market. As a result they began to cost Apple both in support, un-recovered R&D, and lost sales and thus were eventually unceremoniously killed.
Apple does have an advantage when it comes to close-coupling their hardware with their software. By making their own boxes they can design the hardware and software to compliment eachother. This is also a drawback as it limits the market to what Apple can develop & supply.
USB adoption came about when Apple needed to drop it's aging Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) and USB was a good match for the old technology (functionially they're very similar so it was easy to write shims for USB to operate in place of ADB.) Firewire/1394 was developed as a next generation SCSI and to correct the many mistakes Apple had made in it's originial SCSI implementation and then codified with (mis)use. The wireless inclusion was a bit of clever thinking on Apple's part and some great product engineering/cost negotiation resulting in a suprisingly inexpensive implementation (which humerously enough is based on a 486)
Wintel PCs have their own advantage in MS setting the WinHEC specifications and many, many companies optimizing their hardware production. This diversity makes for less optimization and greater support issues but it also makes for a much broader market and relatively faster pace of innovation.
Apple would be unwise to compete in the x86 market simply because they'd be horribly far behind when it comes to device support. In the 'sheltered' Mac market it's accepted that not third-party all devices are supported & cost more (conversely Mac users are furious when supported devices don't work flawlessly.) In the Wintel world everyone is expected to have WinX drivers and that's that.
Furthermore Apple commands a high premium for their Macintoshes simply because they're the only game in town. Were they to attempt to get the same margin on x86 boxes they charge on Macs they'd be laughed out of the market. To sell x86 PCs at a competitive price wouldn't recover their OS development costs and would cannibalize their traditional Mac platform sales.
Who would want a $2,000 PC selling for $3,000 runing MacOS X and a limited set of hardware options? I love Macs but this would be hard to swallow. Apple could consider using another chip (perhaps an Alpha) to justify/disguise their markup but it would still be difficult.
Then there would be that whole problem NT had with x86/Alpha/MIPS/PPC binaries and Lunix/BSD have with their own different hardware bases. It was tough enough for Apple when there were the M68020/M68030/M68040 and PPC issues (variations in memory management, floating point, and with PPC an entirely different architecture) leading to products that would run on some combinations of hardware & software but not others. This culminated with the 'Fat Binaries' for M68x/PPC applications.
Unfortunately as we've seen with other mixed-processor OS's (Linux being a good example) the whole process of supporting code on different processors is fraught with difficulty. Can you imagine explaining today to a Mac customer that some apps run on MacOS X PPC & other on MacOS X x86 and that the versions aren't the same?
Finally - Apple didn't 'steal' anything from Xerox. This is an old chestnut that's gone around for years and is patently false. If you do a bit of research you'll discover Apple had already settled on a graphical interface for their next-gen OS well before their visits to Xerox.
Certainly the Lisa folks were influenced by what they saw at Xerox but it was by no means a copy or theft. Indeed the concepts of much of what they eventully shipped were developed *before* their trips to Xerox. Furthermore much of what they released was significantly different from what Xerox had (and yes I've used a Xerox Star extensively.)
Apple is a neat company and they've devloped some great stuff but they're not perfect. They've made some incredibly foolish, incredibly arrogent mistakes. They've also developed some amazing stuff and managed to pull their chestnuts out of the fire more times than any company has a right to.
Re:Why OS X will have a tough go of it... (Score:2)
How many killer apps start on the Mac these days,
Wake Up! Ever hear of FinalCutPro? How about iMovie? How about iDisk?
ZDnet report is wrong on *many* fronts... (Score:5)
I'm in ADC, so I cannot got into detail of exactly *where* it is wrong; but I can say that Apple *is* supporting several key technologies ( and have been for a while) in this release that are misreported by ZDNet.
I would have posted AC, but I wanted to make sure this got read by someone before the world flew off the handle.
Later...
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:2)
This is nitpicking, but do you mean FreeBSD 2.2? Because, considering that BSD4.0 was released in the very early Eighties, BSD2.2 is pretty old-tech. ;-) FreeBSD 2.2 is not-quite-so-old tech, in that it was developed in an era when PCs existed. ;-D
*Sigh*... how I miss using FreeBSD as my main development OS. Java's what's killing it. No Java 2. We bugged Sun for Java 2, no Java 2. We bugged IBM for Java 2, no Java 2. BSDi claimed they would bring Java 2, but no Java 2, too! I'm depressed. I think I'll go to the zoo tomorrow and throw rocks at the penguins.
More nitpicking... GNU/Linux and FreeBSD don't have very much in common, except that they're Unix-workalikes, free, use XFree86, and have a common application userbase. And I'm not being sarcastic. FreeBSD is a direct descendent of BSD, the Unix system which started as a fork of the original AT&T UNIX about twenty years ago, with GNU goodies on top. GNU/Linux is the combination of a SVR4-ish kernel (with failed aspirations of POSIX compliance) implementented by Mr. Torvalds about ten years ago, and the GNU utilities, applications, and libraries that are the fruits of Mr. Stallman's FSF, which was born about fifteen years ago. Apple's choice of FreeBSD as a basis for OS X has absolutely nothing to do with Linux. Stop rejoicing, GNU/Linux users... this is one war you had nothing to do with winning.
BSD v. SVR4 is the stuff of flamewars. Even though Linux isn't really System V, I hate to see you guys getting along like this. I think it's sad that we live in a day in age where hackers don't care what OS they're using, so long as it isn't Windows. Bah. Flamewars aren't what they used to be. Nowadays it's just NT v. UNIX, and those are too easy to win. No offense, astroturfers.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:USB in Classic? (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:2)
Re:NexT i s H (Score:2)
Apple bought NeXT, so I think they have something of a right to imitate them.
Re:Project Builder? (Score:3)
Separate CD which gets mailed out to Select/Premier developers.
It strikes me as likely that they'll allow Online (free signup) developers to order and/or download the tools CD
Not that mere insane fucking stupidity in any way disqualifies a course of action from Apple embracing it, it seems. *shrug* We'll know within 24 hours
Re:Blah! LinuxPPC for me. (Score:2)
Requires 1.5G of disk
Requires an original Mac video card with one monitor only (No 3dfx allowed)
MacOS X for me because:
Are you telling me that Linux does not require the same blind love and desbelief to run it. An OS where you have to compile an application to use it, an OS that makes you deal with text files in order to configure it, an OS that forces you to read thru countless README files and such to install basic peripherals.
That my friend, does require blind faith among other things.
Re:Security? (Score:2)
---
Re:What about X apps. (Score:3)
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:2)
Prosumer OS (Score:2)
Mac OS X
BeOS
Linux+GNOME/KDE
I'm starting to like this "prosumer" OS stuff. I almost shiver to say it, but Mac OS X is looking super sweet.
Re:x86 hardware port? (Score:4)
Darwin (The BSD-ish layer of OSX) is open, and supposedly compiling on x86.
OSX, the whole tamale, with DPDF and all the other nifty stuff,
is Apple hardware only. And with Jobs in control, that's not likely to change.
--K
---
Betas and Building a Better BSD (Score:5)
MacOS X Downside: It'll demand Apple hardware to run, and demand G3+ hardware at that. There's also been talk of X not working with third party CPU plug-ins. Whether it's a matter of optimizing for Apple's specific hardware, or crippling the software on other machines isn't a big deal, unless you planned to cross-compile it. (And judging by the 'first posts,' the Lintel Hegemony is still roaming in force.)
MacOS X Upsides: People complain about how hard it is to configure a Linux system. Well here it is, folks: the people who brought user interface to personal computers are slapping a pretty front end on BSD and are not only planning on *selling* it, but intend to make *money* on it.
(Also consider: a) Apple Computer is in the habit of bundling DVD-ROMs with their systems these days. b) Apple is basing MacOS X on BSD. Therefore, c) Apple will be providing BSD-DVD drivers legally to their users.)
If you want Linux and the various *nix clones to be accepted by the public as a serious force instead of the domain of cloistered geeks, you want to do something to make it visible. KDE and Gnome are okay interfaces, but they're only distributed as far as Linux is. Here's a manufacturer of hardware AND software bundling everything together -- OS, drivers, and front end -- and giving the whole thing visibility.
If you want to pooh-pooh Apple just becuase they 'suck,' then you might be doing the *nix community a disservice. Because most people, if they turn away from Apple for whatever reason, tend to think Microsoft first, not Linux.
Re:What about X apps. (Score:2)
BTW, there is a bug in slashcode. I assume your HTML code is not
<A HREF="http://www.tenon.com/TARGET=_blank">http://w ww.tenon.com/
</A>
but
<A HREF="http://www.tenon/com" TARGET="_blank">http://www.tenon.com/</A>
But slashcode generates http://www.tenon.com/ [tenon.com] anyway.
Re:ZDnet report is wrong on *many* fronts... (Score:2)
I've played with Mac OS X DP 2, DP 3, and DP 4, and, unless Apple decided to break a whole lot of stuff for no reason, a lot more than what ZDNet says will work in the Beta. ZDNet reporting really is crap...
Re:Innovation, or lack thereof... (Score:2)
Refrag
MacOS X Q & A (Score:5)
MacOS X is not being developed for x86. Yes that was the plan for Rhapsody, MacOS's immediate predecessor. This was scrapped. Yes Darwin has been released as Open Source by Apple for the x86. Yes this is the base for MacOS X. No these are not the same things. MacOS X includes the Quartz rendering layer and the Aqua interface, the Classic, Carbon, and Cocoa environments, Quicktime, etc. Darwin may be the engine but that's *all* it is. It's unlikely Apple would release MacOS X for x86 since Apple is a hardware company and thus this wouldn't make sense for them financially. Yes you and many others think doing so would be cool but financially it would be suicide for Apple so tough - buy their stock and be happy they make a profit.
MacOS X uses a Mach kernel and is compatible with BSD 2.2. It is based on Nextstep and has inherited many of that OS's features. Technically Apple bought Next; practically Next took over Apple's OS development.
Yes Apple's computers come in funky cases with unusual colors. Hopefully most geeks can see beyond the flashy cases and note that there's some real compute power and some innovative OS stuff going on inside. There are those who are so put off they can't get past the box - that says more about them then it does about the products or their marketing.
This is MacOS X beta If history holds true Apple still has a few cards up it's sleeve it's saving 'till later. Steve Jobs likes very much to "Wow" folks and suprise them with kewl stuff. Nowhere does this beta say it's a full disclosure - it's a preview. Furthermore as a beta this release is expected to not be complete, to be buggy, to have problems - that's the point of releasing it. Lots of folks will want to review this Beta as they would the final release - don't pay too much creedence.
True Apple has gotten very aggressive about enforcing it's NDA's. If you were in their market you would be too. Not only does it weaken their technological edge by having everyone know what they're doing it also affects their sales. Folks hear rumors over & over of a 17" iMac next month and stop buying in advance of it (never happened - unlikely will - lousy form-factor.) Again Steve jobs likes to "Wow" folks - that's his sales technique. Spilling the beans, even a few hours ahead of time means the announcement goes from being a headline for Apple to being buried in a story.
MacOS X is a big deal for Linux & BSD folks. This is the first time a mass market vendor has released a Linux/BSD compatible OS. Sure the interface and many of the details are different but it opens the way for cross-ports. If a developer makes something for one OS they can support the other fairly easily. Thus it means many Linux/BSD applications will get access to the Mac market and many Mac applications being ported to MacOS X will go on to be ported to Linux/BSD etc.
Finally Apple is doing some interesting stuff for BSD and Linux. They've developed a great way of graphically configuring all of the subtly-different configuration files in Unix. They're beginning to help work on a new way of distributing, installing, and maintaining packages. They're spurring development of new drivers (DVD anyone?) With all of the discussion of X-Windows failings Quartz is an interesting example of what can be done with another model - an example that is not just an ambitious plan but a working widely used test case.
Finlly Apple is not perfect. They've blown more opportunites then can be counted, have more lives then a cat, and have legions who love or hate them (or both.) They're famous for developing amazing technologies then failing to capitalize on them, for their 10 (or is it 15?) year quest for the successor to MacOS, for arrogance and indecision. They've more then once set off on a path then abruptly changed course (the licensing program they dumped when it started to bleed them dry, the Newton and the eBook, OpenDoc & Bento, etc.)
But damn they make the market interesting :)
Out with the old... (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:2)
-- Shamus
Insert pithy saying here
Re:Mac X (FreeBSD ) (Score:2)
Remember: MS Office will not be made for X (most likely because standard Mac OS X will not have an X server IIRC); it will probably be made for their new-fangled NeXTStep-based API.
Re:NexT i s H (Score:2)
---
Re:x86 hardware port? (Score:2)
Grant us not to be subject to MacOS
Which sucketh even more so than Linux
And give us this day Windows 2000 Professional
Which art the superior OS
We beg your forgiveness
For our neighbors that use Linux
Even though they suck the penis of Satan
Amen
What innovative OS stuff? (Score:2)
Like what? They do some "innovative" UI stuff (scare quotes because I don't think they are all that great, just different)--but what innovative OS stuff have they done or are they doing with OS X?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
Business reality (Score:2)
is Apple hardware only. And with Jobs in control, that's not likely to change.
At least, not if he doesn't want to be lynched by the shareholders.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Oh sweet goodness :) (Score:3)
Hey,
Got one myself, 500MHz/128M/40G + AirPort and the 15" flat panel (being an overpaid unix/net admin kicks @$$).. The thing is a masterpiece of physical design.. A few notes after about a week of usage:
Now I just have to wait until the next KGP show [pcshow.com] to drop a 512MB DIMM in.. Apple RAM (as is most vendor RAM) is ridiculously overpriced..
Can't wait for a fully functional OSX release..
Your Working Boy,
Re:Betas and Building a Better BSD (Score:2)
What's your point in this? They're not going to be BSD DVD drivers, they're going to be OS X DVD drivers. OS X has a strong BSD base, yes, but it is not 100% BSD, and it sure won't be binary-compatible with BSD, and probably not even especially source-compatible for things like this, if the source of such drivers would even be open. Maybe something like this would happen, but don't count on it.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Re:x86 hardware port? (Score:2)
Apple just updated the Darwin FAQ [apple.com] a couple of days ago. It goes into more detail than you might expect about how they're keeping the userland in sync with the other BSDs, and what their future plans (distribution-wise) are.
unixisms in Mac OS X? (Score:2)
What about the EOL character? Does Mac OS X use newline, or does it still use carriage-return?
Does anyone here know?
Re:This (Score:2)
Re:If it ever materializes into something good (Score:2)
Anyway, the Hurd is coming along slowly. If you subscribe to one of the mailing lists, you'll see that there are still a handfull of people working on it. A few of the .debs for Debian GNU/Hurd are a couple years old, but
they work okay (mostly). It seems that there's a rather noticeable
difference between the Hurd's sockets and your average BSD sockets, as
pretty well all of the unsupported network apps I tried died immediately
with "socket exception".
In short, if you depend on the network (and I think most people do), the Hurd isn't incredibly useful yet. You can FTP, telnet, and reportedly even get lynx working, but that's abotu it. It's kind of fun to play around with for a few days though (if you have a couple dozen megs of hard-drive space to spare).
This (Score:3)
It was fun while it lasted.
Finally, a REAL UI with a BSD based system.
One key person does... (Score:2)
For better or for worse, Steve Jobs has always been Apple's final word when it comes to anything visual. This includes advertising, industrial design, the web site UI, and certainly OS UI. This was true in 1984, and it is true today.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Prosumer OS (Score:2)
Surely you noticed "Graphite mode," in the recent builds, right?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Graphite eh? (Score:2)
No Business Case (Was:x86 hardware port?) (Score:2)
Apple controls hardware for a good reason: a good chunk of their revenue stream comes from it. Removing the need for anyone to buy Apple hardware by porting OS X to the x86 architecture (and in the process encouraging software designers to abandon the PowerPC) would be a bone-headed maneuver, and probably certain death for Apple Computer.
Also, the x86 realm is fraught with hardware foibles that no one company can resolve completely, let alone control. Whatever revenue would remain would be gobbled up in tech support.
Just in case you don't believe that last tidbit: As I write this, I'm trying to use a PCI/serial port card on my Intel-based Linux box, but something in the BIOS of the machine (I assume) keeps the card from responding properly. I've tried new kernels, new BIOS images, new cards from the manufacturer, and new driver source code, all to no avail. And it's nobody's fault but that of the x86 "standards", which make the Wild West of yore seem as orderly as the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. (If you wish to participate in this wild goose chase, email me with ideas. I'm tearing my hair out, and at this rate, even a new or used Dustbuster would be welcome.)
Suffice to say, I own a Mac at home, and that situation ain't gonna change.
-----
"O Lord, grant me the courage to change the things I can,
the serenity to accept those I cannot, and a big pile of money."
Re:NexT i s H (Score:2)
You're seriously saying that Mac OS X looks reasonably similiar to Next? Huh?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
X11? (Score:2)
Assuming you mean X11 (damn that's confusing -- does "X" mean OSX or X11?), there are several efforts underway. The commercial one is from Tenon [tenon.com], and there are some other floating around. Carmack did one for Darwin, I think.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:There is a Terminal! (Score:2)
The rep I spoke to at Seybold said there was (unsurprisingly) a bit of internal controversey over this before actual deciding to ship it.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:My favourite bit... (Score:2)
Like I did..
Though I'm already used to the idea
(btw, any chance of an X-compatibility layer or 'wrapper port'?)
Your Working Boy,
Re:Why OS X will have a tough go of it... (Score:2)
Also, in this Internet age, I would consider BSD Unix networking and security to be a "killer app" when it comes in a CONSUMER OS. Mac OS X is in direct competition with Windows ME most of the time, not Windows 2000. Mac OS X doesn't have all the MS viruses or virus-like program features (same as Mac OS 9), plus it has a secure login, and Apache for a personal server. I have lots of Windows-using friends who are shell-shocked by all these viruses and black-hat hacker alerts. They feel like they have no privacy within their computers, and they're almost right. Having your computer hooked up to the outside world 24x7 demands something better than what MS is offering consumers.
Also: iMovie. I watched an almost completely computer-illiterate person pick up a digital camcorder for the first time, shoot twenty minutes of footage, plug a FireWire cable between the camera and a PowerBook, run iMovie, and emerge one hour later with a very enjoyable five minute QuickTime movie that they edited, added sound, titles, and transitions to, and had already put on the Web using HomePage (part of Apple's free iTools). I mean, in two hours, he went from nothing to having a really good five minute streaming video on the Web! With effects, and nice cuts between scenes. And they give that app away free with desktop Macs, and sell it for $49 otherwise. It's pretty incredible. Mac OS X also has a complete HTML editor called "HTMLEdit". Between the Unix features, Apache, HTMLEdit, QuickTime Pro, iMovie and iTools, Mac OS X is a great machine for the amateur Web designer even if you don't add any more apps.
Sometime in the next year or 18 months, broadband will explode and the Web is going to get a lot more video on it. It's nice that the average Joe can express him or herself that way with software like this, rather than the Web just turning into one-way TV at some point.
Re:Betas and Building a Better BSD (Score:2)
uh, no. Mac OS X does not have a BSD kernel. It has a Mach microkernel. BSD is just one subsystem (like NT's Win32, OS/2, and Posix subsystems). The DVD device drivers would be Mach drivers, not BSD.
Re:single monitor systems only... (Score:3)
according to our rather solid (and that's all i'll say on that) information, the installation instructions say that the beta will not install on systems with multiple monitors. it doesn't say why, or if it'll run on systems that have a second montior added after installation, or whatever.
yes, there was support in dp4, but it's not uncommon for features that the developer isn't solid sure of to be dropped between versions. in a similar way, a new version of open transport was dropped between beta and final versions of mac os 9.0.4.
ddt
Re:This (Score:3)
Additionally, the underlying core of the operating system (Darwin) might be open-source, but the rest is not. Please give me any sort of good reason why I would replace my Debian servers with ones running MacOS X.
On the other side of the fence, if Apple manages to get this right, then this could easily become the ideal desktop environment for non-technical users. I'll certainly recommend it over Windows* any day of the week. The trick is to get the balance between the traditionally strict Apple UI control, and the traditionally open, standards-compliant BSD underside...it will be really exciting if it turns out as well as I hope.
Re:Anyone.... (Score:2)
My favourite bit... (Score:2)
And the coolest feature is... (Score:2)
Re:Very nice, but... (Score:3)
Since Mac OS X Server the user has been able to specify that an account should be logged in automatically.
DP4 works with both Airport and multiple monitors. I suppose it's possible this functionality has been removed, but I would be very surprised (and annoyed).
Only if "several" means "less than one".
worried (Score:2)
i'm using OSX Server right now. it has basically all the cool stuff in OSX client: kernel, BSD, any shell I want, Objective-C, cocoa, etc. i've used just about every GUI consumer OS, except OS/2, including BeOS (i was be developer #136) and I've never been happier than I am now, using OSX Server. coding in WebObjects and Objective-C is absolutely beautiful!
i've played with OSX dp3, and the interface sucks ass. i really hope we can rip out the candy and replace it with a truly useable interface...
Re:By the way.. (Apple OS related) (Score:2)
I believe some part of Apple (Apple Europe?) agreed to meet with the protesters at some point in the future to discuss their issues. Check MacCentral, they had details over the past few days.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Wheres i386? (Score:2)
Not for a while, if ever. Apple makes money on hardware sales.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Project Builder? (Score:2)
Really? Do you have the beta already?
Project Builder was included in DP4.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Another beta? (Score:3)
--------------------------------------------
USB in Classic? (Score:2)
Re:Yes but will it ever ship? (Score:2)
Mac OS X is quite capable of shipping. I don't know if you have played with it, but it's quite a bit more usuable than many Linux distros. I think Apple is basically waiting for developers to catch up with Carbon apps now.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Uh... hello? NeXT? (Score:2)
BTW: Have you ever put NextStep and Windows 95 side-by-side?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Sources? (Score:4)
and were promptly served a supoena by Apple naming "john doe" in a lawsuit.
Apple should seriously just have a ticket number system like a deli counter..."Now suing number 1,341,111".
MS Office under Unix (Score:2)
If by "a few tweaks" you mean recreating the entire Apple 'Carbon' environment and then getting it to work under X instead of Quartz then - sure.
The more honest answer is 'No' - or at least - "Not with MS Office 2001 for the Mac."
MS is not moving their Mac Office apps. to the Unix-side of MacOS X but rather tweaking the to run under the MacOS-derived Carbon environment. Thus aside from dropping some of the more difficult to support calls it's the same as it's always been. Indeed MS Office 2001 for the Mac won't even require MacOS X to run - t'll do fine on any Mac running MacOS 9x as long as the Carbon libraries are present.
The question comes what about after this next release? Will MS refuse to move to the Unix side of the OS, simply move only as far as the Cocoa side (neat Openstep-derived technologies) or go with Java (little chance.) Furthermore will they tie themselves to Apple's Quartz rendering/Aqua UI or write more generalized code that could be retargeted towards X Windows.
Re:ZDnet report is wrong on *many* fronts... (Score:3)
i don't think we're in disagreement. apple may be supporting various key technologies, but these may not be solid enough to recommend using in this beta version. please check your beta documentation when you get it.
as for the poster who replied to you (the one who used "crap"): simply because something is in a developer preview does not mean it won't be dropped in a public beta, esp if the developer isn't confident enough that said feature is solid enough not to cause serious problems for the average joe or jane. yes, there were features in dp4 that aren't in the beta. as i said in an earlier post, we've seen this in other operating systems, where features in early builds weren't included in public versions (which this is, despite its beta status).
it's not a question of apple breaking stuff for no reason, it's that they don't want to impose on the general public things that are less ready for prime time.
it's only a day or so until we'll both have the actual thing in our sweaty little hands. and i bet we'll agree on most things then.
ddt
Project Builder? (Score:3)
I don't think anyone's pointed out yet that "Project Builder", the IDE for Mac OS X Cocoa developers, doesn't seem to be included in the beta.
This is truly a disappointment. In order to survive Apple must supplant its old OS with a better one. In order to do that, they need apps, and in order to get apps they need lots of developers.
Apple's fairly expensive Developer Registration fees (actually they're not much compared to Microsoft's, but they're still not free) has stopped a lot of potential developers from obtaining developers previews through official, legal channels. Isn't this just going to continue the trend?
Maybe it will be included, and Apple just doesn't want to confuse users. But if it isn't, it's going to be hard to convince people to develop for Cocoa. Come on Apple, get on the ball.
--Lagos
Re:Looks interesting.... (Score:5)
I, for one, have a dream... a dream of a time when Macs of all colours can live in peace and harmony, free from the segregated attitudes of people like Julius. I have a dream that green Macs will cluster with blue Macs, and red Macs will swap Zip disks (or whatever those Macs freaks use... Syquest disks or something) with with purple Macs, and beige PCs will telnet to black RS/6000s, and grey Palm pilots will sync with purple E450s. No computer will be shunned, regardless of make. Even your computer, Julius, which refused to share data with Macs of colour, will be accepted and loved as it it were part of the network.
But I also have dreams about fat, greasy, naked clowns with chainsaws, so YMMV.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:Sources? (Score:2)
Actually, Mail.app and the Cube debuted together...
...with NeXTStep 1.0.
It's just both have undergone some minor facelifts since.
Which Java 2? (Score:2)
Re:Whoo-hoo! (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X Q & A (Score:2)
Oh thank goodness!
Someone who know's Apple's business better then that durn Board of Directors... All these years the Financial Analysts have been saying the same thing: "Apple makes it's money on hardware". All these years they've been saying "They couldn't support themselves on the fees for their OS - the development & support costs would overwhelm them" - THEY'VE all been *wrong* and of course YOU are *right* !
How could we have all been so blind!
Please oh magnificent one - lead us into the light! Show us how only you can see clearly that which none of the investors can grasp, none of the company officers can delve, none of the stockholder percieve! For ony YOU oh amazing one shall humble those exalted bastions of capitalism and forever sunder Apple from it's hardware dependance and let it be reborn as a software company - profitably!
Oh - it's as if Rapture were upon us!
Looks interesting.... (Score:2)
The Aqua look is reminiscent of the Blue/White G3s and the iMac look, and is probably where it will be most commonly used. But, if you've noticed...all of Apple's newer high end systems (the G4/G4multiprocessor/Cube/iMac DV/iBook SE) are graphite colored; becuase they know that although people want a good looking system, it must keep a professional image.
Frankly, you won't get that if your system is Blue, Orange, or Green.
-Julius X
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
I'm going throw a huge party that day.
Pretty ironic that, just before you pass out, your face will turn a downright iMac shade of blue.
It'd almost be worth my losing ten grand to see it.