OS X 10.1 Coming Today (Sorta) 613
usa35.com writes "News.com has a story detailing the release of Apple's 10.1 update. They say "unveiled" today, probably meaning actually disseminated to us general public folks sometime in the coming days." This is of course the release that regular users can actually use. Supposedly this is a free upgrade. Speed improvements, UI fixes, DVD stuffs. I can't wait to test it out a little. And those new iBooks are pretty reasonably priced (I figure that they can sell them cheap by cutting corners like most of the mouse buttons ;)
This is what 10.0 should have been (Score:4, Informative)
Legacy Appletalk (Score:3, Informative)
Got it.... (Score:2, Informative)
Get an update (maybe) (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds crazy, but it's Apple so nothing is ever out of the question.
Macslash (Score:3, Informative)
Re:on x86 (Score:4, Informative)
It's the power and integration of the Macintosh hardware and software that makes OS X shine. Even if Apple chose to port the Whole Thing to x86, you would need a much more fortified PC than you would normally buy off the street.
Better than nothing, or maybe just do FreeBSD. Try www.darwinfo.org.
Links (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/ [apple.com]
Tom.
Re:Are office applications optimized for 10.X? (Score:2, Informative)
My assessment is that, if the application was built for UNIX or cocoa (Mac OS X/OpenStep/Objective C design), it will sing in OS X, especially with the OS X 10.1 optimizations. I'm sure Office v.X will enjoy much of these optimizations, but it's still Microsoft who produces it (although the Mac division does its best to ignore that, it seems).
Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Developer Tools (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? (Score:2, Informative)
Performance feels on par or better than the Asus A7V/Duron/700/Mandrake 8.0/KDE that sits next to it.
I had been holding off using Mac OS X as my everyday OS until now. 10.1 will go on my TiBook as soon as it's released.
Mozilla MP Compatibility With 10.1 (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps this could even mean an end to the dial-up disconnection woes, as those, too, were MP related. (For those of you blissfully unaware, MP machines with a dial-up modem connection had a tendency to randomly drop said connection.)
All in all, very good news, especially since Apple appears to have listened to its customers and will be making the upgrade free.
DVD FYI- Older Macs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speedups? (Score:3, Informative)
On my Wallstreet G3/300 with 256MB of RAM:
- slightly faster, but not drastically so.
- Launching IS much faster, but this is due to
two-level namespace linkage, not due to any
innate optimization.
- OpenGL still is not implemented for Rage Pro.
- Skyline/Lucent wireless cards still do not work.
Skyline is Farallon's fault, but the Lucent *SHOULD* work, since it worked under OS 9 without
any 3rd party drivers.
- Still cannot eject PCMCIA cards without shutting down. Though it no longer kernel panics when you
manually remove one.
- PCMCIA-based hard drives still are not recognized.
- Still won't play DVD. Apparently they don't support the hardware DVD decoder cards (this IS an officially supported machine...where's the official support?)
- The compiler is godawful slow. I took a project
that built in 58 seconds under OSX Server 1.2, and it takes over 5 minutes to build on OS X 10.1 (on a G4/400 with 1.5GB of RAM!)
- On the plus side, sleep FINALLY works. It used
to turn on the fan when I put the machine to sleep, which would promply drain my batteries dry.
10.1 is finally USABLE, but it's still not what I wonder consider great.
Official: update available for $0.00 at stores (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is what 10.0 should have been (Score:2, Informative)
Apple made it fairly clear that the early releases of MacOS X were only a few steps beyond beta. If Apple did not make that clear enough for you, reading *any* of the Mac-releated news sites should have.
I suppose that is one reason that MacOS 9 is still shipping on all of Apple's computers in addition to MacOS X.
Re:Java on OS X? (Score:3, Informative)
$ java -version
java version "1.3.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0, mixed mode)
So, a reasonably up-to-date version of Java ships with the OS. I'm guessing they'll send out updates with Java's minor releases, but not the micro releases.
The good news is, it's just BSD. So, if you want to upgrade it yourself, you can with a little work. I've yet to find a java app that doesn't run OK on it. I'm currently in the process of downloading Sun's Forte for Java IDE (shipping for Solaris), just to see if I can get that running ;)
--Mid
OS X info (Score:2, Informative)
"OS X 10.1 will be available in stores this Saturday and a free upgrade for 10.0.x owners will be available in stores at no charge. As expected you can also order a CD containing the update for $19.99."
Re:Download (Score:2, Informative)
Re:oh my dear lord (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is it faster? -- iBook? (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133
Well, it wasn't that slow.. but it was slow.
The reason is very simple.
The finder sucked and they didn't use the graphic acceleration of the videochip.
They rewrote the finder and turned on the grpahic acceleration of the videochip.
Last weekend we had a local MUG meeting in which Apple showed both an iBook and a G4 with MacOS 10.1.
The speed difference was quitte noticable.
The speed was equal to a Pentium III 1 Ghz with windows 2000.
So, it could be a little bit better but it was quitte acceptable.
Re:who's the Mac speed king, OSX or Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Speedups? (Score:1, Informative)
I haven't picked up 10.1 yet, but here's the rundown on a more 'reasonable' machine (to the non-Mac people: Wallstreets are the 'fat' black powerbook form factor, and are around 3-4 years old now.):
Apple Macintosh Powerbook Pismo (released in 2000, the Pismos are the last Powerbooks made in the black curvy form factor with the bronze keyboards).
G3 500Mhz
640MB RAM
AirPort card
various accouterments.
The only problem I've had with OS X is that I've gotten the occasional kernel panic when using my external VST FireWire drive, but after hunting down the problem, I'm fairly certain that that actually has to do with the way the FireWire stuff on the motherboard was duct taped on over the SCSI stuff from the previous model Powerbook (The Pismos are the first PB to have FireWire ports). However, I am unwilling to rule out that I've jarred something loose in the past year of owning this Powerbook because I am hopelessly brutal to it.
From reading the beta test reviews of 10.1, it looks awesome. Remember that OS X is just like any other OS; it takes the developers some time to trick out the system simply because they haven't figured out all the hacks they can throw into a system yet. The Apple programmers are great, but they're no Woz. Do note that this happens in OSes like, say, Linux and *BSD as well.
Flame on...
--soze
Re:Is it faster? (Score:1, Informative)
Though I'm not running the latest release candidate (I'm at 5G48) it is MUCH faster. Apple claims 20% openGL speedup, I claim they're damned right.
There are more features added here and there, better CDRW support, etc etc, but the big thing is that OSX just became comfortable on the lower end G3s.
-Damacus
6-12 weeks for delivery (Score:2, Informative)
Silly AC... (Score:2, Informative)
>one button is better
How about the people who INVENTED it? Jef Raskin, originator of the Macintosh product, was often a visiting academic and consultant at PARC and joined Apple. He had done useability studies which demonstrated that NORMAL people (the target market for the "for the rest of us" Macintosh) found a ONE button mouse easier to use than the original Xerox mice (which had THREE buttons. Remember, not EVERYONE in the world has a PhD in CS. Hell, even people at PARC (plenty of PhDs there.. and plenty of human interface experts as well) and Raskin HIMSELF had mouse button errors, as he describes here [best.com].
Myself, I don't have Raskin's expertise, nor have I done any "useability studies". But I worked tech support and helldesk jobs when I was in college. And *I* can sure tell you the anguish of getting a call from someone who didn't understand "left-click" vs. "right-click", and trying to explain the difference.
cya,
john
Taco: mac users ain't as reliant on the 2nd button (Score:5, Informative)
A: The one mouse button was thought up by a guy named Jeff Raskin who is largely responsible for starting the Macintosh project at Apple. He thought that mouses with more than one mouse button would be confusing for new users. This might seem like an oversight, but when you consider how uncomplex graphical interfaces were back than and the fact that virtually no computers in mass production had mice as an essential navigational tool, it really isn't.
A: Because we can use the regular pull down menus to bring up a menu. If you take a look at *NIX & Windows UI's, you often see that not all menu items for the program are in the pull-down menus. Often, there are some commands that you can only access through right-clicking (i.e. the contextual menu). When this is the case, you're going to need a 2nd mouse button. Contrast this with the mac paradigm, where is it a cardinal sin to have commands that are not listed in the pull-down menus.
A: No and yes. Unlike other platforms, macs have the pull-down menubar at the top of the screen instead of on each window, like you usually find on Windows or GNOME or KDE (yes, KDE does have a mac menubar mode, but not by default). A menubar at the top border of the screen has been proven in usability labs to be far faster to access than menubar stuck on a window, because the user can ram the mouse pointer into the top of the screen to click on the inital menu item and they can't overshoot. This illustrates a principle of Fitt's Law, which states that things on the borders are faster to access than things that aren't because they are infinitely large . To learn more about Fitt's law, go here [asktog.com]. This being said, contextual menu (i.e. right-clicking) is faster IF you can do it anywhere to bring up the same menu anywhere on the screen, because the mouse pointer can be anywhere and the menu will appear right under it. Unfortunately, bringing up a contextual menu in windows/GNOME/KDE almost always requires that you first land the mouse on a tiny visual target. If you have to click on a tiny 15x10 pixel icon in an e-mail program to bring up a contextual menu for it, any speed advantage of right clicking is negated.
A: The reason that mac users use those keyboard strokes is because Apple was smart enough to have the keyboard complement the mouse instead of replacing it. Just like right-cliking is supposed to do on windows. Notice that the command key most often used on macs for the keyboard combinations is located in a spot that is in the center of the keyboard, so a user doesn't have to stretch their fingers 3 miles to hit an out of the way key. Also notice that keyboard strokes using the command key make use of the two most dextrous fingers of the human hand: the index finger and the thumb. The result is that keyboard shortcuts on a mac are easy to do, and they can be done easily with one hand. Why don't Windows users use keyboard shortcuts as often as mac users? Because microsoft was stupid and tried to have the keyboard replace the mouse instead of complmenting it. They added those underline thingies on all the menus (technically, they're called mnemonics), which are far less efficient because you have to hit two sets of keys "Alt+firstletter Alt+secondletter" to use them. This added so much visual clutter and so jammed the users mental keyboard-menu associations that most Windows users also filtered out the keyboard shortcuts (i.e. Ctrl+letter). There is even less incentive to use keyboard shortcuts on windows because the ctrl key that makes use of them is far at one end of the keyboard, which makes keyboard combinations with keys in the center of the keyboard very hard to do with one hand and impossible to easily with the two most dextrous fingers of the human hand (the thumb and index finger). One final advantage of mac keyboard shorcuts is that the command key is represented in the menu system by a symbol that take up one character's worth of menu real-estate as opposed to "Alt" or "Ctrl", which take up 3-4 characters of menu real-estate.
A: Yes. I don't think you'll find many mac users who are against having more than one mouse button, but they are against some dumb windows/unix geek who knows nothing about macs and who refuses to learn anything about the way they are designed arrogantly assuming that the machine is unusable in some sort of way.
Reviving an old practice (Score:2, Informative)
Re:oh my dear lord (Score:3, Informative)
Mac OS X doesn't require you to use context menus. The Dock's menus can optionally be accessed with a right-click, but that is sensible shortcut for people who use a multiple-button mouse. You Control+click to see the menu, or Command+click to see the actual item that the Dock item refers to. You can also click-and-hold to get a Dock menu, and for most people this is just fine.
If you were running X-Windows on a Dell notebook, you'd have a much more serious problem, because X-Windows expects you to have three buttons. Mac OS X doesn't expect you to have more than one.
Re:Is it faster? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Informative)
Ahem. There is a lot of NEXTSTEP hidden under the hood of MacOS X. Cocoa is the NS API. The only thing missing is Display Postscript, which was replaced by Display PDF. PDF is a bit nicer than Postscript (IMHO) I am missing the NEXTSTEP Windowmanager, which was written in Postscript.. (/usr/lib/NextStep/windowPackage.ps anyone?)
Space.dock - virtual desktops on OSX (Score:2, Informative)
I believe what you want is Space.dock [sourceforge.net].
- Scott
Availability of the upgrade (Score:3, Informative)
Option 1, the so called 'instant upgrade'. Starting on September 29th, Apple resellers(including the Apple store and other retail outlets. probably CompUSA, MicroCenter, etc) will get CDs that will upgrade from Mac OS X 10.0.4 -> 10.0
Cost: Gas to get to the store
Option 2: The Apple Mac Up To Date program [apple.com]. You print out a PDF form and mail it to Apple. They mail you back the OS X 10,1 CD, as well as the Mac OS 9.2.1 CD and Developer Tools CD, I believe.
Cost: $19.99, a 6-12 week wait(according to the PDF form)
I think I'll swing by a CompUSA saturday, which is when they hand out the CDs(yes, saturday is the release date. Saturday is always the day retail Apple OS's go on sale it seems...)
-Henry
Re:Silly AC... (Score:1, Informative)
2. The research was also conducted with a UI and applications that were far simpler than those of today. The easiest & most intuitive way to approach a task changes as the task grows more complex. Most of the usability research conducted by the original Mac team has been rendered obsolete by years of interface development, change in the nature & type of common computing tasks, and changes in user expectations.
3. The primary purpose of a second mouse button is to provide contextual menus. The original Mac interface didn't have contextual menus, so any research into the usability of a second button back then is irrelevant.
4. Over the years, contextual menus have become more and more important in the Mac OS interface. OS X relies on contextual menus for providing most of the functionality of the Dock, they're practically required in a browser and Office, and merely very useful in the Finder.
5. Since users are going to have to use contextual menus, lets provide them with the simplest, easiest, most efficient, and most intuitive way to do it. That means adding another mouse button. There is no way you can convince me that chording (control clicking) is easier for a new user.
6. If you read history of the original Mac project, you'll find out that Raskin opposed putting a mouse on the Mac, and in fact opposed the desktop metaphor itself. You'll also find out that Raskin greatly exaggerates his contributions to the Mac GUI. I tend to discount most of what he says.