Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Ars Technica OS X 10.1 Review 368

Posted by timothy from the letters-with-numbers dept.
Joystickit writes: "John Siracusa over at Arstechnica has posted his review of OS X 10.1. He comes to the conclusion that 10.1 is much improved but still leaves much to be desired. It is an excellent read. He always seems to have the most in-depth reviews. Check it out." John's earlier OS X reviews are excellent as well; seeing what Apple does right and wrong is informative reading no matter what OS you prefer.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ars Technica OS X 10.1 Review More

Ars Technica OS X 10.1 Review

Comments Filter:

  • A step forward (Score:4, Informative)

    by Grape Shasta ( 176655 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:14PM (#2438546) Journal
    Here is CNET's review [cnet.com], which gives a quicker summary of the bottom line. Probably the most important piece is the improved feature set for working on a Windows network, which will make the Mac much more friendly in a corporate MS-owned environment.
    • The author of the Ars article appeared to recommend in all seriousness that users have a minimum of 512MB and preferrably more.

      If this is what is required to make OSX useable, Apple is finished. Memory is cheap but you have to market to what the average Mac owner already has.

      I can practically assure you that very few Mac users have 512MB desktop systems.

      Good luck Apple.

      • I can attest that this is not necessary, even when using Photoshop under classic along with 10 other native apps running. OS X.1 does very little HD hitting for me on my laptop with 256MB, once I turned on the window buffer compression feature [macnn.com]. (It makes the OS use far less memory, and speeds up window moving and resizing to boot. It will be turned on by default in the next release of OS X, Apple just had it off in this build because they thought it was the cause of a particular kernel panic.)

        And with 384MB in my desktop, life is just dandy. Sure, more RAM is always better, and nowadays it's so cheap there's little reason not to get half a gig or so, but OS X does not require it.

    • Oh yeah. If you have suggestions/opinions/points/gipes about OS X, from either using OS X or by reading these reviews. Don't forget to post your opinion where is really matters http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/ [apple.com].

      Unlike a certian OS company the begins with M. Apple seems to listen to their users. If enough people compain that they miss for example: spring loaded folders. They will bring them back.

      And remember...post nicely! E.G. Don't tell them "the dock sucks". Tell them you "think the usability of the dock should be improved", and make suggestions to improve it.

  • Good show BSD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zalgon 26 McGee ( 101431 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:15PM (#2438558)
    Can we get over our parochial OS and license flame wars to say "Well done" to the BSD crowd?

  • OS X seems to be Unix done right... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tim_F ( 12524 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:16PM (#2438565)
    It has a very good looking desktop. Yet behind that beauty it has the power of one of the most powerful operating systems in recent history. In the past it has been often immitated, but never equaled. Windows '95 was a direct rip of the current (at the time) version of MacOS. And yet it missed out on the important points. Sure I could put in a CD and it would autoplay it, but what if I wanted the contents of the disc that I had just inserted to be available to me at that instant from the desktop? On MacOS I wouldn't have to go through the the same old "My Computer->CD Rom Drive" nonsense.

    Ease of use people. That's what it's all about. Apple has always had it, Microsoft keeps trying and missing, and Linux is getting there via comapnies like Mandrake and desktops like KDE.

    Apple: Port OS X to the Intel platform. Microsoft is already running scared, now is the time to make them cower in fear.
    • Microsoft is already running scared,

      Care to explain that one? By all indications, XP looks like it's going to be a HUGE seller. Or do you mean "running scared" as in "own 90% of the world's desktops"?

    • Ease of use people. That's what it's all about. Apple has always had it, Microsoft keeps trying and missing, and Linux is getting there via comapnies like Mandrake and desktops like KDE

      Not wanting to start a flame war but...

      If I want to eject my music CD from the CDROM I should be able to press the button labeled EJECT and have it pop out, not have to drag it to the trash! - Ease of use people..

      But seriously, ease of use is a matter of perception. On I MAC I find the concept of every app having each window as a floating MDI child without any real parent object frustrating! For example. If I have Mac IE open with 5 windows, to get to the 5th window (which is hidden behind quark) I have to click on the apple menu to activate IE, then minimise 4 windows before I can get to the 5th. On a PC, the 5th window is 1 click on the task bar away!

      Point being, I think Microsoft took the MacOS idea and put their own design work behind it, the UI is not better then MacOS, its not worse, it's just different.

      • the ie thing is no longer the case. You go to the dockbar, click on the arrow near the IE icon, and you get a list of open windows in that app. just pick the one you want. OS X is rather nice.

        (too bad you need a mac to run it)

      • Re:OS X seems to be Unix done right... (Score:5, Informative)

        by NickV ( 30252 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @07:02PM (#2438804)
        This is what I hate. People talking about things they have never used.

        If I want to eject my music CD from the CDROM I should be able to press the button labeled EJECT and have it pop out, not have to drag it to the trash! - Ease of use people..

        Have you ever used OS X? Oh... wait... no you haven't and I can tell that from that stupid mis-informed comment. OS X turns the trash can INTO an eject button when you highlight a CD or removable media device. It turns the trash can into a disconnect button when you highlight a network connection.

        But seriously, ease of use is a matter of perception. On I MAC I find the concept of every app having each window as a floating MDI child without any real parent object frustrating! For example. If I have Mac IE open with 5 windows, to get to the 5th window (which is hidden behind quark) I have to click on the apple menu to activate IE, then minimise 4 windows before I can get to the 5th. On a PC, the 5th window is 1 click on the task bar away!

        Bzzzz... please come again when you tried OS X and not OS 9. OS X does still carry on the floating MDI window paradigm, but when apps are minimized they are minimized as individual screens on the right side of the dock, and the "application icon" on the left side is a grouping of all the windows (ala KDE, and Win XP) where if you hold the mouse button over it, you can pick a window to bring forward or restore.

        Oh, and the new iBook has an eject button too. Let's try to stop spreadin the FUD now shall we? I really like OSX, I really like *nix, and I think OSX is the best version of it out there. Anything that integrates the CLI to the degree that I can grep a highlighted set of icons and then have only the ones that pass the expression match still be highlighted is cool. Any OS that lets me use APT-GET [sourceforge.net] is cool too :)

        • OS X turns the trash can INTO an eject button when you highlight a CD or removable media device. It turns the trash can into a disconnect button when you highlight a network connection.

          Err, how is intuitive that the trash can turns into an eject button?

          I mean, I'll give them credit for finally trying to fix that original foolishness (I'm sure the guy who originally did it rues the day), but let's not pretend that it isn't still a kludge.

          • The drag to trash thing is there mostly for legacy reasons. You can just select the disk and choose File -> Eject, or hit command-e.

          • Re:OS X seems to be Unix done right... (Score:5, Informative)

            by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @09:46PM (#2439431) Homepage
            What, are you kidding?

            Dragging disks to the trash to eject them is a _FEATURE_. I swear, I am not kidding. God's truth, it's a feature.

            Now sit here beside the fire, my children, and receive the lore of early Mac disk management....

            As a cost-savings measure, because Apple had (wisely) chosen to use the brand-new Sony 3.5" floppies with a whopping 400kB of capacity, the Mac had only one drive. (and this was a _big_ floppy for the time, in terms of storage space) Although users could have a second, or even a lot of external, daisy-chained FDDs, they couldn't be assumed to.

            So there was a problem: how would a user use two floppies simultaneously? After all, 1) the noun-verb language of the GUI demands that there be a visible target for an icon to be moved. And anyway, 2) many users would want an OS disk, an application disk, and a data disk... maybe a lot.

            The solution was this: the volume was slightly divorced from the media!

            That is, if you want to copy 'Empty Folder' (because the original OS couldn't create new folders) from disk Fred to disk Barney, and Fred contains a copy of the OS to boot off, you'd do this:
            1) Boot up from Fred.
            2) Select Fred on the desktop, and use the Eject Disk command in the menu. This ejects the physical disk, but leaves a 'shadowed' copy of the volume on the desktop.
            3) Insert Barney, which is then mounted on the desktop.
            4) Drag 'Empty Folder' from the shadowed Fred volume to the fully active Barney disk.
            5) The OS will at this point, autoeject Barney, leaving a shadowed copy of _its_ volume on the desktop, and ask for Fred to be inserted
            6) Insert Fred, and the OS (which obviously couldn't've cached this) copies 'Empty Folder' to memory, then autoejects Fred, and asks for Barney to be inserted
            7) Insert Barney, and the OS writes 'Empty Folder' to it, leaving a shadowed copy of Fred, still on the desktop.

            Old-time Mac users will be familar with the infamous Disk Swap Tango.

            However! What is of note here, is that the Eject Disk command literally ejects the disk, but does not unmount the volume. In order to dismount a volume, you use the entirely seperate Put Away command.

            In fact, if you use Put Away on a volume that is active because the disk is physically inserted, the disk is ejected AND the volume is dismounted. Clearly, Put Away should have been a popular command.

            Except that, ultimately, the developers making the damn thing found this cumbersome. Even thought the UI people (who are human, after all) were telling them that this was the best way to do it. So one programmer, following the Mac edicts of 'there's more than one way to do it' and 'direct manipulation is superior to abstract manipulation' (i.e. moving things with icons, clicking on close boxes, is better than using the menus to accomplish the same goals) made a shortcut whereby if you dragged an active or inactive disk/volume to the trash, it would be Put Away. (and of course, if the disk was present, ejected)

            Although this was immediately picked up on by the HCI people as a bad idea -- because doesn't that imply that the disk is being erased? -- they found that it was, in practice, a damn lot more useful and easy to remember than the above confusion with the menus.

            A few years later, of course, hard disks became commonplace, and the need for this behavior was mostly lost. Nowadays in fact, Eject Disk both dismounts _and_ ejects the disk, instead of only the latter.

            So it was _never_ a kludge. It was in fact a really good shortcut that wound up becoming more common than the behavior that it was originally intended to be a power user's way of accomplishing! In fact, tests in the mid 90's indicated that changing the Trash into an Eject icon was disconcerting, and so never really pursued at the time, though it had been on the drawing board for ages.

            It's not foolishness. Not in the least. I will agree, of course, that a physical eject button wired to the OS so that it is aware that a disk is dismounted is also a good idea. But given the needs in the early/mid 80's, the old behaviors made perfect sense.
          • hit the eject button on the keyboard. or if yours has none, f12. simple, intuitive. anything else?

      • Mac OS X seems to be UI done right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @07:03PM (#2438809) Homepage
        For trash, when you select the CD-ROM or mounted drive or whatever... guess what happens? The Trashcan icon *changes*. It becomes an eject icon.

        Other than that you can *also* press the eject button, the f-12 key, or Apple-E.

        On a Mac, the fifth window is accessable by right-clicking on the IE icon in the Dock and selecting the fifth window.

        Or, if you use a single button mouse, ctrl-clicking. Or keeping the button depressed until the contextual menu pops up.

        Point being, I think the MacOS UI is better, not everywhere, but in most places.

        Instead of 50 items in the task bar (5 windows per app, 10 apps), you have 10 icons in the Dock with context windows of 5 entries each.

      • Many windows (Score:5, Informative)

        by melquiades ( 314628 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @07:04PM (#2438815) Homepage
        For example. If I have Mac IE open with 5 windows, to get to the 5th window (which is hidden behind quark) I have to click on the apple menu to activate IE, then minimise 4 windows before I can get to the 5th. On a PC, the 5th window is 1 click on the task bar away!

        Apparently you haven't used OS X much?

        Right-click on IE in the dock (yes, I have a two-button mouse) and you get a list of all of its windows. You can choose one to bring it to the front. You can also hide or show all of them en masse.

        I always found the windows taskbar irritating, because opening more windows clutters it up. I like having the windows grouped by app. I guess familiarity is king, and it's all a matter of individual taste -- although in this case, Microsoft agrees with Apple, since they're switching to a windows-grouped-by-app model in XP.
      • There has been a freeware utility, ApplWindows, available for 8 years that allows your application menu to show all the individual windows associated with an application. It is a system mod that works on OS 7 through 9.1 at least. See this link [resexcellence.com] for info. Under OS X, rather than searching through a pile of taskbar buttons called "http://www...", I right click on the Explorer icon in the dock and pick the window I want by it's full name. It works very much like ApplWindows works. The windows are logically tied to the application they belong to, and one click/drag combination gets me instantly to any window I want.
      • hmm, why is this modded as flamebait? the comments sound reaonable to me...

        getting back on topic, someone's .sig file says something to the effect of "the only intuitive interface is a nipple". ease of use, for most people, seems to be a function of familiarity than anything else.

        Speaking as someone who has almost used Macs exclusively for 10 years for work purposes (communications, graphics, and word processing in an academic lab), I would argue that macs aren't necessarily easy to use; rather, they are easy to learn to use. to me, one of the UI concepts of MacOS that I find most inconvenient is the assumption that I *want* to use the mouse for everything. for instance, there is no easy way to access contexual menus in MacOS except with the mouse, unlike the Alt-keystroke under windows. Personally I find it much easier to work faster in windows because many functions in contextual menus can be accessed by keystrokes. I found that its less stressful on my hands when I don't have to go back and forth from keyboard to mouse all the time.

        Then again, some of my co-workers who are staunch Apple protagonists claim that the contextual menus at the top of the screen that require a mouse to access is precisely what allows them to work faster. I believe that MacOs is easy to learn, but "ease-of-use" is probably pretty objective.

    • Port it to x86??? Microsoft running scared???

      You and I have a vastly different view of the OS world.

      Porting OSX to x86 will only succeed in killing Apple hardware, and quite frankly, I seriously doubt OSX has more chance than Linux of killing Windows. Hell... I believe Linux doesn't stand a chance in the desktop market (this is not a flame, but my very own personal opinion).

    • If I want to eject my music CD from the CDROM I should be able to press the button labeled EJECT and have it pop out, not have to drag it to the trash! - Ease of use people..

      Ease of use? How about knowing what you're talking about?

      New Mac keyboards do have an "Eject" key. It's even labelled "Eject". Furthermore as the article noted (you did bother to read it before rushing here to pontificate, right?) the F10 key also acts as an eject button duplicating this functioniality on new keyboards but also extending it to all.

      The rest of your posting is similarly clueless - have you considered actually using MacOS X before expressing such strong (and uninformed) opinions about it?

      We really need a new moderate-option that would stick: Mouthy Bozo.

  • PC World also has an OS X 10.1 review (Score:4, Informative)

    by Black Acid ( 219707 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:22PM (#2438591)
    You can read it here: PC Magazine reviews Mac OS X 10.1 [pcmag.com]. However, Mac OS X 10.1 can cause problems [macfixit.com] if your hardware is not compatible.
    Work-around for failure to startup from a FireWire drive Dik Gregory found that, after updating to Mac OS X 10.1, his external FireWire hard drive with Mac OS 9.1.1 installed, appeared in the Startup Disk System Preference. In Mac OS X 10.0.x, it did not. "However, selecting it had no effect. My system still booted from the OS X 10.1 system on my Cube's internal drive. To actually boot from the FireWire drive, I needed to first boot from 9.2.1 on my internal drive and then select the FireWire drive from the Startup Disk control panel."

    There are some other problems with 10.1 but for the most part I'd say the upgrade is well worth it.

    CNET also has a review of OS 10.1 [cnet.com]. There's some contraversy surrounding The "Free" OS X 10.1 Update [macobserver.com] that costs you $20. TechTV [techtv.com] (formerlly ZDTV) also has a review of Mac OS X 10.1. I'd recommend anyone interested in Mac OS X 10.1 read all these reviews to get full coverage, and unbiased opinions.

  • Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kerincosford ( 228730 ) <kerin@@@pullhere...co...uk> on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:24PM (#2438597)
    ...such an informed review of OS X finally.

    Far too many reviews concentrate on the lack of Carbon apps for X. Of course this is a big deal, but it also shouldnt be any surprise - its a completely new OS. Besides, by next year, every major Mac application will be carbonized.

    I recently started a new job and could choose between Windows, Linux and OS X. I thought, what the hell, I've never worked with Macs much, I wanna have a play with X, and if it sucks I can just slap Linux on there anyway.

    After the first day of using it, I've never really thought about using anything other than X. Its a dream. As far as I'm concerned, its the best mix of Mac-style GUI, and a unix workhorse core. Who could ask for anything else?

    Yeah, theres still some rough edges, things that should be there but arent, but theres also some damn nice stuff in there. I'd say I'm pretty neutral - I use Windows and Linux at home, and OS X at work with the occasional recourse to OS 9. I'm saving my pennies for a new 667MHz tiBook.

    Os X is a Good Thing (tm). Bringing unix and open source to the masses. Stop pissing and moaning about what it lacks compared to Linux. OS X is nothing like Linux in user and market terms.

    And, please, I implore, no one-button-mouse cracks.

    • Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Informative)

      by foobar104 ( 206452 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:35PM (#2438664) Journal
      Bye-bye, karma. I know this is off topic, but...

      I'm saving my pennies for a new 667MHz tiBook.

      I'd advise you to save about 150,000 of those pennies and buy an iBook instead. My best friend has a PowerBook G4, and I have an iBook, and while the big screen on the G4 is nice, we both agree that my iBook is a better laptop.

      That nice titanium case on the G4 scratches and scuffs incredibly easily, and it gets very very hot. Not to mention the fact that the slight flex in the G4's case makes it all too likely for a spinning CD or DVD to grind against the inside of the drive; it happens to my friend about once every other day.

      My iBook, on the other hand, is a dream. I'd consider it to be *almost* good enough for an only machine, and perfect for a second machine.

      Oh, and another thing. (feeble attempt to get back on topic) My iBook and my friend's PBG4 feel just about the same under OS 10.1 with 384 MB of RAM each. Both very, very usable.
    • Your one assed mouse is obviously inferior! Thanks to advances in genetic engineering, I own a 4-assed mouse. Four mouse button-cracks provide much greater functionality!

  • Understating the Advantages (Score:4, Informative)

    by Rura Penthe ( 154319 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:24PM (#2438601)
    While I respect John's reviews (and frequent ars), I think he understated the advantage of the speed boost in 10.1. Where my family's G3/450 desktop originally could not run OS X acceptably, as of 10.1 it has become the primary OS. RAM usage in classic has been massively improved (resulting in yet another overall performance boost), everything is quicker, and if you have a Dual 800 it will probably even slice your bread. ;)

  • here's a real world example of why OSX is amazing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heldlikesound ( 132717 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:25PM (#2438608) Homepage
    On my 2001 iBook (with DVD drive) I am able to do the following (among other things of course):

    1. Capture DV footage, edit it, and output it right back out onto a camera (or play it to a tv).

    2. Run Apache, PHP4, and mySQL flawlessly together and then replicate my work onto my "real, live" server on the web.

    3. Watch DVD's with no stuttering or slowdowns while working in the shell, editing code in BBEdit, listening to iTunes, and stress-testing the above Apache setup.

    Make no mistake, OSX still has a way to go, but give it a year and it will be the propriatary OS to beat!!!!!

  • One problem... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Matthew Weigel ( 888 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:26PM (#2438610) Homepage Journal

    His rants on metadata are way off. Although file extensions for typing violate the basic rule of metadata, they still work better than Type/Creator codes.

    • 2 sets of 4 alphanumeric characters is fine for developers, who only have to remember their own Creator and Type codes, but it is inappropriate for the user - the 4 character Type is worse than the the 3 character extension, because at least the extension is common across all applications (compare .jpg with the variety of jpeg Types used in MacOS).
    • Hard-coded applications for documents is the wrong way to go, and it is built into Creator/Type. The best way I've seen so far is a simple database of applications appropriate for each type, with the ability to modify that list on a file-by-file basis. This can be accomplished with file extensions and a filesystem supported metadata (yes as a hack), but it can't be done with explicitly coded Creator types.

    I am sick and tired of hearing the rants about the inherently wrong nature of file extensions, versus the 'good enough' nature of Creator/Types. No. Both violate important principles, but file extensions can work well, and Creator/Type can not. Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.

    • the 4 character Type is worse than the the 3 character extension, because at least the extension is common across all applications (compare .jpg with the variety of jpeg Types used in MacOS).

      That "variety" would be what, JPEG and, er, JPEG? All the JPEG files I have lying around are type JPEG, even if some of them belong to BPPi (Cameraid) or 8BIM (Photoshop) or ogle (PictureViewer).

    • Re:One problem... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by J'raxis ( 248192 )
      Um, all programs I have ever used on Mac use the same typecode for JPEGs JPEG. The creator code varies (JPEGviewer, JVWR; PictureViewer, ogle; GraphicConverter, GKON; etc.). Granted it could be done and the four-char codes dont even have to be ASCII, they can be any of the Macintoshs 8-bit charset but I cannot think of a single program that doesnt use JPEG for JPEGs. Same goes for text files and most other common filetypes. The only one that sticks out that I can think of is Mp3 and MPG3 for MP3 files; but whatever Apple uses in QuickTime is probably the right typecode.

      Ive seen both .jpg and .jpe (and even .jpeg) for JPEGs on extension-using OSes. I have also seen both .txt and .asc used for the same kind of US-ASCII textfiles. And then theres .htm and .html files, and the myriad of extensions used for SSI-HTML files (.shtml, .sht, .stml, .ssi-html, ...).

      Maybe MIME is the right way to go; its a recognized cross-platform standard and codes are registered with some kind of central authority so we dont end up with audio/mp3 and audio/mpeg-level-3 or whatnot at the same time.

      • I'll respond once regarding JPEG - I was mistaken. Since Show Info doesn't show actual codes, but related strings, I misinterpreted it. As someone else pointed out, of course, this does apply to a few formats like mp3s, where it has bitten me before (that was on a different system a few years ago, and I haven't been able to find the same utility I used for creator/type manipulation since).

        My broader point was that castigating file extensions, when they are more usable than the broken system they are replacing, is silly.

        I quite agree that MIME types are probably the best way to go - BeOS had them, and OS/2 used them sometimes (to a lesser extent - OS/2's metadata type system predates MIME, but OS/2's flexibility in the matter allowed users to switch to MIME).

    • Re:One problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @07:03PM (#2438806) Homepage
      As the other poster said, I have never seen files of the same type with the wrong type code.

      "Hard-coding applications for documents": Not hardly. The separation of type and creator allows an app to own files, but it also allows apps to acquire files. An app that supports files of type JPEG can open all JPEG files regardless of creator. If you drag a JPEG file to it, it will open normally. If you drag that JPEG to a program that doesn't support JPEG, you can't open it, instead of opening it and getting garbage as happens in this review. If you double-click on the file, the app that created it launches. Best of all worlds.
    • So, I'm curious.... Regardless of all that you say, why the hell are you storing file type metadata (and presumably that per-specific-file-basis creator metadata) in the filename?

      After all -- you will never change the type code unless you change the type as well, correct? Not so long as you can easily assign a specific file to open with a specific -- DIFFERENT -- application than the default for that type. Would it not be unnecessary to change file.jpeg to file.exe?

      Of the few types that seem more interchangable -- HTML is of course structurally often, but not always, the same as TXT -- wouldn't a more MIME-like system that permitted the file to simultaneously be known as _both_, since it _is_ both, be superior?

      About the only exception I can think of to this general rule, where filename extensions are important are for the web, and between other information passed to the client from the server, and the browser's ability to use other metadata filetypes, in-file declared type information, and other Unix-like magic numbers, it is wholly unnecessary and ascribable to lazy or shortsighted programming.

      At any rate, a three character string is worse than a four character string, and both are worse than an arbitrarily long string that describes the type in _human_readable_ format. Again, MIME strikes me as doing a better job for type most (not all) of the time, than either camp's codes.
      • About the only exception I can think of to this general rule, where filename extensions are important are for the web

        If that were true, you wouldn't be able to view this web page - your perl interpreter would try and read it instead. The web uses MIME types, passed in the headers.

  • File Extensions are OK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ducasi ( 106725 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:33PM (#2438656) Journal
    John Siracusa has written some wonderful reviews on each of the versions of Mac OS X, from early betas, right up to 10.1, and I have enjoyed reading them.
    But I must disagree with him on his views about file extensions. He is almost right when he says that applications "MUST" use file types, but I would relax that to "should". It's still stronger than Apple's "may", but more realistic.
    He should realise that there are too many places where file types and creators are lost to rely on them. For example, a pure java application can't do file types, or when you are file sharing using windows (smb) or Unix (NFS) servers, you're going to lose if you need to have file types in there.
    The fact is that the rest of the world doesn't support Apple's innovations, and they can't fight this uphill battle any more.
    Give it up John. File types and creator codes are one of the defining aspects of the Macintosh experience, until you try to share your work with other people.

  • When will the real native apps start flowing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DavidJA ( 323792 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:35PM (#2438665)

    Considering the MAC is primeraly used in the DTP/Graphics area, does anyone know when the real graphic apps (native mode) will start flowing.

    If I could get a OSX native copy of Quark, Photoshop & Illustrator we would switch all of our OS9 desktops to OSX immediatly.

    • Illustrator 10 for OS X is in stores now (well, it was on sale at the London Computer Arts show last week).

      Adobe said recently that Photoshop for X would be due at the beginning of next year, and apparently (don't quote me on this - i don't use it) Quark is due before Christmas.

  • Naming? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Howie ( 4244 ) <howie@thi[ ].com ['ngy' in gap]> on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:36PM (#2438669) Homepage Journal
    This has puzzled me for a little while... When OS X was first announced, I read it as the letter X, like Rally X. Apparently it's really pronounced "O S Ten", because that's what it is.

    If that's so, then what's OS X 10.1? "O S Ten Ten Point One"? Surely it should be OS 10.1 (which is what it is) with no X, or OS X 1.1 or R2 or similar (if it's a whole 'different product')?

  • Installing standard Unix stuff (Score:5, Informative)

    by bbum ( 28021 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:37PM (#2438679) Homepage
    If you have the pleasure of using an OS X box and want to install any of a number of open source packages, I highly recommend that you check out fink.sourceforge.net.

    Fink includes a set of package descriptions that patch a downloaded sourceball, configure and compile, install it into a custom directory, then debianize the binary...

    ...and, finally, installs the debian package.

    There is also a binary version available.

    i.e. you can:

    'fink install gimp'

    ... and it installs gimp and all depdencies.

  • Heads up, Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by melquiades ( 314628 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:43PM (#2438710) Homepage
    Sircusa's article is extraordinarily pedantic, which is not all bad -- he raises valid points, and we need to keep Apple on their toes. However, the big point sort of gets lost in the details: OS X is the magic combination of Usability and UNIX we've been wishing for all these years.

    Linux developers, take notes. Most of what OS X is doing is not magic -- it's just a lot of steady, careful attention to usability. Honestly, how hard would it be to implement OS X's lovely Network Settings panel under Linux, for example? Yes, the OS X Finder is still a bit glitchy, but it's still way ahead of the various Linux file system browsers I've used. Yes, the Dock has its glitches, but it's a darn shot easier to use and configure than either Gnome or KDE's taskbars. Apple is hardly perfect, but they are extraordinarily good at the usability stuff, where Linux software generally is not.

    That's a shame -- Linux can and should be just as gorgeous and usable as OS X, or any other OS on the planet.

    Linux developers: get off the high horse, and lay off the one-button cracks. You have a lot to learn, and if you are earnest students of this new OS now, in five years you'll be teaching things to Apple.
    • Well, 1) many commentators with an eye towards, and knowledge about HCI find OS X to be a step backwards from MacOS. Good UI features in Windows, Unix (there are one or two), BeOS, and other, smaller, OSes are very often not present. OS X is a nice-looking, not especially usable system.

      2) Linux will never get anywhere if it _just_ mimics others. Indeed, if OS X had merely mimiced features from those other UIs, it would not really amount to much. What is essential is that the reasoning behind what other developers do is understood, that when you want to create something new you apply a rigorous series of scientific tests, and that you communicate your findings effectively. Copying popular features in a cargo-cult fashion will not result in a good, usable OS.

      3) Linux developers must have no sacred cows. The very roots of the system must be vetted, and if found lacking, fixed. Good UI is at the heart of it; it is not a facade. Examine the filesystem, the way that the computer behaves in crises, boot times, the security model, how and whether multiple users should be handled. Ignore those, and you'll be building on sand.
      • I read this article [theregister.co.uk] yesterday and I totally agree. It's written by Jakob Nielsen, one of the most respected members of the interface design community. It basically sums up what the parent post said and adds some serious street cred. My favorite quote from the article:
        "For example they're so proud once they've ported [sic] PowerPoint. But that doesn't give us a new way of doing presentations."
        P.S. mod parent up. He knows what he's talking about. Kinda rare in slashdot discussions about interface design
      • Linux developers must have no sacred cows

        Unfortunately, the "UNIX Way" is just about the biggest sacred cows left (especially after they added a commandline to MacOS). If it makes the Linux folks feel better, people were complaining about the Unix UI back in the 1970s, and there hasn't been that many bright spots since then.

        In short, I wouldn't expect any GUI revolutions from the Unix folks -- they've got too much emotional baggage. The best thing to hope for is a reasonably solid system that doesn't obscure the underpinnings too much.
        • I wouldn't expect CLI revolutions from the Unix folks, frankly.

          I think that Unix has some good ideas behind it:
          *I am attracted to the idea of mountpoints, though not confident in them entirely. They mesh well, however, with the Win95 notion of a 'Computer' icon, and I'm fond of that.

          *Many small tools working together is a great idea, but insufficiently easy to use at present.

          *Configuration files that are universally humanly readable are a good idea, although ASCII is not.

          *The power in CLIs is desirable, having it locked up in an emulator of a 60's era teletype is not.

          *Multiuser systems are desirable, global filesystem structures are not (my unproven hypothesis) and at any rate, suspending and resuming a user environment a la 'screen,' probably with heavy use of features borrowed from hibernation is really necessary to beef it all up.(some of the MS stuff seen recently re: fungible computing resources is _excellent_ though the security and business issues need to be hashed out -- i'd like being able to log in to two machines side by side, and use the 2nd as an additional monitor, and extra computational power all for the same session)

          *ACL security has got to go. Reimplement it on top of something better, like (I'm told) capabilities, if you need it, but totally redo the fundementals.

          *Flat filesystems have to go, but this is already being worked on, I hear.

          *Links are cool -- now make 'em work across disks. Combine them with forked filesystems.

          *etc, etc, etc.

          But you'll never hear this coming out of the Unix crowd.... Imitation has its place, and Unix is fundementally an imitation of Multics, but for God's sake, take some initative!
      • many commentators with an eye towards, and knowledge about HCI find OS X to be a step backwards from MacOS

        Well, perhaps the design differs from what they would envision, but that doesn't make them bad.

        A lot of the article I've read in the context you describe consists of people heavily mixing their own personal tastes with fact. They are afraid pretty things are major threat to robot-like efficiency.

        All too often, there are people speaking purely from the perspective of scientific interaction, not taking overall experience into account. There's more to it than how quickly a action can be performed. Experience is what really dictates the user's level of satisfaction. My sister, for example, enjoys her iBook much more with Mac OS X installed on it. Whether a UI expert thinks she should or not doesn't really matter. She likes Mac OS X.

        I share my sister's sentiment. I like my computer experience much better with Mac OS X running than any other operating system.

        User interface is in no way a mature medium, and I would guess rules are going to be rewritten before some stablization occurs. Not that these commentators didn't bring up some valid points, but many of them have been addressed since the public beta came out.

        - Scott
      • many commentators with an eye towards, and knowledge about HCI find OS X to be a step backwards from MacOS.

        True, and many of them raise important concerns. But I think many of them have ignored some important advances and really fine ideas. Yesterday, for example, a friend was admiring the wisdom of attaching dialogs to their relevant windows as pop-down sheets, which solves a lot of the problems with modal interaction.

        IMO, too many of these reviews are from HCI people with very specific agendas upset because OS X's agendas are different. Now I'd say, for example, that Jeff Raskin has a pretty fine agenda...but his complaints are still more often about mismatched agendas than an understanding critique of new ideas.

        Linux will never get anywhere if it _just_ mimics others...Copying popular features in a cargo-cult fashion will not result in a good, usable OS.

        Are you kidding me? That's the bread and butter of Linux! I can hardly think of a single feature of Linux or a piece of widely-used software for it that didn't start off as a wholesale clone of an existing idea!

        The thing is, with all those people looking at it, new ideas come in. And if Linux starts copying OS X features, it will pretty quickly acheive the customizability that's so lacking in OS X. Linux software starts as idea rip-off, but often ends up teaching the source of the idea how it's done.

  • OSX Still needs work (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Null_Packet ( 15946 ) <nullpacket@NosPAM.doscher.net> on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @06:44PM (#2438715)

    One thing to be wary of when inter-operating OS X 10.x with Windows machines is the Mac approach to links/shortcuts. When you make a shortcut in Windows, it's a bit like a soft link in Unix- it's only a pointer. When you copy a shortcut in Windows, you don't do anything with the target .exe or whatnot.

    When doing backups of OS 10.x laptops from an NT-based backup system, I found that OS 10.x was sending the remote client (the backup agent) into a filesystem loop. I had the user's home directory shared and the Agent backed up files similar to \\computer\share\Library\Documents\Library\Documen ts\ [computersh...ydocuments].... Which made for a drawn-out backup of a 300 Meg set of folders.

    On a personal scale, this is easy to remember, but IIRC Apple has been preaching about how good of a network citizen [http] OSX is. Quoting their site,

    "We've also added support to natively connect to Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Unix-based SAMBA file servers with the built-in SMB client. These servers appear right in the Finder like any other file server. This makes Mac OS X fluent in all of today's network languages."

    I'm not flaming Apple, but it seems that when it comes to interoperability between OS's, Apple could learn a lesson or two from the Unix side of the market.

    On a side not, was anyone else annoyed with the way Apple promised OS 10.1 is September, announced it on the 23rd, then waited until the last possible day of the month to actually ship it? I can't find the Register article stating it, but an Apple rep was quoted as saying something to the effect of "we promised September as a release date, and we are still technically on-target for that".

    • Ship delays (Score:4, Informative)

      by JohnsonWax ( 195390 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @09:03PM (#2439315)
      On a side not[e], was anyone else annoyed with the way Apple promised OS 10.1 is September, announced it on the 23rd, then waited until the last possible day of the month to actually ship it?

      (you really have to dig having spell-checkers work inside of web browsers...)

      Now, you have to keep in mind that in the closing days of finalizing OS X 10.1 at least some key Apple employees were caught well out of Cupertino when weekend getaways got dragged out to a week or more due to the airlines shutting down here in the USA. The ship date was on track to be closer to the 15th. Even Steve Jobs can't prevent the kinds of events that took place on 9/11.

    • Re:OSX Still needs work (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MSG ( 12810 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @10:21PM (#2439514)
      When you make a shortcut in Windows, it's a bit like a soft link in Unix- it's only a pointer.

      What? It's not *anything* like a soft link. It's not a filesystem pointer, it's a file. You can open it up and look at its contents. It's just a "special" file that the explorer knows how to read and interperet.

      When doing backups of OS 10.x laptops from an NT-based backup system, I found that OS 10.x was sending the remote client (the backup agent) into a filesystem loop.

      And you expected what? NT doesn't have any concept of a symbolic link, so there's no way to communicate to an NT machine that a file is one of those. There's just no language to describe it that NT will understand. Either symlinks work over SMB, and NT will follow them like any other file/folder, or they don't work at all, which would be very inconvenient, and very confusing to fix your special case of making backups from a platform too stupid to understand soft links.

      Apple could learn a lesson or two from the Unix side of the market.

      What lesson? Try the same thing on a Samba server running on Linux or FreeBSD. If you create an fs loop with symlinks, then your backup is going to fill up with your loop.

      That's why we don't run backups on NT servers. Run your backups on a system capable of actually understanding the semantics of other machines, or run the backup from the machine with the content and pipe the data to the tape on the backup server.

      It's NT that isn't a "good network citizen" and it always has been.
      • Run your backups on a system capable of actually understanding the semantics of other machines, or run the backup from the machine with the content and pipe the data to the tape on the backup server.
        Or just don't lie to your backup software; use the UNIX agent, instead of pointing it at an "NT file share..really!"
  • They've killed ars!

    Making HTTP connection to arstechnica.com
    Alert!: Unable to access document.
  • I had been using 9.x since I got my G4 but I installed v10.1 today. My first impressions are pretty mixed.


    Yes it looks purty but I don't think it's any easier to use. In fact compared to 9.x the desktop metaphor is just plain retarded. I'm sure there is a strong voice somewhere in Apple insisting the dock should do everything. This voice is wrong; many Mac users like having icons strewn about the place so the dock should not be so integral. I also don't like that some context menu options like "Make Alias" are missing in certain view modes in finder and you can't label stuff anymore. I also don't think much of the Classic mode - it works, but seems to be an entity in its own right with little attempt made to share settings or account info between Classic or OS X.


    Application wise, you get pretty much the equivalents of Mac OS 9 plus a few Unix style monitoring tools. No great shakes, everything seemed pretty much to work as expected. The DVD player is a major improvement over that piece of shit that OS 9.x touted, but still suffers from a minimalist UI. Quicktime still nags you to upgrade to pro - a major disencentive to ever use it again. iTunes is a nice new app for playing MP3s.


    Aqua looks lovely but hogs CPU and offers few innovations beyond the old classic look. I would have preferred a incremental UI upgrade. I also wonder WTF Apple is doing by "hardcoding" all these colours and that damned brushed metal look - haven't they heard of customisation? I think this hardcoding will bite them as apps are likely to be skinned to look like Aqua which is all well and good until Apple go and change the L&F once more - UI hell will ensure just like on Linux.


    On the other hand, OS X is Unix underneath (BSD in fact) and seems a lot more stable than OS 9. I did hang it pretty convincingly once and had to reboot but normally I could recover with the ALT+Apple+Esc. It's worrying that I've had to do this quite a bit during setting the machine up. I also finally figured out to enable the root (because it's disabled by default) so I was able to drop to a console and install a few GNU tools that I like.


    So all in all a mixed bag. Stability good, usability bad. The desktop is a major, major step backwards. Personally I wouldn't recommend it to a traditional Mac user unless they're clamouring for the Unix stability. Wait until 10.5 or 11 even.

    • When I first started running X I was annoyed at the UI changes, but after a while I started to use them, and now I think that OS 9 is pretty awkward. The Finder's toolbar/shelf is really handy, and is far nicer than tabbed folders, and Column view is really handy once you get used to it. I miss labels too, you should submit feedback about that.


      There is a tool called ASM if you clamor for the App Switcher in the upper righ like I do, that I use all the time. It makes things feel a lot more like OS 9.


      The Dock tries to do less in 10.1 than it does in 10.0.x (menu items taking over), so maybe things are heading away from the Swiss Army Dock. I think the Dock can be fairly handy, and as it evolves I bet it will get better.

    • Yes it looks purty but I don't think it's any easier to use

      On the contrary, I think Mac OS X provides a much more clear message to the user about how to perform tasks. But it is different than Mac OS 9, which some people have gotten used to.

      I'm sure there is a strong voice somewhere in Apple insisting the dock should do everything. This voice is wrong; many Mac users like having icons strewn about the place so the dock should not be so integral

      Mac users can strew things across the desktop if they like, but I think the Mac has long been begging for a central management metaphor. In OS9, you had the control strip, the application menu, the Apple menu and some other gadgets. None of them really looked or worked the same. Sure people became accustomed to it, but that doesn't mean it was good.

      Application wise, you get pretty much the equivalents of Mac OS 9 plus a few Unix style monitoring tools.

      By this you obviously are talking purely about the applications that are included on the CD, which some people might not figure out unless you say it explicitly.

      Aqua looks lovely but hogs CPU and offers few innovations beyond the old classic look

      There are real improvements present, but some of them are subtle. Aqua itself isn't going to provide anything other than the look -- it's just a theme. But other Mac OS X UI conventions, like drawers and sheets offer something quite new and quite useful, IMHO.

      I think this hardcoding will bite them as apps are likely to be skinned to look like Aqua which is all well and good until Apple go and change the L&F once more

      UI calls are abstracted in most cases, and the OS generates the widgets. ProjectBuilder handles all of this for you.

      Overall, I find Mac OS X feels more like home to me than Mac OS 9 does now. More work to do, but good progress is being made. Progress was not being made in OS9 UI, it was just familiar, and felt somewhat stale.

      - Scott

  • Chinese Support (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Giant Robot ( 56744 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @08:17PM (#2439163) Homepage
    It listed localization packs for Japanese, and other Euro langs..

    Although there's no localization pack for the 'other' east asian language, does anyone know the status of chinese support under OS/X (ie, displaying, rendering fonts, input methods, unicode conversion etc...)?

    Windows 2000 and Linux supports se asia l10n pretty well now, though w2k is really good! Everything is stored 'internally' as unicode, and the input/output can be converted to other (popular) encodings such as big5. Even the input methods are fairly complete.

    I want to convert to mac for DTP stuff (but requires chinese typesetting for many clients). I tried searching for Chinese support (like truetype fonts, input methods) and the only thing I can find is old 3rd party software for Mac 7.x or something...

  • Menu bar modifications (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sg3000 ( 87992 ) <<sg_public> <at> <mac.com>> on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @08:56PM (#2439287)

    Once again, John has done an excellent job reviewing the Mac OS. I have to disagree with him about the need for global menu bar modifications. He says,

    In 10.0.x, there was no officially sanctioned method for global menu bar modification. With the OS X Apple menu off limits to user and developer modification (a designation that remains in 10.1), the entire 10.0.x menu bar was effectively fixed (with the exception of Apple's tacit inclusion of an optional menu bar clock).

    Apple's rationale for this decision has been described to me as being motivated by the proliferation of menu bar clutter in classic Mac OS. Many classic Mac OS applications wanted to include their own system-wide menus, some of which had limited value to the user.

    Unfortunately, third parties will have to continue to stumble in the dark as they try to leverage the new system menu framework (and rest assured, they will try), because the system menu API is not public. Instead, Apple wants third party developers to add such functionality through what Apple calls "dock menus", meaning menus spawned from docked application icons (e.g. the new playback commands in the iTunes pop-up menu).

    He goes on to say it's a bad thing to not allow third parties to modify the menu bar

    The problem is, when you let third parties modify the menu bar, they always do it, whether the user wants them to or not. I remember back in Mac OS 9 and before, every software developer wanted their application to be right up front, so it seems everybody was sticking inits in the Extension folder so they could have their own menu bar icon. Microsoft would add one for some sort of shortcut. Palm adds one to access Palm Desktop. Power On Software would stick one on there for their contact manager. I personally found it annoying that these apps would unnecessarily clutter the menu bar, forcing me to dig through through the System Folder to get rid of whatever they stuck in there. It was even more annoying that under Mac OS 9 you have to reboot after removing an init.

    Apple is now saying, if you want a global menu item, use the Dock. Of course, some enterprising small developer will hack the menu bar for some specific function, but at least the big software companies won't clutter the menu bar just because they want the "premium real estate".

    Related to that, it's even better now that applications are self-contained into bundles, because I found it equally annoying that apps would scatter things all over the System Folder, making it annoying to delete everything.

  • New Apple topic icon(s) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John Siracusa ( 4209 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @09:48PM (#2439436) Homepage
    Man, it never fails...I always have moderator access to stories involving me. Anyway, now that I've forfeitted it, but while I still have a chance of being scored up, I'd like to pimp the Apple topic icons I emailed to Malda (where procmail no-doubt sent them to /dev/null :-P) The current one is just plain ugly, IMO. How about this instead? (Two versions of the same thing)

    http://siracusa.home.mindspring.com/images/topic ap ple-1.gif

    http://siracusa.home.mindspring.com/images/topic ap ple-2.gif

    (Without the space...grrr)
  • The image buffering thing is really unsettling. Given that Quartz is an inherently vector-based system, wouldn't it make much more sense to store the vector representation of the window, rather than the image contents? The memory requirements for this would be much more nominal.

    • Re:Image buffering (Score:2, Informative)

      by genglish ( 528950 )
      The image buffering thing is really unsettling. Given that Quartz is an inherently vector-based system, wouldn't it make much more sense to store the vector representation of the window, rather than the image contents? The memory requirements for this would be much more nominal.

      No.

      - Its not all vector based, there are plenty of bitmaps flying around.

      - A backing store is "the right way" to do it. The perpixel backing store is what allows all the funky blending operations like shadows & transparency.

      - A hack exists to turn on the built in backing store compression which substantially cuts the memory usage. If a windows contents don't change for a while CoreGraphics will automatically compress the backing store and decompress it again when it needs to. Fast, efficient and effective.

      - Memory is cheap, OS X is designed to last a long time. You should avoid assumptions based on todays hardware when designing something thats meant to last. CoreGraphics will scale well to future generations of graphics cards with tons of on board memory. These cards could render to on board backing stores and composite them totally off the processor. 3D cards do most of this work now, its only a matter of precision and flexibility before this becomes common.

      In reference to the main article, I'm always impressed with Johns ability to communicate his opinions. I don't always agree with him but its always worth a read, this one being no exception. Unless he flames me with that extensions vs type/creator code again, then he can rot in .hell :)

      Take it easy,
      Guy

  • yet more user opinion (Score:4, Informative)

    by motherhead ( 344331 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @11:39PM (#2439749)

    Posting late on this topic but I had to add my two cents,

    I have used macs to make money for about ten years now. So OS X development has been real important to me and yeah I was very disappointed with system OS 10.0.0 and even 10.0.4. I could not get any work done on it.

    I could not use my Wacom tablets on my Ti PowerBook or my G4 Tower, hence I never booted into OS X. I have a nice scsi raid that I inherited after my friend sold his Avid system and that wouldn't mount. I hate the Apple Pro Keyboard, mushy nasty keys and I have a nice USB Aftermarket one. It wouldn't work. With my powerbook I would get kernal panics and lockups for some reason when I had my second 256MB chip installed (crucial, good stuff). And yeah, slow.

    Since the Saturday I installed OS 10.1 I have yet to reboot back into System 9. Everything works and everything is fast enough for me. It might not be as snappy as 9.2.1 but hey I will take the protected kernel and the flat memory architecture since I have yet to crash 10.1 on accident (installing X gave me some weirdness but I expected it, this is not the same as apps blinking into the either because you did something silly like trying to access the file menu in order so save instead of just hitting apple-S)

    Classic works much, much better then I would have thought considering the OS is running as an app and I have yet to see an emulator this side of MAME works as well.

    Boot up OmniWeb and check out Slashdot to understand how nice the Quartz layer looks. Not only are the fonts beautiful but Slashdot gets a spellchecker since OmniWeb is hooked into the system library. IE 5.1... is a Microsoft product... If you like them, enjoy. Otherwise Mozilla and OmniWeb are all I need from browsers.

    I have an external TDK VeloCD 16/10/40 FireWire and both the PowerBook and the Tower can burn disks from the finder with no problems whatsoever. Also, I keep hearing people saying that DVD playback is erratic. Heh, on my PowerBook DVD playback is fixed. It always sucked in 9.2.1 no matter which version I used of the player. Now it is flawless and I actually use it to watch movies now, this delighted me.

    You know what sucks? This is what sucks. You can't tidy up the desktop as easily as you could with OS 7.x - 9.x. "arrange by name" is wonky and "clean up" only sometimes does. This is the desktop mind you, drive navigation is now actually fun. I also hate that the scroll wheel on my mice and trackballs work natively in OS 10.1, but don't under the classic environment, no matter if you load the drivers under classic or not.

    The only thing I have not tried yet is Games, I have heard the OpenGL drivers are much improved and the tower came with a nVidia card so I should get around to it eventually. But if I do enjoy playing games on the Mac too damn much... well what am I going to use my Win2K box for?

    I guess my point is this, I need my Mac to earn. So I can't have a broken OS, since installing OS10.1 I have gained much and lost nothing. That sounds like a successful release to me.

  • Apple's Technote on OS X 10.1 (Score:5, Informative)

    by etceteral ( 113669 ) <jc@NOSpAm.server ... facilitycabinet.> on Wednesday October 17, 2001 @04:02AM (#2440255) Homepage


    okay.. karma trolling here, but I missed this link the first time I read through the article.

    Here's Apple's Technote on OS X 10.1 [apple.com] chock full of useful tidbits about what bugs were fixed (lots of 'em).

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close