Linked by Jean-Baptiste Quéru on Tue 29th Jun 2004 17:40 UTC
Mac OS X Let me make it clear. I'm not a fan of Apple. I think that their products are overhyped, overpriced and underperforming. If you're looking for a fair unbiased opinion, you're looking in the wrong place. You've been warned. So, I was at Steve Jobs' 2004 WWDC keynote yesterday, attempting to take pictures for OSNews (an amazingly hard task, by the way, which really explained why people pay big bucks for big lenses equipped with image stabilizers). UPDATE: Stop reading right there, I have rewritten & updated the article here.
Order by: Score:
Grip
by Dan on Tue 29th Jun 2004 17:58 UTC

"Photoshop doesn't manage to ....."

That is an Adobe issue!

Why ?
by Trausti on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:01 UTC

Why did you go ? Why are you writing about mac ? If I hate something I stay away from it

@JBQ
by Jenkins on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:01 UTC


While i do believe you did not wanted to write a biased article the article is most the frustrations of a Windows user
that cannot or will not get used to Mac. I believe you have some serious problems with Mr. Jobs and Apple this is not the way the go public. If you want to compare Windows and OSX fine but this is just FUD. Pitty.
OSX is a very decent OS wich off course has its problems like ANY os but its far more advanced as ANY Windows version out there. Hence even Linux is superior than Windows Server 2003 on almost every aspect, a part from "userfriendly. wizards and interfaces."

Sorry to see you still have deep fustrations against Apple put them aside you sufferd enough!

A very happy OSX and Linux user.

Uhmmm....
by quakers@infocom.com on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:04 UTC

If you hate Apple stay away from this company. This is not a true article. Please write about windows and stop.

What a most angering article!
by Anonymous Coward on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:05 UTC

You only seem to talk about the problems of Mac OS X as relating to you, personally. Unfortunately Apple doesn't write an OS especially for you and your "3rd party accessories", but what they do make is a very good OS with features and a price that appeal to the masses of mac users (and a lot of PC users).

Dashboard is not a simple rip-off of Konfabulator - Dashboard is just a better implementation of a similar idea. Dashboard is for quick access to things you might want quickly - i.e. a calculator for a quick sum. With Konfabulator, every widget is shown on screen at the same time, cluttering up the screen and getting in the way. You could just as easily have calculator open all the time as have a calc. widget in Konfab.

Mac OS X v10.4 seems to have a lot more to offer than Panther did (as an update) so far, and it is not necessary to update if you don't want to.

The spotlight technology would make me pay the $129 alone.

F'ing weak.
by Adam Scheinberg on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:06 UTC

Here we freakin' go. It simply isn't possible to write an article that complains about Mac and/or MacOS without hordes of people coming out to call you a "Mac hater." In the tech world, Mac users are notoriously overly loyal - almost cult-like - to their platform.

The fact is, OS X is incredible, but it's very much a work in progress and has issues just like Windows and Linux, and other hobby OSes like SkyOS and Skyllable. But criticism of the Mac will draw you a ridiculous flood of trolls.

I'm always interested in reviews that discuss the pitfalls of Macs, because any time you can't find any negative about something, it's often an indicator that something much bigger is wrong.

Why?
by arielb on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:07 UTC

JBQ is not a typical "Windows" user. He was an engineer for BeOS.

you said you are...
by Duffman on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:08 UTC

an MacosX users, so why do you use it if you dislike it ?

This article is prematurely hyping the product
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:10 UTC

For something as complex as a desktop OS, it's virtually impossible to have "usability" without usage, and to-date this OS has no users to speak of.

Show me even a meager 500,000 users who consider the usability of this to be on par with current MacOSX or Windows XP and then you'll have a story. Otherwise this is just PRWire disguised as a lab study.

RE: you said you are...
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:10 UTC

>so why do you use it if you dislike it ?

Because he happens to have Photoshop CS for the Mac only.

I partly agree with this article...
by Kurt on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:11 UTC

Yes I love my two macs. OSX 10.3 is the best thing I've used out of XP, Win2000, IRIX, Solaris, Linux. I get to use photoshop and my unix apps. FInk rocks. But damned if I want to learn all these non-portable APIs. Some days you just need to open a serial port and a firewire camera and get work done. I still haven't figured out how to deal with some of this stuff. I'm not a big fan of obj-c. And I tried to use MathML the other day in Safari... whoops.

Articles like this are great in that it give clear feedback to Apple and Adobe. I hate mac apples that drop crap all over my drive that I may not find for a year or two. The installer situation is HORRIBLE. Apps that I just drop in the /Applications folder are fine. When I can't drag my apps folder to a firewire drive, wipe and reinstall a messed up system, I get very unhappy. With fink, I can rm -rf /sw and in an hour or two be back to where I was. That should be the goal for macs in general!

RE: you said you are...
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:12 UTC

Oh, and also, it happens that the dual G4 is still the faster machine in the house (and with 2 GB of RAM), so he is stuck on that configuration for now for Photoshop.

v Meanwhile, in Redmond...
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:14 UTC
@Duffman
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:15 UTC

"why do you use it if you dislike it ?"

Because I drank the Kool-aid, bought a Mac as an upgrade to my aging PC which started to really show its age when doing heavy image processing, being wrongfully led to believe that MacOS was the platform of choice for image processing and assuming that in this very small domain I'd get a superior experience.

My budget to buy new computers isn't infinite, sadly.

Engineering and Tiger
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:18 UTC

I'm hoping that the increases in speed seen in the last upgrades continue for "older" machines with OS X "Tiger". I'm assuming so based on what Apple has posted on their website, but a lot of that is G5 performance info.

I'm hoping that the "instant search of everything" feature, which I'll almost never use if my current searching is any indication, won't bog down the system while indexing everything.

All in all, not too revolutionary. Which is just fine with me. I think Panther is damn nice and would rather they spent time cleaning up and helping developers make their apps more reliable than anything else.

Transition
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:19 UTC

I'm sorry, but the transition between windows 98 and windows 2000/XP is just not big. The only major things that changed were in the backend. New kernel, improved stability. No major changes in the GUI. Just a little bit of cleaning up. I mean, win2k was a nice update, but far from a revolution like dos->windows or macos9->macosx. I think you are seriously overestimating your "knowledge in the field".

v You are wrong
by Switcher on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:20 UTC
Open Letter to Apple
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:20 UTC

Dear Apple:

I cannot believe that you would go so far as to replace the programs that users most popularly use with your own competing ones. LaunchBar and Konfabulator are now replaced by Spotlight and Dashboard.

You are killing innovation on the Mac. You are not helping innovation by encouraging developers to make cool and awesome applications; what you're doing is completely the opposite. You stifle innovation by granting your own programmers increased access to Mac OS X APIs (SystemUIServer elements anyone?), barely managing to avoid patent/copyright infringement by creating duplicates of everything you see that you think is awesome (reminds me of a Redmond based company) and crushing the very developers that make people switch to the Mac because of the cool things that shareware developers do. What's next?

You've already tried to kill Watson with Sherlock 3, you're destroying the reseller community by giving your Apple Stores increased favor, and I guarantee you're going to hear from Objective Development and Arlo Rose / Perry Clarke (Konfabulator inventors, cause I figure you don't know them) in the next few weeks.

Tread carefully.

mod -5 troll
by jon on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:22 UTC

is this a joke? Why would OSNews let this troll of an article even exist? Are you guys looking for more comments or something?

RE: "Windows 3.1/95/98/ME to Windows NT/2000/XP was at least as big"

This wasn't a transistion at all, sure MS and developers had to transition, but consumers didn't. And sure, its because they made everything very compatible, and sure, that just leads us back to the bloat that is windows and all the holes that came with that. The api is disgusting.

Mac Os > Os X was a transition that could not have had the convenience of backwards compatibility like 9x > xp had. It was a whole new OS. Hence there was a huge hurdle to overcome, 9x > xp didn't have much of a hurdle to over come so it wasn't much of a transition, you can say "well thanks to MS there wasn't and they are better now" but you still prove no point. There was no transition/hurdle, so it wasn't listed. You are wrong to think that was a transition.

and as far as windows 2003 being an OS release from MS since 2001, i'm pretty sure Jobs was talking consumer OS.

The things you have picked out about Os X being broken are so menial and small that its lame to even hear you mention them. I could come up with 10 reasons off the top of my head why windows is broken, and they would be ENORMOUS reasons that affect every user every day.

Os X IS a better system. You might not like it, and you are obviously too immature and hard headed to admin it, but it is better. Its geared toward what consumers do with computers in 2004 and is engineered for next generation computing. Windows, simply is not.

And OSnews, if thats "an engineer's thoughts" please, spare us next time.

Aweful
by teknishn on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:22 UTC

This was the biggest waste of 2 pages, I've read in a while. Why in Gods name did you go to this conference? Go back to Windows and stop spreading this nonsense FUD garbage.

Its quite obvious that you're incapable of any objectivity whatsoever. Its also clear time and time again that you're actually going out of your way to misrepresent presentations and things Steve said to further kick dirt on Apple.

Just remember sales is sales no matter who it comes from. Whether its Gates or Jobs, they will pitch their products in the best light. This is an Apple event for Apple people or others that want to make the switch, not for haters looking for a good bucket full of material to dump on.

I use OSX, Windows (only when necessary), and Linux on my servers. I'm really amazed how bitter someone can be towards a company making great products and bar-none the best OS I've ever used. Oh well.

On a seperate note. I really hope they unveil a new iMac soon. I cooler looking one with the G5 and the same 20inch display. As much as I love the Powermac, its really complete overkill for someone thats not doing heavy video/audio work.

Re : @Dan
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:22 UTC

"That is an Adobe issue!"

I haven't seen how Adobe wrote their code. I do assume that they know a few things about handling memory (that's one of their strengths, after all).

What I do know is that under Windows XP with 1GB of RAM and no special code at all I can malloc() more than 1GB of RAM in a single chunk (1.1GB to be precise) - that's one line of code. Yet on MacOS a huge company like Adobe with all the experience and weight that they have can't manage to write code that allocates more than 880MB of memory for one of their flagship product.

Forgive me for claiming that if even an undisputed market leader can't manage to do at all what an inexperienced programmer can do in Windows with 1 line of portable code, something it just plain wrong. Remembering what Adobe was able to make Photoshop do in the "classic" MacOS days, I'm reasonable confident that they have tried quite hard to lift that limit yet failed.

Bitter much?
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:25 UTC

Let's examine your closing statements:

"As long as the OS makes it easier to write misbehaving code than to write well-working code, something is wrong with the OS itself and the blame cannot be passed on to the application developers."

Not only did you not attempt to prove the assertion (that it's "easier" to write misbehaving code in OS X), but you just to a conclusion that just isn't supported in any way.

It's almost always "easier" for developers to leave things alone, or change as little as possible, than it is to write "new" code, regardless of the elegance or ease of that new code. For instance, Adobe has large, cross-platform applications which have traditionally "rolled their own" when it comes to memory, color, and font management, interface widgets, etc. They've shown remarkable reluctance to use OS X-specific features. If their apps are having problems that no one else's seem to, it would seem to be the problem of the developer(s) and no one else. Although Apple has continued to make it possible to write and run "non-standard" code, they can't be blamed for a developer not taking advantage of the good tools, APIs, and methodologies that they have also provided.

"Even worse, it doesn't matter which API is the cleanest, which programming language is the most advanced, or any of those abstract qualities."

You're just contradicting yourself here. If you're asserting that Apple *has* in fact provided a language/API/whatever that's more advanced than other alternatives, but developers still continue to use those other alternatives, then the blame falls back on the developer. Again.

"If a small OS (in terms of market share) like MacOS has API that doesn't look like what most developers are used to, something is wrong (again) with the OS itself."

This argument leaves Win32, and soon .NET, as the only viable APIs in the world. Those are "what most developers are used to".

I also find it ironic that an engineer from Be would deride *any* multi-user capabilities, considering BeOS's complete lack of same. Or leaving your background aside for a moment, that someone who is in any way, shape or form familiar with WinXP's multi-user capabilities could possibly find them inferior to OS X's. I'm constantly amazed at the number of Windows apps that don't play nicely with multiple users, and even the core design of XP which leaves little provision for segregation of users (no per-user application directories, etc.)

I'm not an Apple apologist, and OS X is far from perfect, but *objectively* [and fairly] evaluating/critiquing the company and its offerings isn't all that tough. You might want to try it.

Re: Transition
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:26 UTC

I'm sorry, but the transition between windows 98 and windows 2000/XP is just not big. The only major things that changed were in the backend. New kernel, improved stability. No major changes in the GUI. Just a little bit of cleaning up. I mean, win2k was a nice update, but far from a revolution like dos-windows or macos9-macosx. I think you are seriously overestimating your "knowledge in the field".
I think *you* may be overestimating your knowledge in the field. Windows 9x and Windows NT series are different operating systems. The only thing they maintain is API compatibility and a similar look and feel. If you don't think that that's a big deal, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. That said, mac os 9 - mac os x is a similar major transition. The main difference being the barely tried to maintain API compatibility and they changed the look and feel.

RE: Transition
by ealm on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:26 UTC

I'm sorry, but the transition between windows 98 and windows 2000/XP is just not big. The only major things that changed were in the backend. New kernel, improved stability. No major changes in the GUI. Just a little bit of cleaning up. I mean, win2k was a nice update, but far from a revolution like dos->windows or macos9->macosx. I think you are seriously overestimating your "knowledge in the field".

Well, if you only look at the surface Windows 2000 doesn't seem very different from Win98. But neither does the DOS prompt look very different from the Linux prompt.
If you knew abit more about the history of Windows though, you would know that Windows 2000 is based on a completely different OS than Windows 98. If you had said that the transition from NT4 to Win2000 wasn't very big I could agree. It is big although not VERY big. Still Windows2000 brings alot more technologies to NT4 than what Windows 1-3.x did to DOS.

the only thing what makes me wonder is....
by Ralf. on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:27 UTC

if I write an articlt about Windows in the same way JBQ did it here about OS X (and trust me, i can do this easily) und I submit it to OSNews. And I am not Eugenia's husband - will that article ever show up here???

Don't get me wrong. This is not trolling or something like that, I truly respect the work of the OSNews team and I respect JBQs opinion about operatingsystems (errr.. and other things too).
And I know it is their (OSNews Team) website an the can write what ever they like.

But I have to agree with the posts above, that this article is too much overloaded with personal dislikes against Apple and S.Jobs for whatever reason. I don't know why JBQ gets so angry about such simple things all the time. I hope I the rest of his life, there are many things he enjoys ;-)

But, sorry I have to say this, but becauss of this, I can't take this serious.

v troll
by a on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:27 UTC
Re: Transition
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:28 UTC

Transition from Windows 98 to Windows XP not so big? Hmmm, I think that features like SMP, NTFS or remote desktop connection are very big - I saw a huge difference when I upgraded my PC. For what I do those are very major features. The transition from DOS/Win 3.11 to Win95 was in my own opinion much smaller than that.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Dashboard. A plain, simple and blatant ripoff of Konfabulator
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:28 UTC

Dashboard. A plain, simple and blatant ripoff of Konfabulator

That's just stupid. Konfabulator was nothing majorly new, it wasn't innovating. The only thing new about is, was they used Javascript for their applets/widgets/gadgets/mini-apps. Neither Dashboard or Konfabulator are revolutionary, but a nice evolution. Most other osses are planning to integrate them one way or another (the sidebar of longhorn), or already have (epplets in enlightenment, gdesklets in gnome, gkrellm in any wm).

I can understand why you hate Apple. After all, they went for NeXT instead of BeOS, which did cost your job, and probably hurt your ego as an engineer. But please, try to remain a little bit professional.

RE: F'ing weak.
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:29 UTC

Interestly enough, overzealous apple users are the main reason that I *don't* try out OS X. I have the money and the interest, but for me, the community surrounding an OS is just as important as the OS itself. And the community surrounding Apple is absolutely ridiculous. You can't critisize anything that Jobs & company does.

v Gawd awful article "rant"
by jf on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:30 UTC
Some Good Points
by Viridian on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:30 UTC

Here we go again, shooting the messenger. If you truly love OS X, then you should be willing to listen to criticism and judge its validity, instead of circling the wagons with panicked cries of "Troll!" Maybe he uses it because there are things about it he genuinely likes.

Same problem with the crime situation here in Jamaica. Journalists who focus on the murder rate, political corruption, drug turf wars etc are howled down for negativity, instead of playing up the many positive, beautiful things about this lovely island and people. There are many others who do focus on the positive aspects of our society, but the head-in-the-sand mentality will not negate the uglier side of things. The Mac universe is not all sweetness and light, despite the many beautiful things about it that make me a resolute Mac user.

Then again, maybe JBQ's somewhat bitter tone has nothing to do with the Mac. He's probably still smarting from France's humiliating loss to Greece in Euro 2004 (Eugenia, I told you not to gloat!)

blah, blah, blah
by richard on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:31 UTC

You say you're no fan of Apple but then at the bottom of the article it says that you use Mac OS X. Why are you giving Steve Jobs a hard time? Yes he lays the hype on a bit thick sometimes, but he has a vision: that computing should be an enriching experience and he does bring that to a lot of people. Better than the head of that 'other OS company' whose sole vision is his bank statement (and maybe world domination).

A little biased
by joncbeall on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:33 UTC

i would have to say this article is like a republican reporting on the democratic national convention. If an article about apple products opens with "I'm not a fan of Apple. I think that their products are overhyped, overpriced and underperforming" then what's the point of even posting it? clearly it's just FUD.

And while i love konfabulator, i have to say that gDesklets, Karamba, and other Linux programs have been doing the same thing as konfabulator for much longer.

 Re: Transition
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:33 UTC

Transition from Windows 98 to Windows XP not so big? Hmmm, I think that features like SMP, NTFS or remote desktop connection are very big - I saw a huge difference when I upgraded my PC. For what I do those are very major features. The transition from DOS/Win 3.11 to Win95 was in my own opinion much smaller than that.

Like I said, only backend improvements (kernel), and some little additions. Very small transition for the consumer. I saw very little differences, but did notice the better stability and a few new apps. Other than that, nothing major. Maybe it was bigger for the developer, but for the consumer it was a small upgrade.

Re: Why
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:34 UTC

Why did you go ? Why are you writing about mac ? If I hate something I stay away from it

I went there because it made Eugenia's life much easier if someone drove her there and back, because it would allow to snap a few pictures for OSnews (well, not really), because I could get in for free.

I write about MacOS because it's "almost there" in my experience, at least for what I want to do, except for a few nagging details. It's 95% there for me, and I was hoping that there would be some improvement in the area of the remaining 5% that constantly annoy me, and for which the only answers I can seem to get are "that's the way MacOS works" and "this is a new features that developers haven't mastered yet".

Drinking haterade
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:37 UTC

The divisiveness of the Mac platform never ceases to amaze me. On the one hand, Mac users can be ridiculous zealots, and it can be incredibly annoying. Unfortunately, this article is an example of the reverse-zealotry that has arisen to combat the passionate Mac faithful.

As a PC user since DOS, and a Mac user for only the last six months, I have seen it from both sides. Unfortunately it's a big waste of time for all those involved. Last time I checked, Techworld was into posting inflammatory, hasty, overly-opinionated articles like this, not OSNews.

Re: Viridian
by teknishn on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:38 UTC

Ya, and maybe JBQ can try one ounce of professionalism in his next write up. This one was a completely useless waste of HTML.

I have no problem telling Apple whats wrong or what I would like changed. Nor should he, but you don't have to be a complete ass about it. People won't listen to it. If I'm in Apples shoes, yes please tell me your opinions on what needs to be improved or what hurts your productivity or whatever. But, if you come up to me and start making ridiculous statements about things instead of intelligently criticizing, I, like anyone else, will turn shoulder and blow the person off as a troll.

Interesting reactions
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:40 UTC

Interesting in the sense that almost all the reactions are attacks on JBQ personally, rather than responses to the actual issues that he mentioned.

Re: Dashboard
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:41 UTC

"I can understand why you hate Apple. After all, they went for NeXT instead of BeOS, which did cost your job, and probably hurt your ego as an engineer."

Actually I wasn't at Be yet when Apple decided to not buy Be, so it can't have cost me a job that I didn't have yet, nor could it have hurt me ego since I hadn't been involved in BeOS at that point.

RE: Transition
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:42 UTC

Like I said, only backend improvements (kernel), and some little additions. Very small transition for the consumer. I saw very little differences, but did notice the better stability and a few new apps. Other than that, nothing major. Maybe it was bigger for the developer, but for the consumer it was a small upgrade.
Really, that's a sign that they did the transition very well. Pretty much everything is different from Windows 9x to XP. The only thing that they didn't change is the general look and feel, and why change that if it works? From a developer's perspective, they also maintained API *and* ABI compatibility which is huge. When apple transitioned from OS 9 to OS X, they half-heartedly maintained API compatibility (Carbon) and didn't maintain ABI compatibility at all. An emulator is *not* maintaining ABI compatibility.

Re: mod -5 troll
by bsdrocks on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:42 UTC

This wasn't a transistion at all, sure MS and developers had to transition, but consumers didn't. And sure, its because they made everything very compatible, and sure, that just leads us back to the bloat that is windows and all the holes that came with that. The api is disgusting.

Well, the customers don't care if the API is ugly as long it just work. There are more customers than the developers and the customers are always right.

Break the compatibility many times don't make Apple look good at all. It's not very good idea to break the compatibility often in the small of time. Keep the backwards compatibility is very important as AMD64 has prove to be very successful in the market, so similar to Windows. This one has forced Intel to pull their neck by follow AMD's path. Althought, it's great that PowerPC G5 doesn't break the 32bit compatibility but what will it happens in the Tiger version? Will it works with the older Apple hardware (ie: G4)?

It's one of reasons why I never have buy anything from Apple. Apple is too overprice and will waste my money to chase their compatibility.

you said you are...
by Duffman on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:42 UTC

that Tiger will not have improve for G4 users, and that it is sad for those who have bought a G4 based MAC, but i don't think that Longhorn will run properly with any of the actual PC configuration...

Re: Transition
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:43 UTC

"Maybe it was bigger for the developer, but for the consumer it was a small upgrade."

I think that this is a testament to the software engineering teams at Microsoft: they managed to change something fundamental in the core of their product with minimal impact to their users. The biggest feat of all, I would say, remains Apple's transition from 680x0 to PPC. As ugly as some of the engineering aspect may have been, this was an incredible feat which I don't think has ever been done by anybody else at that scale.

v Microsoft hyperlink tags
by jeb on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:44 UTC
RE: Transition
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:45 UTC

> they also maintained API *and* ABI compatibility which is huge

This is just not true. There are many apps compiled for Jaguar that don't work on Panther, and MOST importantly, *most* third party Jaguar drivers won't work on Panther.

Re: Interesting reactions
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:45 UTC

Interesting in the sense that almost all the reactions are attacks on JBQ personally, rather than responses to the actual issues that he mentioned.
Exactly. That's the problem with the Mac community. I actually didn't think that he was being overly opinionated at all. He was bringing up real problems and evaluating the new features in 10.4 from what he saw. Yet everything in response basically boils down to "You're a mac hater so shutup".

Re: Transition
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:47 UTC

@Eugenia:

I was talking about Windows 9x to XP there. I know perfectly well that Apple didn't maintain ABI compatibility in their upgrades.

Re: Interesting reactions
by teknishn on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:47 UTC

Personally, I find the issues he mentioned to either be off base or so miniscule that they aren't even worth discussing. And I am trying to be as objective as possible.

In all seriousness though, I really don't see anyone personally attacking him. They, myself included, are attacking the blog.

v Hiding your Bias...
by JuggerNaut on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:48 UTC
Comments
by Ed on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:48 UTC

JBQ, there will always be something to complain about. Don't take this personally, but a lot of fotographers have your kind of personality. They over-react to the most minimal interference with their work..I guess it is your nature that makes you that way..

In any case, MacOS X is light years ahead of MacOS 9. Sure, it does not have everything Windows does (as Windows does not have everything either) but it has been closing the gap rapidly over the last 4 years.

In addition, you must remember, Steve needs to sell computers, and some of the things you talk about are simply harder to do that what it sounds. In addition, you do not know everything that is happening down at Apple, and just a look at the enhancements they are promising for Tiger that are under-the-hood, should help you understand that most of the effort in the last 2 years has been to upgrade/replace most of the components of NeXT to the latest versions of other UNIXes (or similar, whatever) like FreeBSD 5.

Not everyone needs to agree with what you want. For instance, I do not like integration of Safari and PDF. Its not useful, it does not serve any purpose and will only create unstability in the system (which is what happens in Windows, acrobat hangs 2 out of 5 times you open a PDF).

<quote>Like I said, only backend improvements (kernel), and some little additions. Very small transition for the consumer. I saw very little differences, but did notice the better stability and a few new apps. Other than that, nothing major. Maybe it was bigger for the developer, but for the consumer it was a small upgrade.</quote>

Well, there is no difference to a user between Ford T and Mercedes S-classe. The same four wheels, seats, engine, steering wheel and pedals.

MS did a great job to make Windows working in real x86 mode, and then was constantly improving its OS. Back that time MacOS was 32-bit system and Windows was 16-bit real mode thingy. But Windows improved a lot, MS engineers squeezed every possibility out of Intel chips, while maintaining almost 100% compatibility all the way, and I truly respect MS for their job.

Re: @Duffman
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:50 UTC

"but i don't think that Longhorn will run properly with any of the [current] PC configuration..."

That remains to be seen. For the price of a dual-G5-2.5 you can get a PC today which has a decent chance of still being good enough in a few years to run the then-latest version of Windows (similarly to the way my 1999 PC was and still is able to run Windows XP very decently, although definitely a few nothces slower than a current PC).

v @juggernaut
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:52 UTC
@jbq
by Bas on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:54 UTC

>This is just not true. There are many apps compiled for
>Jaguar that don't work on Panther, and MOST importantly,
>*most* third party Jaguar drivers won't work on Panther.

Huh? I recently upgraded from Jaguar to Panther and did not have any problem. I use third aprty drivers for Umax and Nikon scanners and have a lot of applications compiled like the gimp. I have zero problems..until now.

@JBQ

I am sorry to see that you have so many problems with Apple and MacOSX but most of the problems you desribe and cannot reproduce and/or are from third party software.
Have you every been into the macosx forums or tried googeling the net trying to find some answers.
I place i often look is: http://www.macosx.com/forums

try finding you answers/solutions there the are tons of third party (free) software links and a lot of people will help you with your problems. Sorry to say but the artivcle mostly looked FUD.

?
by Tymon on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:55 UTC

Am I the only one who likes critical reviews of OS X? As a long time PC user, mainly for music production and the usual day to day thingies like browsing the internet and stuff, I'm very interested in a Mac but all I hear are raving reviews about how good it is and whatnot. I don't have the money to just go out and buy a Mac to try it out myself so I like to know all good AND bad points about it.

v Spotlight == Dashboard
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:56 UTC
Drivers
by pau on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:57 UTC

and MOST importantly, *most* third party Jaguar drivers won't work on Panther.

How many drivers written for Linux 2.4 work under Linux 2.6 out-of-the-box? How many drivers written for Windows NT work under Windows 2000? How many drivers written for Windows 2000 work under Windows XP? (not just install, but properly work).

It's very usual for drivers not to work with a different version of the operating system than the one they were developed for.

v RE:Spotlight == Dashboard
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:58 UTC
post from some other place on dashboard...
by xnetzero on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:59 UTC

From the /. <http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112692&cid=9553417>

"They're things like calculators, notepads, etc. Little applications designed to complement the application you're running.

This is a completely Apple-created innovation and is not a rip-off. Oh no. Definitely not.

No, I'm serious. Really. Because despite all the talk of it being a clone of Konfabulator, it appears, in essense, to be Apple's original Desk Accessories brought into the 21st Century. Which is nice."

RE: Drivers
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 18:59 UTC

A lot.

And you are making a critical mistake. These Windows versions are 3 years apart. OSX Panther/Jaguar was 1 year apart.

Regarding Linux, compatibility breaks even more often. And I am NOT in favor of that EITHER.

Re: @Bas
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:00 UTC

"Sorry to say but the article mostly looked FUD."

Most definitely my fears ("I'm afraid that if I buy this new Minolta Dual IV scanner, I won't be able to make it work on MacOS?"), uncertainties ("I'm pretty sure that I followed all the installation instructions for the Minolta Dual IV scanner, yet it doesn't appear in the Photoshop import menu, what did I do wrong?") and doubts ("will the driver for my Minolta Dual IV scanner still work in 10.4 just like the drivers for my Epson 3200 caused some problems when I upgraded to 10.3?").

@ Tymon
by teknishn on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:01 UTC

There is nothing wrong with liking critical reviews of OSX. I like to read them as well to see if some of my gripes are common etc. The point is that this article was more of a bitter rant at Jobs/Apple that really mentions very little in the way of real problems. Most of what I can see is third party related.

Just remember nothing is perfect out there, but you won't be disappointed with OSX in terms of A/V. From what I understand, most studios use OSX for the majority of music out there today.

Re: Drivers
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:04 UTC

"How many drivers written for Windows 2000 work under Windows XP? (not just install, but properly work)"

I honestly don't know. In all the hardware that I tried to used under Windows XP when I installed it, a huge majority was supported out-of-the-box, and the rest had XP-certified drivers before XP itself was even released. The only one that didn't have an XP driver was my Agfa 1212U scanner, but the Win2000 driver worked just fine after I accepted to install a driver that hadn't been certified.

v Valid Criticism?
by Daniel on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:04 UTC
@jbq
by Bas on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:06 UTC


>installation instructions for the Minolta Dual IV scanner,
>yet it doesn't appear in the Photoshop import menu,
Prof. scanners use Vuescan. its free for Linux btw.


>what did >I do wrong?
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/drivers/vuescan.html

try it and be pleased.

funny...
by synergy on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:07 UTC

i also tend to think that apple's stuff is the most overhyped, overpriced and overrated on this planet (especially steve jobs "we-have-reinvented-the-wheel"-mantra at every announcement is just plain pathetic), although i must say that the dual g5s aren't really more expensive than comp. (opteron) pcs, and osX no doubt looks nicer.
their multimedia-apps (fc pro etc.) are also very good.

but what would really piss me off if i were an apple-customer is that i would have to pay for upgrades for an unfinished os that looks like being in beta since it was launched. if msft would so the same, their heads would get chopped off immediatly.
but in the case of apple, people seem even to get excited about having to spend $$ for a minor upgrade!

i'll stay with x86 - at least if i stay single-cpu, price/performance ratio is much better - and adobe has also nice apps...

v RE: Valid Criticism?
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:07 UTC
v suggest title change
by xyzzy on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:08 UTC
Under-researched
by Charles on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:09 UTC

I believe that the author did not put enough research into the article, and that some of his comments (being an engineer) seem willingly ignorant. For example, he complains about no way to move windows with the keyboard. If he had ever tried to drag a window off screen, he would have realized that this action was impossible; the window snaps back. I believe his attack on Core Image was unfounded on two grounds: First, that Core Image is not yet released. Sorry, if you want to complain about something, at least have used it. Second, why attack a framework that appears to be designed as a way for developers writing general-purpose applications to get code for free on the grounds that it does not meet the needs of a specialty application (processing of your 12000dpi, 130GB scans come to mind)?

I'm going to raise these issues very succinctly. If anyone has an issue with what I'm saying, by all means, respond. However, I don't believe that I need to elaborate very much on these. Why whine about greater 64-bit support? They have to move forward. Data syncing- surely, as one with computer expertise, you would know how to make your jpeg setting follow you. Apple Backup your preferences (in ~/Library/Preferences) to iDisk, or whatever. The only thing that the revised sync does is extend support to other things. You can still do your preference/data syncing manually, or even automatically through your old means. Keyboard shortcuts- no problem here; I work almost exclusively with the keyboard.

It seems that you have "MacOS doesn't work like my Windows" syndrome. The Mac does many things differently.

I have to agree, however, about MacOS X has its fair share of uglies. All OSes do. Use whichever one is best for a certain workflow, and don't expect everything to work flawlessly on any OS. (Not to patronize in any way.) I use my iBook for my work, and for my "laptopping," while Windows makes a good computer for games, and media players, because "entertainment category" software (Codecs, games, media players, good CD burning software" is more widely available on Windows than on the Mac. Each can compensate for the flaws of the other, but they way you paint the Mac, it should be completely unusable in any regard. It's not a big deal if it doesn't work for you, just use what does.

No one expects "fair, and unbiased" in an editorial, but it is irresponsible to publish an article without first having researched the subject, and considered the information from other points of view. Your dissection of Tiger has proven to be shallow and poorly founded at best.

That said, you raise many legitimate points about Steve's reality distortion field. Not to be a Steve Jobs apologist, but he has a company to run, and in the business world, you must paint you product in the best light. It's a numbers game really, get the most potential customers to believe that they should buy your product, and you've got one of the many pieces to running a successful business. I used to get hot under the collar about Microsoft's own press machine, but then I learned to understand it, and now the spin that companies put on products doesn't even phase me. (However, other business practices like calling me in my home several times a day to push a product have forced me to rarely, if ever, pick up my home phone.) Let's find what is really wrong with businesses, and their relationship with the public. Oh, and you ARE right, Steve is full of ****.

Oops
by Charles on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:10 UTC

Forgot to mention Photoshop. If it only allocates 900MB of RAM for itself, that is the only the fault of Adobe. Sorry, but pointing the finger at OS X is ridiculous.

RE: Under-researched
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:11 UTC

> he complains about no way to move windows with the keyboard. If he had ever tried to drag a window off screen, he would have realized that this action was impossible; the window snaps back.

Nope, not in his case. I have seen the problem with my own eyes.

re: @Tymon
by PainKilleR on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:11 UTC

Just remember nothing is perfect out there, but you won't be disappointed with OSX in terms of A/V. From what I understand, most studios use OSX for the majority of music out there today.

That's the kind of statement that really needs some perspective. Most studios that have used computers for any part of the music-making process have historically used Macs, going pretty far back in the Mac OS line. The reason was simply because the Mac previously gave software developers unrestrained access directly to the hardware (in this case the numerous different types of audio hardware available for a computer), and therefore developers preferred it over more restrictive environments (ie DOS and Windows). Windows NT/2k/XP are in many ways even more restrictive than either DOS or Win9x, yet XP is seeing far more support from developers of professional audio software than any previous version of Windows (and the other versions of Windows are getting some support now as well). The reason is simple: OS X is more restrictive to developers in terms of access to hardware than any previous version of Mac OS, and many have decided that if they have to rewrite their software for OS X, they might as well add a Windows version to boost their potential sales.

In any case, Windows use in music studios is higher than it's ever been, but the majority use either Mac OS 9 or OS X, because they've always used Apple's computers.

RE: Oops
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:12 UTC

No, it is not PS' fault, it is the OS' for simply being 32bit and not allowing extensions.

Great article
by goyo on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:12 UTC

These are the reasons why i'm still using XP more often than OSX.

Of course it's hard to explain for those who's think computers are only good for internet browsing/music listening/word processing.

I'm fed up with Steve Jobs comparison lies...it's for people who never used more than 2 OS-es...

@ JBQ
by teknishn on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:12 UTC

So we are reducing a 2 page article titled "An Engineer's thoughts on Tiger" to whether or not there will be driver issues with a specific third party scanner and printer? If thats the case, then that applies to any new OS. All new OSs always have some kind of driver issues PERIOD.

Its really a complete waste of time to even bring up such a topic. When Tiger comes out call the manufacturer of your third party equipment and find out what their support is/will be for the new OS. Doesn't sound that hard to me. Same went for W2k to XP. Same will also go for XP to Longhorn.....cept in Longhorn you get the added bonus of DRM hardware.

Dashboard
by deucalion on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:15 UTC

I don't know how many times it's been mentioned, but:
Dashboard was an Apple invention, they tossed it, Konfabulator re-implemented it, and now Apple thinks its a nice idea to try again.
To the rest: yes, Apple is insanely overpriced.

RE: F'ing weak.
by Will on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:17 UTC

> a work in progress and has issues just like Windows and Linux, and other hobby OSes like SkyOS and Skyllable

So BSD is a work in progress in your opinion? Well, maybe things that are improving are always termed as work in progress then. I don't understand how you can group a commercial OSes like MacOSX or Windows with what you called hobby OSes.

what i gotta say
by arielb on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:24 UTC

first of all, the switch to a 64 bit OS has to be a pretty big deal. Capabilities that bring Macosx to the level of BeOS is also a big deal-sure someone can say "oh it's not innovation" but then understand these are added by the very same engineers who brought them to BeOS in the first place and more importantly-what's the use of innovative features if they can only be found in an OS that's not supported anymore?
As far as konfabulator-see his website:http://www.konfabulator.com/ I can't expect him to be happy about it but here's what we're talking about: a clock, a calculator, a stock ticker-this is stuff you'd expect to find on any OS and should be included with the OS

Re: "An Engineer's Thoughts on Mac OS X Tiger"
by Adric on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:26 UTC

Honourable Editors:

Despite the opening (which could be read as import FUD.*) I read into this piece because I respect your opinions, and because I was hoping for some reasonable criticism of either the Stevenote (which I didn't get to see .. no QT stream this year? ), the 'features' of the upcoming Tiger release, or something of that sort. I was even up for the required notice of where Apple's 'innovations' came from (BeOS, Konfab, Watson, etc). Maybe I was even hoping for another rant on that subject alone ...

Instead I get to read through a criticism of a piece of software I don't license and don't have much interest in, and which is not an OS, or from Apple.

Perhaps the mistake was in the lead or the title of the article? No matter, as you have been flamed quite enough, and I'll read you tomorrow. And if JBQ would like to make his opinion of the various platforms he suffers to use daily a regular feature, it might become popular.

Oh, and have a look at Universal Keyboard Access in 10.2 or later. It makes keyboard navigation almost usable, and is due for a major refresh / expansion in Tiger where it is to be combined with an integrated screenreader.

Every OS sucks,
adric

The ethernal Thread
by Martin on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:28 UTC

The best thing you can do with this kind of flamewar is READ and laugh. Mr. JBQ posted his statement; he doesn't like MacOSX. But those of us who DO like it, should shut up and remain in the shadows. Do not waste time, unless you have a copy of MacOS 10.4 Final Release (which doesn't exist). ;)

Mac is an overpriced lovely piece of hardware and software. I don't know about Steve Jobs, I've never talked to him.

my 0,0000002 euros ;)

Martin.

Get a grip
by BrazenRegent on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:31 UTC

Is it me or is it everytime Apple does a major OS update, Apple fanboys come out in force and troll the forums.

All this fanboy hubbub for a OS point release coming out in 9 months.

Were their things to be impressed with, yes; iChat, Core Video, aggressive incorperation of h.234 and the BE-affication.

Were their things to disappointed with, yes; the continued 129 charge for a point release, Overpriced LCD monitors that in reality underperform for the price being charged. Dashboard is a blatent rip of Konfabulator(maybe thats real reason why the developers are porting to Windows as they saw their demise on the walls at Apple)

If Apple is going to charge its end users for point releases, why not just go to a subscription model that includes updated software, content, support, and online services(.mac). A simple flat 100$ a year charge would work. If half the OSX user base subscribed, thats 600,000,000$. If all of the OSX base did, thats 1,200,000,000$. Thats more than enough money to pay for all Apple's OS development and can even pay for a Office suite to be included(the one thats developed by Apple - iWorks).

Even though this would put many of Apples 3rd party developers down(hasn't stop them before), it may end up saving the Apple user considerable money than the current path. Not to mention it could allow Apple to lower their hardware prices since they would not have to charge so much for software on the front end. But why would they.

Wow
by Aris-T on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:32 UTC

First time I've ever seen every post with the "already reviewed" stat. Wow.

Anyway, there has been some form of bashing article (from tepid to medium at least) relating to a flavor of Linux, Windows and Mac. When someone reviews or previews something, it's not just all "about the facts". If it were all facts, it'd be a white paper. Anyone can just spout off specs. It's gotta have some bias if the person liked it or disliked it. Being objective doesn't allow that and really doesn't give a person a good impression unless there is some emotional pro/con sway.

Besides, it even SAID on the first few lines that it was biased and the first sentence you could tell the direction of the article. So the sensible thing was to just ignore it. But no, those who are biased heavily had to have their say after their [insert choice clothing here] got twisted into a knot.

Macs, PCs are tools, not a way of life.

Disappointing
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:33 UTC

That was overall a pretty disappointing article. That is, it isn't really from an "engineer perspective". I didn't ready anything about what improved or didn't improve in the unix layer. I didn't hear anything about GCC 3.5, or how well the auto-vectorisation stuff works. I didn't hear anything about performance increases or decreases, how well does it crunch the numbers? Will matlab still be a pain in the ass to install on tiger? Are X11 applications still as badly integrated? All kinda important from an "engineers perspective"..

Is XCode2 Java 1.5 ready? Did any apple engineer make a commitment about Java 1.5? How does the diagramming solution in xcode compare to the omondo uml eclipse plugin? It can't be much worse, but is it much better? Does it work with Java? Does it do code-generation/code-parsing?

Well....
by Shawn on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:35 UTC

Well, I'm a Software Engineer too technically. Guess what, while I agree with most of your gripes, your pitiful argument about it's the OS's fault obviously when people right misbehaved applications is foolhardy at best. Invent a foolproof system and the world invents a better fool. There is no way for any OS to write a blindingly no way you can make mistakes ever possible API. As long as humans write software there were always be mistakes.

RE: Re: @Dan
by Stefan E. on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:36 UTC

The code below actually quite nicely works on my OSX Box (Powerbook with 512MB Ram):
--------------------------------
#include <string.h>

void main() {
char *p = NULL;
size_t s = 1024*1024*1024;

printf( "s=%lun", s );
p = malloc(s);

printf( "p=%pn", p );
memset( p, 0xaa, s );
printf( "p=%pn", p );
}
-----------------------------------

OSBlog
by Alan on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:38 UTC

It seems to me that this article is a tad too "bloggy" to be called news. While I'm cool with opinion pieces and am glad that people present their opinions, this piece is misleading and off topic.

It is presented as "An Engineer's Thoughts on Mac OS X Tiger." While it is, I assume, written by an engineer (although it sounds like this engineer spends more time in Photoshop than any other that I've ever met), the title implies more than just that. It implies that we will get an engineer's viewpoint of the operating system. What we get instead are the authors conjectures about how this new release will affect his own computing experience.

Don't tell us about how 64-bit support is useless to you. Tell us what it means. Tell us if it will change performance. Tell us that most people won't benefit from it. But don't focus solely on yourself. We really honestly don't care about you when we read "An Engineer's Thoughts on Mac OS X Tiger."

re: Transition
by phoenix on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:39 UTC

I'm going to have to say, that anybody who does not think moving from Windows 98 to XP was a big transition is blowing smoke.

Windows 98 is a single-user system. Windows XP is a multi-user system. Trying to get a Windows 98 user to wrap their head around the concept of different privilege levels for different users is not a simple task.

Windows 98 uses a fairly simple GUI arranged around programs and files. Windows XP uses a complex GUI arranged around "tasks". Try walking someone through the Control Panel in XP when they just upgraded from 98. Try doing that over the phone. Not an easy task (pun intentional).

Windows 98 uses the Control Panel to configure everything. Windows XP uses the Control Panel, the Microsoft Management Console, several different applets accessible via buttons in various dialogs (try explaining how to get to the hardware list in XP over a phone), and a few other little applets here and there. Very different.

Windows 98 plays nicely on a network, even with Novell and Unix servers. Windows XP Home does not. Windows XP Pro does, sometimes, but requires a hell of a lot more up-front configuration before you can let users loose on it. And don't even ask about Roaming Profiles. Transitioning users from 98 to XP has been nothing but a nightmare here.

Windows 98 gives you a BSOD and the option to either wait or reboot the computer. Windows XP just reboots instead (the default). Try explaining to a user why their computer is spontaneously rebooting on them, and how to change the setting to prevent this.

There are a *hell* of a lot of differences between Windows 98 and Windows XP. The GUI is just the tip if the ice berg. Who cares if you were smart enough to work around the changes and get comfortable with the new system. Spend a few minutes working on a helpdesk somewhere that moved more than 3 people from 98 to XP, then come back and post that the transition was easy, simple, and virtually invisible.

Until then, shut up about things you don't know about.

JBQ
by painter on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:40 UTC

JBQ,

I think that you were being honest and, hey, we Mac people have to accept that NOT everyone is going to like us or our choice of OS. As a primarily Mac user (Windows keeps me employed and IRIX/Linux at home for fun) I can accept that ***gasp*** OS X may not be perfect for you!! That doesn't change one thing for me!! I'm going to use whatever tool does the job for me and hope that things work out for you. If we Mac users didn't have Microsoft/Intel to hate, we would need to create them. I apologize for all the thin-skinned folk who saw fit to scream at you.

The article is fine, the tone is not.
by Ken Creten on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:45 UTC

I don't have a problem with the article itself. What bothers me is the "not overly impressed" attitude. All OSs have problems. OK, what does it TAKE to impress you, Dude? I don't want to HEAR yer whining, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. Facts, Dude, stick to facts.

Oh, and by the way,
-Your article, Not overly impressed.
Ken

Re: JBQ's Rant
by Bob Nies on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:50 UTC

I think you would be better off just using your PC for photography. If you were unbiased you would point out the small problems you have with your Windows software. Your rant is so transparent that you embarrass yourself.....

@JBQ mouse keyboard
by A.K.H. on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:51 UTC

JBQ, some of your complaints are completely unfair and silly. Microsoft does not make "out-of-the-box" drivers for a HUGE amount of hardware. As an engineer, I can't believe you really think it's a good idea that *one* company should make drivers to support *all* the related products other companies make.

That there is not as much 3rd party support for Apple is directly related to the amount of market share Apple has. I'm sure you know this, yet you flame Apple for this?

For what it's worth, my bluetooth wireless keyboard and mouse did not work AT ALL in windows without 3rd party drivers. They worked fine on the apple, but with the function keys a bit rearranged. Since it's a windows keyboard, it is not at all suprising that hte keys are rearranged. As an engineer, I'm sure you can form your own hypothises as to how the keyboard is wired such that they keys come out this way.

If you think Apple is almost there, why all the venom and hate? Really, I agree with other posters here, if you wanted to vent your frustrations with computers, please do it elsewhere. A well thought out critisim minus the venom is fine, but it's clear from your keyboard example that you are simply bashing for no good reason.

@BrazenRegent

All this fanboy hubbub for a OS point release coming out in 9 months.

This just goes to show how important naming conventions are. It amazes me that people just can't understand that Apple point releases are the same as major releases of other systems.

Why don't you also ask why the hubbub over the insignificant Linux kernel point release of 2.4 -> 2.6? [SARCASM]

Ah, because maybe you know this and are just posting to insite arguement? Probably, seems to be the hallmark of osnews comments and even stories these days.

Re: JBQ's Rant
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:52 UTC

> If you were unbiased you would point out the small problems you have with your Windows software

I have never heard JBQ complaining for his PCs except for buggy graphics drivers from Matrox or ATi.

I can honestly say that he has more problems with his Mac rather than any of his PCs (and their software).

JBQ - some coments
by menega on Tue 29th Jun 2004 19:58 UTC

From what you said in your article - the only problem you have is that you don't know how to use os x...
First learn how to use it, then suggest what could be improved, based on a better knowledge than you showed...
For example: install / uninstall probem -a typical windows user complaint... just put the application in the trash and remove preferences in your library folder (if any)...
these are the apps that follow the mac human interface guidelines... if some unix or windows apps ported and do not follow os x hig, not apple´s fault...
Sorry, just lost my time reading - use your time to be better informed...

Compatibility claim
by Stewart Walker on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:13 UTC

The claim "By comparison compatibility in the Mac world is a total disaster" doesn't ring true to me. I have several applications from 1987 that I still run without problems on my new dual G5 in classic. I am not aware of many that do not run very well.

JBQ
by Matthew on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:21 UTC

I got your back -- Apple is overpriced and OS X's (API) backward compatiblity is shaky.
I think most people complaining about your article are users who have found Windows to be more troublesome than OS X. I think for 99% of the population, this is true. So, when you don't mention the Windows problems (I am sure you have had some!!), the people that haven't had OS X problems (which I still think is far fewer than people with Windows problems) are going to complain about you "raining on their parade."
(for the record, I own two simple usb devices that every dummy would assume would work on OS X, but don't -- even with the appropriate drivers -- although, my samsung laser has worked fine (even through the .2->.3 transition)

Respect
by Wil Limoges on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:22 UTC

I think that Jeffrey Zeldman said it best in his book Designing with Web Standards http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/ "Those who do not respect a tool are unlikely to use it correctly." I have been using multiple platforms for 10+ years (Including your beloved BE which doesn't hold a candle to Mac OS X but has lent itself to Mac OS X of which I am quite grateful for.) and I have never had as much grief with any of the multiple OS’s combined as this fine gentleman has had with one. My guess is that I have a deep understanding of each of these great OS's including Window's, Mac OS X, and Linux (Debian being my preferred flavor.) Ultimately I concur with some of your statements about Apple’s hype machine and some of the minor inaccuracies about their marketing. I want you to take a moment though and reflect on any top 5 brands of choice and show me that they have not used disinformation in some manner when selling their products both in past and present. This type of behavior takes place every day and what it breaks down to is your ability to interpret the hype just as you would with any other form of advertisement. I am unaffected by these devices because I choose take a positive non biased approach to technology (Being the Extropian that I am.) rather than to take a negative perspective about something that I've yet to even lay hands on. Most of the issues that you have mentioned in your column are easily fixable and no more annoying then any of the many hot fixes, poorly written drivers, and security flaws I’ve dealt with in Windows (Lets not even talk about glitches, poorly rendered windows, and my favorite DLL Hell!). Nor are they any less tolerable than the endless array of configuration files required when setting up most instances of UNIX. What’s worse is they sound to be user error not flaws in the Operating System itself. In conclusion my suggestion would be to pack your Mac bags and head on back to your comfort zone, never to look back again. Windows is the place for you, and I can’t possibly understand what you’re doing on Mac to begin with especially knowing that you can do everything on your PC equally as well and in some instances better that you can on your Mac. Your myopic perspective denounces you from favoring the Mac thus leaving you little choice but to live in Microsoft space where your opinion is shared but not respected.

Miscellaneous.
by Fatal Claws on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:27 UTC

Up until yesterday I would have totally disregarded this sort of article. However, after the Keynote @ WWDC, I have completely lost faith in Apple. $3,300 monitors that require a $600 video card?! Give me a break! The lowest cost G5 is now $2,000. Where are the cheap(er) machines for the rest of us? And don't tell me to get an eMac. Those computers were _never_ intended for general consumer purchase, just education. iPods in BMWs? How about Hondas? Try to get the product to the masses, not the elite.

The only point I take exception with in this article is the claim "By comparison compatibility in the Mac world is a total disaster" I have many "ancient" applications which run fine on OS 9. Yes, I still use 9.2.2 at home because it works perfectly on my old 8500 thanks to OS9 Helper. OS X is used at work.

Apple, you've lost your way.

Transition and Apps
by Techie Dude on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:35 UTC

Anonymous-"I think you are seriously overestimating your "knowledge in the field"."

I agree with Anonymous. Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X is a major transition. Try taking XP and changing it's core to UNIX. Hmmmm. Would be pretty major, no? Has Windows changed it's core since Win95 or NT? Please inform me if I'm wrong. Ever wonder why it will be 2006-2007 before Longhorn gets released? Hmmm. Sorry Buddy.

Kurt, the Apps folder is owned by root (System). To transfer the folder to a Firewire drive, enable the root user using NetInfo Manager, log out and log back in as root. Move the Apps folder to your hard drive along with your Preferences folder in your Home directory. Reinstall (if you really need to) and then move the non-standard Apps (again as root) and it's prefs from your FW drive to main drive. That's all. Not so difficult.

Oh, yeah, BTW, I'm a so-called Mac loving troll. Something like that. : )

RE: Apple Fanaticism/Reality Distortion Fields
by mpawloski on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:37 UTC

Many of this engineers comments, while hardly presented in an unbiased fashion, do hold some

truth. Yes, his tone was lacking in objectivity. While no OS is perfect, there are some that

are better than others. OS X, in many ways is still in it's infancy. And yes, there are some

areas in which the OS needs some more development. That is not to say that it is in any way

inferior to Windows. In fact, OS X has an infinitely better launching pad than Windows EVER

will. This is do the fact that it was intelligently designed by REAL ENGINEERS from the

ground up, instead of having a bunch of CPU-intensive flashy crap tacked on to a outmoded

design (did you ever read Microsoft's Halloween document? You ought to google it and see

just what Microsoft REALLY thinks. They are a marketing company, not a software company).

Developing the OS X engine beyond it's current state is like fine-tuning a Ferrari, whereas

attempting to re-engineer Windows is like trying to put a go-cart engine inside a Ferrari

chassis. It is true that, in terms of backwards compatibility with older software, that

Windows is infinitely more "capable" that OS X. But here is the question: WHO CARES? Would I

go plop $3000 on a dual XEON processor Windows XP so that I can run WordPerfect 5.0 for DOS?

How important is Symetric Multiprocessing going to be, when only one processor will be used

because WordPefect for DOS is a single-threaded application. What am I going to do to use

that other processor? Use Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS? Microsoft's BIGGEST shortcoming with their

operating system is this: Backward compatibility. I say "SCREW BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY! THIS

IS THE 21ST CENTURY!" Let's go FOREWARD, not BACKWARD! FORWARD COMPATIBILITY! It is because

of Micro$oft's insipid and senseless pursuit of backward compatibility that their operating

systems suck for anything truly demanding like audio and video. I marvel at how far

computers could have progressed had it not been for BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY. What a joke.
With Longhorn, Microsoft is FINALLY kissing off support for 16-bit code. After how long?

Windows will NEVER be as fast as it could be until it is rebuilt from the ground up. After

21 years, Microsoft has yet to get it right and they know that. Microsoft does not have the

BALLS to TRULY code their OS from scratch. They will SLOWLY try to implement some of the

technology that they have bought or ripped from elsewhere over the last 10 years, try to

make it work with a slow and cludgy file system redesign (WinFS), and paint over this wreck

of an operating system with PixelShader 2.0 support. What a mess. It is an act of

desperation on Microsoft's part for them to rebuild their OS from the ground up. We all know

that it's just going to be more junky code piled on top of what is already junky code. If OS

X is such a poor excuse for an operating system, then why is Microsoft running scared and

copying it? How many million lines of code will it take Microsoft to emulate the elegance

and simplicity of OS X? Microsoft is nothing more than a bunch of toothless Washington

rednecks who come to the Science Fair late and try to bully everyone into giving them first

prize. They know they don't have the brains. And it's looking like they don't have the brawn

either. I find it interesting that an engineer who worked on BEOS would ever defend

Microsoft. Did he fall and hit his head? And what is he doing trying to scan a document

while using Expose anyway?

Installing Software
by Jay on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:39 UTC

JBQ, what kind of apps have you installed where you had to place files in various places by hand? I haven't run into that yet. Thanks!

Thanks for the Article
by Peter Besenbruch on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:40 UTC

Thanks for an interesting article. Here are the things I liked about it:

The jaundiced attitude toward Steve Job's breathless salesmanship.

I especially liked the author's evaluation of the shallowness of Job's knowledge. Of course, many of Gates' and Balmer's comments about Linux display a similar lack of knowledge. Likewise, the endless comments concerning Windows' bloated instability from the Linux crowd.

The footnote section dealing with what the author didn't like is enlightening.

As for the comments on the article, Wow! I would hope that such comments wouldn't be a negative influence if I was considering a Mac, but I can't honestly say that I could filter them out completely. The hardware is OK, if a little overpriced. The OS, for all its shortcomings shows promise, but the users....

Dear JBQ; A Rebutal
by Daniel Woods on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:40 UTC

While I have great respect for the Ex Engineers of Be Inc, This Article has portrayed you as a Closed Minded Individual. Thankyou for your Warning at the Start of the Review.
Let me make it clear. I'm not a fan of Apple. I think that their products are overhyped, overpriced and underperforming. If you're looking for a fair unbiased opinion, you're looking in the wrong place. You've been warned.

On the actual Review:
I found it funny that Steve Jobs would use the words "iTunes" and "lossless compression" in the same sentence Why is that funny? Apple Lossless was introduced with iTunes 4.5 and AIFF and Wave Support have always been available.

[Miscellaneous Sinking of new Features of MacOSX Tiger]Many of these features are incomplete. With another 6-7 months of Development, these additions will be the well-rounded features we expect from Apple.

Seeing Finder create complex queries gave me the illusion for a moment that BeOS' Tracker had been ported to MacOS. Yay! Finally, the first Major OS, since BeOS which actually includes Attribute Support. This is not a Bad Thing at all. And if you say it isn't as fully featured as Tracker/BeFS, consider that MacOSX is still a Users OS, not a Geeks OS.

Sorry buddy, but the transition from Windows 3.1/95/98/ME to Windows NT/2000/XP was at least as big.I agree with you here, because we are both Geeks, but for most of the users out there there is no underlying difference between Windows 98 and Windows 2k, except that there are few gimmicky features which either OS doesn't have. They consider XP to be significantly different from 2k simply because it's themeable. For them DOS is ancient History, but they still can't play "Sam and Max Hit The Road" on their XP Machine.

[Various Whining that his computer isn't the latest and greatest and can't use some advanced features] Apple is a Hardware Company. Their Job is to sell The Latest and Greatest Hardware. The OS is a Means to an End.
As with my BeOS machine, I buy hardware which I know specifically works with my Machine. I have Customers who have similar problems when they try to plug an old LPT Scanner into their XP Machine, so Hardware incompatibility isn't limited to Niche OS's.

[Various Whining about MacOSX not behaving how he wants it to behave] You're an Engineer. Write a Quick-And-Dirty hack which lets you move windows using the keyboard. Patent it, Release it for free to the public. Being a Nasty Hack, it will stuff up the Apple Upgrade Cycle and they will be forced to integrate it, just like they were forced to integrate Konfab. and LaunchBar. Since you patented it, collect Royalties. Profit.

As long as the OS makes it easier to write misbehaving code than to write well-working code[…] It's still up to the developer to write well working code. If Obj-C held the programmers hand all the way through the development process, the programmer wouldn't get any work done. (something MS doesn't realise). While Programming for BeOS is nicer than Programming for MacOSX, They are both simpler than programming for Windows, IMHO, YMMV.

The article, while it raises a few valid points about MacOSX Tiger is even more biased than your disclaimer states, and if it was by anyone else, Eugenia probably shouldn't have posted it. I still respect you as an Engineer, but you're a Terrible Journalist. BTW, where are the Photos?

RE: Installing Software
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:43 UTC

> what kind of apps have you installed where you had to place files in various places by hand

The scanner and printer software wouldn't find where photoshop is installed and place their plugins there automatically. Also, we have to use uControl and other drivers in order to make our hardware to work and these guys don't always offer installers.

BUT, this is not the problem. The problem is the uninstallation, not the installation (which do go hand-in-hand in the mind of a windows user). Trying to clean up your system drive from these apps or from apps that write on your ~/Library is almost impossible.

I had to laugh
by LoCal on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:45 UTC

Yes.. I know.. I've been warned.. but I must say your article is poor.


--------
-64 bit support. Nice for those who have G5s, maybe. For those of us stuck with ancient machines (the G4 kind, which Apple still sells today on their web site) there doesn't seem to be any enhancement
--------
What the hell is the problem? Who said there 32-bit development will be stoped? 64Bit is the buzzword of the industry so Apple has to yell it out as loud as possible.. especially because the have been the first mainstream manufacturer with 64Bit-Computers (I said mainstream! SGI and SUN are not mainstream!)

--------
- Dashboard
--------

I have to agree, I'm very disappointed about Apple in this case. But I like the idea only to see widgets (I don't like them .. but I'll buy Konfab just to show support!) only when I want them to see.

--------
-Safari RSS
--------

What is your problem? Can IE do it? Can mozilla (or any derivate) do it? Can Konqueror do it? Can epiphany do it? 4x No!
And I also like the "smart bookmaring".. it's a great idea.. and noone else have it right now.

--------
-Automator. Once again not really impressed.
--------
Hmm.. who can you judge after such a short demo? This was a keynote tiger preview demo and not the "Automator 101" class! So I'm quite sure that there will be a lot stuff in it... even Parameters!

--------
-Spotlight. In 1997, as a Be developer, I got my hands on BeOS "Advanced Access" (also known as developer release 9). I wasn't a Be engineer yet at the time. It was the first release that featured Dominic's bfs filesystem instead of Benoit's ofs filesystem. bfs was a major step forward from ofs, but not a revolution. It was natural evolution. Spotlight is an evolution of a similar magnitude, which attempts to solve pretty much the same problem with a slightly different approach. Seeing Finder create complex queries gave me the illusion for a moment that BeOS' Tracker had been ported to MacOS.
--------

I knew it that such comment will occur on osnews. What is the problem if spotlight is somehow the successor of bfs? I can't see any. But what I see is, that spotlight is performing much better than bfs.
My x86-BeBox was a Dual PII,384MB,18GB-U160-SCSI-HD and the search for a single MP3 took really so long, that I sometimes found it much faster by myself. And the queries on BeOS where not very smart.. the didn't "recall" the suff they had found... sorry.. you just sound jealous.

--------
-Core Image.
--------

Same as for automator. How can you judge after a Keynote-demo....

--------
-I find the hardware support to be very poor.
--------

This one made me laught. Hmm.. I remember the day when I received my first BeOS R3 (x86) box.. it was one the first release day.. and I was somewhat disappointed, my GFX card (Fire 1000GL Pro/Paramedia Chipset) was not supported. I had to buy a new GFX-card. From then on I bought my hardware after the BeOS-HWCL. And BeOS had always such a poor Hardware support. And now, you blame Apple for that? ALL my current hardware (joystick,digital camera,mp3-player,...) work so fine with OS X.. I never had any problem with compatibiliy... and the only thing I was looking for being compatible is the MP3 player.. not for OS X but for I tunes..
So, I don't think OS X can be blamed for lacking hardware support.

--------
-memory limitations in applications. ... Photoshop doesn't manage to
--------

Uh, did I missed something? Apple bought Adobe? That is a Photoshop issue.. not an OS issue!

Hmm...maybe your are just jealous because BeOS didn't made it up to where OS X is.

RE: I had to laugh
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:47 UTC

>Uh, did I missed something? Apple bought Adobe?

Yes, you DID miss something. This is an OS limitation, NOT an application one.

>maybe your are just jealous because BeOS didn't made it up to where OS X is.

JBQ doesn't give a rat's ass about BeOS, if you want to know.

unable to attempt "unbiased"
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:48 UTC

"If you're looking for a fair unbiased opinion, you're looking in the wrong place."

Why do you, the author, state that you are unable to make a fair assessment of Apple's offerings? Are you unable to try? Have you tried in the past and simply given up, resigned to write articles that seek out only the problems? You could have probably written the comments for this article yourself; given your tone I certainly could have predicted the readership's reaction. Back to the drawing board if you want to have a constructive conversation.

Also, if I'm looking for an engineer's thoughts on Mac OS Tiger as the title suggests I guess I'm also looking in the wrong place. I take it you do not have the Tiger Developer Preview. It seems this is an engineer's thoughts on the high level, glossy presentation of 10% of the features of Tiger geared toward intro'ing the arriving developers to things they might want to ask questions about, or think about utilizing as part of the next OS. If you get to play with it 1 on 1 at all, give us a clue whether your "maybes" and "don't think it'll be worth its" were on the money.

...
by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:51 UTC

People, people, don't get all jumpy :S He expresses opinions, and therefore, he is always right.

Well, anyway, nevermind.

Photoshop Memory
by ununnilium on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:51 UTC

As far as the memory issue goes, I thing JBQ should point more at his lack of Photoshop knowledge than at the programming prowess of Apple or Adobe. Please read the "Allocating more memory to Photoshop" section of the following Adobe tech document:

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/c9ba.htm

RE: Photoshop Memory
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 20:56 UTC

> I thing JBQ should point more at his lack of Photoshop knowledge than at the programming prowess of Apple or Adobe

Do you think that JBQ doesn't know about this pref panel? That panel does nothing in our case. We have 2 GB of RAM and PS is set to use 90% of that memory. However, PS uses *only* up to 900 MBs, NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE SELECTED on that panel.

So, ask a question before you talk about it.

What value are openly biased articles?
by Ian Eisenberg on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:05 UTC

It seems that considering all the generally biased, stilted and outright poor tech articles that are available on the 'net, there is very little place for articles like this on a site dedicated to disseminating information about a specific subject.

OSNews draws people who want pertinent information about a number of different operating systems and this kind of hack reportage is just a waste of bandwidth.

As others have said, the opinions drawn from glitzy dog and pony show can hardly be considered well reasoned... even coming from an "engineer".

Open your copy of the dev release, dig around in the code and get your hands dirty on the implementations and then give us an UNBIASED review.

That has value!

Nice to read some Apple-bashing for a change!

I hope I get my new 3G iPod tommorrow. Thanks Apple for creating the best technostuff in the world!

Re: Vuescan
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:06 UTC

I've tried Vuescan and didn't quite like it. Honestly I'm not quite entire sure why (and I don't quite remember, it was a while ago actually).

In answer to JBQ
by Nicholas Blachford on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:12 UTC

You seem to of had the complete opposite experience to me, I just upgraded to a PowerBook with 10.3 and I've a few little problems sure, but nothing major. Some of the apps I had may not of worked when panther first came out but that was some time ago now and everythings been updated since then so there's been no problems to date.

You seem to be having rather less luck, I think Apple should offer you a place on their beta program!

I think the decision to replace the OS rather than keep API / ABI compatibility will probably be a better idea in the long run, otherwise the OS would be full of hacks for backwards compatibility and would slow down upgrades and additions. If you want to use older stuff there is always Classic.

--

I think the move from 68K to PPC was a major achievement but I think the MorphOS team have actually done more. They had to not only completely reverse-engineer the OS (they never had the sources) but got it to work on completely different CPU and hardware architecture. Any one of those is a difficult task but to do all three simultaneously...

My take on Tiger
by Coombs on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:14 UTC

Here is my take on Tiger after watching the 'Promotional Video' by Steve Jobs. I expected to be underwhelmed since I am finding Panther to be near perfect already. However, I was pleasantly surprised. There are some significant improvements to usability that stood out. First was Spotlight. I frequently use search to find my files since they are scattered over several drives, especially in the case of my office computer (Quicksilver 733 Mhz). Although the speed of searching has improved in Os X over the different iterations, it is still woefully slow in comparison to Os 8 or Os 9. With Tiger, it now appears to be fixed. Moreover, one can do a global search that looks through all applications, including Mail, Address book etc. This is just what I need. Now one needs to just type in the word or even partial word in the global search menu on the Menu bar and 'bam' one gets the results. It is true, now you can probably do away with the finder and just dump all files in one folder, if you wish. I understand, that these search features are not new to Windows and Be Os users, but it does make life easier for Mac users, such as myself.

I also like the abiliity to audio or video conference with multiple users at the same time (using iChat) . Unfortunately, however, the people at the other end with whom I would like to conference/IM all use Yahoo Messenger. So I guess, at this point, it does not seem that useful to me.

SJ mentioned that making the Os 64 bit also speeded up 32 bit applications. Maybe, the author can elaborate on how this would be so.

I had another questions. Will Tiger still support Os 9 i.e can Os 9 be run along side Os X as we currently do with Jaguar and Panther?

I do agree with another comment by the author that sometimes it is quite hard to trouble shoot Os X and some things behave quirkily for no apparent reason. Sometimes these misbehaviors go away by themselves. For instance, my Airport connection suddenly dropped one morning. I had to turn off and turn on Airport to get it back.

Finally a comment about rip off of Konfabulator. What Apple has done is to provide an SDK for creating such widgets. I would thus imagine, that Konfabulator can still sell its widgets-apparently about 650 of them are now available on the Konfabulator website. While it may be a rip off, the situation may not be as bad as in the case of Watson. I may be wrong on this and this may signify the end of Konfabulator as we know it.

Cheers everyone.

------------------
To borrow somebody's recent saying on the web:
"While Redmond blogs, Cupertino codes!"

An Engineer's Thoughts on Mac OS X
by menega on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:15 UTC

What would I expect from an engineer?
Do you want an engineer's thoughts on OS X?
Engineering, technical thoughts?
Then read http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/
There are some really good coments on OS X...
Technical ones...

re: A little biased
by David Beckham on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:16 UTC

"And while i love konfabulator, i have to say that gDesklets, Karamba, and other Linux programs have been doing the same thing as konfabulator for much longer."

Funny you should mention that, because karamba and gdesklets are just ripoffs of samurize (YES FOR WINDOWS!), only with more bloat, slower, and without any gui tools like samurize-config (but cli is better right?).

You were warned
by Milton on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:18 UTC

JBQ explicity gave a warning to his bias at the beginning of the article. Just like typical zealots, they attack the messenger and not the message.

Re^2: Why
by ArKay on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:21 UTC

If it's 95% "there" for you then how do you make out that the other 5%--which "constantly annoy you"--didn't got solved? Only 10 of the major changes were shown, it was said that more than 150 were made.

Re^2: Why addendum
by ArKay on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:23 UTC

Apart from that I wouldn't be grinding my teeth into the preview of on OS which won't be shipped until summer next year. So let the people, who are lucky enough to get and actually use this version, look at it and hopefully provide some good feedback.

Your Problem
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:25 UTC

If you hate the Mac OS, so much, stop using it. You say you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (10.3 and 10.4), why don't you go back to OS9? 9 is still a good reliable OS, and it probably functions well with all your 3rd party hardware.

Regarding your comments on moving from Windows 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 982e to ME to 2000 to NT (at least there aren't two Mac OS's that are the exact same except for the name) to XP to whatever, those are NOT major upgrades. It was however a major upgrade going from DOS to Windows; all Windows OS's up to now, and including Longhorn, are based on DOS. the major Mac upgrade from OS 9 to OS X was HUGE. It went from Apple's own OS base (I'm not sure what it was based on) to UNIX.

Go back to your Windows and your OS based on technology over 10 years old, and stop darkening the Mac world with you biased and unjust comments. (Nobody wants to hear them)

Your article could be better
by kev on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:26 UTC

Just like your article certainly could've been better, OS X and OS X development tools could be better. And that's why Apple has big releases like Panther and Tiger, and MS has XP and Longhorn. (Windows 2003 Server was not a client OS. Tiger is not a point release but neither is it a major, major overhaul like OSX 10.0 or Longhorn.)

So the question is: are those things that Apple is adding/changing in Tiger really things that would make the user's or developer's experience better? That's the question your article should answer. But since you spend 1/3 of a page to make a big deal about what SJ says (his RDF or FUD), people who respond to your article will certainly make a big deal about what you say about what SJ says. So stick to the question.

So the one point you made with clarity (albeit a "footnote") was that Tiger doesn't fix any of the problems you have today with Panther, which is a valid point (unless it is fixed by the other 140 not-highlighted "features" - which we don't know and that's why your point is valid). Since you blame Apple vehemently for 2/3rds of a page for these problems, you force us to ask how many of these problems are the fault of Panther or Apple's architecture and APIs, rather than the developer who unknowingly or intentionally chooses to do the wrong thing? Your article has a mix of both and an emotional attitude - leaving you open to criticism that you don't know what you're talking about and you hate the Mac. Over at Macintouch and Macfixit, people write all the time about Mac issues, many of them Apple's fault, and no one rants or criticizes the criticism. But your attitude definitely riled people up.

The other point you made was that none of the highlighted features of Tiger impressed you. Some things were "nice, maybe" or borrowed from other apps/OSes. Some things would not be useful for high-end uses. So the best you could do for Tiger was "nice, maybe" even for 64-bit.

Even PC-sites (Scoble) or neutral-sites found at least one item that was "a significant addition for users/developers." So that leads to questions about your overall credibility. Now, you may be neutral but combined with your attitude at the end, it's hard for anyone to see it. If you had not included the second page, and if you had explained for each Tiger item, what was the gain for users/developers, and what was lacking (i.e., could be better because I've seen so-and-so in such-and-such a place already), people would've enjoyed and learned from your article. For example, your review of Spotlight was just a sort-of-comparison with Be Tracker. Instead, as an engineer, you could've told us how this compares with WinFS in Longhorn. Where does it fall short? Same for Automator, .Mac/iSync, Core Data, SQLite. (The last two you learn about at Apple's site.) These technologies, when combined, go a significant way toward accomplishing the goals of WinFS but in a much more loose, distributed way. Is Apple's method possibly better than MS' monolithic top-down approach or will this "looseness" lead to problems later when developers don't behave?

So I commiserate with you that nobody has fixed the problems you have on the Mac. I, too, have problems with the way certain things work on both Mac and Windows PC, and I learn to work around it, live with it, or find something else to use. Some have been fixed by 10.1.5, 10.2.8, or 10.3.3. But if Apple came out at WWDC and said, we're fixing our USB driver issues, window management issues, multi-user support, and getting our developers to allocate memory and write installers/uninstallers properly, most people would've said that is a bug fix release. That's not what 10.4 is about.

Hope your next article will be better, whether it is a major release, point release, or a bug fix. Thanks anyway for your thoughts and don't get hung up on what Steve or Bill says. Have a great day!

RE: Your Problem
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:26 UTC

>why don't you go back to OS9

Our powermac does not work with OS9 and our Photoshop CS doesn't work on OS9 either AFAIK. Plus, JBQ used the classic OS9 for years, he hates its inability to be stable.

Re: @Charles
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:33 UTC

"For example, he complains about no way to move windows with the keyboard. If he had ever tried to drag a window off screen, he would have realized that this action was impossible; the window snaps back."

The problem was not that the window was off-screen, rather that it was entirely behind another (floating) window. If you have Photoshop CS and a Dual IV, make sure that you have the tool bar and option bar enabled in photoshop, start to scan, and maximize the scanner window. It's entirely inside the screen, but behind a floater.

"Second, why attack a framework that appears to be designed as a way for developers writing general-purpose applications to get code for free on the grounds that it does not meet the needs of a specialty application?"

Because Jobs was fairly clear that he was hoping to get Adobe to use it in Photoshop, which (as an advanced Photoshop user who also formally studied image processing) sounds like a gross misreprentation of what such an API is really capable of doing on the current class of hardware.

"Why whine about greater 64-bit support?"

I don't. I'm just worried that Apple's natural push toward selling more hardware may come at the expense of solving problems on "older" current hardware. Sure, 64-bit is the real and only long-term answer to the problems of memory sizes, no contest, but that doesn't solve my problems, not owning a G5 (nor a 64-bit version of Photoshop for that matter).

"Keyboard shortcuts- no problem here; I work almost exclusively with the keyboard."

I don't know how you do it - I haven't figured it out yet.

"It seems that you have "MacOS doesn't work like my Windows" syndrome. The Mac does many things differently."

Actually, not really. I was an Atari ST user, then a Mac user, then a BeOS user before Windows became my primary OS. I'm fine with MacOS doing a few things differently because of very fundamental design decisions, but in some cases I consider the MacOS behavior to be gratuitously different, and not only from Windows. The speed of the mouse is one definite such example. I was aware of the high-level differences, and I live with them, not a problem. What really bothers me are the small details, the things that have become so intuitive to me that they annoy me each time, like not being able to dismiss alerts with the "Esc" key.

"without having first having researched the subject"

I have been using MacOS 10.3 on a fairly regular basis for the last year or so. The only desktop machine I use at home is that Mac, even though we have half a dozen PCs. MacOS is almost there, but just almost, collapsing a few hundred feet from the end of a triathlon, and (in my opinion) thrashing and making a lot of noise at the moment instead of crawling to the finish line.

"If it only allocates 900MB of RAM for itself, that is the only the fault of Adobe."

As I wrote in an earlier post, with one line of code using a standard API I can allocate more than 1GB of RAM on my Windows XP box (almost exactly 1.1GB to be precise), and I still consider this to be poor. In my opinion as a software engineer who likes low-level OS issues, a modern OS running on 32-bit CPUs today should allow applications to use 2 to 3GB of RAM simultaneously without too much trouble (it doesn't necessarily have to be trivial, but it doesn't have to be awfully hard either), and a well-thought system would even be able to allow to use more than 4GB of RAM, though obviously not all of it would be addressable at the same time. As an engineer with some experience in kernel programming, I can tell you that the concepts involved aren't hard, and that if Adobe has some trouble with the feature it would be in Apple's best interest to send a few people from Cupertino to San Jose to make sure that Adobe gets it right.

Re: teknishn
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:35 UTC

"When Tiger comes out call the manufacturer of your third party equipment and find out what their support is/will be for the new OS."

Yes. Like Iogear suddenly finding out the their USB2 card which was working OK under 10.2 suddenly doesn't work under 10.3, and deciding that they wouldn't support that card under 10.3.

Core Image
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:39 UTC

"Discussing the issue with other engineers who are more familiar with the image-processing capabilities of current graphics cards, it very much sounds like Core Image isn't gonna cut it for serious image processing (support for floating-point pixel formats as source or destination of pixel shaders seems to pretty much not exist, which is a veyr big issue if the processing chain contains in the middle a filter that can't or isn't implemented by Core Image, like a plain Median Cut noise-removal filter)."

Image UNITS, Image UNITS. Apple is providing a base set of units. Units are perfectly extensible and user/developer codeable. Have a filter or effect that doesn't have its own unit already, then create it and it will always be available.

When Core Audio was introduced, there were fewer Audio Units and hardly any to zero third party units. Now there are many more and hundreds upon hundreds of third party audio units.

I see no reason to believe that Core Image is going to remain just 40 or so effects.

Re: OSBlog
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:42 UTC

I initially intende the article to go in either my short-term or long-term blog (probably the latter), under the title "My thoughts on ...". When Eugenia saw that I was writing something she asked me if she could publish it on OSnews, and she picked the final title.

Honestly I wrote very little of it with an engineer's eye (except for the part about Core Image). Most of it was meant to be a "grain of salt" to Jobs' presentation, coming from someone who selfishly would like to see a few very small improvements in his current MacOS experience instead of grand plans for huge features, and from someone who has used enough systems in the past to recognize a few of the "we're the first ones to do this" new features as being slightly improved versions of what other people had done before.

What was unsaid at WWDC
by Coombs on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:46 UTC

This is a conjecture. Since the new displays can be hung on a wall, it looks like they can be used as TVs. With something akin to AirTunes, (AirTV?) in conjunction with wireless Firewire, it may soon be possible to send video wirelessly from your computer to the screen. Notice that the displays have both USB 2 & firewire connections. Looks like Apple will achieve the integration between the PCs and the entertainment center sooner than later.

For what's its worth-- my 2¢

Re: @Ken Creten
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:47 UTC

Touché. I deserved that.

I'm sarcastic by nature, even moer so when I'm tired, irritated, or (worse) both.

No Problem with Memory in Photoshop
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:48 UTC

I run 10.3 on a dual G4 and I have no problem accessing more than 900 GB of memory in Photoshop CS. Not sure what your problem is, but sometimes when problems occur and Apple and Photoshop both say it is possible and a feature... it's worth trying to troubleshoot it rather than saying its impossible because the OS encourages developers to write bad code but in WIndows it's one line of code.

Re: @Bob Nies
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:52 UTC

"If you were unbiased you would point out the small problems you have with your Windows software."

Sorry, I don't have time for the small problems, there are way too many of them (buggy drivers, serious issues between IE and Acroread, or between XP, MSVC6 and PurifyPlus. Viruses galore and antivirus galore. Terminal services, laptops and multiple-montors. Obscure way to associate extensions with applications, multi-instance vs single-instance vs hybrid applications, etc...).

Sadly I have to use the thing for work, so I am forced to live with all those issues.

Adobe Photoshop CS RAM allocation
by Grandizer on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:54 UTC

Hello JBQ,

Regarding the behavior you are observing with Photoshop CS, it seems that Photoshop is working as designed. Although Photoshop sees the all 2GB of your physically installed RAM, as expected, Photoshop will never be able to grab the full 2GB even if you specify 100%. This is because the percentage that you specify in preferences is a percentage of *available* memory after the system and other apps grab their allocation. In other words, the % of RAM you set is a limit, rather than an actual allocation like we had in Mac OS 9.x. So if you have 2 GB physical memory installed but only 880MB free, Photoshop can only take the specified percentage of 880MB before going to the scratch disk.

This behavior is discussed at length in Adobe's Photoshop forums. Here's a Google cache if you aren't a member.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3bb3cccf...

Re: Re: OSBlog
by kev on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:54 UTC

"... Most of it was meant to be a "grain of salt" to Jobs' presentation, coming from someone who selfishly would like to see a few very small improvements in his current MacOS experience instead of grand plans for huge features, and from someone who has used enough systems in the past to recognize a few of the "we're the first ones to do this" new features as being slightly improved versions of what other people had done before."

If you had written this as the preface to your article, you would've saved yourself a lot of abuse. Mac fanatics know that SJ exaggerates for effect; no need to tell them!

And has there ever been Mac software from Apple that hasn't been built on something else (since MacWrite/MacPaint/ MacDraw)? But even if others have done it before, Mac users believe passionately that when it is done again on the Mac, it will be done better (or done right); so that the "average user" will be able to happily use it. Apple doesn't have the cash for basic research; it's forte is taking some idea or implementation and making it better from the user's perspective: either easier-to-use because it focuses on the user's task at hand, easier-to-understand because it uses user language not tech language, cooler-to-look at.

RE: Adobe Photoshop CS RAM allocation
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:55 UTC

>So if you have 2 GB physical memory installed but only 880MB free

I fail to see how only 880 MB is free if only PS and OSX is loaded.

Re: Installing software
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:56 UTC

"JBQ, what kind of apps have you installed where you had to place files in various places by hand? I haven't run into that yet. Thanks!"

The driver for my Minolta Dual IV scanner was one such case. Silverfast SE for my Epson 3200 Photo was another (worse) example (in that case Eugenia had to install the software, register it, then copy the registration file to my home directory because it wouldn't run through the process with my user).

Re^2: @Charles
by ArKay on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:56 UTC

From the Apple HI Guidelines...

Esc (Escape)

The Esc (Escape) key basically means “let me out of here.” It has specific meanings in certain contexts. The user can press Esc in the following situations:

* In a dialog, instead of clicking Cancel

* To stop an operation in progress (such as printing), instead of pressing Command-period

* To cancel renaming a file or an item in a list

* To cancel a drag in progress

Pressing Esc should never cause the user to back out of an operation that would require extensive time or work to reenter. When the user presses Esc during a lengthy operation, display a confirmation dialog to be sure that the key wasn’t pressed accidentally.

v Re: F'ing weak.
by Pagehit on Tue 29th Jun 2004 21:57 UTC
Re: Mouse Keyboard
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:03 UTC

"JBQ, some of your complaints are completely unfair and silly. Microsoft does not make "out-of-the-box" drivers for a HUGE amount of hardware. As an engineer, I can't believe you really think it's a good idea that *one* company should make drivers to support *all* the related products other companies make."

Correct, Microsoft instead works closely with hardware vendors to be sure that the Windows CD contains the relevant drivers, and makes the updates available through Windows Update. They have enough power to force that on hardware vendors.

"That there is not as much 3rd party support for Apple is directly related to the amount of market share Apple has. I'm sure you know this, yet you flame Apple for this?"

I've walked the same shoes while at Be. We had to to an awful lot of work to get soem kind of decenet hardware support, which Microsoft doesn't have to do as the hardware vendors do it for them.

It's one thing to not support certain arcane PCI cards. I don't expect all of them to be supported, especially if they cover a function that a standard Mac already has. It's another to have issues with standard USB keyboard or mice, or firewire CD burners. I can live with the former, but the latter leaves a bitter taste.

Upgrades
by Matt on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:04 UTC

Why do people rip on Apple for having new OS releases every year? People say they are ripping people off for charging $130 every year to update and Microsoft doesn't do that. You all forget that Microsoft gets money for every copy of XP installed on a new computer. Apple doesn't get anything for putting their OS on their computers. So in reality Microsoft is raking in the money but you people accuse Apple of stealing people's money. It's just that Microsoft doesn't have to update the OS every year like Apple has to.

Re: unbiased
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:08 UTC

"Why do you, the author, state that you are unable to make a fair assessment of Apple's offerings? Are you unable to try?"

I didn't try to, nor did I claim that I tried. I could have tried, but the results would have been at best poor because I don't use MacOS enough (nor its competitors other that Windows XP) to be able to get a fair and complete opinion of the improvements that Tiger may bring.

Re: RE: Adobe Photoshop CS RAM allocation
by Grandizer on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:12 UTC

-I fail to see how only 880 MB is free if only PS and OSX is loaded.

I'd check top to see what is running and may be taking up memory.

@JBQ
by Martin on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:13 UTC

c'mon man! you've got an Apple Macintosh with MacOS X. Enjoy. At least you're virus free! Live and let die. I wonder how many people would love to have a Mac and can't afford it. Exposé is beautiful, MacOS X is beautiful, DOck is amazing... enjoy what you have. Imagine if you had to use OS/2 like I had to do @ IBM for 3 years!

:)

Relax, I've just been erased (sic)

Martin.

RE: itunes
by rastap on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:14 UTC

"I found it funny that Steve Jobs would use the words "iTunes" and "lossless compression" in the same sentence"

Why is that funny? Have you ever seen a hash check fail with apple lossless?
I don`t believe so, lol. And compression/decompression is much faster than with .flac, with about the same compression rate.

Re: RE: Adobe Photoshop CS RAM allocation
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:19 UTC

There is nothing taking up memory. I got PS with an medium size image open, Safari, Activity Monitor and OSX and all are taking up 600 MBs of "real" memory. Now, if I try to open another really big image with PS, it will only use between 800 and 900 MBs of RAM. There is a missing 500 MBs.

Re: Re: RE: Adobe Photoshop CS RAM allocation
by ArKay on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:25 UTC

Allocating a mere 1GB of memory is no problem with a simple malloc() call. 1,5 are no prob either. My PB refuses to do 2GB though. The 1/1,5GB get allocated on VM (I only have 768MB of memory and some apps running).

Re: itunes
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:26 UTC

"Why is that funny?"

Primarily because my (limited) exposure to iTunes was through the iTunes music store, and I got the feeling that Jobs was showing ITMS as the primary way to get songs into iTunes (that's the subjective impression I got by watching his presentation). My limited experience seemed to show that ITMS only offered 128kpbs rips, and at $10 per album I would very much expect to get a better quality. I listened to some of the samples and wasn't impressed by the sound quality (so far I've never been impressed by the audio quality of just about any stereo audio below 160 or 192 kpbs - similarly I prefere DTS tracks to AC3 tracks on my DVDs, they seem to "fill the space" more).

So, I found it funny that in the context of listening to music purchased on ITMS the link from iTunes to the Airport was less likely to be a limiting factor than the lossiness of the ITMS compression.

Yet, the elast loss the better I feel, and if Apple was smart about the feature they send the stream of raw AAC data directly to the Airport Extreme where it gets decoded.

Thank you, JBQ!
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:33 UTC

Once in a while, every 3 mos, the dumb crowd of users, regardless what OS they are using, should be straighten out.

Instead of verbal abuse, they should thank you for telling Apple what's wrong and not working. Instead, you get an avalanche of insults from these idiots, such stupidity.

thanks again, frenchie!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Adobe Photoshop CS RAM Allocation
by Anonymous on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:36 UTC

As per the Google link earlier, Photoshop will not grab whatever RAM is allocated to it. Only what is necessary. Opening a large file will do nothing to test whether or not PS can access 2GB of RAM.

As I noted earlier, I routinely have Photoshop accessing well over 1GB but have not seen it reach all the way up to 2GB yet either.

Re: @Daniel Woods
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:37 UTC

"but you're a Terrible Journalist."

I'll take that as a compliment. I never tried to be. I just wrote down a few notes for my blog and it grew up into being an OSnews article.

"BTW, where are the Photos?"

They sucked ;)

Seriously, the place was much darker than I had anticipated, and even when pushing my gear to its limits I'd have needed at least 5 times as much light to get decent pictures. I wasn't helped by the fact that in many cases the projected background was brighter than the people walking in front of it - it ended up being somewhat clipped out in some cases.

Some of them, mostly unedited and unretouched, are in Eugenia's report. By the time I edit them and work on them a bit there might be (maybe) a half-dozen 800x600 pics.

- There is nothing taking up memory. I got PS with an medium size image open, Safari, Activity Monitor and OSX and all are taking up 600 MBs of "real" memory. Now, if I try to open another really big image with PS, it will only use between 800 and 900 MBs of RAM. There is a missing 500 MBs.

When you execute a PS action and notice the scratch disk being accessed, what does TOP report?

What is the percentage set to? 70%

Extrems
by a on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:42 UTC

There are and will always be two extremes:

- the people who will defend the platform to death, even if that involve sayings silly thing and doing false assements.

and

- the people who will critize the platform the same way the others defend it


We all know why this review got published, and it's high comment numbers certainly do not reflect anything else than contestation.

Truth is that a point of view can be respected and discussed, but certainly not this way, like, "the point of view of the engeener". No. It's JBQ, Eugenia's man review, and should be only published and discussed this way.

Then only the (legitim imho) flaming would be nonsense

RE: itunes
by rastap on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:43 UTC

Well, you have a point here, higher compression rate would be nice at the itms (heck, actually {i}having{/i} an itms would be even nicer, now that I think about it).
Thats one thing I don`t like about apple: Everything is very easy and real eye candy and very stable, but they don`t give you that many choices about most things. Steve Jobs just thinks he knows what`s right for everybody (often he {i}is{/i} right, I might add).

oops
by rastap on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:45 UTC

damn tags

Re: Re: @Charles
by pit on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:46 UTC

As I wrote in an earlier post, with one line of code using a standard API I can allocate more than 1GB of RAM on my Windows XP box (almost exactly 1.1GB to be precise), and I still consider this to be poor.

What I don't understand: Since you call yourself an engineer and you are having access to a Mac, I would expect that you try the same malloc() for the theoretical max amount of virtual memory on OSX as you did on Windows (it should be even the same line of malloc() code).
Blindly believing that your PS problem must be Apples fault and not Adobes is a very single sided approach. Have it every occured to you that Adobe probebly roll their own PS optimized memory management? Or that the same probleme may exist on the Windows plattform?
If the your 900MB limit is for real, I cannot imagine how other company manage to provide really memory hungry software for OSX (e. g. Oracle).

Besides, I would expect that Apple, with years of experience in OS developement - also knows how to implement a standard malloc() to get a decent amount of RAM: on 32Bit OSes, you get the same theoretical maximum amount of 4GB of virtual adress space in almost every OS and - depending on the VM implementation - a somewhat lower amount in real (I can't find the link just now but I read somewhere that it's around ~2GB on Windows and ~3.5 GB on OSX)


Nothing against critic as long as it is fair. But if you don't treat all sides equal, don't expect people to be happy with your "comments". It's hardly worth discussing about your speculations/rants...

Re: @pit
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:56 UTC

"Blindly believing that your PS problem must be Apples fault and not Adobes is a very single sided approach. Have it every occured to you that Adobe probebly roll their own PS optimized memory management?"

Yes, it's very blind and very single sided, relying on quite a few bits of intuition.

Actually, maybe that's the core of the problem: maybe Photoshop's "optimized" memory management is not "optimized" for what I want to do (a machine for which I paid big $$$ to get 2 CPUs and 2GB of RAM, and on which I only want to run photoshop to process one image at a time, which sometimes happens to be a big image).

I write memory managers and memory management code for a living (with quite some emphasis on image handling), and I'm aware of quite a few reasonably easy solutions that yield decent results. The issue of photoshop sharing memroy with the rest of the system is very close to those that I encounter at work. Those are not very hard problems.

Why bother?
by Tim on Tue 29th Jun 2004 22:56 UTC

I'm curious to know if you have test driven any of the better G5's. My 1.8 Dual is a joy, and I've only run into problems with 10.3 once or twice, both solved.

I bought a QS 733 G4 some years back, having swallowed the Apple whole, used it and OS X for a while, and wound up selling that on ebay for only $120 bucks less than I paid for it. It just did not have it, either in the hardware dept. or the OS dept. I went back to XP.

When Apple announced the G5, with a modern bus speed I figured I would try again, after all I only lost $120 bucks the first time. So far I have to say OS X beats XP all to hell for everything except gaming, and at age 41 I'm to slow to twitch with the youngsters anyways. The G5 is a great leap forward from the G4 - and IMO the combo of the two leaves Wintel very much in second place, and I still have my Windows box, which is a AMD 3000+. But I dont use it very often, only for games. Anything serious I do on the mac.

I'm not a Apple fanboy as I have tried to make plain thru that history above, but I think you are harder on Apple than they deserve. Linux is no alternative for me as after 25 years computing I *dont* want to futz around tinkering with OS's and kernals. I just want to sit down and do what I want to do, when I want to do it. The G5 and OS X is closer to letting me do that than Windows is at this point in time.

Dashboard whinning
by Jason on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:01 UTC

The whinning about Dashboard being a copy of Kanfabulator is crap. If you want to argue it Dashboard is a copy of Konfabulator, fine. But in that case I would have to argue that Konfabulator is a copy of Object Desktop by Stardock, which has been around a long time.

Dashboard whinning - continued
by Jason on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:04 UTC

Things like Dashboard are a logical evolution of what an OS should be able to do.

Linux has it now, Windows does the same with Object Desktop...hell a carefully crafted html based Wallpaper on Windows can do the same thing...I have used a Flash based wallpaper.

Dashboard and Konfabulator are not really all that new.

Re: Why bother?
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:11 UTC

"I'm curious to know if you have test driven any of the better G5's"

Well, to the extent that a test drive doesn't really tell you how a car is going to behave on a racing track, or in cold mountain weather, yes, I have tested G5s. They are just as "fast enough for normal desktop use" as my G4 as far as I can tell. I've never had access to a G5 loaded with enough RAM and with a good scanner and photoshop installed, so that I have had no opportunity to produce a fair comparison in the domain that matters to me.

Speed isn't really a huge concern as far as pure CPU-bound tasks are concerned. Yes, median-cut filter on 550MB pictures takes a while, but I don't do it often enough to justify spending thousands of dollars in a new machine. I'm more annoyed by the slowness of the healing brush, which (judging by the noise of the hard drive) isn't limited by my CPUs. Honestly today I'd most likely be looking at an x86 machine if I were to buy a new PC, but there are many other ways I can think of to spend the $3000 or so that a good current machine costs.

"Linux is no alternative"

Don't get me started about Linux. Where MacOS is 95% there, most competing linux-based solutions are 5% there.

Re: Dashboard
by JBQ on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:23 UTC

"Things like Dashboard are a logical evolution of what an OS should be able to do."

Absolutely. I have nothing against the feature (actually I think that it's really cool, and well executed). I am weary of the Apple game where Apple gloats about being the first doing something even when soemthing very similar has been done before and make fun of other OS vendors that copy Apple features.

Let Apple play fair (acknowledge that they copy or improve on other people's code or ideas, or stop making fun of features that Windows copies from MacOS) and it'll be fine with me.

@JBQ more recent comments
by A.K.H. on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:27 UTC

Your more recent comments have been quite insightfull. I totally agree with you on the mouse speed issue. You'd think that would be *really* easy to change too. There are third party drivers that repair the slow mouse, but I can't really justify paying $25 USD just to have something that should have been there in the first place. Supporting basic windows keyboards might also be a nice touch that would be easy to implement, so I do agree with you there as well, now that you've explained your position. Forgive my incorrect assumptions about your thoughts.

The photoshop memory limitation is interesting. I'm wondering if this is a darwin limitation, carbon limitation, or cocoa limitation. I only have 1GB of ram here, so I can't really test it. Have you tried writing a short 'malloc 1.5 gig' type program in the shell?

RE: @JBQ more recent comments
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:28 UTC

A.K.H., amen! We had to buy "USB Overdrive" to get past the OSX mouse limitation! This is something extremely important --mouse speed and acceleration-- and Apple's solution (albeit better on Panther) it is still a far cry even from X11's.

What about the transition from 68000 to PowerPC?
by Sabon on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:48 UTC

I'm absolutely shocked that Steve Jobs (it wasn't on his watch) or anyone else through the first 45 messages didn't mention the Mac transition from 68000 processor serious to PowerPC series. This was almost completely transparent to Mac users other than hearing the new CPU chips were faster than the old ones. The OS didn't change for users. But it was just as dramatic in the lack of huge issues as was Win 9x to NT/2000/XP.

As far as reading past the 45 message. I'm disgusted with both sides.
Note that I use EIGHT different OSs for at least 2 hours each week just to keep a sort of balanced view of all of them. Yes I have my OSs I like more. I'm not telling which. But SHAME SHAME SHAME on both sides of this. JBQ's article was an unprofessional mess and so were most of the responses. Both sides should go to their rooms and think about what they wrote.

OS X
by mike mastache on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:51 UTC

As an electrical engineer I have had to learn software development and hardware development. There is one thing that I have learned in this discipline. Any kind of development is an excercise in compromise. How do you keep everyone happy, you don't. Is OS X the perfect OS, no. What it does seem to do is to capture the average user's imagination and excites them about using a computer. I have used every flavor of Windows and I use an iBook at home. I am aware of many of OS X's limitations but I have to to tell you that though spending $100+ on an OS is a bit much I gladly spend it because I see improvement versus windows where the development seems to be at a stand still. Yes Longhorn will be an improvement but people want gratification now. Worry about today, for tomorrow will take care of itself.

Yawn, half an hour wasted reading dribble
by Piers on Tue 29th Jun 2004 23:53 UTC

I think I'll stick to my Dual AMD K7MP system running WinXP/Linux for now. Nothing in either Apple or PC camps has caught my attention enough to justify an upgrade. Am I growing up or is the pace of technology really just a marketers wet dream offering hollow promises?

XP for audio and games and Linux for wanting computing that is open but doesn't have the apps I need to be a sole contender on my system. Gnome 2.6 is nice though but a user environment is not enough, I need apps.

WTF? Is this guy kidding or what?
by Freezdried on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:23 UTC

While the ability to write such diatribe or dribble is our birthright hear in the U.S.
Please don’t waste any oxygen writing crap like that.

First of all to the turd that calls the Mac people trolls. WTF?
I’m not a troll, you don’t know me or any of the other Mac users replying to this guys dribble. As a systems admin and network engineer (was a Windoze MCSE). I can punch holes in this guys arguments and offer a dual of sorts.

I will meet the author and offer up some cash to prove him wrong, bring your Mac with all of it’s issues, problems etc, If I can’t get it to work with all of the gear you stated in your article with OS X 10.3.4, I will give you $1,000.00 cash. That’s right one thousand big ones, and if I can fix it, you have to write a 1000 word essay stating how much you like Mac’s and how bloated Windoze really is. Easy trade off, because I know I’ll win.


I am not going to point out the flaws Windows has, it would take up too much time and not worth the effort, one point is… lets see 78% of all malwares, Viri, Trojans etc written for WINDOWS! Compared to the 3% to OS X, and 2% of that is the *nix side.
While OS X is not perfect it is far, far superior to Windows, wait a minute…

Is that the rumor of LONGHORN? HAHAHA in 2006 and Microshaft is yet again borrowing off of someone elses innovation, the Aqua interface, yeah that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Gee thanks Micro$haft
Go ahead and use the IBM Stinkpad with Winblows and all of the stability it has to offer, I will continue to support over 150 users in a mixed environment 60/40 Mac/Wintel.
But my servers are staying OS X Server (Unix based) not that bloated carcass Viri infected IIS, getting attacked, not even close to Apache OS.


Nough’ said

A Be complainer
by Mark Twomey on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:24 UTC

“-64 bit support. Nice for those who have G5s, maybe. For those of us stuck with ancient machines (the G4 kind, which Apple still sells today on their web site) there doesn't seem to be any enhancement, and no indication that Photoshop CS will be able to use more than about 40% of the RAM on my 2GB dual G4).”

That’s an Adobe issue, go file a bug with them.

“-Dashboard. A plain, simple and blatant ripoff of Konfabulator. The kind that makes you think that software patents aren't a bad thing after all. The kind that makes Steve Jobs look like a fool when the big banners for Tiger read "Redmond: start your photocopiers". Shame on you, Apple, this kind of behavior really doesn't make me want to give you any of my money, if all you do with it is drive your own developers out of business.”

And Safari, FireBird, Mozilla and IE are rip offs of Mosaic. How about TCP/IP stacks, remember when they were sold by small ISV’s? Go cry elsewhere, how come the Omni Group jumped for joy when Apple implemented WebCore and JavaScript core into the OS rending their backend work on OmniWeb pointless? The answer is easy they no longer had to worry about working on the plumbing and could concentrate on building something useful on top of it instead. The Konfabulator guys would be doing the same thing if they were smart, no more having to try and troubleshoot the Konfabulator engine which at best spikes the CPU and at worst can lock up your box.

“-Spotlight. In 1997, as a Be developer, I got my hands on BeOS "Advanced Access" (also known as developer release 9). I wasn't a Be engineer yet at the time. It was the first release that featured Dominic's bfs filesystem instead of Benoit's ofs filesystem. bfs was a major step forward from ofs, but not a revolution. It was natural evolution. Spotlight is an evolution of a similar magnitude, which attempts to solve pretty much the same problem with a slightly different approach. Seeing Finder create complex queries gave me the illusion for a moment that BeOS' Tracker had been ported to MacOS. “

We're not a Be complainer are we? One of the people who thinks that Apple should have paid $250M for an unfinished OS which couldn't print when it was offered as a replacement for Copland? Apple bought in the talent and said make this work, did anyone say that it hadn’t been done before? Nope. Shouldn’t they do it becuase it's been done before? Nope.

“-Steve Jobs claimed that the only OS transition ever to happen in the PC world was that in 1995 when going from DOS with Windows 95. Sorry buddy, but the transition from Windows 3.1/95/98/ME to Windows NT/2000/XP was at least as big. Or maybe I'd actually say that the PC world is unique in that it is able to maintain such a level of compatibility that no sharp transition is needed. The latest Windows is still able to run many 10-year-old applications. Most recent PCs can still run 10-year old DOS 6.22. By comparison compatibility in the Mac world is a total disaster.”

So what? No one promised you that you could run ten year old apps on anything, and I’ll take advancements over decades old compatability cruft any day of the week. Desktop crap isn't mission critical and users don't need to run OpenVMS.

Need to run something ten years old, run it on an OS which supports the product, run it in emulation, run it wherever, but don’t expect people to support ever shitheel’d app ever written.

“-Steve Jobs was quick to mention that there hadn't been any major release of Windows since Windows XP (I really wonder what that "Windows 2003 server" thing was). Ignoring the case of the expensive server OS, he forgot to compare the cost of continuing to run the latest version of Windows and the latest version of MacOS on a PC and on a Mac both bought in 2001.”

The admins trying to run Exchange on it are wondering what that Windows 2003 Server thing is as well. Bring this up again when they release SP1 and don’t cause their admins to revert to Win2K Server due to it's instability.

“When I interview a candidate whose resume lists tons of different competencies, I very much like to pick one which I am familiar with and ask a few advanced questions, the kind that can only be answered with some real knowledge and/or experience in the domain. When I get an unsatisfactory answer, all I can assume is that the knowledge of the candidate in the other domains is going to be as shallow. Similarly when I listen to Steve Jobs' glorified sales pitch, I recognize a few areas where I have some level of competency, and my knowledge in those areas makes me realize that MacOS isn't the perfect operating system that Apple would like me to believe.”

That would be because Steve Jobs is a sales guy and not an engineer. I’m sure he’s disappointed that a guy on OS News wouldn’t hire him based on his keynotes.

“-memory limitations in applications. Even though my dual G4 has 2GB of RAM, which Photoshop can perfectly detect, Photoshop doesn't manage to use more than about 900MB of RAM. The rest of the RAM mostly sits there, unused (several hundred MB are unused, which is especially annoying when Photoshop is struggling with the hard drive to try to apply filters to 500MB images).”

And you filed the bug with Adobe, or do you prefer to just bitch your problems away on websites?

“If a small OS (in terms of market share) like MacOS has API that doesn't look like what most developers are used to, something is wrong (again) with the OS itself.”

So it should look like the Win32 API then? Because that's what most developers are used to.

Lets face it, you’re a "Be complainer".

Go buy another PC and stop whinging about things you won’t even file a bug report for. God forbid any of the rest of us would have a choice of what OS we chose to run.

Please!!!
by Hakime on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:27 UTC

So what should i say when i read such article. I really don't understand how people with such article can succeed to publish something in osnews.

Of course we can discuss about everything, and everything should be discussed in a reasonable manner. But if a guy comes up (and saying that he is an engineer does not make him smarter than us, ...anyway) with such articles where everything that Apple does is shit, sorry how can we take this guy seriously.

This guy does not even have a copy of Tiger in his hands (i think!!) so how can he judge, how can he say anything about something that he did not try, and just saw in a video? What does he know about CoreImage/video, Spotlight, the 64 bits support, etc.....

What can of issues is he talking about? Sorry i don't have them. He has problems with photoshop, why is he blaming Apple?

Osx does not prevent any application to use as much memory as it wants.....If one application can not not use more than a certain quantity of memory, that's the a problem of the application. This guy should read a little bit more about osx, and read the developper documentation about Darwin......

And is he so negative with Tiger? The advencement made in Tiger are quit impressive, and i am really surprised that this guy can not recognize the work of Apple.

So we should think now that this guy is obviously better than Apple's engineers, and much much smarter!! Ok so bring us something man!!! Can you do better than trolling on internet. Can you do better than OsX.....

You hate so much what Apple is doing, so please stay away from here or bring us some interesting stuff......

Re: Techie Dude (IP: 66.55.16.---)
by drsmithy on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:28 UTC

Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X is a major transition. Try taking XP and changing it's core to UNIX. Hmmmm. Would be pretty major, no?

Well, that's the scale of the transition from Windows 9x to NT/2k/XP. The transitions from DOS to Windows 3.x and Windows 3.x weren't exactly trivial, either, although they weren't quite that major.

Has Windows changed it's core since Win95 or NT? Please inform me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. It changed its core *with* NT. DOS and NT based Windows are *completely different OSes*, they just have nearly identical APIs, excellent ABI compatability and similar interfaces. It is a testament to Microsoft's efforts at legacy support that the transition was so relatively painless people are arguing that it must have been "trivial".

Apple are about ten years late to the "major transition" party - Microsoft started in 1993 with NT 3.1. Considering how much more powerful machines are today and that they had a nearly identical model to work from (Microsoft with Windows) it's disgraceful - although not entirely surprising given Apple's attitudes towards legacy support - that it was handled so poorly.

Ever wonder why it will be 2006-2007 before Longhorn gets released? Hmmm. Sorry Buddy.

Despite what the marketdroids are trying to tell you about Longhorn, it is *not* a major transition on the order of OS9 -> OS X or Win9x -> NT. It's not a new OS, although it is a major revision - a reasonable comparison would be NT4 -> Windows 2000.

Next time, send someone who pays attention
by MD on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:28 UTC

It's funny when a site called "OS News" sends someone to cover a major OS announcement who clearly doesn't pay attention and who clearly hasn't bothered to do his homework.

I say this as a sysadmin who works with Mac OS, Windows, and Unix boxes. This writer is clueless and doesn't even accurately report what was announced. There was some very cool stuff and there was some "yawn" stuff. But this guy doesn't know enough about relevant topics to even understand which is which.

Re: @Freezdried
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:37 UTC

I don't need your cash (well, I wouldn't mind more money, but I won't take it).

Let's get started:

-when I copy JPEGs from my 10D's memory card to my Mac, using Finder, reading through a Lexar Firewire compact flash reader, Finder doesn't orient the pictures correctly when displaying the thumbnails (it displays all the pictures horizontally, even the ones that were shot verticlally). iPhoto has the same problem (I don't normally use it, but I double-checked). Photoshop has no problem, nor does Canon's own application, so I know that the orientation data is correctly recorded in the files.

-I have 2 USB2 cards from IOgear, one with an ALI and one with an NEC chipset. Get both of them to work in 10.3 at least as well as they worked in 10.2 (they don't have to work at the same time, but doing so gives extra credit).

-Get Photoshop to use about 1700MB of RAM on my 2GB dual-G4.

Am I allowed to use more than 1000 words for the essay? There are so many things that suck in Windows that I'm afraid to run out of space! (I use Windows almost constantly, so I've had quite a few issues with it).

Desk Accessories
by tych0 on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:37 UTC

Couldn't we also say that Konfabulator was a Desk Accessories rip-off?

http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Desk_Ornam...


As for the names being too long in the switch menu, a quick search on macupdate gives:

http://winswitch.wincent.com/

Mr Jean, Do you have Computer Degree?
by ng on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:39 UTC

Do you know what is HCI? Its Human Computer Interface. If the software developer like Adobe did not did their job good enough and frustrated you, please do not blame it on any OSes, not only Mac OS X.

Btw, why are you still using your Apple machine? You should had forgot to wrote this soar, aren't you?

You can download a copy of "Apple HCI Guidelines" and see whether Adobe did their job well or otherwise, ditch Adobe and get some other tools.

Please save your pitty time and next time think before you write, you are wasting bandwidth and server HDD space. Look at the bashing replied... at this moment is 156 comments shouting at your stupidity.

Ashame yourself!

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.ns.aliant.net)
by drsmithy on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:44 UTC

Regarding your comments on moving from Windows 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 982e to ME to 2000 to NT (at least there aren't two Mac OS's that are the exact same except for the name) to XP to whatever, those are NOT major upgrades.

DOS based Windows (3.x, 9x, etc) to NT based Windows (NT4, 2k, XP) is a *major* upgrade. They are completely different OSes at fundamental levels and outside of an API, ABI and UI, have practically nothing in common.

Even DOS+Windows 3.x to 9x is a reasonably major change.

It was however a major upgrade going from DOS to Windows; all Windows OS's up to now, and including Longhorn, are based on DOS.

You are clueless. Windows NT 3.x, NT4, 2k and XP are not even remotely related to DOS.

the major Mac upgrade from OS 9 to OS X was HUGE. It went from Apple's own OS base (I'm not sure what it was based on) to UNIX.

It was "based" on MacOS because it *was* MacOS.

Go back to your Windows and your OS based on technology over 10 years old, and stop darkening the Mac world with you biased and unjust comments. (Nobody wants to hear them)

Firstly, DOS is closer to twenty-five years old than ten.
Secondly, NT started development in 1988, although it was heavily influenced by VMS, which is much older.
Thirdly, your rant is pretty funny considering the "UNIX base" of OS X is 30-odd year old "technology" originally meant to be a much simpler and more limited version of the "real" OSes of the time. The heritage of Unix isn't especially prestigous - it's every bit a "good enough" solution that Windows is.

RE: RE: you said you are...
by ByTore on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:46 UTC

"RE: you said you are...

 By Eugenia (IP: ---.osnews.com) - Posted on 2004-06-29 18:10:10

>so why do you use it if you dislike it ?

Because he happens to have Photoshop CS for the Mac only."

Isn't Photoshop overkill for what you guys are doing? Good gravey, you can download free editors for any platform under the sun.

RE: Why?
by ByTore on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:48 UTC

"By arielb (IP: ---.nyc.rr.com) - Posted on 2004-06-29 18:07:23

JBQ is not a typical "Windows" user. He was an engineer for BeOS."

Not impressed.

RE: RE: you said you are...
by Eugenia on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:49 UTC

"we guys are doing??"

This is for JBQ's photography, NOT for osnews. I use PaintShopPro 5 or Gimp for OSNews, they are good enough for the limited things we need for osnews.

But JBQ *needs* photoshop and its 16bit per pixel support for his personal photography hobby.

RE: Why?
by Eugenia on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:51 UTC

>Not impressed.

Probably you would be if you were more clueful over the things he has worked on over the years: from kernel development to games and graphics development.

to Be or not to Be
by Luis Alejandro Masanti on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:56 UTC

Maybe, if Amelio bought Be in place of Next, you'll see Gassee talking at the WWDC.

v RE: RE: Why?
by ByTore on Wed 30th Jun 2004 00:58 UTC
RE: RE: Why?
by gamma on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:04 UTC

be aware Eugenia that half these people do not know who JBQ is (to you or the computer world) so when they say things about him, they are speaking out of ignorance.

I know how much it must suck for you to read some of these comments on here though.... some make me cringe.

RE: An engineers thoughts...
by Bill Leeper on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:14 UTC

Sounds to me like you found exactly what you went looking for. You wanted to look for what was bad about OS X and so you found it. This article is a waste of time as it could be a template for deriding any OS. An engineers thoughts on Windows, an engineers thoughts on Redhat, an engineers thoughts on FreeBSD and on and on.

Bill

Re: Desk Accessories
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:16 UTC

"As for the names being too long in the switch menu, a quick search on macupdate gives".

Thanks. Not perfect (I'd like it to take no space - I'm picky sometimes but I can be flexible if I really want) but probably good enough. That didn't exist when I needed it most, though (i.e. when trying to get the scanner drivers to work after upgrading to 10.3), and at this point I don't need it enough to risk my sanity over it.

My word... you have got your panties in a bunch.
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:21 UTC

It is ammusing that you criticise things like Automator for not being advanced enough, when in fact it is designed specifically not to be. You want something more advanced, learn applescript, that's what it's there for.

CoreImage it is a DISPLAY framework, that manipulates what is rendered to the screen in realtime, handling image sizes larger than the display resolution and depth is irrelavent.

Memory limitations in Photoshop have almost nothing to do with the OS, every process gets a virtual address space they can use, and OSX will manage the page faults when you run out of physical memory. If Photoshop doesn't use it all then it's because Adobe wrote it that way.

Being able to write badly behaving code is a feature of any language, that universally applies to any platform, if the developer chooses not to use the appropriate API's she deserves what's coming to her.

You want hardware support? Buy hardware that's supported! It's the same with any OS.

Perhaps you should stick with what you (think you) know best, and leave the criticism to people who know their craft and are actually interested in improving the landscape. There is nothing constructive about your criticism.

Go and play with windows.

Re: photoshop overkill?
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:24 UTC

"Isn't Photoshop overkill for what you guys are doing? Good gravey, you can download free editors for any platform under the sun."

Well, let's say that Photoshop has about a dozen critical features that I'd have a hard time living without.

Its cropping tool is exemplary. Even though somewhat limited, its support for 16-bit per channel is better than just about any application, especially on the Mac. It supports Adobe RGB. It does a great job processing raw digital camera files. I can't live in the digital darkroom without the healing brush or without its curves/histogram controls. It does a great job at handling color profiles. Its various selection tools are quite amazing, as well as its layer and channels support. I pretty much need all of that. And I'm not even using third-party filters, which could increase one's dependency over photoshop a whole lot. It outputs really nice JPEGs.

So, no, so far I haven't found any cheaper alternative that really came close, especially on the Mac. On PC Picture Window Pro does OK, but by the time you factor in the extra cost of the various tools that come built-in with photoshop (e.g. Capture One DSLR) the price different shrinks quickly.

Installer problems
by scruff on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:31 UTC

>I've installed several instances of software that wouldn't install automatically
>and needed some files to be moved around by hand

Is this Apple's problem? Or the problem of the author of the application?

v BE OS?
by Steve on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:34 UTC
Installer problems
by Eugenia on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:36 UTC

>Is this Apple's problem? Or the problem of the author of the application?

Apple's, for not providing a well understood framework and not endorsing its developers to use installation techniques rather than simple compressed files or disk images.

Re: @All
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:40 UTC

I obviously did a very poor job at expressing what I think about Steve Jobs' presentation of Tiger yesterday. Maybe I should have written it in French.

I don't think that many of the features are as bad as some people think that I think they are (Please re-read that sentence) (Please re-read it again).

What I disliked is how Steve Jobs showed most of them as being "first time ever" features, or "total innovations", whereas a number of them are similar to things that have already been done in other places by other people (or sometimes by the same people, I'd suspect).

What I disliked is how Steve Jobs probably overhyped the capabilities of some of the new features (e.g. hoping that Adobe will re-write Photoshop to use Core Image makes a big assumption about the suitabilitity of Core Image for Photoshop).

Now, I do not have a definite answer about whether Apple has paid more attention to backward compatibility in 10.4 than they had in 10.3. I do not have a definite answer about whether they paid attention to the people who want to be able to use the exact same keyboard and mouse on all their machines. I do not have a definite answer about whether they've improved the way scanner drivers get installed/uninstalled. I do not have a definite answer about whether they've improved their support for firewire CD drives. I do not have a definite answer about whether they've improved paper handling when printing. I do not have any definite answer to any of those questions. It's probably too early for ranybody to know the answers to all of those, and the people who know the answers to some of those probably can't tell (and it wouldn't do me a whole lot of good it they did, as none of those will be available for 6 months anyway).

As a user almost satisfied with MacOS 10.3, what I'd like to hear is "we're going to release a 10.3.X version where we have fixed 90% of the issues that have been reported to us, where hardware support has been expanded, where backward compatibility has been improved".

Re: JBQ (IP: 12.25.200.---)
by drsmithy on Wed 30th Jun 2004 01:47 UTC

What I disliked is how Steve Jobs showed most of them as being "first time ever" features, or "total innovations", whereas a number of them are similar to things that have already been done in other places by other people (or sometimes by the same people, I'd suspect).

Well, this is basically typical salesman behaviour to attract ignorant buyers. It happens everywhere, by everyone trying to sell stuff, and is almost always equally infuriating to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the technology in question.

When most salesmen start speaking, it's less stressful to just tune out, because even if they *are* deeply knowledgable about the topic at hand, they can't really express that, because they're aiming their sales pitch at the typical consumer, not the educated buyer.

They all do it to some degree. Steve is perhaps a bit more, ummm, "out there" than some others, but he's hardly the only one and, to be blunt, it's his *job* to sound like that.

v Then don't use a Mac, troll
by Tuck Chicken on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:02 UTC
v wtf?
by Rob on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:06 UTC
RE: Then don't use a Mac, troll
by Logic on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:07 UTC

Tuck chicken, you are a jerk and an ashame of the mac community. You obviously did not even read his comments where he explains a few things.

drsmithy and XP
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:11 UTC

drsmithy, you mean to tell me that Longhorn is based on the same kernel (core) that XP runs on today? If that's the case, then Wintel users will be in a bigger world of hurt. Sorry to hear that if it is the case.....NOT!

BTW, an earlier post did point out the transition from 68K to PPC. That was an extraordinary accomplishment and was an intermediary step before the real transition to OS X began. Also, I wouldn't brag to much on the fact that Redmond started their transition back in 1988. You see what the average wintel user is stuck with nowadays...security and virus problems out the ying yang. Time for a rewrite if you ask me but according to you, it won't be. Too bad for you.

One thing, to all those suckers that like to bash us so-called Mac fans or zealots. Since when does pointing out inaccuracies and refuting them with fact make us some kind of troll? Facts are facts. Get informed.

One last thing, JBQ, talking man to man. You should not have Eugenia posting for you. Doesn't look good.

RE: drsmithy and XP
by Eugenia on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:17 UTC

>You should not have Eugenia posting for you

And what exactly this means, £$%£$%£$%?
JBQ was writing about it last night, I saw that it was more than 3 paragraphs and I asked him if we could post it, and he said yes (I had not read it until this morning).

JBQ does not have access to the osnews database, as he is not an editor on this site, so he could not post it by himself anyway. You need to get your facts right.

RE: RE: Why?
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:34 UTC

"By Eugenia (IP: ---.osnews.com) - Posted on 2004-06-30 00:51:17

>Not impressed.

Probably you would be if you were more clueful over the things he has worked on over the years: from kernel development to games and graphics development."

Nope.

oh no!!!
by Hakime on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:36 UTC

Why are you (JBQ) are you fixing with this problem of Photoshop. Again there is no limitation of adressing the memory in Osx (the maximum memory which can be adresses depends wether it is a 32 bits or a 64 bits system). If Photoshop can not adress the need of memory that you need, ok,.... please as an engineer go and submit the problem to Adobe. Adobe decided this limitation of Photoshop, that's their problem. Not Apple's one.

And everyone can say whatever he wants about any system. But not like this, please, with two pages of personal attacks against Apple, Jobs, and everything about what Apple is doing. That's simply ridiculous.

If Spotlight (of course similar ideas exist since BeOs, but the implementation and the look and feel in osx seems different to me), Ichat, CoreImage/Video, etc...are not a breakthrough, ok that's your point of view, but is it a reason to be so negative in two pages of text????

And i really disagree about many of the statements that you have made. You simply generalize all the problems that you may have had with some devices or applications. That's simply not correct and not reflecting the image of an engineer. You talked about backward compatibility of windows, i disagree. Windows xp broke many applications, windows server 2003 broke many applications, windows xp SP2 seems to breake a lot of applications.
So what are talking about?

Your article just sounds like anti-Apple statement, with no valid arguments at all. It is not reflecting the reasonnable and balanced point of view that a software engineer should have. I am sorry!!!!

RE: What exactly this means...
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:44 UTC

It means, a so-called engineer, does not need someone else to post comments in his defense. That's what it means. I also think the author and this site has lost it's cred. Sort of like Thurrott, Dvorak, Enderle, and Ulanoff. Ignorant MS and PC lovers. JBQ and people like him get frozen out. Meaning, dismissed, ignored, not visited or read. FUD does that.

I would have to agree with some others here. Get off the Mac platform and stick with the PC. If you dare!

Responsibility for 3rd party applications.
by Jim Stead on Wed 30th Jun 2004 02:58 UTC

Apple is responsible for the engineering quality of third-party applications on mac os x in exactly the same way as Kodak is responsible for JBQ's pictures printed on Kodak film, Sony is responsible for Rush Limbaugh's statements played on a Walkman, and OS News is responsible for the comments of Apple aficionados to JBQ's piece.

Which is to say, it is not responsible. It is up to the author, whether she work on canvas or print or video or any other media, platform, or forum, to see to the quality of her own work.

Jim

Mr Cranky!
by DaveC on Wed 30th Jun 2004 03:00 UTC

Half of these comments seem to be that you expected the CEO not to give a sales pitch. Of course he does, and while he may be slicker than other CEOs at it, its exactly what you expect from a Keynote. Bear in mind if you want real technical information, there is the other 90% of WWDC.

Automator? Sure its limited, but it supports automation system wide, and is easy to use. Your criticism seems to utterly miss the purpose.
Spotlight - your criticism again misses one of the most important parts, which is a standard system wide way of enabling search in all content, not just file metadata. Its as if file metadata searching is the only bit Be had, so its the only bit thats acknowledged.

Core Image - criticising it for not being a professional Photoshop competitor for all applications is just absurd. Its about ubiquity of quality graphic effects, not competing with Photoshop for people that need to edit 500 MB images.

And half the counterings of Steves salesmanlike distortion are worse than the example allegedly countered. Calling security on app installs "a problem with multi-user support"? Blaming Apple for very Photoshop specific issues? Crowing about how windows xp can still run dos 6.2.2 apps, but ignoring macs still running many mid-80s apps in Classic?

It just seems like you are looking for problems as hard as you can, then drawing unwarranted conclusion (making your decision on whether to buy based on a sales pitch months in advance of release? When even waiting until the end of WWDC would give you much more info?). The issues here are as much emotional as technical, and "a Disgrunted users thoughts on Steve Jobs" would be a more honest title for the article as presented.

PS though the point about long user names for fast user switching support was a good one.

RE: Transition
by HappyGod on Wed 30th Jun 2004 03:18 UTC

>>I'm sorry, but the transition between windows 98 and >>windows 2000/XP is just not big. The only major things >>that changed were in the backend. New kernel, improved >>stability. No major changes in the GUI. Just a little >>bit of cleaning up. I mean, win2k was a nice update, but >>far from a revolution like dos->windows or macos9->>>macosx. I think you are seriously overestimating >>your "knowledge in the field".

Anonymous, you obviously have no idea as to the inherant differences between WindowsNT (NT/2000/XP/2003) and Windows9X (95/98/ME). These are VERY different operating systems, and your casual remark that "only" the backend has changed is a ridiculous comment to make.

The backend is the part of the operating system YOU WANT changed. If you ever have to support these operating systems, you will learn to appreciate this fact.

Do some study.

Re: Responsibility for 3rd party applications.
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 03:26 UTC

Actually, Apple as an OS vendor does have a responsibility in the quality of the final product. The quality of the underlying framework has a direct influence on the quality of the result.

About the photography example: the quality and characteristics of Kodak's products are directly involved in the final quality and characteristics of a print. A print from Kodak Max 800 on consumer paper in a Kodak 1-hour minilab has little chance of competing with a print on IlfoChrome from Fuji Velvia 50, all else being equal (i.e. exposures taken in identical conditions).

About the Walkman example: The quality of the power regulators, DAC and amplifiers has a direct influence over the quality of the output.

OSnews: The quality of the articles has a direct influence over the quality of the subsequent discussions (with my opinion article being a prime example)

Back to the computer world: the quality of a browser has a direct influence over the quality of the display. One of the keys to success in the browser world is the ability of the browser to render markup that deviates from the rules, or (to put it another way), the successful browsers are the ones that make it easier to write markup that works well enough.

So, in my opinion and experience, the quality of the operating system has a direct influence over the quality of the final product. If an operating system can't move data fast enough from/to the hard drive, the final quality of any app that needs fast IO will be lowered (if for some reason the IO architecture of MacOS only allowed writing 1MB of data per second, the quality of photoshop will be severely impaired as it will take 10 minutes to save any of my big pictures).

jbq, thanks for the accuracy
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 03:39 UTC

Nice to see some lowdown on apple by the powers that be. Thanks.

I regularly see lots of apple criticism being modded down, if not drowned out by the mac zealots.

As a long time apple and mac user (started on apple II+ in 81 and the mac in 84), I was a loyal customer until 1999. apple got my last dollars in 2003.

Before 1999, I only played with windows and dos based PCs on occasion in schools, at work, or at friends. I have since toyed with linux a bit but nothing beyond that.

I was also a longtime buyer of game consoles. Decided to finally try out a windows PC with my own money in 1999 using win98 for gaming. I found it to be about equal to the 8 series of mac os in reliability and stability. I was very impressed with software choices, hardware choices, and the prices. I learned to add my own upgrades….cheaply.

I then moved to a second pc with a dell laptop running win98 in 2000 and then win2k in 2001. it got upgraded to xp pro in the summer of 2003.

I moved my desktop pc to xp in the spring of 2002. win98 ran more efficiently from 99 to 2002 than the sad mac, bombed out os 8 and 9 that I was running on my mac. Bombs were so common that a save became the norm after any change to any file.

My last mac was purchased at the end of 1998. a g3 desktop that I continually upgraded with ram, new cpu, new voodoo and ati vid cards, each and every point release of the mac os, usb and firewire cards, and scsi additions.

As I went step by step with these upgrades on a pc and a mac simultaneously with both the os, software, and hardware, I grew disillusioned with apple and third parties that produce products for the mac. I got to see what both offered at the same time and apple lost handily.

Upgrades for the mac in hardware came slower. They cost more, even from companies like ati that made nearly identical products for both platforms. Many times upgrades were simply not made for the mac.

My mac model was to be fully supported with os x. it was not. Apple was sued and they settled and are now giving money back to users that had been lied to. Dvd playback with hardware decoder in my mac…nope. Quartz extreme even with a 32mb ati nexus 128, nope.

Meanwhile I watched as on the pc side, pcs sped ahead of apple in bus speeds, cpu speeds, ram speeds, video card choice and power, etc etc etc.

I started with the os x beta and did each upgrade at every point release of x up to 10.2.8. I can testify to the nightmare of printer support in early os x. I can testify to the near non existent support of scsi in early os x (this after mac users had invested huge sums in scsi for as long as anyone can remember), I can testify to the constant broken drivers and apps at each point release of the in my opinion still fully beta os x right through my last gasp at 10.2.8. 10.3 was not officially supported on my mac and I gave it away. It and every book, every piece of software, every mac only peripheral all went to a mac using friend. Same friend and many others (not the 18-22 yr old newbie mac user that got one to go to college and has no reference points) all can testify to these os x nightmares. Many of them have downgraded to early versions of os x when they got fed up with the trials of moving forward with apples 4 yr public yet retail beta plan that costs about $129 annually to participate in.

Os x was neat. It was novel. I at one level thoroughly enjoyed checking out the new kid on the block. But the bottom line is I would have much preferred it remain much more like the classic os, but with the supposed added stability of unix. The new file system I appreciated as it was more explorer like. Massive eye candy that made it run turtle slow even on the best hardware was not appreciated. Having to buy third party apps to make it more like os 8 or 9 (asm or fruit menu) or to turn off eye candy was not appreciated.

Meanwhile I have now been on xp pro for about 2.5 years and it is utterly reliable. It was cheap and remains so. everything I throw at it runs hardware wise….even initio scsi cards made for mac.

Yes I upgrade the os constantly. Yes I am vigilant about security. Yes, by doing so I have not been taken by any garbage that floats around the internet.

Apples prices stink. Their choices stink. Their office suite, appleworks is a dinosaur. Their repair permissions after any work on the machine is ridiculous. Their delays in product releases are wearisome. Their over glorification of simplistic apps for simple consumers (ilife apps) is boring. Their outsourcing of manufacturing has lost them the edge in hardware quality that they owned for as long as I can remember.

Apple died in the mid 90’s and we are just looking at a ghost now.

The fact remains that over 75% of all macs sold still run slow g4 cpus with slow ram and slow system busses with ridiculously underpowered video cards and they cost a fortune because some marketing genius has convinced a few million people in the richest countries that a pretty case and a flashy os is all that matters in computing now.

Apple is tired and is running out of breath. Who in their right mind would pay $2200 for a 20” imac with a 1.25ghz g4 and 167mhz system bus? Its so unbelievable I think I need to wake up.

we could go on all night, but its not needed. the zealots believe. the rest of us are switching from mac to pc at about 1% annually. the new simply dont even consider mac in any appreciable numbers.

the game is over.

Goes Both Ways
by Matt on Wed 30th Jun 2004 03:55 UTC

It's not that you critizied Macs and OS X it's the way you went about it. Like you have some kind of vendetta against Apple. Would it of hurt to be more professional about it or was that asking to much. I had only used PC's my whole life and still do until recently when I wanted to check out OS X so I bought an iBook. I do enjoy it but it takes getting use to coming from the Windows world. It seems your biggest gripe with OS X is that it's not Windows. If you want Windows then use Windows or use both like I do depending on the kind of task I need to do. I could go through Windows and nit-pick flaws just like you did. One that pops to mind is the hideous performance of the add/remove programs applet in the control panel. There are plenty more. What do you have to say about that? I'm not a Mac Zealot but I am a Mac User and a PC User and critizism is fine but I have to say your attitude sucks. You don't seem like a very plesent person to be around. So Grow Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS - Yes Macs are over-priced and over-hyped but so is a BMW, Mercedes, or a Lexus but it still doesn't mean they aren't very good products. And yes Jobs can be annoying sometimes but he is just passionate about what he does, that's all.

Re: @DaveC
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 03:56 UTC

"Half of these comments seem to be that you expected the CEO not to give a sales pitch. Of course he does, and while he may be slicker than other CEOs at it, its exactly what you expect from a Keynote."

Let's say that I have a deep disdain for liars. The features are cool, interesting, and it's innovative to see such features move from either the lab or from niche/fringe competitors into the mainstream. But, honestly, listening to Steve Jobs' speech reminded me of Al Gore saying that he had invented the Internet. Everybody applauses but those who know a bit about the subject wonder how much they can trust the rest of the speech.

"Spotlight - your criticism again misses one of the most important parts, which is a standard system wide way of enabling search in all content, not just file metadata. Its as if file metadata searching is the only bit Be had, so its the only bit thats acknowledged."

Let's say that for both Spotlight and BeOS queries to work, the applications must provide indexable data for the search engine to feed on. In BeOS this was done by adding arbitrary meta-data to files, whereas it seems that Spotlight is using a different approach (I'd guess, some sort of API/plugin system that allows the indexer to get a list of keywords for a given file) (I have to make a few assumptions here about the way Spotlight works). We'll see how the two systems compare (e.g. how Spotlight manages to distinguish between songs written by a certain person against songs sung by that person).

"Core Image - criticising it for not being a professional Photoshop competitor for all applications is just absurd."

It's not if you hear what Steve Jobs said about it. Had Steve Jobs said that Core Image was going to solve the imaging issues of 98% of the applications out there instead of implying that this would be capable of supporting the specific needs of Photoshop, I wouldn't have any complaint about the presentation (because the feature is really really neat, both from an end-user and from a technical point of view).

"Calling security on app installs "a problem with multi-user support"?"

I don't think that I mentioned anything about the security on app installs (though I did notice a certain level of confusion between app installs that would be private to a user vs the ones that would be shared by all users. My problems with multi-user support are e.g. the fact that The driver for my Epson 3200 scanner can't seem to remember that Photoshop CS supports 16-bit images when I use it, whereas it does when Eugenia does. Or how Eugenia can register certain applications but I can't. I'm fine having the system request an admin password when installing things that can affect all users. That's a normal sign of a healthy multi-user system. I'm not fine having the system prevent regular users from doing certain actions that would have absolutely no impact on other users.

"Crowing about how windows xp can still run dos 6.2.2 apps, but ignoring macs still running many mid-80s apps in Classic?"

[sarcasm] well, I guess that I need to start looking for classic versions of all the apps that I use, because 10.3 might have preserved compatibility with those when it broke compatibility with the many 10.2 apps that I had. Windows XP can run certain DOS apps, but more importantly it can run the immense majority of Win2000 and Win98 apps.

"Bear in mind if you want real technical information, there is the other 90% of WWDC."

I didn't have the time nor the money to attend those.

"a Disgrunted users thoughts on Steve Jobs" would be a more honest title for the article as presented.

If you want to see it that way, yes. I was too tired yesterday and should not have written in the body of the articles the list of the issues I had (or had had) with 10.3. I just knew that if I didn't somebody would ask, so I wrote them as a misjudged pre-emptive move. Maybe I would want to call it "A user's thoughts about how much Apple seems to take care of their users' basic needs".

RE: Thanks for the stupidity
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:03 UTC

Let's see. Have you tried running OS X on newer model Mac. No. Case closed. Everyone knows that trying to run OS X on an usupported machine doesn't always work. It may, but there are no guarantees, especially with an upgraded CPU card stuck in it. Oh, and BTW, there is such a thing called a G5. Get up to date. Panther runs just fine on my nearly 4 year old iMac 450 with a G3 CPU. It runs great on my 1 yr old 12" PowerBook. OS X IS UNIX and AAPL stock is doing quite well lately. Not bad for a ghost. You should be commended on your attempt at spreading FUD though. From your comments, we should all be able to run XP on a 486. Doh!!

Re: TechieDude (IP: ---.clspco.adelphia.net)
by drsmithy on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:03 UTC

drsmithy, you mean to tell me that Longhorn is based on the same kernel (core) that XP runs on today?

Yes. Well, I've certainly not read anything (credible) to suggest otherwise.

If that's the case, then Wintel users will be in a bigger world of hurt.

Why ? The NT kernel is an excellent piece of work.

BTW, an earlier post did point out the transition from 68K to PPC. That was an extraordinary accomplishment and was an intermediary step before the real transition to OS X began.

It wasn't an "intermediate step", it was a completely independent operation that happened because the 68k platform ran out of steam - "OS X", as anything more than a faint whiff of vapourware, didn't even exist. Apple were damn lucky not to have to do it again when Motorola dropped the ball with the G4, too, although they would have been in an infinitely better position to do it with OS X than they were with MacOS Classic.

The 68k -> PPC transition is actually a good comparison of how to do it "right" and compares well with the DOS -> Windows -> NT transitions, which were similarly smooth. While it was incredibly ugly from an underlying technology perspective (practically the entire OS was running via VMWare-esque hardware emulation in the early days, and even as late as MacOS 9 some parts of the OS were still 68k code running under emulation) about the only major user-visible impact was the atrocious performance of the "new" PPC machines compared to the "old" 68k machines.

Some of us speculate the reason it was so transparent was because Steve Jobs had nothing at all to do with it. Steve's contempt for his customers with regards to legacy support (really, for anything related to not doing it "his way") is always apparent.

Also, I wouldn't brag to much on the fact that Redmond started their transition back in 1988.

Uh, it's not bragging, it's stating a fact - and the transition didn't really start in anger until NT4 (ca. 1996) and wasn't really viable for the consumer market until XP.

Of course, Microsoft had much more reason to do it earlier - DOS wasn't exactly cutting edge, and early versions of Windows weren't particularly flash either.

You see what the average wintel user is stuck with nowadays...security and virus problems out the ying yang.

Largely to do with users doing silly things and the marketshare of the platform.

Time for a rewrite if you ask me but according to you, it won't be. Too bad for you.

No need for a rewrite whatsoever. The fundamental design and architecture is excellent, most (OS-related) problems come from poorly chosen default settings (eg: lots of open network services by default) and/or legacy support sacrifices (most of the Win32 and DOS APIs). These are easy to fix from a technical point of view, they just break a lot of existing stuff - something Microsoft is loathe to do (and Apple, at least under Steve, happy to do). *That* is why Longhorn is such a big deal, because so much legacy support is being thrown away.

One thing, to all those suckers that like to bash us so-called Mac fans or zealots. Since when does pointing out inaccuracies and refuting them with fact make us some kind of troll? Facts are facts. Get informed.

I am quite informed, thanks very much. And the Mac zealot dribble in this discussion - what little of it isn't simply ad hominem attacks - is mostly *un*informed and far from factual as is the hallmark of Mac zealots who know of little outside the Apple/Steve Jobs RDF.

Reading JBQ's comments I found myself mostly nodding. With regards to Steve Jobs, he is simply another showman with a sales pitch and a convenient memory. With regards to OS X they are similar sorts of gripes that I have with it.

OS X is a nice OS, I quite like it and my shiney new iBook is great. However, it's far from the holy grail and it still has many flaws. It's primary security advantage is its obscurity.

RE: Thanks for the stupidity
by Eugenia on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:05 UTC

>Have you tried running OS X on newer model Mac.

A 1 year old dual G4 1.25 GHz is far from being "old".

Re: Photoshop
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:13 UTC

"Why are you (JBQ) are you fixing with this problem of Photoshop."

Because that's what I bought a Mac for. That's the only application I care about on the Mac, I do everything else on my IBM laptop. I bought a 2GB Mac with a ton of hard-drive space for the explicit purpose of running photoshop and driving my scanners and printers. I bought a 10.2-compatible USB2 card for that explicit purpose (doesn't work with 10.3). I bought a firewire DVD burner for that explicit purpose (doesn't work with 10.3 either). All the issues I've had with my Mac were all related to my desire to run Photoshop, use a mouse and a keyboard, scan and print. Nothing else.

Speaking of Photoshop, I finally found a way to make it use more than 880MB of RAM. After triple-checking the settings to make sure that, yes, I had told photoshop to use 100% of the available space to no avail, I decided to delete all of Photoshop's settings files, and boom when I launched photoshop again it was able to use a more reasonable amount of RAM (1.72GB, i.e. 86% of my memory). I'm happy ;) Turns out that the issue may or may not have been a MacOS issue. I probably will never know.

RE: Thanks for the stupidity
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:15 UTC

Eugenia, my comment was directed at the person using a 1998 model Mac and complaining that it didn't work like a 2004 Mac. Clearly unreasonable expectations.

hardly
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:16 UTC

"Let's see. Have you tried running OS X on newer model Mac. No. Case closed. Everyone knows that trying to run OS X on an usupported machine doesn't always work. It may, but there are no guarantees, especially with an upgraded CPU card stuck in it. Oh, and BTW, there is such a thing called a G5. Get up to date. Panther runs just fine on my nearly 4 year old iMac 450 with a G3 CPU. It runs great on my 1 yr old 12" PowerBook. OS X IS UNIX and AAPL stock is doing quite well lately. Not bad for a ghost. You should be commended on your attempt at spreading FUD though. From your comments, we should all be able to run XP on a 486. Doh!!"

no not case closed. my mac was officially supported through 10.2.8. it had the same issues with all third party stuff removed and in its stock configuration.

as a mac user with many mac friends i saw the same results over and over on each of the new generations of mac over the years during apples 4 yr beta tryout.

bouncing icons and spinning beachballs still dance before my eyes even on current macs. its not a gui, its a gooey molasses.

no fud here, just long time experienced users trials and tribulations.

let tiger fix the problems and see apple lop off about 33% of their price and i would buy mac again. but we all know they cant do it or they wouldnt come close to that paltry return they get on $6 billion in annual sales.

Windows Upgrades
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:18 UTC

What is this about Windows being compatiable with previos versions. When I upgraded to XP my CD Buring Software no longer worked and the company that made it (Philips) never released an update so I had to buy Nero. Also my all-in-one printer didn't print correctly with the Windows 2000 version of the software which they (Canon) acknowleged but they did eventually release an update a long time after XP had been out.

RE: Thanks for the stupidity
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:18 UTC

Eugenia, The guy running OS X on Old HW.

clearly unreasonable?
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:21 UTC

"Eugenia, my comment was directed at the person using a 1998 model Mac and complaining that it didn't work like a 2004 Mac. Clearly unreasonable expectations."

utterly unreasonable is the expectation that mac users have to buy brand new macs and only $2000 + dual g5 models to get decent results out of their investment.

or that they have to pay $129 annually to fix major problems in the os.

you clearly still have the upgrade hook in your mouth.

RE: Hardly
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:26 UTC

I support close to 400 Macs ranging from iMac G3 to Xserves and do not seeing many spinning wheels of death. The ones that I see are mostly network related. I'm not saying OS X is perfect but your experience is definitely not the norm.

Older Mac
by Matt on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:30 UTC

I have a PowerMac 8500 with a 375 MHz G3, 160 MB of RAM, & 16 MB VRAM with 10.2.8 by way of Xpostfacto and it runs just fine. Of course I don't do video editing on it but for surfing the internet or just playing around with UNIX it is great. The floppy drive doesn't work in OS X but the zip, cd burner, USB card, ethenet, sound, ABD all work fine and anything I plug into the USB port works. Amazingly it just gets faster with every OS update and Panther flies but I will wait for Xpostfacto to go final b/c it has bugs. I don't think you can say Windows Updates keep getting faster on older hardware now can you?

RE: Clearly Unreasonable
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:31 UTC

You probably missed the fact that I run Panther on a close to 4 year old iMac. Less than 200 (Extra Ram) not 2000+. Thank you.

Re: JBQ is a mad ENGINEER. Oooh!
by Doug Trickey on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:33 UTC

Oh, please! Don't take your ball and go home!

Tell ya what, we'll ALL convert to Windows just. for. you.

Doug

uh huh
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:33 UTC

thats why apple themselves will not trot out any performance benchmarks for the g4. the cpu in 75% of all macs sold. they can only promote the g5.

thats why apple themselves (jobs) have openly discussed gui performance issues and how first jag and than panther were to solve all of it. its way better, but the gui is still slow.

as an experienced mac user and avid online member of many mac related tech sites, i can read reams of data by other mac users complaining about the same issues.

RE: uh huh
by TechieDude on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:40 UTC

Anonymous....doing a good job trolling. Anyway, this thing has definitely degenrated and in the meantime JBQ got his Photoshop to access the the gobs of memory that he needed.

Resizing
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:42 UTC

The only thing about the GUI that is still slow in OS X is windows resizing. Hopefully that will be fixed with CoreImage /Video or whatever it is called. Everything else is just as speedy as Windows.

G4
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 04:49 UTC

Why would Apple trot the performace of the G4 even if it is in 75% of the machines sold. Do Dell, HP, IBM, or anybody else trot the processors of their low-end, mid-range computers which are the vast majority of their computers sold. It's not like those machines are running AMD64's or anything. A lot are running Celerons. Get a clue!!!

so fine
by keath on Wed 30th Jun 2004 05:01 UTC

I read this article earlier today.

I wasn't upset by the fact that someone who claims to use OS X isn't happy with it. There's always room for improvement, and objective criticism is fair and healthy. It wasn't encouraging though that the author states bias against Apple right up front.

But still, you have invested in expensive third party hardware that isn't well supported by it's manufacturer on Mac OS X. I can understand the disappointment. But to say Apple has to fix that situation? The fact that you recognize at the end of your article that others will criticize that point of view does not negate our objection.

When Canon finally offered an OS X driver for a legacy scanner I owned it turned out to be written in Java, which does have a crappier, non-standard appearance on OS X. I realized Canon had done it 'on the cheap'. It worked, but was somewhat of a disappointment.

That's not something Apple has to fix. Apple's customers will reward the developers who produce better quality products for our platform. (The weird thing about that Java driver was that I know it wasn't distributed for Windows, so how great could the savings have been? It wasn't code shared with a much larger base. The could have hacked up a basic GUI in Cocoa easily).

I can only imagine your driver was similiar, because to say the windows in OS X are unstable, or leave artifacts all over the screen is to turn the truth on it's head. I use Windows 2000 Professional every day, and watch windows updated and draw themselves piece by piece. (But seeing that that horribly pixelated and amateurish Windows splash screen everyday, proclaiming 'Professional', does make me smile.)

The windows on the Mac are of a completely different feel. Completely solid and real.

"Go back to Windows"
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 05:04 UTC

Let me make a few things clear. I don't really want to go back to Windows. MacOS is almost there for me, at least as far as running Photoshop is concerned. I'd like it to "just work", but using MacOS for me proves to be a stressful exercise in avoiding a number of bugs. It's very possible that if I used it professionally all day every day avoiding those issues would become second nature and the flow of the odd alert boxes and other issues would probably become intuitive. Right now I only use it "a few hours a week" (as opposed to probably more than half my waking time on Windows) and that is not enough for all the quirks to become intuitive.

Plus I don't really have the choice of "going back to Windows" anyway, at least not without some significant investment since none of the PCs we have at home comes even close to the Mac in terms of CPU power, RAM or HD space. And I don't have a copy of Photoshop CS for Windows.

I was irritated by Steve Jobs' overhyped presentation of Tiger (at least I perceived it that way), and I was annoyed by the feeling I had that Tiger was another feature-heavy release, as opposed to one that would pay much attention to compatibility issues or bug fixes that have been nagging me since almost day 1 on the Mac (let's say "day 1 of serious work", i.e. the point in time where we wiped the hard drives and installed the then-freshly-released 10.3).

With what I've read and learnt today (and with the miraculous change in Photoshop's memory behavior) I would probably have enough material to re-write parts of my original opinion in a way that would reflect the reality better. Oh well, such is life...

That being said, I'm gonna stop reading this thread for now.

As a last note, I've been contacted by somebody at Apple. So far there hasn't really been any exchange, but if I can I'll try to find an opportunity to show them in person what my problems are.

Re: @keath
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 05:12 UTC

One last reply...

"That's not something Apple has to fix."

Actually, this is something that Apple could seriously improve. Have you used multiple scanners drivers on MacOS ? 90% of what the drivers do is common to all drivers, and only 10% is readdy hardware-specific (I made those numbers up). Preview, cropping, histogram, B&W/color, positive/negative, transparency/reflective selection, 8/16 bit, color correction, preview, zoom, scan, all that is the same in all drivers.

Apple could very well write a reasonably generic version of those, and only require from the hardware vendors that they write the parts that are really hardware-specific.

"The windows on the Mac are of a completely different feel. Completely solid and real."

And sometimes brainless. The interaction of Photoshop, various scanner drivers, Exposé and the Dock sometimes looks like a Charlie Chaplin movie. Probably very fun to watch, but definitely frustrating to use - and I still haven't understood the logic that rules window activation on MacOS.

Here we go!!!
by Hakime on Wed 30th Jun 2004 05:26 UTC

Ok so you (JBQ) bought a USB2 card, a dvd burner, .... and it did not wok with panther. Ok, that was an issue, but should we generalise your experience to the all users of Photoshop. And i am sure that new drivers are available for 10.3.

But i feel that it is strange that someone like you could just update to a new os before to check any compatibility issues that can arise. I mean, for a USB 2 card and a dvd burner, that's low level divers. and you should have thought that a compatibility issue could appear, and you should have wait any information from the vendor of your devices.

That's just logic. There is nothing to complain. And don't tell me that this situation of incompatible drivers just exit on osx, windows has much more issues like this, and any os has this kind of "problem". That's the responsibility of the device vendor to react fast to provide compatible drivers for a new os release. That's the aim to give beta version for developpers.

And yes Apple is responsible of the quality of the applications that run on their os, that's why the WWDC exists. Apple is reponsible by providing the best APIs possible, and os technologies. After, that's the responsibility of the developer to use those APIs, and to respect the guidelines of Apple. Apple can not be behind the back of every developers coding on mac. And i don't think that all applications running on windows are perfect windows-citizen apps either......

And sure Adobe has still to make some effort to provide a better osx citizen applications. Application like Photoshop have been coded for the first time in a totally different os, and still those fundations are inside Photoshop. Photoshop is still far to use all the potential of osx. And i am glad that you could solve your problem of memory, it shows that your criticals on osx have been wrong......

By the way i find very ridiculous to say that for you, the mac is only for Photoshop, it seems that you don't really know the mac, you just follow some stupid anti-mac statements.

I tell it to you again, the article that you wrote has no sense, we are not stupid, and we don't have to believe everything you say , because it is written in big "An engineer's thouhts on MacOsX Tiger". I am developper myself, so please come up with some solid arguments, no only the usual trolling arguments found inside the forums of a pc web site.

And finally could say me why Apple products are underperforming, please?

So should i consider a PowerMac bi-G5 2.5 ghz, as a "underperforming" machine, or what? And you said that you are a Photoshop user, so you should know how those machines perform extremely well (and i am talking only about the bi-G5 2.0 hhz) against x86 machines.

So again a trolling statement!!! Nothing more.......

old warriors in a new world
by John on Wed 30th Jun 2004 06:19 UTC

I personally agree mostly with the author. I am a Mac-User since the day an SE 30 costed 4500 US-$ and I do my living with Macs...

It is interesting to see, how people get into platform wars and cannot "pull themselve out" at least some steps back to get a maybe better or at least distanced view...

As far as I can tell, I am not a software engineer, nor can I confirm most of the authors arguments but my own experience in the 5-part-transition with "plugged in equipment" not made by apple of X is enough that I want not spend the time to remember what made me scratch my head and costed me long nights to find a solution...

The real question for me is, where is Steve driving this platform to... Look at the cpu-theme, the speed race is over "they and we hit a wall"... The new G5 is a "pitch in the face" of any design at all. Why should I buy a computer, which is just a grey metal "minimalistic" box, where minimalistic refers to expandability (one optical drive, two hd-bays...) and big refers to a large (much larger than a quicksilver and less expandable) unhandy clunky box...

Hmm, the iPod and "the new culture" makes more money as all the computer-business alltogether.

I guess Apple missed the big chance to bring up something new with a new OS, new ideas... Maybe there is not enough young fresh openminded people and the "thinkers" are "the old brigade" like the ones behind Bush... old warriors in a new world they did not realize...

john

Re: Hakime (IP: ---.sys.hokudai.ac.jp)
by drsmithy on Wed 30th Jun 2004 06:21 UTC

And finally could say me why Apple products are underperforming, please?

Because for the machines most people are able to purchase, they are.

So should i consider a PowerMac bi-G5 2.5 ghz, as a "underperforming" machine, or what?

And here we go. Whenever someone questions the price/performance of Macs, suddenly the only machine that exists in Apple's lineup is the top end AU$5000+ monster that is well outside most people's budgets.

Not everyone buys a dual CPU G5. Indeed, very few people do. The ca. $2300 a 15" iMac costs here in Australia buys me a much more powerful PC than it does Mac.

@JBQ
by xnetzero on Wed 30th Jun 2004 06:34 UTC

>>Let's say that I have a deep disdain for liars.

This is what cracks me up the most about OSnews. Apple is demonized for trying to sell its products, but M$ isn't. The linux flavors that promise everything under the sun aren't as well. But Apple... Apple must be stoned 24 hours, 7 days a week (and no, I don't mean the popular term).

You should really go back and rethink the tone of your piece. It's the sole reason so many people are fired up-- but then again, I suspect the advertisers of OSnews appreciate the flamebait.

What?
by Hakime on Wed 30th Jun 2004 06:38 UTC

We are talking about power users, so power users think Powermac. And you talked about Photoshop,.....Photoshop is an application for pro users and it needs pro hardware.

Now ok, i am agree, Apple has to change his Imacs line, and to go to something else, rather than to use a all-in-one design. And sure even if Imacs are not as powerful with photoshop as a G5 machine, it still performs well for most task that everyone has to do. I don't think that they are underperformed, only if you read somewhere instead of using them.

And you said : "I think that their products are overhyped, overpriced and underperforming."

So it basically means that all apple machines are, and it is really not the case. You did not talked about Imacs.

Again anyone who has to use Photoshop in a pro enviromnment can buy a Powermac, which have a great performance/price ratio. Moreover Apple has a great laptop computers line.
Again you generalize, you go to the extreme position....

Great Article.
by Leslie Horewinkle on Wed 30th Jun 2004 06:54 UTC

I thought it was a good and informative article. A actually kept it open in a window while I read all the comments, in case I missed or forgot something.

Some of the new features are pretty cool to have, others I couldn't care less about. It is good to get an idea what they do and how they evolved, even if they are "innovated" from someone else...

As far as a great number of the posters here...

I was at work the other day, and we had a new temp guy working for us. He told me that he had been employed doing graphical work for the government, so I asked him if he had been using a Mac or an SGI workstation.

When he told me he used a Mac, I could see him visibly flinch... Then he started into a long defence of the platform and its benefits vs. windows. I told him that it was nice to use a Mac + OSX, and that windows must really suck for those that use it.

I was rather taken aback at his reaction to such a simple question, and how much of a party line he was reciting to me when I really didn't care one way or another. Rather strange all in all...

So I told him to just go ahead and finish doing the dishes, and we could talk computers later... Heh Heh
(true story, I kid you not!)

Re: xnetzero (IP: ---.dialup.bol.ucla.edu)
by drsmithy on Wed 30th Jun 2004 06:56 UTC

This is what cracks me up the most about OSnews. Apple is demonized for trying to sell its products, but M$ isn't.

Eh ? You must be reading a different OSNews to me, because pretty much *everything* Microsoft does gets demonised in the forums here, last I looked.

Put it up for sale.....
by DMann on Wed 30th Jun 2004 07:45 UTC

"Because I drank the Kool-aid, bought a Mac as an upgrade to my aging PC which started to really show its age when doing heavy image processing, being wrongfully led to believe that MacOS was the platform of choice for image processing and assuming that in this very small domain I'd get a superior experience.

My budget to buy new computers isn't infinite, sadly."

Put your G4 system up for sale on e-bay, with all that software installed, you ought to be able to afford a new G5 with the proceeds. Rendering will no longer be a problem, and when Adobe decides to improve their CS, you will be, may I say, a bit more content with a solid state-of-the-art system by comparison to xp's dismal spaghetti code failures. Windows user for over 12 years -- I would NEVER go back.

Re: @Hakime
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 08:06 UTC

I do have a PowerMac. I went for more RAM and hard drive space but slightly less CPU power when I got it, knowing in advance that not putting in enough RAM would be a mistake since I was planning for Photoshop. It's not a bad machine, but it's not a screamer, nor was it when I initially got it.

It would be more interesting to compare e.g. my dual-xeon at work to the current dual 2GHz G5 - the prices are roughly identical (the Mac is about 12% more expensive, not a huge difference) if you ignore the sweet software bundle that is available with the Dell.

None of the current Powermacs are bad machines. In my experience (limited to toying around in stores) they are not as superiorly fast as Apple would want people to believe. They are decent, but that's it. And really at the high end of the price scale. I know that it's an unfair comparison, but if I had to buy (build) a new PC I'd probably aim for a price point around half the price of those Macs or comparable Dells (i.e. $1500 instead of $3000).

I've toyed with iMacs and with similarly priced PCs. The perceived price/performance ratio wasn't as good for the iMac as it was for the PCs. That's purely subjective, though. I think that iMacs are the most overpriced of all, actually.

I'm disappointed with the quality of Eugenia's laptop, and specifically about the quality of the LCD and of the keyboard (knowing the quality of that specific panel made me chuckle during Steve's keynote). I can't see how to justify the price of that powerbook when compared to my corporate thinkpad.

I've said that a long time ago, I'll say it again, I'm really disappointed that Apple doesn't publish official SPECCPU results for their high-end machines. This would allow to compare the CPU/memory performance of those machines against a very wide array of configurations.

Re: @Dmann
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 08:14 UTC

I only did a very quick check, not some really serious shopping. There's no point selling the software with the G4 since I'll have to buy it all back for the G5.

A "small" G5 equipped with enough RAM and HD to be on par with my G4 would cost today almost double of what I bought the G4 for almost a year ago (I got a sweet deal on the G4 I have to admit). If you read one of my recent posts in this thread, this kind of money would also buy me a decent PC today, and that's probably what I'd be doing if I decided to invest that much money in new computer gear.

What I remember of Photoshop Elements (NOT Photoshop CS) on Windows XP is that it worked at least as well as CS on 10.3, if not better (scanning especially was a lot more pleasant, though this is as much because of the scanner driver as it is because of photoshop itself).

chill, every user has a right to gripe
by jewelskull on Wed 30th Jun 2004 08:20 UTC

Let's see, I am a computer engineer. In fact I remember teaching myself Pascal in THINK Pascal back in 1985 when I was in grade school. I've been coding ever since then, as well as using MacOS. So I guess I might have something valid to chime in on.

Personally, I've been a MacOS user all these years because I think they do the UI better than anyone else. I feel like I get placed first before gcc, AppKit and the Event Manager -- compared to the time I've spent in front of Windows and various Linux desktops. The OS and apps feel more seamless to me in MacOS. Even the image processing ones (I'm a big Illustrator user).

As for things such as Automator, Dashboard, Spotlight, etc, and if they are "brand new", yes they're not 100% original springing forth only from the collective mind of Apple. But the particular MacOS implementations, with all the particular MacOS features, are new. And hopefully easy to use and seamless as most the rest of MacOS.

As for taking from the past, consider spotlight in 1997. Yeah, I remember BeOS tackling the same problem. I also remember a few years earlier Copland having a similar search feature planned as well. Also, dynamic folders in the Finder that fetch results based upon a search expression. OpenDoc components in the Finder as well that did similar things for other data sources, such as email. Speaking of OpenDoc, it also had a rich meta data system for document content. Taligent's CommonPoint had something similar as well. I'm sure there have been others before. I know of a big one off hand: databases. And knowledge representation and ontology folks have been obsessed with this basic problem for years, back to at least the early 70's. The list goes on.

JBQ's review was more of an end user perspective, thinking in terms of end user features and griping about problems with the current OS itself or code running on it that perhaps the OS vendor could help fix. Which is all valid. However, as for the future, it is just one WWDC speech to base it all on. And it was a major keynote speech by the CEO of a large company. His job is to create excitement about a new product. Which he does. Of course this isn't some in-depth technical discussion. So I'll wait until I get more than a handful of screenshots and a couple of QuickTime movies.

v Core Image
by jtl on Wed 30th Jun 2004 08:21 UTC
Software patents
by Jonas Maebe on Wed 30th Jun 2004 08:50 UTC

I don't care about what you say about Apple's business or other practice, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you think patents

a) are intended to cover mere ideas or concepts (ideas are free, patents are for inventions). FWIW, this also goes for when Microsoft supposedly "steals" ideas from Apple: you simply cannot steal an idea, because ideas can't be someone's property.
b) would help the creators of Konfabulator in any way (how many software patents do you think Apple has that the Konfabulator guys infringe on? Apple could probably make those developers give their imaginary patent to Apple and additionally ask them to pay a fee for infringing on dozens of other Apple patents)

@JBQ
by JamesW on Wed 30th Jun 2004 09:58 UTC

What I do know is that under Windows XP with 1GB of RAM and no special code at all I can malloc() more than 1GB of RAM in a single chunk (1.1GB to be precise) - that's one line of code. Yet on MacOS a huge company like Adobe with all the experience and weight that they have can't manage to write code that allocates more than 880MB of memory for one of their flagship product.

Either you're trolling or I should apply for a job at Adobe with my mad OS X malloc skillz:

Weatherleys-Computer:~ james$ more mem.c
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <malloc/malloc.h>
#include <stdio.h>

const size_t TWO_GIGS = 2147483648;

int main()
{
char* jbq_is_teh_trool = malloc(TWO_GIGS);
printf("%pn", jbq_is_teh_trool);
size_t bytes = malloc_size(jbq_is_teh_trool);
printf("%un", bytes);
free(jbq_is_teh_trool);

return 0;
}
Weatherleys-Computer:~ james$ gcc -std=c99 -o mem mem.c
Weatherleys-Computer:~ james$ ./mem
0x2008000
2147483648
Weatherleys-Computer:~ james$

software developer, not engineer
by coldrain on Wed 30th Jun 2004 11:02 UTC

I still find it weird that software developers call themselves engineers. I call myself software developer, and I have great respect for engineers who build bridges and other amazing structures, build planes, cars and my lovely hi-fi system. Software developers who call themselves engineers always make me think of cleaning ladies being addressed as interior decorators or working in "domestic employment".

Or how the software business renamed itself to IT and then to ICT.

But that is just me, I find it funny that people have to find importance in their job title.

Now, to that silly rant of JBQ and photoshop. First of all, he acts like he has a problem with using large files in photoshop, when he doesn't. He can easly use over his stated 900 mb of memory. What he is looking at is NOT if photoshop can handle large images and then also edit them and have undo buffers available, but what amount of RAM photoshop uses while doing so.
He has NO problems using photoshop, just whining about the amount of actual RAM being used. He then goes on making out that you can not allocate more memory in MacOS X, and how easy it is to allocate 1 gig in Windows.
As a software developer/engineer it is NOT hard to find out how to do that on a Mac. Especially since your 10.3 comes with development tools. Guess what, it is as easy as it is in Windows, standard memory allocation in C/C++ (yes, you can write C/C++ programs for MacOS X... of course one can allocate large chunks of memory in Objective-C or other languages available for MacOS X too).

Since I think photoshop 5 photoshop has multiple undo buffers, and with it came Adobe's own memory management, with multiple selectable scratch disks and quite advanced layer and undo buffer management. It is Adobe's choice of when to unload buffers from memory to scratch disks, and it works basically the same in their Mac and Windows versions. Note also that a canon D10 does not make 900 MB sized images, so we are not talking about one chunk of memory here, but about a lots of chunks for filters, buffers, layers. You have NO control over when Windows (XP/2000/whatever) offloads to virual memory on disk, just like it is up to MacOS X to manage that.

I have no doubt that JBQ has written some very impressive software, which will make what i have worked on look pretty simple, but his critisizm of Apple for the behaviour of Photoshop (which behaviour has, I am sure, pretty sound software techinical reasons) does lack some insight in what Photoshop actually is doing. Try looking at the windows version and see what memory, RAM and virtual memory, it uses with a tool like taskinfo (which is a very neat tool to see how windows manages its memory).

I am sure memory management of MacOS X is different from WindowsXP/2000, but both work pretty well for most tasks. I have an iBook with 384mb of memory, and so I run into limitations of memory quite a bit faster than a mac with 2gig. I also use Windows computers at work (writing software).

On the issue of drivers, I have a Sony Digital Photo Printer UP-DP10. It came with a MacOS 9 printer driver. My Epson Stylus Color 880 (which is older) also came with a printer driver for MacOS 9. Epson made a MacOS X driver available for that printer, it is included with MacOS X itself actually. So did Epson for Windows XP. Sony on the other hand has NOT developed a MacOS X printer driver for my nice UP-DP10. They did however update the Windows version for XP.
You will not see me bitch about Apple in this, doing so would be very strange. It is Sony's politics, not Apple's.

As an ex-Be employee you of all people must know what it is to have some hardware manufacturers not write drivers for a certain OS. It was one of the things that prohibited BeOS to be a viable alternative to Windows for a wider user base. You can not blame Apple for the quality or lack of drivers written by 3rd parties. As Epson and Canon show, its not impossible to write good drivers for MacOS X. And I have seen a lot of crappy drivers for Windows too.
Don't say "Apple needs to send people over to Adobe to help them". Apple does help in a lot of ways, but Apple is not a huge company like Microsoft. They do not have infinite developers that they can send to every company that makes nice software! And yes, there are a LOT of companies writing software for MacOS X.

On the point of installers/uninstallers, there ARE installer products that come with uninstallers. It is TOTALLY upto the 3rd party software developer on how to distribute their software. On Windows there is NOT just one standard and perfect software installer/uninstaller. There are many products used, some crappy, some really good. A lot of Windows software comes without adequate uninstallers too. It is upto the 3rd party software developer to choose a better product, you do not see me write a big rant on how Microsoft is to blame for 3rd party software problems. You also should not blame Apple. If some products come with good unintallers, that should tell you something!

I am guessing everything BeOS ever was was totally innovative, No idea was derived from other ideas? HFS was innovative in its time. The use of metadata in System/MacOS was innovative in its time. Sherlock in OS 9 (or was it introduced in macOS 8.6?) was innovative in its time. Try indexing harddrives and searches in macos 9. Faster than anything I have seen, MUCH faster and MUCH more flexible than on the fastest Windows PC's, you can find anything.
I can not judge how good and fast BeOS was in finding files, I know MacOS 10.3 doesn't hold a candle to Sherlock on MacOS 9. I for one am impressed with what Tiger promisses with Spotlight, and that they keep HFS+ to keep things compatible and simple (and do not go the WinFS road like microsoft has been pursueing since WinNT4). And I am glad that an ex BE-Inc employee has found a job at Apple where he can work on what is his great passion, improving file systems and working with meta data.

And as a tip for JBQ: You should take a look at Photoretouch Pro 3. It is a lovely, if not perfect, application, and as photographer you will love some of the things that you can do with it, it gives great control over colour, for one. Not as a replacement for Photoshop, but as a very nice addition to what you will be able to do with your photo's. I for one am VERY impressed with it, even though I am only just starting to learn how to use it. And yes, it is for MacOS X.

v The 'idiot' genes descend the family tree...
by Anonymous Coward on Wed 30th Jun 2004 11:09 UTC
...
by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Jun 2004 11:16 UTC

I seriously don't understand how someone expressing his opinion can be attacked at the personal level. It's really too bad that I cannot really participate in this discussion, since I don't own a Mac.

But really, JBQ has every right to say what he said, and with everything he said, he was right. Why? Because they were opinions. And opinions are always right. When I say, "I hate Windows because feature X isn't implemented right.", then I am 100% right. I'm not right, though, when I say: "Windows sucks because feature X isn't implemented right.", becasue then I am generalizing.

JBQ expressed his very own gripes with Mac OS X, and therefore he is always right. You may have had different experiences, and therefore have different opinions, but that's no excuse for being rude.

Anyway, what disturbes me the most is this:
-I find the hardware support to be very poor. 10.3 doesn't have any kind of decent out-of-the-box support for my good Keytronic USB keyboard (it swaps some of the modifier keys), for my good Logitech USB mouse (it makes it several times slower than it is supposed to be). Finder doesn't burn to my external Sony firewire DVD-R. I can't print a full-page letter picture if I tell the OS that I'm printing on letter paper and I have to pretend that I have legal paper, which then causes quite some headaches when trying to center prints.

I have bought a special keyboard, costing me 50 Euros, and special Trackball, costing me 40 Euros. I have been tinkering with the idea of aqcuiring a Mac, but when I cannot use 90E worth of equipment.... That would stop me. Personally, I wouldn't like being forced into using a mouse...

I hated the article too :D
by Steviant on Wed 30th Jun 2004 11:41 UTC

Reading JBQ's explainations of his viewpoints, the origins of the story, and why the article was published in a form that seems fairly poorly edited, and taking into account that the editor of OS News is his main squeeze, my opinion of the article (and JBQ) has softened a lot.

Now, for the rest of you who keep trying to draw comparisons between Microsoft and Apple's OS transitions, here's my take on what parts of the OS are comparable.

The DOS to Windows 386 transition can be compared to Apple's transition to PowerPC from 68k because both events allowed the respective companies to take advantage of a new generation of hardware.

The Win16 (Windows 3.x) emulation layer in NT is the equivalent of Classic in OS X.

The Win32 API in NT and Win9x is the equivalent of Carbon in OS X, it was created with portability between NT and 9x in mind.

.Net is the equivalent of Cocoa in OS X. Created purely for the new OS with no legacy support, with rapid development, extensibility and portability paramount design considerations.

I'm sure someone will disagree, but I think it's inappropriate to (for example) compare Windows 95 <-> NT compatibility to non-carbon OS 9 <-> OS X compatibility since the Win32 API was created for the same purpose as Carbon. A more valid comparison would be to see how Win16 applications like Trumpet Winsock run in Windows NT.

Please people, think a little more about what you're really comparing.

Re:Hardly
by kev on Wed 30th Jun 2004 12:39 UTC

By Anonymous (IP: ---.chvlva.adelphia.net) - Posted on 2004-06-30 04:16:57
"they wouldnt come close to that paltry return they get on $6 billion in annual sales."

Other than Dell, PC vendors get a losing return on all their PC sales. (HP makes profits from printers and system services, and IBM from services and other stuff, not PC sales.) Somehow Dell and MS are the only ones making money. Now, do you think MS is somehow overcharging the PC vendors for their OS, who are forced to support it after they sell it....

steviant
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 12:56 UTC

".Net is the equivalent of Cocoa in OS X. Created purely for the new OS with no legacy support, with rapid development, extensibility and portability paramount design considerations."

no legacy support huh?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=262D25E3-F...

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows XP

Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 requires Service Pack 6a."

it of course also runs on windows 2003, but it came out late enough to include the .net framework.

v RE: @JBQ
by T.I.H. on Wed 30th Jun 2004 13:07 UTC
kev, repeat the lie and you believe?
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Jun 2004 13:13 UTC

please dont be so fast to spout the party line of only dell and apple make money.

"Other than Dell, PC vendors get a losing return on all their PC sales"

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2004/01/31/2003096938

acer is growing like gangbusters and is much more profitable than apple.

if you are unfamiliar with the market, do some research first.

and like what you mentioned, apple (like dell, sony, panasonic, toshiba, gateway, hp, sun, you name it) is much more than a "pc" maker.

apple sells music players, software, they have a large retail store operation, they have a large online store, they sell software, they sell third party products, they own several subsidiaries like Filemaker, they sell music, they sell subscription services, they have $4 billion dollars earning interest in banks and in short term investments.

bottom line is the $4 billion+ in cash should make them more money than what they have made over the last couple of years. since they haven't even made what they would get off simple interest on that large pile of money, you can actually surmise that all of their other operations lose money and reduce that baseline profit.

apple is losing money selling pcs too. and that is why they are branching out.

Opinions are always right?
by kev on Wed 30th Jun 2004 13:42 UTC

"But really, JBQ has every right to say what he said, and with everything he said, he was right. Why? Because they were opinions. And opinions are always right."

Well, in that case, then SJ has every right to say what he said in the keynote, because they were his opinions and opinions are always right. When he says Tiger is innovative or revolutionary, that is his opinion. When he says you get the very best, most capable OS with Mac, that is his opinion. So JBQ, don't call him a liar. (Even his comment about LCD panels, we don't know if just one time, an LCD company sold panels to other mfrs after Apple rejected them, so you can doubt it but you can't call him a liar.)

I went back and watched the stream last night. And note that regarding Tiger, everytime he said innovative, he added the words "for an operating system." I think he meant in comparison with Windows and Linux - mainstream OS. Steve knows that lots of these ideas have been tossed around before (by Apple and others) or implemented in fringe OSes or mainstream applications; but now it will be in a mainstream OS (before Windows or Linux).

And when he says "revolutionary", he means for the developers because the OS feature will add significant power to their applications and change the things they need to code. This is like memory management; when the OS took that over and developers no longer had to do it. How many times did SJ mention SDK? Just about after every item. SJ said that he wanted developers will take these tools and create something revolutionary for the end-user. That's why he's talking about it so far in advance. (It certainly seems that most of the items are already designed and coded, and would not need 7-12 months to optimize, test, and package. Of course, SJ could just be hiding that it just isn't ready!)

For the Adobe comment, SJ hopes that by using Core Image, they will be able to spend more time implementing significantly more powerful manipulations on top of Apple's basic set; not that Core Image does it all for them.

Maybe 98% of the world does think Macs are overpriced and overhyped. (SJ never says they are cheap.) But for the 2% (who keep buying Macs), the Mac system (Mac hardware combined with Mac software) provide an experience and productivity far greater than using a Windows and Linux system (HW and SW combo), and are worth the price. To each his own. (I use both but I love my Mac and tolerate my PC.)

But we certainly can have a civil discussion on specific merits (and demerits) of the architecture, quality, and capabilities of the three platforms, while allowing for human passion (which is generally good for us), and forgiving other feelings that arise in response to ignorance and generalizing.

So on the merits: 64-bit, Spotlight, Automator, Core Image/Video, iChatAV multi-conference, Dashboard per Expose, H.264, Safari RSS per Webkit, VoiceOver; Tiger will be the first to offer these capabilities system-wide via a "mainstream OS" when it is released next year. All of them can be built upon further by developers. Most likely, Windows/IE/IM and Linux (packaged-supported versions) won't have them built-in for at least another year.

The demerits: How well will any of these work on G4 Macs, if they work at all? And when will G5 Macs cost in the $800-1700 range so that most people can afford Macs that can really use Tiger? (I do want to note that I use 10.1.5 on a 1998 beige G3 desktop with 256K RAM and no other upgrades, alongside 10.3.3 on a G4 Powerbook, and XP on a Dell laptop. I find them all usable, but the Powerbook works best.)

each day !!!! a window user
by Marcel Jacques on Wed 30th Jun 2004 14:03 UTC

I could write such an article each day using my PC,s and the content would be different each day !!!!!
-)

.

An Engineer's Thoughts on Mac OS X Tiger
by Jase on Wed 30th Jun 2004 14:05 UTC

An 'easier to use than windows' version of Unix/Linux is not better than Windows <Version XXXX> ? ? Not in my experience.

You can't believe everything you read on the Internet though.

This piece has generated the predictable backlash...

Let's cut to the bottom line:

I use Mac's and PC's everyday.
I find the Mac easier to use / install / uninstall / upgrade
Tiger is very glitzy, obviously to attract consumers, but I'd happily trade speed & reliability for two 'major' Tiger features.
I've used various peripherals and software in Panther with no adverse side effects, and went about my day.
I do think the Finder needs a re-write though...
PS: It needs to be faster than OS 9 / Win / Linux ALL the time!!


regards Jase.

Repeat the lie
by kev on Wed 30th Jun 2004 14:20 UTC

"apple is losing money selling pcs too. and that is why they are branching out."

WRONG! Study Apple's financial statements and you will see they've made money selling Macs this past year (adding in proportionate R&D and SGA but not income taxes), even with the low number of units sold. The interest from cash is added onto that profit. The retail stores and iTMS barely make any profit. The iPod is added to that profit. And they do generate about $250m in revenues from third-party products (SGA applies to this).

And in my comment, I was referring to PC sales operations of primarily US vendors, so I had discounted Acer and Fujitsu, who focus mainly overseas, where pricing is different. My error in not being clear.

Comments from Gateway, Compaq, and even Dell make clear that PCs will yield very little profit per sale for them, as it is a commodity product requiring significant volume sales to cover SGA. For Gateway and Compaq, they quit, i.e., merged, in order to generate volume and/or focus on other sales channels and other lines of business. And even Dell which has volume, is looking for growth in printers and consumer electronics. I believe eMachines is profitable due to very low SGA but I haven't studied them much.

However, it is also true that in 2004, it is likely due to demand (and volume), all PC vendors will make money on PC sales.

I hope you didn't pay this guy
by Guy who shoots photos on Wed 30th Jun 2004 15:13 UTC

Being an engineer and all, I think you could have figured out a way to keep the camera still.

Where are the photos, then?

RE: Tranistion 98 to XP not a big change
by Brian Emenaker on Wed 30th Jun 2004 15:25 UTC

Dude, really, it is time to put the crack pipe down, and learn something about computers. If you are going to spout off in a tech forumn, you better damn well have a clue, which you obviously don't. You even said in your post, they changed the kernel and that isn't a big change. First off, that IS a big change, secondly, you don't understand OS architecture at ALL!! The only thing about XP and 98 that are the same, is the win32 API. EVERYTHING else is different. The difference between 98 and XP is almost as big as the difference from OS 9 to OS X. I suggest you take a few lessons in system architecture, and educate yourself before making post that contridict what you are saying yourself!!

I love it!
by deathshadow on Wed 30th Jun 2004 15:34 UTC

Right out of the gate his comments on Steve Jobs had me in hysterics. Funny Stuff there. I have never been impressed with Apple hardware, which has always had this rinky cheap plastic feel to it. Form molded thermoset resin does not impress me, never has. The construction techniques feel more like what I would expect from a $40-50 dollar inkjet printer than an actual computer.

The bit about him targeting M$ for not releasing a new OS in 'years' raised my hackles. You know for years people have been bitching that new versions have been coming out too close together. They finally get a stable mainstream version that nobody I know has issues using, and everyone complains there's not a new version coming out? Sure, whatever.

I also got a good chuckle out of his hardware issues. Lemme get this straight... He has problems getting a Keyboard and a Mouse, made for the Mac, to work... Right. When you cannot in this day and age make a keyboard or mouse port that is backwards compatable, or worse, an OS that has issues with them... Well, it does not inspire confidence in the programmers ability... And you know the programmers are gonna blame the hardware and the hardware folks will blame the programmers. I cannot think of a single PS/2 or even 5 pin keyboard I have ever had compatability issues with, the same with PS/2 or USB mice... Under Windows. Case in point I am on a Logitech Trackman Marble that is over ten years old (the old white-case non-wheel version) with a IBM keyboard from the PS/2 era. (You know, 5lbs, real microswitches, goes "Click" when you press a key) On a fairly new Barton 2500 box... No issues.

Ok, correction. I have a TWENTY YEAR OLD Mouse Systems serial optical mouse (the type that uses the shiny metal pad with red and blue stripes) that XP won't recognize out of the box... BFD.

The most laughs, or perhaps confusion comes from the "$129/199" for the upgrade to 10.4 - Lemme get this straight, this is a minor revision jump that are effectively bugfixes right? He owns 10.3, right? Windows update costs how much again? Jumping from 10.3 to 10.4 should be the same as installing a Windows Service Pack. The mere fact they charge for it is... a damn good reason NOT to buy a Mac. Microsoft tried charging for bugfixes everyone would be screaming bloody murder... but I forgot, Apple can do no wrong; An attitude I am becoming increasingly annoyed with.

Some of his complaints have fun responses.

-I find the hardware support to be very poor
Welcome to *nix

-serious glitches in the window management.
Welcome to *nix

-non-intuitive installs, and non-existent uninstalls.
Welcome to *nix

-non-existent keyboard shortcuts.
Welcome to Macintosh

I really want a good alternative to Windows XP that lets me do EVERYTHING I do in XP without spending hours dinking around with drivers... Unfortunately there is no such thing.

Stop bashing JBQ and Be
by harjTT on Wed 30th Jun 2004 15:53 UTC

The software engineers at Be Inc. were and in my opnion still seriously cool. There's no point bitching and moaning about JBQ is biased against Mac's etc as I'm sure as a software engineer he does knows what he's talking about.

Its also funny and nice to see some of the ideas that were in BeOS appearing in macOSX, curtesy of other ex Be Eng.s' Pavel(Tracker) and Dominic (BFS) BeOS for its time was a seriously nice OS - actually it still is !

HarjTT



No Wonder BEOS did not succeed.
by stingerman on Wed 30th Jun 2004 15:56 UTC

With an engineer like you it is no wonder that BEOS did not become the success it should have. Terrible writing, terrible analysis and you clearly hold a grudge against Apple. By the way, Core Image is FP.

RE: Of Slow Mice and Men
by Danny Daemon on Wed 30th Jun 2004 17:06 UTC

I think JBQ needs to find a nice Mac forum and ask some questions. Most of his rants sound like those of a Mac user in isolation, although some are just insane, like the statements about poor quality LCDs on PBs. I've seen many a PC laptop in person and to me, most of them in the PB price range look like dookie.

Anyhow these comments are what I expect from someone who has reluctantly "switched" based on some outside pressure and is about one week into the experiment.

Let's take the mouse issue. For free you can download this little doodad to speed it up. End of story:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/12205
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/12198

There's more too, I use some little hack on my iBook, and it's neither of those ("mouse zoom" I think it's called, ask Google).

As for keyboard shortcuts, please visit your system prefs and click on "Keyboard and Mouse". Then "Keyboard Shortcuts" and click "Turn on full Keyboard Access". That's really not THAT unintuitive, is it? Also note that you can view and define shortcuts on that same pref pane.

I'm not even going to touch Photoshop... Adobe sucks ass. On all platforms.

Eugenia
by nMz on Wed 30th Jun 2004 18:31 UTC

>You should not have Eugenia posting for you

And what exactly this means, £$%£$%£$%?
JBQ was writing about it last night, I saw that it was more than 3 paragraphs and I asked him if we could post it, and he said yes (I had not read it until this morning).

Maybe you should read through the articles published on your site better.
(Btw I love osnews! Keep up the good work!...but I don´t think this post had existed hid JBQ had´nt been a friend of yours)

@JBQ
by xnetzero on Wed 30th Jun 2004 18:51 UTC

Just re-read the new article and while I think you still get your main points across it comes off as being far more even keeled. Thanks for putting in the time and effort as it shows a commitment to your craft.

@deathshadow
by xnetzero on Wed 30th Jun 2004 18:53 UTC

I don't think you got anything straight.

v Your rewrite sucks harder
by Some guy who takes photos on Wed 30th Jun 2004 19:41 UTC
about the "paying for an upgrade" issue
by dr_gonzo on Wed 30th Jun 2004 20:20 UTC

you said you got free upgrades for the last 3 years from microsoft. afaik, these are just security updates and minor tweaks. these updates are comparable to updates 10.3.1 -> 10.3.4 which apple don't charge for.

microsoft, like apple, charge if you want to upgrade to a new release i.e windows 2000 -> windows XP

i don't mind it when someone doesn't like apple but when they make a false argument against apple it really annoys me. especially the "you have to pay for an upgrade" argument because it is made so many times!

Re: paying for an upgrade.
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 20:39 UTC

My problem is that lots of Mac software requires newer version fo MacOS. If you're not running at least 10.2 today, you'll start to have a hard time finding drivers for your brand new hardware or software.

In the comparison "how long ago can I have paid for my last upgrade and still be able to use any new hardware and software?", MacOS doesn't win. There start to be applications that claim to require 10.3 (I'm not sure whether they actually do, but they claim to).

Re: paying for an upgrade.
by dr_gonzo on Wed 30th Jun 2004 20:52 UTC

in the comparison "how long ago can I have paid for my last upgrade and still be able to use any new hardware and software?", MacOS doesn't win. There start to be applications that claim to require 10.3 (I'm not sure whether they actually do, but they claim to).


in fairness, if there are such apps out there then it's hardly apple's fault. afaik, it's to do with the version of gcc. when installing the dev tools, one can choose to install older versions of gcc to keep backwards compatibility. if a third party dev doesn't do this it's hardly apple's fault.

Re: paying for an upgrade.
by JBQ on Wed 30th Jun 2004 21:09 UTC

Well, Apple could make sure that the output of their recent development tools still works on older versions of the OS (e.g. by providing forward-compatibility libraries for older versions of the OS).

Yes, it's not all Apple's fault, and yes, a developer could very well be sneaky and purposedly write code that doesn't work on older versions of the OS despite all of Apple's efforts. On the other hand I'm quite confident that in many cases the incompatibilities are introduced "by accident" by the software developers, and it's possible that Apple might have been able to prevent some of those accidents.

Honestly, as a user, it averages over time down to "the same applications or the same hardware costs me more money to run on MacOS than on Windows because I'm required to pay for OS upgrades more often in order to be able to run the latest versions of the software".

A positive comment
by Ricky on Wed 30th Jun 2004 21:17 UTC

Just wanted to drop-in and encourage Jean-Baptiste Quéru to continue writing such informative articles about an OS I don't know much about; it is great to get the "straight dope" on it. Just ignore all the comments by the Apple cultists and keep reporting...

Re: Of Slow mice and men
by JBQ on Thu 1st Jul 2004 01:06 UTC

Eugenia and I had tried many "mouse acceleration" doodahs. Quite a lot didn't work at all on 10.3. When they did, most of them didn't actually change the mouse speed, they just steepened the acceleration curve (exactly the opposite of what I wanted, which was a decent unaccelerated speed with a gentle acceleration slope). After a few days Eugenia finally found one that did something close enough to what I wanted (though still doesn't quite feel as smooth as I'd like)

I've used MacOS for more than 6 months on a fairly regular (but light) basis. Definitely not a one-week thing. Still checking for a new version of the Epson 3200 scanner driver which hopefully will interact with Exposé a little better (and will remember that Photoshop supports 16-bit). No luck so far.

I promise you that the LCD on Eugenia's powerbook is really poor, and it's not a sample issue, we've seen the same thing on pretty much all samples in different stores.

The Keyboard settings panel is where I'd go look for settings about keymap and key repeat rate, but not about keyboard shortcuts. So I guess it wasn't that intuitive after all. (or maybe proves that Spotlight is really needed in the preference panels). I'll give it a try the next time I have a chance.

Re: Steviant (IP: ---.jet.net.nz)
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Jul 2004 01:41 UTC

The DOS to Windows 386 transition can be compared to Apple's transition to PowerPC from 68k because both events allowed the respective companies to take advantage of a new generation of hardware.

They are perhaps comparable in that sense, but in scale the Apple 68k -> PPC transition was much bigger and more complex. Apple's job in that comparison was much, much harder and they handled it admirably.

The Win16 (Windows 3.x) emulation layer in NT is the equivalent of Classic in OS X.

Again in broad concept but not in the (important) gritty details. Win16 on NT is handled by simple API translation, whereas Classic on OS X is almost a complete virtual machine (IIRC it even still has the 68k emulator in it).

The VM approach is technically better, but Apple have handled it poorly. The timeframe must also be taken into context - when Microsoft were trying to figure out how to support Win16 in NT, a 20Mhz 386 with 4MB of RAM was cutting edge, so the "emulate the entire old environment and machine" approach clearly wasn't a valid option. Apple have the advantage of machines more than capable of doing that.

The Win32 API in NT and Win9x is the equivalent of Carbon in OS X, it was created with portability between NT and 9x in mind.

Not really. Win32 was an extension of Win16, true, but it was created for NT to use as its primary API and wasn't meant to be solely a "transition tool", whereas pretty much the only reason for Carbon is to transition applications and developers from one environment to the next.

.Net is the equivalent of Cocoa in OS X. Created purely for the new OS with no legacy support, with rapid development, extensibility and portability paramount design considerations.

Again not really correct since .NET is available for the "legacy" platforms, whereas Cocoa is not.

Win32 is more like Cocoa in purpose, just created a lot earlier (because, as I said, Microsoft were doing this more than ten ago) and with more sacrifices towards supporting legacy platforms.

Win16 - or more accurately the Windows-on-Windows subsystem in NT - is more like Carbon, combined with OS X's Classic environment.

.NET is simply a new and improved version of Win32 in purpose - a newer, shinier API, just with less legacy baggage.

I'm sure someone will disagree, but I think it's inappropriate to (for example) compare Windows 95 <-> NT compatibility to non-carbon OS 9 <-> OS X compatibility since the Win32 API was created for the same purpose as Carbon.

I think it's highly appropriate. Win32 wasn't created solely as a transition tool like Carbon was, and the switch from DOS-based Windows to NT-based Windows is almost identical in scope and complexity as the change from MacOS Classic to OS X.

A more valid comparison would be to see how Win16 applications like Trumpet Winsock run in Windows NT.

That's not really fair. Trumpet Winsock is a very low level tool, not a regular application (and is made unnecessary by WoW anyway).

RE: @Deathshadow
by TechieDude on Thu 1st Jul 2004 16:46 UTC

A little instruction for the ignorant PC/MS losers. The numbering system on OS releases from Apple are not the same as Microsoft's. Point releases are major upgrades in OS X. For example, Jaguar version 10.2 didn't have the major features called Expose, FileVault, Fast User switching, etc.
Here's the breakdown:

OS X version 10.0 = Cheetah....updates 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, etc.
OS X version 10.1 = Puma...updates are 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, etc.
OS X version 10.2 = Jaguar.....updates 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, etc.
OS X version 10.3 = Panther...updates 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.3, etc.
OS X version 10.4 = Tiger...updates will be 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, etc.

Deathshadow et al. , please, stop making fools of yourselves. Apple's OS X will always be OS X v10.x. We could have version 10.10. Funny how numbers work. Oh, BTW, I'm a supposed Mac cultist. Forgive me for shedding some light on how Apple's OS numbering system works.

not so ignorant
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Jul 2004 18:20 UTC

yes we know apple calls its major point releases in essence a new os and therefore charges for it. the complaint is that it happens so often and costs so much. and that with such a rapidly moving target, hardware and software makers are stuck trying to figure out how to make their products the most compatible.

the end user is forced, if they want greatest reliability, to constantly upgrade both the os and all of their third party things....and they dont always happen at the same time. and it isnt cheap. just part of the price of working on mac.

this is a good read i found on the web:

"Price Comparison for Apple Mac OS X v. Microsoft Windows XP


Apple OS X History
Moving from classic Mac OS to the new OS X

09-13-00 Mac OS X Beta ships on cd only—cost of $29…no free download.
03-24-01 OS X Ships (doesn’t ship on new macs until July)—cost of $129
09-25-01 Mac OS X 10.1 released—cost free, but $20 to have Apple ship it (no download available to upgrade) and some Apple retailers gave the cds away free
End of 2001 10.1.2 ships—cost free
08-24-02 Mac OS X v10.2 (Jaguar) available—Cost of $129
02-14-03 Mac OS X 10.2.4 released—free
10-24-03 Mac OS X 10.3 ships—cost of $129 (only $20 for Mac users that have bought brand new G5 machines.)

Total for OS X if always upgrading to latest and greatest version:

Including beta in 37 months: $436
No beta, just retail in 31 months since March 2001: $407

(as an aside, since you have to have a Mac to install the Mac OS, buying the OS from Apple is always in essence an upgrade and not a full version being installed on a machine with no operating system as you can do on the PC side.)

Prices listed above are full retail and are controlled by Apple. Retailers are not allowed to sell but at a tiny percent less than the above prices or they lose the right to sell Apple products. Retailers do at times offer some other deals like a free t-shirt or other such goodies to sweeten the offer (Apple allows this).

I assume you can expect another update like 10.4 next year for $129.


Windows XP History

10-25-01: XP is released—cost, see prices below for Pro and Home versions.
09-09-02: Service Pack 1 released—cost free download.
02-03-03: Service Pack 1a released—cost free download.
Third Quarter of 2004: expected ship date for Service Pack 2—cost free.
Late 2005: expected ship date of next new OS with cost to upgrade—currently codenamed Longhorn. As both MS Windows Server and MS Office have gone down in price with their latest releases, I would expect the desktop OSes to do the same when they go gold master.

Weekly and monthly updates are released via download at no cost. These include security fixes and product compatibility fixes. Also includes updates to driver database, Direct X, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Netmeeting, Messenger, Windows Movie Maker, Power Toys, etc. etc.

Professional Version

Full Version cost is: $299 (only bought by the user building a PC from parts or from select vendors that sell barebones computers without an OS, another thing that can’t be done on the Mac side). All others would either get OS in a new PC or would buy upgrade models since they already own Windows. Can be bought online today for as little as $220.

Upgrade cost is: $199 (available today for as little as $178 via online order)

OEM Full License cost is available on the net today for: $130 (no support)

Full Volume License cost w/ media is: $97 online today.

Upgrade Volume License w/ media is: $65 online today.

Home Version

Full Verison cost is $199 (only bought by the user building a PC from parts or from select vendors that sell barebones computers without an OS, another thing that can’t be done on the Mac side) Can be bought online today for as little as $142.

Upgrade cost is $99 (available today for as little as $79 via online order)

OEM Full License cost is available on the net today for: $83 (no support)

MS resellers and retailers don’t have stringent price controls forced upon them and that is reflected in the heavily reduced prices off of retail.



Misc.

Note that MS gives you many choices based on need. The Pro version is usually only needed by a user with a client pc on a network with a server environment involved. All others short of “power users” can use the Home version of XP. Power users can buy an OEM version without support for radically lower prices if they are savvy enough to take care of their PC on their own.

All updates to XP and supporting applications that ship with the OS since release have been free. Two years of free service thus far and the next full upgrade with any cost is not expected until late-2005. Four years between paid upgrades!

I wonder how many Mac users don’t run the latest release of X because it simply costs too much to pay Apple what amounts to a yearly $129 subscription fee.

Windows XP users bought once and know that they will get free upgrades and enhancements for years to come until the next major release of a full OS. MS also clearly roadmaps its plans so that businesses, education, and concerned users can plot their future.

So not only do PCs cost less than Macs in hardware, but Microsoft sells Windows for less than what Apple sells the Mac OS…by a substantial amount.

* Both Microsoft and Apple offer discounts to non-profits, academic, government, and military buyers, but again MS discounts at a higher percentage."

RE: Not so ignorant
by TechieDude on Thu 1st Jul 2004 19:04 UTC

Well, you can use all kinds of twisted logic to come up with "XP" is cheaper than OS X. Fact is, if a Mac user who is still using OS 9 wants to get the latest and greatest, all they pay is $129. A Win98 user (and there are many) will still have to pay more. Those who were early adopters of OS X, like me, have paid more ($260, 10.0 and 10.3) but that's fine by me. I guess we pay for innovation. Other than security fixes and virus protection on XP, are there any innovations that have been introduced into the OS since it's release. You'll have to wait til 2006 for that I guess. Meanwhile, Steve is right. Watch the tail lights get smaller and smaller while you wait for XP2006.

no innovations?
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Jul 2004 21:01 UTC

what do you call the .net framework and its updates? (the third major version is now in public beta) free.

what do you call directx 9? free.

Windows Security Update CD. free, and includes a commercial antivirus and firewall solution. ( http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/cd/order.asp )

what do you call full support for usb 2.0? before apple. free.

all flavors of wireless including 802.11a? no support from apple. free.

full support of dvd burning with both the - and + standards. - support at same time as apple, + support before apple. free.

full support of agp 8x (before apple), pci-x (before apple), pci express (apple does not have support)?

full support of ddr2 memory? no support from apple. free.

full support of iSCSI. free.

new moviemaker? free.

Remote Desktop Connection Web Connection? free.

Tweakomatic Utility. free.

new version of msde sql server database for workstation use. free.

Windows XP Peer-to-Peer Software Development Kit. free.

windows xp fun packs? free.

windows xp themes, skins, screensavers, and desktop backgrounds. free.

major updates to the windows updating system. free.

Internet Information Services (IIS) Lockdown Tool 2.1. free.

ms baseline security analyzer. free.

Advanced Networking Pack. free.

Windows XP Language Interface Pack. free.

Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator (MSKLC) Version 1.3.4073. free.

major updates to activesync. free.

major udates to the jet database engine. free.

Windows Application Compatibility Toolkit 3.0. free.

Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 Manager for Windows XP. free.

major updates to windows media player. free.

major updates to windows media encoder. free.

updates to ms keyboard and mouse software. free.

windows journal viewer. free.

new versions of msn messenger and windows messenger? free.

windows xp powertoys. free.

windows plus! and plus! digital media edition. (parts of which are free downloads). newer iLife is not free unless you buy full os.

no innovation? so easy to overlook.

smart display windows xp.

media center windows xp.

tablet pc windows xp.

windows xp embedded.

windows server 2003 (either 32 or 64 bit).

two new version of windows ce pocket pc os.

ms office XP and 2003 (when did apple last release a new version of appleworks?)

outlook 2003 with business contact manager (contact manager that utilizes msde sql server database). free addition to outlook buyers.

one note 2003.

infopath 2003.

ms producer for powerpoint (free).

2.5 years later and you are still getting substantial upgrades to the os for free. all current technologies work with the older os with at additional charge. some of the other technologies dont relate to the os per se, but i mention them to point out ms' continuing endeavors. then again, the newest iLife isn't free either.

xp service pack 2 is due out within weeks and it too will be free.

to not see ms' innovation is to be blind to the obvious. or you are simply ignorant.

Re: not so ignorant
by JBQ on Fri 2nd Jul 2004 01:57 UTC

"A Win98 user (and there are many) will still have to pay more [than $129]."

Actually, WinXP Home OEM costs $69 (street price). For $129 you get XP and a good hard drive to install it on.

oh and lest we forget
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Jul 2004 02:27 UTC

os 10.3 came out oct '03

tiger will come out first half '05 (if it isnt delayed like the g5 and the new imacs http://news.com.com/Apple+delays+new+iMac/2100-1041_3-5255095.html?... )

so the os has averaged one upgrade per yr for about $130 per yr...going from 10.3 will slow that cycle to anywhere from 14 to 20 months depending on when tiger ships in the first half of '05. thats better for the folks tired of the constant payments to apple.

but again, talk about apples free parts of the os and we can go back to the good ole iTools....

ooops, thats not free anymore.

if you want the .mac functionality you now pay $100 per year.

apple is running a subscription service now.

os x upgrades $129/yr
.mac $100/yr

total to stay current on the mac is a modest $229 per yr.

forking that out, every three years, you would be able to buy a fairly decent PC on a 3 yr cycle for $700.

RE: Not so ignorant
by Techie Dude on Fri 2nd Jul 2004 15:07 UTC

OK. Whatever you say chief.

I still don't get where you (and Bill Gates) consider writing device drivers for technology developed by someone else as innovation. Looks like the hook is still in BIG time. Please remove.

Another thing is you make it seem like Mac users are forced to upgrade their OS or upgrade to .mac. There are approximate 25 Million Mac users according to recent figures. Only 12 million have moved so far to OS X and around 500,000 subscribed to .mac. There is no requirement to do either. I know a couple of folks that still use OS 9 for simple things like e-mail, internet, and word processing. They're a little older and not so techie, so it is understandable. In the meantime, you may as well wait til 2006 or 2007 for anything really new from MS.

P.S. Last post on this topic for me as I definitely cannot persuade a person that needs justification for their platform's stagnation by referencing FUD. Visit http://www.apple.com/macosx/ and http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger to get the scoop.

actually
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Jul 2004 16:06 UTC

"I know a couple of folks that still use OS 9 for simple things like e-mail, internet, and word processing."

most of the os 9 users i know are graphics pros that are not interested in upgrading because

--huge investments in scsi products wont work.

--huge investments in third party software wont work well or at all in the classic environment.

--education settings cant afford the cost of the migration.

but yeah, if half of all mac users are still cooking along on pre os x, that says it all about what they think of the newer os. with that in mind, dont tell me about all of the great new things in os x...and the additions that have occured with each paid release. using that old and tired logic of forcing people to do things is juvenile. we all know that no one is forced to do anything. so they continue on using os 9 and its 1984 quality and technology. or they bought os 10.04 or 10.1 and havent upgraded and cant use half the new features in os x because they cant afford to pay a subscription fee. what does innovation mean if few use it? or cant afford it?

back to the innovation, remember that apple makes the whole widget (but does of course license and borrow technology from others as well) whereas microsoft is but a part of the package when you go with a pc.

on the pc side, innovation comes from ms and:

intel
amd
sony
nvidia
ati
creative
media center pc makers
tablet pc makers
etc etc etc etc.............

ms doesnt have, or need, to do all of the innovation on its own. when you go with the pc side, you have more enterprises pushing the envelope and therefore get more innonvation for less cost.

Spotlight
by sam on Sun 4th Jul 2004 06:21 UTC

I think "Spotlight" is great and this is even bigger than the greater 64-bit support.

The way Tiger implement is very nice, I think it'll be very useful in all occasions. I'll pay for the upgrade just for this function.

by Anonymous on Sun 4th Jul 2004 23:00 UTC

This author is such a tit.

RE: Actually
by TechieDude on Mon 5th Jul 2004 03:55 UTC

Thank goodness MS is innovating. Ha!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?st...

Too bad for 95% of the PC world. Many institutions have geared their websites to be IE compatible and this means that many people are stuck playing Russian roulette (pun intended).

I guess we'll see what MS is really made of when it comes to OS's. Their soon to be released SP2 better fix things. If SP2 is crappy then don't expect "LateHorn" to have many buyers. Could be an opportunity for Apple Computer.

"Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings."