MacWorld Expo Report, Part II 371
Yesterday, I reported on the Jobs keynote and his ability to expand his reality field to encompass and entire ballroom. Today, do people still feel energized by his talk? Some were still pumped just to a part of the show, gasping and oo'ing and enjoying the melodrama of it all, but the next day there was a collective vibe of "well, was that it?". This is not to say that they were disappointed by it, but they perhaps wanted something more. The rumors had been flying for months about a flat screen iMac, and since that was what Apple brought forward, it was going to been seen as an evolutional, and thus anti-climactic, step, even if it was daringly packaged.
Many noted that they were expecting a speed bump for the G4 towers, but with Seybold coming up in February, many expect Apple to announce their tower update then to a more professional audience.
At the Tuesday keynote "The Power of X", Phil Shiller and Avie Tevanian talked about OS X and what it means to apple and to the future of the Macintosh platform. Apple is stressing how stable and crash proof OS X is and what this can means to the "Apple Faithful". They discussed the kernel, the media layers, security and the user interface and how it all works together. What they've done with their BSD derived core is really impressive. As part of the keynote, Tweak Films showed off an OS X based deep ocean wave visualization app that they assert they ported from Unix in weeks, with significant functionality gains.
The show floor itself was bouncy fun. For me it was a nice change from the austerity of a Linux exposition and it's focus on sheer functionality, capability and commerce. Large exhibitors included Alias|WaveFront, Adobe (not having anyone at this conference arrested, I noted), FileMaker pro, Microsoft and a number of other software development houses. As I walked the floor, I made a mental note of applications that were available for both Windows and the Macintosh. The reality is that there isn't much that is specifically for the Mac intosh, with the obvious exception of the hardware from apple, with all the vendors one ends up asking, what is unique here?
What Apple has that is unique, and sadly Windows and Linux both lack, is cohesion. Everyone with devices and software for the Mac seem to work so well with each other and the OS. We should strive to emulate that cohesion whenever practical for open source software. Before, the apple story was cohesion without stability or power. Now, with BSD at it's core, you can bet that Apple will be able to attack Windows, SUN and Linux on the power front. A year from now it will be interesting to see how many people are running apache to serve pages from their Apple machines, and I will be unsurprised if someone is giving an apache serving presentation at the next Apple WWDC.
Please note that I have posted some pictures of my trip to MacWorld, with some pictures of the new iMac and of the keynote.
New Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New Mac and Virtual PC (Score:2, Interesting)
That's exactly what I do. I'm currently running Civ3 in its own window that way. The terminal window gives me access to UNIX, and I have all my productivity applications accessible through the dock.
Re:VPC and DirectX (Score:2)
...Isn't there? (Score:5, Funny)
There is no MicrosoftWorld.
Look out the window.
/me holds his head in his hands and weeps quietly.
MS Community (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe this to be not because MS are big, but because they have not been original nor innovative enough to make their customers and users anxiously await the next release. Typically the Linux user knows a lot more about his system, compiling software, configuration etc than the windows users where it's already done for them. The Linux user stays more up to date about what's happening in the community. As does Mac users, new designs, innovative interfaces, ease of use and a powerful platform creates a stronger sense of community spirit than "GODAMN /%&#/%& Word crashed again" ever will.
I am a Linux newbie and have used Macs VERY little, but, those OSes / platforms are a whole lot more interesting to follow than Windows. Oh? What's that? New Windows release? So soon? Oh, so they've basically pathed it and applied makeup, wow...
Re:MS Community (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac Faithful (Score:5, Interesting)
Mac Faithful
Linux Geek
Microsoft Certified
Also, Microsoft is the Company, Linux is the Movement, and Apple is the Mothership
Silly and shallow thinking by chrisd (Score:5, Funny)
I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for people who are Windows boosters. Where do they go for their community?
Umm, that's about as useful as having meetings for non-alcoholics, non-Mensa qualifier get-togethers, or picnics for people who don't run marathons. Try looking into the majority/minority dynamic sometime. See, there's no need to seek out fellow Windows users when practically anybody can give 10 friends a call and 9 of them will have some Windows experience. C'mon chrisd, do try harder next time.
Re:Silly and shallow thinking by chrisd (Score:5, Interesting)
By extension: where does a Linux user go for help? Well, there's always the local LUG, and Apple has had user groups for some time. If you're a Windows user, and you need help, you can try a local teenager, anonymous online help forums, your vendor, or MS itself; the latter 2 most likely require your credit card. Community is important because it provides a source of free, hopefully helpful support.
Second: OK, admittedly, a group of people getting together and talking about Word macros seems a little silly. But since Microsoft is so (cough) innovative, shouldn't there be groups of people who get together to push forward this innovation, sharing and promoting the general use and utility of the platform? It is kinda hard when you can't share your source code, and not everyone can easily afford the compiler suite. Although that's just my opinion. But the real point is, don't Windows users do things *besides* play video games and type Word documents? Don't people want to share things like security techniques, usability improvements, "howtos", and other stuff? Aren't there Windows users out there doing really innovative things with their hardware and software, and want to share and enjoy?
I suppose not; community in the Windows world comes at a price. Involvement in the platform is non-existant. It is, after all, just an operating system, not a lifestyle, and there's plenty of community to be had (and opinion to be decided for me) from ZDnet and the rest.
Still; I've met lots of really cool people at LUGs, and I'm sure there's people with similar feelings about Apple user groups. Too bad for Windows; you're just another product activation key in the pool.
Re:Silly and shallow thinking by chrisd (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that if you are NOT in that community you will never know that there is a community.
For example to me there is no MAC community (I use LINUX and Windows). But my personal perception does not fit reality. Hence the assertion that there is no Windows community is absolutely false.
Re:Silly and shallow thinking by chrisd (Score:4, Insightful)
in windows, you do not have this advertisment. UseNet is about the only place you can go for help (save the web logs). do those people talk about the famouse Windows community members? do those people point you to resources that inform you? no.
even if Windows does have a community, it is so pitifuly weak and diluted, that it has no impact on 95% of the windows user base.
Re:Silly and shallow thinking by chrisd (Score:3, Insightful)
indeed chrisd. otherwise people will pick on every turn of phrase or minor comment in your post, trash it and you, and generate karma for themselves.
Chrisd, everything you said is wrong and sucks, and you are a slashdot editor, so everything you said is doubly wrong and sucky. And I can't believe you used the word "the" in your article. Clearly you do not understand even the basics of computing, and you should submit yourself to the Soylent Green recycling center immediately.
and I now their is a spelling mis take in they're somewhere, I just don't halve thyme to find it and generate karma form it. Ewe should use a spell czech pogrom.
C'mon chrisd, do try harder next time.
Re:Silly and shallow thinking by chrisd (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, come on Zico! You are assuming that Mac users cluster together for TECHNICAL support, like Windows users do.
It's just amazing to see how much freezes and crashes and almost-working peripherals Windows people are willing to endure. Eventually, you learn how to avoid specific problems. You don't burn CD's after you've used the printer, for example. This is the kind of experience of Windows people typically will have. They also know how to reinstall drivers, and sometimes even WHAT to reinstall.
Windows can fsck itself up in an incredible number of ways, and "some" Windows experience will not get you anywhere. Any of your friends is just likely to spend several hours sweating over the computer and then announce the problem impossible to solve and requiring a reinstall of Windows. As if that would solve anything permanently.
Mac users meet for MORAL support. When 95% of the world looks wryly at you because you've got the wrong brand of shoes... errr, a friendly and working computer, you need someone to say: hey, you made a smart choice.
--Bud
Pre OS X it was different (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've read about X (I still use 9.2 because I have an older machine, but may upgrade shortly) it solves this problem quite nicely. But most "members of the Mac community" remember the crashes, not fondly, but well.
Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the heck do Linux developers copy Windows? A copy of a copy? Why not *pick* to copy Apple's HCI and adopt it for the Linux desktop? It's been finalized for *years*. It's not new. It's older than Linux itself, I think. Especially now that Apple has more or less relegated OS 9 to standby status, many people are mourning the loss of their great OS.
At this rate, Windows will copy OS X, and then Linux will copy Windows...
At least *learn* everything Apple has so daringly decided to throw away with OS 9, and then start adopting OS Xisms, and shortcircuit Windows *altogether*.
Of course, the problem is that most people don't have access to a Mac and don't know what it's like to use a Mac and don't understand the Mac gestalt, otherwise they'd be using Macs already...
I'm probably gonna get modded down as a troll :) (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh well.
It's still a serious question. Has no one ever considered that, when developing a UI, that you should try to beat the king of the hill, not match king of the hill?
Where Windows is king of the hill in mass, and Mac is king of the hill in skill or something.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2, Insightful)
Enlightenment copies amiga to some extent.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:copy != plagiarize (Score:2, Insightful)
Too true (Score:4, Interesting)
Well nuts, there went my rant. Stole it from me whole cloth.
Well, I have more rants than just that... like how I wish more of the OS/2 technology saw emulation in other systems, since I've long felt that it was the best PC operating system. The object technology simply made for a more pleasant experience, whether you were doing basic things like surfing the web, or scripting your environment like a good little *nix weenie, or doing office work.
MacOS provides a different set of pleasant user experiences, a generally more consistent set, but nonetheless it lacks a number of things OS/2 had.
And all the people working on KDE and Gnome blithely ignore them all, and try to copy - feature for feature, and with less original thought than Microsoft used in following Apple - Microsoft's interface.
Yeah... (Score:2)
Really the biggest problem with OS/2 that I had was the ease with which the user desktop could be corrupted. Hopefully in the process of emulating the UI, that wouldn't be emulated.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2)
Hmm. My GNOME desktop has a Mac-like menubar at the top, complete with an application pull-down at the right and no silly "taskbar", which would be redundant and take up valuable space.
But each window gets it's own menus just like Windows. The widgets are IMHO, better than either Mac or Windows.
I'm quite happy with this layout and hate it when I have to use a Mac or Windows box for some reason. Obviously people who are used to one of the other systems won't like my interface choices, but then they can can choose different customizations.
My only complaint is that a few applications that I really need don't use the standard widget set and look butt-ugly. OpenOffice in particular. Once that's GNOMEified I won't have anything to complain about.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2, Insightful)
But each window gets it's own menus just like Windows. The widgets are IMHO, better than either Mac or Windows.
----
This actually will slow you down due to fitt's law. There have been a lot of studies (yes people in HCI do emperical experiments) that show that menu's on a window (ala Windows and many UNIX GUIs) are 500% slower than a fixed menubar on the top of the screen. This is due to a function of psychomotor skills of your brain. It is commonly dubbed 'Fitt's law', and is the reason why Macs have a global menu. Show's that sticking with a top menubar in OS X is not continuing thee tradition, but keeping what is best for the user.
You may think it is faster to access your menus on a per window basis, but you are actually slowing yourself down (assuming you are a human being and not an alien with a completely different psychomotor skills...)
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2)
I know about Fitt's law, but the truth is that I find the global menu really irritating. Whenever I use a Mac I end up getting really frustrated that I can't find the menu bar where I expect it. It's like using one of those annoying French keyboards that re-arrange three or four alpha keys for no reason.
I realize it's just a question of getting used to it though. It would be cool if GNOME had this as an option - I might even try it out for a while to see if I could get used to it.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2)
Umm... It's at the top of the screen. All the time, everytime, without fail.
You reveal yourself as being so Windows-centric you can't see around Bill's butt. Either that, or you must be an impossible student.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we need to *copy* anything anyway? Or at least, why isn't there a project to bring a new type of UI that is not WIMP, not Mac, not Win-like in any regards, that would be unique and well suited for maximum efficiency for power users? Yes, we still need the mac/win/WIMP clones in order to get Linux on the desktop and projects like KDE and GNOME cannot be overlooked in getting to that point. However, as we have the ability to define the UI at the system level instead of trying to add to an existing, there's no better place to try something other than WIMP than on Linux. And what if that becomes much more usable than WIMP for the casual user (doubtful, but not out of the realm of possibilites?)...it would be interesting to watch both Apple and MS run around like chickens as their user base switches to Linux for that great interface. Pipe dreams, sure, but that's half the problem with Linux development: we're always playing catch up in getting tools that are 'just like' what are already out there, and not a lot of time in developing systems that are new and completely different.
That said, it's not just a matter of writing code, but instead trying to figure out what this 'new interface' is. And that would require a large amount of brainstorming and idea generation to get to that. In addition, such a project might have to break from the X metaphore because of the high dependance of the libraries to support WIMP, and that would require a higher level of programming to provide a different graphically system for Linux. So there's a lot of undertaking that would have to be done for a tool that might only be used by a few. But I'm still curious to learn of any other UI metaphores that have been explored.
See modern-day religion at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not *pick* to copy Apple's HCI and adopt it for the Linux desktop?
Did it ever occur to you that the Mac UI is not the be-all and end-all of user interface design? No, because the Mac UI is 'holy' and many proponents of it adopt a 'holier-than-thou' attitude, yourself included. I can't deny that MacOS 9.x is pretty good from an HCI point of view, but is it as good as some Mac disciples make it out to be? Hardly.
There are actually quite a number of areas where MacOS 9.x is deficient compared to other systems, from a usability point of view. Let's list a few of the major ones, shall we?
What isn't mentioned is the side effect this causes - when every directory is opened in a new window, the screen rapidly fills up with windows, overwhelming the user. It is possible to tell the Finder to close the previous directory window when opening a new one, but only with a non-obvious keyboard modifier when double-clicking. Also, if the previous directory window has been closed, it is now impossible to navigate backwards. Other systems (Windows included) have found solutions to this problem - why hasn't the Mac?
There are more usability problems than this - these are just the first that came off the top of my head. Note also that both Windows and the Linux GUIs have avoided all these problems, and also come up with some good ideas that Apple hasn't even touched on - like the universal viewer application (Explorer, Konqueror, Nautilus), or thumbnailing of all pictures, not just the ones that the creator app decided to attach a thumbnail to.
Perhaps it isn't such a good idea to be blindly copying the Mac after all?
Don't even get me started on OS X, right now it's an ill thought-out usability nightmare. I'm sure it will get better, but right now it's the last place to be looking for usability ideas. It's pretty, yes, but pretty does not equal easy to use.
Of course, the problem is that most people don't have access to a Mac and don't know what it's like to use a Mac and don't understand the Mac gestalt, otherwise they'd be using Macs already...
Suuuuure. When you finally wake up and pull your head out of the sand, be sure to let us know, ok?
In the meantime, the rest of us can get on with using and improving our GUI experience, pulling the best ideas from existing GUIs as well as inventing new ideas. Blindly following anyone is a seriously poor idea.
Re:See modern-day religion at work... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:See modern-day religion at work... (Score:2, Informative)
Cursor arrows -- move currently selected icons
Begin typing -- select the icon which starts with... (Note, this means "can" selects "canada", as opposed to "ccc" when "canada" is the 3rd item starting with "c". I don't know how people can stand that style, what you have to type to select something _changes_ as items are added/removed from the list!)
Command-Down -- Open selected icon
Command-Up -- Open parent folder
Command-Left -- Open twist-arrow
Command-Right -- Close twist-arrow
Command-DEL -- Move item to trash
RETURN -- toggle rename mode
Hold Option while opening to close previous window; works with mouse and keyboard. Opt-Cmd-Up closes window and opens parent.
There's lots more, but that's just off the top of my head--because that's the stuff I use the most.
All of that is retained in OS X, plus the "go back" button in the Finder window toolbar. The major difference is Command-N opens a new window now (like a web browser), and you need Command-Shift-N for new folder.
Re:See modern-day religion at work... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, you can tear off the application menu and have one-click switching. And in OS X, you can configure your panel to autohide, and/or configure it with small icons that magnify fully as the cursor passes over them.
All interfaces are learned. MacOS 7.x-9.x is easier to learn, and more consistent, than most other OS interfaces.
Command click the title of the window, and you will get a pop-down of the full path to the current folder. I certainly prefer that to having a button bar with a web-like interface.
Then get a two-button mouse and plug it in. My father knows not of context menus. I use them extensively. He has the original mouse, while I use a Logitech optical mouse. I have no interest in teaching him the difference between right and left clicking, and he has no interest in learning, since he can do everything he needs to do with one button.
I don't see this as a major weakness. Context menus are important to Windows and Linux users (and I use both) because the UI is so poorly designed that they actually help. On Mac, the context menus are a minor assistance at best - in fact I mainly use them to quickly eject disks.
Or you could buy a tablet, or one of the many input devices designed for the disabled, and supported by the Mac, or just install one of several shareware or freeware programs which add full keyboard navigation to the Mac.
While adding their own far more crippling problems and inefficiencies.
I find it quite easy to use, though not as easy or seamless as the classic interface. The multicolumn directory browser is growing on me. At first, it annoyed me, but it is actually turning out to provide a faster move through directories in depth. Plus, being a long-time UNIX type, I like having the underlying BSD layer with a standard UNIX command line - it means that I will be able to consolidate my mix of Linux and Mac boxes into all OS X boxes, which will save me time administering my home net. If you like, you can always just run FFree86 and Gnome on OS X and work that way.
No truer thing was ever said.Please hold your condecension and arrogance... (Score:2)
Yeah, I was overdramatic.
You totally ignored my point. That Linux copies Windows. Instead you attack the Mac OS UI.
I've only used a Mac for 11 months now, and a PC for 7 years before that. I've played with Linux for a few years in college, and am running a server right now.
Sure, the Mac HCI isn't *perfect*. So improve it, that's a good idea. I'm just saying following the Mac HCI is a better start than no HCI or the Windows HCI.
I have to agree that blindly following anyone is a seriously poor idea, but the problem is that Linux UI people seem to be blindly following Windows, or no one at all.
Re:Umm...wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
The Finder-Using 3 button mouse assign option click to 2nd and control click to the 3rd button. option click to navigate forward, control use contextual, Command click in the Window's Title bar to navigate backwards.
Contextual Menu-if a user doesn't know what this is he also probably doesn't need a two button mouse.
Keyboard navigation-Mac OS 9 has great built-in options for optional input such as feet devices and speech command. And keyboard menu navigation has been an option for as long as I remember (Mac OS 6.x)
Re:See modern-day religion at work... (Score:2)
I don't know about = OS 9, but OS X allows the option for each successive folder to open in the original Finder window. This is how I use it. You're still able to retain spacial placement, but I choose to have the OS sort the files by name for me.
"Context menus have been shown to be a major enhancement to mousing efficiency, but by and large, Mac apps ignore them as they require use of a keyboard modifier or a non-standard mouse."
OS X (and I believe earlier versions) support right-button clicking for context clicking. Just because Apple doesn't manufacture a two-button mouse doesn't mean you can't attach one and use it.
"You're stuffed on a Mac if you can't use the mouse. The menubar is totally off limits to you, which makes the computer all but useless."
Mac OS X allows you to almost fully navigate the GUI with a keyboard, including the menubar. They places where it is still lacking is moving between buttons on sheets (think dialog box), however the default button pulses so you know what will happen if you just hit enter. They need to resolve this, otherwise.
"Of course OS X has both a panel and a top-level menubar, which is great. Except that now about a third of your screen is unavailable for application windows."
The Dock has an audo-hide feature since it isn't always required.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2)
Apple interfaces are optimized for a particular set of interactions. I like them a lot better for many things than I do the Win95 interfaces. But more people are familiar with the Win32 interfaces.
It depends on your purpose. Linux has the shell as a primary interface. Windowing systems sit on top of the shell, and facilitate it's use. So Linux systems are designed to make it reasonable to open several terminal windows at once, and interact with each independantly. Win32 systems aren't designed this way.
OTOH, if you want lots of people to use your system, you need to design it so that it is at least superficially familiar. So Linux windowing systems tend to have eye-candy that makes them look like either a Win32 computer or a Mac. They also have others, for people with different needs/desires. Consider BlackBox, e.g. This caters to minimalists. (Not me. I prefer KDE or Gnome. But that's the way I use the computer.)
So. Mac systems are great to take inspiration from. So are Win32 systems. And so is being original. One doesn't exclude the other, and it shouldn't.
Mac derives a lot of its strength from a unified approach. Everything fits together nicely (or at least it's supposed to). This makes it easy to learn quickly, but puts limits beyond which it becomes quite difficult to do things. Just try to do a massive file renaming on a Mac, e.g. Linux (probably most *nixs, but I've only used Linux recently) focuses on flexibility. The shells are scriptable. Everything that can be done with a mouse should be doable with just the keyboard. etc. If you don't like one windowing system, use another. If you prefer the gnome libraries over the kdelibs, then use them. Etc.
One strength that the Mac has had is the file resource fork. I understand that they are dropping this, and I consider it a mistake. They need, instead, to regularize and develop it. And it would be a good addition to Linux. The MS answer of a resource manager is less good, though it saves on disk space. The resource fork is a place to save things that are only used by one, or a few, applications. It can hold (and should be able, instead, to track) things that are only used by one application. Like dialog box specifications. Or libraries (these might be better tracked).
Here is where Linux could incorporate the Mac approach for much gain. The locate function could quickly find any needed library files when the application started up. So a file wouldn't need to stay in any particular place. Links are nice, but need to be managed manually. Not good. But an auto-updating link, one that changed where it was pointing to when the a file was moved...that could be quite useful. (Of course a reverse lookup table would be nice too. The rpm database has this on a coarse scale, but it would be nice to have a finer level of tracking, so that, e.g., one could do, e.g.:
mv
(assumption:
without breaking anything.
.
Windows copied X as well as Mac (Score:3, Informative)
The menubar style of Windows apps is from X. The Mac menubar cannot be done in a point-to-type environment, also it was more of an X design to not have a particular app be "active" but to have them all be equal. Turning open windows into an icon with 1:1 mapping between each icon and each window is from X (this is how Windows worked before '95). Keyboard navigation was exactly copied from the CDE/Motif environment, including the Alt+Tab (MicroSoft improved this by making Alt+Tab go to iconized windows, CDE required the mouse to open an iconized window), and the meaning of ctrl and shift on navigating lists of items.
In fact I see a lot more of X in MicroSoft's interface than Macintosh. The main thing taken from Mac is desktop icons (ie icons that do not correspond to windows). Also the keyboard bindings could claim to be copied from Mac, though at the time almost all X applications were copying the Mac bindings as well (one big difference is that the X applications, and most MSDOS ones, used the "Alt" key, MicroSoft's insistance on using "Ctrl" resulted in a huge mess and is mostly responsible for the claims that X appliations are inconsistent).
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, top left is quicker to access with the mouse. The OS 9 apple menu is also easier to hit, since it's in the corner and effectively infinitely large in two directions because there is no margin to the left or top; you can't 'overshoot' the icon (I'm sitting on OS X now and can't double-check that there's no margin to the left [there is one on OS X--shame on Apple], but I believe there are none).
There's all sorts of margin around the Start menu, and it's easy to overshoot it unless you move your mouse more slowly. Fitt's Law, dontcha know. Quoth Bruce Tognazzini [asktog.com]:
It's the same principle, though: a user-editable menu holding a variety of system-wide functions (launching apps, settings, etc.).
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sitting on an 8200/132 running OS 9.1 and alas, there is a margin to the left. Some third party menus can place themselves to the left of the Apple menu although most are on the right. But even without there is a 10 pixel or so dead space on the far left of the menu bar.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:2)
That makes sense.
The desktop metaphor is based on the idea that in the west we look for information left to right, top to bottom. Being in the upper left hand corner is much more natural. If you do not believe me, go use a Mac for a week and see what happens. At most, you look for things in their "Windows location" for a few hours. I personally go back and forth between both operating systems about equally after having used Windows for most of the past 7 years. On Windows, I always end up looking for things in the "Mac location"; I never look for things on the Mac in the "Windows location." That says a lot to me about who got it right.
Oh, and the dock is really nothing like the task bar.
Re:Isn't that just sheer shortsightedness? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple *bought* the UCSD Pascal system
IIRC, SoftTech owned the commerical rights to UCSD Pascal (from U.C. San Diego, where it was developed) and licensed it to Apple for the ][ and
Apple took UCSD Pascal and ported it to the Lisa then Mac
Apple actually bought a compiler from a 3rd party that generated 68000 code from UCSD Pascal source. This included the wonderful segment manager from UCSD Pascal that all Mac programmers love to hate. UCSD Pascal was never ported to either system AFAIK.
and further developed the UI using ideas copied from Xerox PARC and SUN Windows
Jef Raskin was the original proponent of the Lisa and Mac at Apple and it was he who convinced Jobs to start development on these projects. His PHD thesis was called "A Quick Draw Engine" and laid out the basis for the UI that was later developed at Xerox Parc. So in reality, Xerox Parc took the ideas from his thesis and he later took them back. See this search [google.com] at google for more details.
Raskin (Score:3, Informative)
Saw this in TechTV: Free Maya (Score:3, Interesting)
(I'm not sure at all of the platforms supported, though... I'm keeping my fingers crossed.)
Ideas Anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do any of you have an ideas that can be implimented to bring the cohesion that will obviously strengthen opensource? Can some functionality be added to SourceForge to help this?
Re:Ideas Anyone? (Score:2)
Good idea. I recommend first that you get everybody to agree to use the same editor.
Free Software's strength is it's greatest weakness. The diversity of it's community and the flatness of its management structure mean it will always be a bit scatterbrained when it comes to standards.
The only way you'll see cohesion is if a single entity (person or corporation) builds a complete system that is overwhelmingly good and allows other entities to copy it without charge. Very difficult proposition, and not likely to occur.
Steve on Lou Dobbs Moneyline (Score:4, Troll)
STEVE JOBS, CEO, APPLE COMPUTER: Good to be here.
DOBBS: The reception, there's been a lot of talk about the new product line. The fact of the matter is, you've got another winner on your hands?
JOBS: Well, we'll find out soon enough. We just launched it today, so we'll see the orders start to stream in over the next month and we're hopeful.
DOBBS: Now, there were also a number of people looking for the G5 introduction, some other products as well and some disappointed about that. When do we see that?
JOBS: Well, you know, we introduced an all new iMac which is a huge seller for us.
DOBBS: Right.
JOBS: We introduced the new I-book today and anew digital hub application called I-photo, which is sort of the missing link in digital photography. You can't do everything in one day, so we'll just have to wait for that one.
DOBBS: Give us a sense of when.
JOBS: You know, we can't talk about unannounced products, but.
DOBBS: All right. I know a number of people watching you and following you very carefully were, hopefully were looking for that product introduction. One of the things that you have to struggle with at Apple, and despite the fact you've done a terrific job since you came back, driving the company ahead, restoring its stock price. Your stock is up almost what, 60 percent over the past year.
The fact is, you're still locked at five percent of the market. Are you going to be able to break Apple out of that? Because you get ringing endorsements for the innovation in products, for the new marketing and everything else, but still you're at five percent. When do we see the breakout?
JOBS: Well, I'd say a few things. Number one, our share of the personal computer market is larger than either Mercedes or BMW's share of the automotive market. So just to put that in perspective.
DOBBS: Sure.
JOBS: But one of the things we're doing to increase our market share is we've actually opened 27 retail stores in the U.S. And what's interesting, is those stores, those 27 stores in the month of December alone had 800,000 visitors and 40 percent of the customers that bought a computer at our stores didn't own Mac when they bought it.
So, I think we're starting to see a little bit of optimism about that, and I think we're going to really focus on that in the next year or two to try to get our market share up a little bit.
DOBBS: Well, as you try to drive that share of market, at the same time you're in an industry caught in a recession and a tough recession. Do you see the computer industry, the PC industry itself recovering anytime soon?
JOBS: Well, you know right now the winners are going to be the survivors.
DOBBS: Right.
JOBS: Because it's a pretty tough industry right now.
DOBBS: Yes. JOBS: But yes, I think what we're focused on right now is that we see the next great age of personal computing coming, and that is where the personal computer becomes the digital hub for all these other cool little digital devices we have, like digital camcorders or digital cameras.
DOBBS: Right.
JOBS: DVD players, et cetera, and we're doing a lot of work in that area, and we're getting a lot of good feedback.
DOBBS: OK, well Steve Jobs, as always, it is good to have you here and much continued success.
JOBS: I have to show you one thing before I leave, Lou.
DOBBS: Do we have time?
JOBS: Check this out.
DOBBS: If you can show it to us in two seconds in two seconds.
Oh, that's cool. I will admit that's cool, Steve.
JOBS: Thanks.
DOBBS: Designed, I understand, inspired by the sunflower?
JOBS: We want to keep the flat screen flat.
DOBBS: You got it. Well again, all the very best Steve.
JOBS: Thanks.
DOBBS: Keep promoting -- Steve Jobs.
JOBS: Wait, I'm not finished you fat fuck. The new imac is also inspired by large breasted women.
DOBBS: Shut up you turtle-neck-wearing hippie. I thought you just liked little boys anyway.
JOBS: Fuck off pig. Isn't it time for your six martini lunch?
DOBBS: Ironically I ate an entire roasted pig for lunch today. You smoke a lot of marijuana don't you, Steve?
JOBS: Hell yeah, dude. It inspires me to open up my mind and let the karma flow. I do alot of TM too. It roxors.
DOBBS: TM? Ah yes, transcendental meditation. I can imagine you running around with your fairy friends. You must drop acid, too. I used to do that back in my younger days. Oh, the stories I could tell.
JOBS: Lou, I love acid. I didn't get to where I am today by ignoring the health benefits of regular acid trips.
DOBBS: So Steve how did you really come up the with iMac.
JOBS: Alright Lou, just don't eat me. Ha-ha-ha, mind if I smoke...
DOBBS: Go ahead.
JOBS: I dreamed of the new imac while I was having a wonderful acid trip. Jonathan Ive and I went out the the desert and we ate peyote and this awesome acid. While I was smoking some weed to take the edge off I had this wonderful vision. I had a pair of dragon wings and I was flying through a canyon when a distant mesa began to transform into a giant breast. I could smell the colors. It was just like when I had discovered Aqua. Then the giant breast erupted in a explosion of milk that glomed into a giant LCD. Then I realized my purpose for being here on Earth. I must make a new imac. Then Jon and I had sex.
DOBBS: Well, that's a great story Steve. Thanks for being with us today.
JOBS: Anytime, want a hit?
DOBBS: Yeah, thanks. And now, let's turn to Wolf Blitzer for the very latest. His show begins in just a few minutes. Wolf, tell us what's up.
***
"Feel free to make any improvements on this transcript." vm
How well will Apple respond to that community? (Score:5, Insightful)
I view all the moans from other Mac users in much the same way I remember the horror people expressed at the transition from OS 6 to OS 7. I am thrilled to be able to have a command line and all the power it offers at my finger tips, and the stability is very welcome. It is just fun to play with again, especially since it is so much more customizable. The system is still fresh, and has great potential. People should try to think of it as it will be in a year or two, with a bit more polish, and a lot more software. I hope that the linux community will be able to gain valuable stuff from OS X, just as we can gain from *nix. As long as Apple continues to show a willingness to respond to what users want, I have a lot of optimism for the system.
Re:How well will Apple respond to that community? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course UNIX has been around. NeXT has been around. But UNIX is not exactly known for its grand UIs. So what Apple seems to be doing is to learn the whole UI part again. They have some starting pointers from their experience, but I think it's actually great that they didn't do a 1:1 port of their interface to BSD. They could've done that, you know, just add AquaCandy to OS9 and there you go.
OSX shipped with a relatively basic UI. It ahd bugs. It was slow. Then came the updates, and sicne 10.1 it runs okay, 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 did further improvements to a point where I would call it "ready for the masses" (as Apple does, now, too, as Steve announced on the keynote). And now that their system runs well enough, they're going to add in all the features that really make sense (spring loaded folders seem to be a good addition, and so on).
This is how I think it has to be done: Get the system stable, usable, and efficent, THEN add features. Other vendors (I shan't name names, you know who they are) add features upon features while their platforms have been unstable for the past 10 years and they never got the bugs worked out.
I really hope that Apple will not make ANY compromises with OSX. If the longtime Apple users bitch and moan, let them. Listen to them, too. But don't add (or remove) a feature just because some people scream loudly (the whole file extension debate being a good example).
Re:How well will Apple respond to that community? (Score:2)
I would love to get rid of that bar on the top of the screen. In NeXT we had right click and the menue would appear, on OS X we have no such option we have to live with that god awfull bar on the top.
This may sound like a flame but it's just my $.02. I like my desktop clean.
No WindowsWorld since Windows users don't like Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Mac users love their computer environment and are very very faithful to Apple. Linux users love their OS and realize if something doesn't work it's usually their own fault, but it can be resolved with a little work.
Ciryon
Re:I prefer being able to view DVDs, personally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No WindowsWorld since Windows users don't like (Score:2, Insightful)
My experience with macs... (Score:3, Redundant)
It's great. I don't miss Windows at all, and the myth that you "can't get applications for the Mac" is such a load of cr@p.
In fact, the new Office for Mac OS X is, in my opinion, much BETTER than the Windows version. Networking has been faster, too, and that's important to us.
You'd never believe it, but it's cheaper too. No more calling for technical support or having someone on duty to fix problems with our systems.
You just don't need it with a Mac because the hardware and software is so well integrated.
The machines themselves have been CHEAPER for us. $1199 iMacs as clients and G4s to handle some of the heavier loads. It's worked great.
And by the way... that 22" Apple flat screen is not only beautiful for working with, but it impresses customers too.
I know it seems like a detail, but people have gotten the impression we're an upscale successful business because they see those screens and comment on them.
I know I seem like a troll ranting about this or that, but I just want to get the word out, because I'm a very pleased Apple customer...
and I'm laughing at myself for ever having used Windows for so long.
haven't i seen this before? (Score:5, Informative)
-Jon
Re:My experience with macs... (Score:2, Insightful)
>is now 80% Windows. Our servers run AIX and
>Solaris except for the NT file server. You know
>what? Everything is much faster, much more
>stable, and generally we are much more
>productive.
We used to be 30% Mac and 70% UNIX. Now we're 100% PC due to some questionable decisions about four years ago. We've lost more "features" than I care to count, we don't seem to have better security due to weekly updates because of security exploits on Windows and at least when my old Mac crashed I could get someone to fix it and the problem would go away. These days the spotty IT geeks just say "Reboot and ignore the error messages".
Sure, our machines are faster now but I'm comparing a 800Mhz Pentium with half a Gig of RAM to a Quadra 650 (at what, 40Mhz) with 16 Mb RAM. If it wasn't faster I'd be wondering. Windows has been such fun that I went out and bought a Powerbook for myself.
Re:My experience with macs... (Score:2)
I think he was actually referring to support and upkeep costs....which for him would seem to be cheaper.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Hacking the G4 Case and Overclocking (Score:2)
Check out the BlueIce G4 [kentsalas.com]
And overclocking is just a matter of jumper settings for many machines. Surf over to XLR8YourMac [xlr8yourmac.com] for more information
jenga (Score:2, Insightful)
The cohesion within the Linux community is different entirely, although present nonetheless. Go here [sourceforge.org] for an example.
To hold the two side by side is entertaining, but nothing more.
Best of both worlds (Score:5, Informative)
Though reluctant at first I have to say I was impressed.
In short, this is quite faster than what I expected after reading many comments, it is also cheap, has 5 hour battery life, an included DVD/CDRW drive, MSIE (like it or not, it is quite more functional as most other browsers and its only cons are : -1- it's Microsoft -2- it may still have backdoors)...
Now with Virtual PC or OfficeX it becomes an obvious choice for the hardcore multi-environment worker.
Mass-Porting Geek know they may quickly get some of their predilection Free Software up and running on this machine.
My personal favourite is Interface Builder which I have known for years...
So, this is both sexy looking and a seriously tempting alternative to other worl.
But no, it has nothing to do with a community but rather with a unique feeling/identity. The community is the consequence.
Warm Fuzzy (Score:5, Informative)
Being Mac faithful has been a hard thing. It's so hard to justify a company locking down it's software to just use its hardware. It's so difficult to watch Apple make silly little choices like the dock and know that it will latch on to that choice until the next complete revision of the OS.
But, hey, it does cool stuff. I mean, just putting my machine to sleep is cool -- the power button pulsates in a white glow to let me know that it's on but down. It looks alive ... like it is breathing.
And since I've been running 10.1, I haven't crashed. I've had to restart about four times in four months -- three times for system upgrades and once because I shut the computer down because I was going to be out of the house for a week -- and every time I realize that I've left my startup preferences all wrong, that I haven't been keeping up with my changes in my work flow. I'm still learning how I use it.
OS X is so rediculously stable (compared to all of my previous Mac/Win9X experiences). And it is so easy to use (compaired to my previous Linux/BeOS/BSD eperiences). Sure, there are imperfections -- the dock sucks when compaired to the ease-of-use of the Apple menu, etc, but it's not as confusing as any random X Windows client nor as difficult as and version of Microsoft's ... thing.
I'm a satisfied customer, and everything that I've seen so far has just made me want to be more of a customer. And that can't be all bad, can it?
--Mike
Re:Warm Fuzzy (Score:2)
So, when your processors duel, which one wins?
*Rimshot*
Thank you, I'll be with you all week. Tip your server. (But pick it up when it falls over.)
Community? (Score:2)
Might be offtopic but... One could argue that Windows is so big and so omnipresent today, it doesn't *need* floorshows to sell. Floorshows are for people/technologies who need mindshare. The network effect of 80 million Windows users is far greater than any floorshow or website community can ever manage. And don't forget that a lot of people who go to Linux/Mac floorshows are also Windows users (if only occasionally) and therefore de facto members of that community.
I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:4, Informative)
Some people are very happy with the new iMac announcement. Some are waiting for the G4 Tower speed bump that should be announced at the next expo. But all of us MacOS lovers who defected to the Dark Side over the years for one reason or another might be made happy by the little PCI card and software package that should be released soon.
Currently we x86 users are limited to running OS 8.x on 68k Mac emulators, the best of which is the GPL'ed Basilisk II. This works great for playing older Mac games (there are a lot of great ones never ported to Windows or Linux) and using any 68k-compatible Mac apps for a great level of interoperability, or just the cool factor of running so many OSes off one machine. It runs blazing fast with 68k code--but the obvious problem is that anything remotely recent is PPC-only, and OS 9 and OS X are far out of reach.
But the PPC emulator to be introduced at Macworld Tokyo will change all that. To MacOS, it will be indistinguishable from a real iMac. A cheap software-only version will be made available, but it won't run all the newest stuff; the jewel in the crown will be the hardware-assisted version, which will have a real, fast G3 processor and RAM on a PCI card. It should run anything an iMac will run and at native speeds or better (depending on processor).
Any OS 9.x operating system will run full-speed on it and it's very likely that OS X will be made to run on it too, although by all reports OS X on an older model iMac is no speed demon.
Since the Mac's VirtualPC has run all the latest Windows OSes for some time, it's only fair that PC users should finally be able to run the latest Mac OSes, OS X in particular. And with this G3 and RAM card, running the MacOS on an equipped x86 box will be a lot smoother than the Mac's current all-software VPC emulation of x86.
Before dismissing it as vaporous, the Microcode Solutions website may be Spartan, but the man behind it coded the first fully functional 68k Mac emulator for x86, Fusion, and has already released a rudimentary PPC Mac emulator for old Amigas equipped with PPC cards, through Blittersoft.
To some this won't mean much. But personally, I've always loved the MacOS, ever since I used System 7 many a year ago. But I didn't want to be locked into expensive proprietary hardware, or not be able to run Windows games. But if all goes well at Macworld Tokyo, a properly equipped PC may now be able to run Linux, Windows, and even OS X if the G3/RAM card and emulator are purchased. If there's demand, maybe the emulator software part of the package could be ported to x86 Linux.
It will be interesting indeed to see if Microcode Solutions comes through at Macworld Tokyo, and it'll be even more interesting to gauge the reaction of Macworld attendees if they see OS X running well on a PC. And that is very likely, since Jim Drew has been talking about his new product and answering questions about it on all the Mac-related emulation sites and forums, and even gave out pricing information--$349.95 for the fully-functional package with the PPC card, or $49.95 for the cheapo software-only emulator that will be far more limited in its abilities. $349.95 (plus OS purchase price, because you're not a pirate) to run OS X at native iMac speeds on a commodity "Wintel" box, with all its advantages, sounds pretty damn good.
And before any zealots start modding this down, it's valid news about an upcoming Mac expo, which definitely seems to be related to this thread. I may have defected to the Dark Side, but I still want all that creamy Mac goodnes. Having your cake and eating it too might be possible in a month and a half.
Re:I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:2)
ostiguy
Not at all. (Score:2)
But let's say Apple decides to add things into the upper layers in the near future that only work on G4's--entirely unlikely for several reasons, but for the sake of the argument let's assume so--the latest version of Mac OS X already has a much better performance and is better optimized than the first releases, and it's entirely unlikely that software makers will make any apps that will only run on a new G4-only version of the OS and not on the current version. That seems extraordinarily unlikely.
Plus, even though Apple is the worst company in history when it comes to screwing over their recent buyers (only slightly exaggerating) by obsoleting their hardware with no support, they're not about to screw over every single person who bought a G3 iMac just recently, and who will continue to buy them new until stocks run dry--at least not til 2 years or so after they bought their Macs.
So, *if* the card lives up to what has been implied, a buyer can expect to be able to run any version of MacOS released for at least another year and half or two. And even if Apple *does* really screw over all its iMac and G3 tower customers, which is unlikely since they're selling G3 iMacs this minute at Apple stores, who cares? Running the latest version of OS X should be enough for anyone for a while.
And there's nothing preventing a G4 card, either. G4 upgrade cards are already rampant in the Mac community.
Again, no one has seen this product in action yet, so I can't say anything for certain about it. But as for what's been recently implied by its tight-lipped author, Jim Drew was recently asked in an emulation forum what software and OSes it would support, and his coy reply was [paraphrasing] "It's an iMac-based emulation. What can an iMac run?"
There's a lot of promise if this product is pulled off right. It'll be the closest thing to a unified, all-in-one solution for PC and Mac in one box since many years ago when Apple had their DOS/Windows card option of a 66MHz 486 card with 16MB RAM back when a 486-66 with 16MB was actually a decent PC. VirtualPC on a Mac doesn't really cut it for convergence because the one strong point of Windows (since Office and such run on Mac) is its huge gaming compatibilty, but you need real hardware with graphics acceleration to play most decent newer games. But if you can have a good x86 rig with Windows for gaming, Linux for real work, and Mac OS X for work, interoperability, and eyecandy, all in one box--that is, as Cartman would say, hellasweet. And all without buying overpriced Mac hardware which Steve will obsolete all too soon. $349.99 for this PPC card package, that I can use with all my standard x86 hardware? $800 for a G3 iMac? I know which one I'd put my money on, since (I presume) they'd both be obsoleted about the same time.
Re:Not at all. (Score:2)
Ok, first off. Darwin !=OS X
Darwin is the Unix that Jobs so willfully speaks is under the hood of OS X.
OS X = Darwin + Aqua + Classic + some other stuff whose names I can't remember (the Java runtime thing, ect...).
Secondly, its sounds like hella vapor. (also what the hell does iMac-based emulation mean?). The problem with iMacs (at least the older CRT ones) is that the Boot ROM is on the Processor card. Therefore to act like an iMac, they're going to have to have some form of the Boot ROM on this card. I find it hard to believe that Apple would let this company just put anything like that near a Wintel PC (not to mention the fact that they're a product 2 months from a pretty major hardware release and nobody's seen it in action yet).
Oh and remember the Xtrem Mac?
Re:Not at all. (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, I'm not a moron. It's a lower layer of a multi-layered system, between the Mach microkernel and the upper layers of the OS and its APIs and its Quartz engine.
This is why I said "let's say Apple decides to add things into the upper layers in the near future that only work on G4's..."--because I recognize that they could, though I find it unlikely.
> Secondly, its sounds like hella vapor.
I explained in my first post the several reasons why it *most likely* isn't. First, the man behind it is a respected programmer who wrote the first complete and functional 68k Mac emulator for the PC, Fusion. Second, the company already released its software to run Mac OS on Amigas with PPC cards over a year ago, and licensed it to Blittersoft, and has been working on this ever since with the Amiga code as starting point. Third, the man behind it is going around to all the Mac emulation and convergence forums dropping droll hints about the product and drumming up expectations in the community for a Macworld Tokyo release. So either a respected individual has morphed into the Bitboys or he's going to release a big product he's excited about at Macworld Tokyo.
> (also what the hell does iMac-based emulation mean?)
It means that his emulator will be based around emulating an iMac.
> The problem with iMacs (at least the older CRT ones) is that the Boot ROM is on the Processor card.
Yes, which makes little difference since the boot ROM no longer actually does much. Unlike in the old 68k days, it's pretty much "Hi OS, I am a boot ROM. Bye." And that's that. And OS X doesn't even need a boot ROM--remember, Darwin.
> Therefore to act like an iMac, they're going to have to have some form of the Boot ROM on this card.
Not at all. They could devise their own original code that tells the OS it's a boot ROM, when it isn't. At least one existing Mac emulator already does this, mimicking the ROM's functions while not actually using any of Apple's proprietary code. But as I said, thanks to Darwin a boot ROM wouldn't be necessary to run OS X.
Also, there are some commercial 68k Mac emulators that have been sold for a long while which come with simple utilities for dumping a ROM image from a real live Mac. The pretense is that if you have an old Mac you no longer use, you have the right to use an image of the ROM for other purposes. Fair Use. Of course, few people actually use those included ROM extraction utilities on Macs they don't intend to use--instead they just download ROM images off USENET or the Web. But the company making the software can't be held responsible, because they provided a perfectly legal way for you to use your own Mac ROM.
Since this product doesn't target Mac users--it targets a certain enthusiast segment of the PC crowd--anyone likely to buy it already knows where to download an iMac ROM. They're out there as we speak, and have been ever since a few months after iMacs were released.
In addition, Apple has released updates on its website that actually have Open Firmware updates embedded in them.
> I find it hard to believe that Apple would let this company just put anything like that near a Wintel PC
Again, they have zero legal recourse as long as the company either bypasses the ROM by using their own original code, or includes an original utility for dumping your own legal copy of your own legal ROM from your own iMac. The company that makes a product can't be held responsible if some users pirate iMac ROMs, since they will have provided a legitimate means for users to obtain legal ROMs from their own hardware. As I said, existing products have successfully taken both approaches, althout I must say that no existing product is as good as the GPL'd Basilisk II.
And either way, OS X could be made to boot on it without a ROM at all thanks to the Darwin layer.
But since I know the product will support the older MacOS's, and can't be sure yet whether it'll support OS X right off the bat, I rather suspect the programmer has just bypassed the necessity for the ROM through creative coding, since at leat one emulator already does so.
> (not to mention the fact that they're a product 2 months from a pretty major hardware release and nobody's seen it in action yet).
That's usually how giddy master programmers are about their major products they've spent years developing. Mr. Drew probably isnt giving deatails because he's having fun building up expectation. He probably wants to play Steve Jobs for a Day and surprise everyone with his new baby. At least, this is what I would gather from what I've been reading him say in the emulation forums. He's always coy and cryptic in a playful sort of way, rather than the "oh no my product sucks" sort of way.
We'll know at Macworld Tokyo whether his product lives up to the expectations he's helped fuel. If it runs OS X at any decent speed--not even full speed of a real iMac--those who'd think about buying such a card/emulator combo would be impressed enough. If it runs OS X at about the full speed of an iMac, we'll be very, very impressed and happy with it. If it only runs OS 9, we'll be disappointed but hopeful that OS X can still be made to work with it with a little Darwin-hacking.
We'll know soon enough
Re:I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:2)
Microsoft chucks their older OSes into the memory hole, Apple's you can still download from their site, up to OS 7.5.5 right now, I believe. You can't even download any version of MS-DOS from Microsoft's site.
Microsoft always makes buying a new machine preloaded with their latest OS a more attractive option than upgrading what you've got by buying the new version of Windows off the shelf. Installing a new OS is quite a challenge for Joe Consumer, no matter how easy Microsoft tries to make it. I know, because a few of my friends are Joe Consumers and need help with the simplest of troubleshooting and other upkeep-related tasks in Windows, and that's *with* all the hand-holding Microsoft codes in. And the increased code bloat in every version of Windows makes that new Gateway or Dell box with a speedier processor that much more attractive to them.
Apple may dabble in planned obsolescence, but Microsoft invented and perfected it.
~Philly
Waaaaaay offbase! (Score:2)
I think that's totally mistaken. Apple sells, as Steve likes to point out time and again, "the whole widget." Therefore, Apple has direct profit to be made by obsoleting their own hardware as quickly as possible. Even in Mac-rabid forums like MacSlash there are plenty of Mac users willing to acknowledge that Apple's OS doesn't ever seem to support hardware older than 2-3 years very well compared to what it could.
For example, at Macslash I recently read a complaint that OS X only half-heartedly and barely supports a top-of-the-line beige G3 that was quite expensive and touted at the time by Apple itself as being the Mac of the future with a long lifetime ahead of it, and yes Apple promised buyers that it would be supported by the next-gen operating environment. So, this particular user pointed out that despite its ATI card Apple refused to provide an accelerated graphics driver support for it, so that OS X redraws like crap. Apple provided very broken ADB support so that he couldn't use any of the stuff that came from Apple with the beige G3 when he bought it, so Apple told him to get a Firewire card and new peripherals. He replaced a drive with another Apple drive and it refused to work, so Apple told him to just get an IDE card since they never put real full SCSI support into OS X.
You see, Apple made a promise to people who bought top-of-the-line beige G3's for a very hefty sum that they would be supported by the new OS, and that their G3's would have long useful lifespans. Even their ad copy said so. That was a half-truth, at best. Just a few months later those beige G3's were obsoleted by the newer, cheaper, faster, fruity ones we all know and love, and are now known as "Old World" (i.e., unsupported) hardware.
Apple's behavior in this example shows a fundamental lack of respect for its buyers. Those Old World G3's had built-in obsolescence and yet continued to be touted as prime new machines right up until the New World rollout. Why? Because Apple is going to make a lot of profit every time a user upgrades his Mac, so there's every reason to make that be as soon as possible.
Other specific examples abound. How about the very expensive 68k lines Apple continued to sell and push the Hell out of right as they were ready to roll out PPC and obsolete the fuck out of them? How about all the machines--some of them just a couple years old--that went completely unsupported after System 7.5.5, which is why Apple just went ahead and put that OS release up on its Website for users of those systems to download, since they'd never be supported again? How about the TAM [Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh], whose special wow features that got people to pay ungodly sums of money for this beautiful limited edition hardware soon were completely unsupported in any new versions of the OS (after 8.5 or 8.6, can't recall exactly) despite the fact that coding support for its little buttons and doo-dads would have taken a single programmer all of a day?
How about the Wallstreet (I think that's the right one, going from memory) PowerBook G3, an arm and a leg in its day and now can't even run OS X despite the fact that even cheap older iBooks--which cost a lot less--can? Going back into the mysts of time, remember the overpriced, and soon outpowered IIfx, with its notorious lack of compatibility with sooooo much hardware?
Apple just doesn't care about supporting a product at all any longer than it has to, since the user will come back and buy new hardware. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft which, for all its numerous faults, tries to support every piece of hardware it can right in the OS. Pick any random PC, and if it's got enough RAM in it and the processor is fast enough (the requirement is very low for 98SE and Me, but a bit more for WinXP since it's so different) the odds are either WinMe or WinXP will boot on it without any problems, and that furthermore almost all of the hardware will be supported "out-of-the-box" despite the fact that there are hundreds of different makers--and if it isn't supported instantly, it's going to be something nonessential, and a driver file download will make it work. Microsoft even wanted to write its own new drivers for the Voodoo cards for WindowsXP after 3dfx went under, since there were so many Voodoo users out there, but nVidia (picker of the 3dfx corpse) wouldn't let them use the source code for the existing drivers, plus a few bits were licensed from others. But the point is, as evil as Microsoft is in some ways, they were actually prepared to write drivers for an obsoleted and bankrupt hardware company's products so that they'd work well enough under their new OS, since so many users were out there.
Apple has never done anything remotely similar. Whereas Microsoft deliberately tries to include support for every piece of hardware they can, even if it's old and obsolete or weird or rare, even though they don't make the hardware and have no control over its hundreds of makers, Apple does exactly the opposite. Apple has total control over all the core hardware and a lot of the other hardware, and yet they don't make any effort to support older hardware a moment longer than they think they need to. For Apple, it's just about trying to make things just obsolete enough to induce a full system upgrade in a neat 2-3 year timeframe. That's because Apple gets money directly from the hardware and Microsoft doesn't. Apple always wants you to buy new hardware; Microsoft wants you to buy new software. So it's in MS's best interests to support as much hardware as possible. It's in Apple's financial interests to support as little hardware as possible.
This is why I was able to install Win98SE recently on an ancient Packard-Bell piece of junk from 1990-1993 or so, and it detected all the hardware correctly and loaded all the right drivers--even for the cheesy video and audio chips I'd never even heard of. I could have easily installed WinME on it instead using the switch to remove the minimum requirements during install, but WinME's "extra features" (which I dislike, but which are well-geared toward stupid home users) would have slowed the old beast down. I can even install WinXP on some very old hardware if I wanted to--it would run slow, but it would run. The point is, the hardware support is there, inbuilt, despite astounding variety of core components and makers in the x86 world. But with only one maker of core components in the Mac world, the hardware support is not there.
Built-in obsolescence, indeed. MS is guilty of bloat and mediocre to poor coding--but not of deliberate and calculated failure to support hardware just to get people to buy more. that's Apple's MO.
Re:Waaaaaay offbase! (Score:2)
Re:I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:2)
And for what it's worth, Microsoft still offers MS-DOS for download to MSDN subscribers. Sure they don't support it, but at least they offer it to customers that may have to use or support it themselves.
Re:I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:2)
I just wanted to point it out because some of the details may be off the mark, although several things like the pricing information and the fact that it should be able to run whatever an iMac can run came directly from the developer's own postings to forums.
But it's clear that with a real G3 processor on a PCI card to act as the CPU of the iMac emulator, and a GHz+ Athlon or P!!!/4 processor to emulate other functions, and with the gobs of DDR SDRAM memory available cheap these days, an x86 box should definitely be able to handle anything a G3 iMac can if the emulation portion of a package is well coded.
I for one look forward to seeing it, and if it runs OS X and at least moderately well, buying it.
Re:I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:2)
No, I run Amiga games on an emulator, but that's about as close as I'll ever come to to touching an Amiga.
I can't say how talented he is when it comes to programming for the Amiga, but I can say that he's proven himself when it comes to programming emulators for the x86 PC. His Fusion emulator was way ahead of anything else out at the time. It's outdated now, even though it still has better support for more of the MacOS's features than Derek Mihocka's overpriced and underfeatured SoftMac (which still, AFAIK, doesn't do more than 256 color mode). Now the GPL'd Basilisk II is by far the best 68k Mac emulator, but years ago Fusion was the only full-featured 68k Mac emulator out there.
Now, however, Jim Drew is going around telling a lot of people in public emulation forums that his product will be ready for Macworld Tokyo in 2 months. He said he might even preview it sooner. So either he's really close to releasing this product, or he's gone utterly insane.
Of course, again, which one remains to be seen.
Macworld Tokyo will tell the tale. I'm sure we all can't wait.
Re:I'm waiting for Macworld in March... (Score:2)
Nope, software license agreements still have yet to hold up in any Court case in the U.S., despite a few kinks so far and UCITA. I seriously doubt the Court is going to completely invalidate the doctrines of First Sale and Fair Use so thoroughly. Personally, I live in a state with a good track record of reasonable decisions in favor of consumers' rights, where no Court is going to say a person can't use something he's bought and paid for.
Not to mention thousands of people are breaking Apple's licensing agreements already by using OS 8.x on 68k emulators. Apple may not like Fair Use, but it's still there. And there are no "trade secrets" involved, which was the deciding factor in the DVD DeCSS case.
Apple can tell you a lot of things are illegal, but it doesn't make it so. A classic example is their hounding of rumor sites for posting images of upcoming Mac products--it's a clear-cut First Amendment right to post them, what with that pesky freedom of the press clause and all. Unlike the flimsy thread the DVD-CCA hung the DeCSS case on--that it was a trade secret--Apple couldn't claim the same thing since they're images of products which they don't intend to keep a secret. Apple just bullies the small sites into taking them down, since a rumor site can't stand up for its rights. You can't typically fully assert your rights without money in our unfortunate system.
Point being, the license agreement means nothing in this instance. You can't give up your legal rights by clicking on a dialogue box. It's much like those signs at pools that say "Swim at Own Risk"--you can still sue the pool's owner if something happens to you and his pool was at fault.
Of course, I'm just a thinker, not a lawyer or hacker. Cum grano salis, et alia...
Apache (Score:3, Interesting)
Regarding Apache for MacOS X - it is installed by default, and individual users can share "~/Sites" (equivalent to ~/public_html) using the GUI control panel.
The best part about this is that Apple configured httpd.conf so that it includes the appropriate user configs as extra files; you can edit httpd.conf yourself without fear of the changes being lost. Furthermore, you can replace the apache binaries if you need to upgrade. Apple provides ( understand ) an apache module to better work with the non-case sensitive file system which should also work with newer versions, but worst case is that this is lost.
I added Tomcat yesterady, apache.org have a binary download.
Interesting pop-up. (Score:2)
I almost closed it as another X10 or other spam. It actualy had something to do with the convention.
I wonder if it was a mistake putting real information in the pop-up as most people are contidioned to kill pop-ups on the spot without even looking at them.
DisplayPDF (slightly OT) (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't OSX's dispay engine vector based? Very cool but isn't that a fairly big disadvantage when it comes to display photographic images like jpg's etc? Do they have a way around it or am I wrong in general?
Re:DisplayPDF (slightly OT) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DisplayPDF (slightly OT) (Score:3, Informative)
Much of the interface is still bitmapped images to speed up rendering. Jpegs and non-vector images are handled just like the bitmapped interface images..
Re:DisplayPDF (slightly OT) (Score:3, Informative)
You're generally wrong.
Quartz being vector-based doesn't mean it can't do bitmaps. Compare Display PostScript, or PostScript printers.
Don't forget adversity! (Score:4, Interesting)
, Apple's really firing on all cylinders these days, but don't forget that a little over four years ago things weren't quite so rosey, and it was pretty common to speculate just when Apple would expire.
As a long standing Mac user, I remember those days clearly.
Threats cause folks - the so-called Macfaithful in this case - to join together against the preceived danger. Call it a herd instinct, a crowd mentality, whatever; external threats focus your attention.
The Windows crowd is dominant now, and hence have no reason to exhibit such unity.
Answer (Score:3, Funny)
Where do they go for their community?
The Windows world, creators and consumers alike, has long been ruled by bean counters and eschews any need of "community".
After all, they have "money".
Nothing like the 1977 West Coast Computer Faire (Score:2)
Cohesion is easy when variety is minimal (Score:2)
This is easy to do when your OS and your hardware both come from the same company. As an example, how many people had any hardware/software compatibility issues with their Commodore 64? At least until the later years, everyone had the exact same amount of RAM, same graphics and sound capabilities, same plugs, etc. If you developed hardware or wrote software for the 64, it was easy to make it compatible with all of them because they were all the same "rubber-stamped" machines.
PC's are so scattered about because there are a bajillion different hardware configurations, and each with a (slight or major) different OS revision than your next-door neighbor's PC.
So if you want cohesion, you have to give up variety. The mac has it going for it that everything comes from one place, which is good for now so long as you agree with what Apple puts out. And I'm not knocking on the mac, it's a cool machine, especially since they finally put out a decent OS, but I'm just pointing out that in order to have "cohesion", variety will suffer.
OSX -- LINUX -- WIN (Score:3, Insightful)
1 -- The make you run their OS on their hardware. IT HAS TO WORK. They know what you have.
2 -- They practically force 3rd party developers and manufacturers to "Do the Apple Thing" Subsequently things look a like, work alike and keep the "Apple Vibe"
3 -- They make users fanatics. They create a niche whrere "creative people" _need_ an Apple. You're not going to be creative on a PC; _Are you?_
------
Now Linux has fanatic users, sure. And Linux will run on a million different different machines. Sound? Who needs sound?
Vi vs Emacs
KDE vs Gnome
Enlightenment vs Sawfish
RPM (et al) vs make
Red Hat vs Everyone else
No sense of community like Mac has. More of a taunting older brother (UNIX) with a smart alecky sibling.
----------
Windows is a horrible mess.
DOS, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, NT, W2K
More bad publicity than anything I have ever seen. If I was MS I would pull Outlook off the shelf and send everyone on the planet a copy of Eudora or something. Even things that are not Outlook/Explorer related tend to get lumped into an MS problem (see also AIM.)
Users _don't_ want to get together and talk about their computers. (Some wold argue that is becuase they are busy using them, others would say it is because they are busy rebooting!) But in any event I see little pride in owning XP SP1.
----------
Apple has created a "Vibe" about their product. Created a myth that their products are the only thing that can do certain things.
Truth be told -- Apple makes excellent products and _NOW_ has an excellent OS to go with their _cool_ hardware. And let's face it Anything you can do on a Mac you can do on any PC (Lin/WIN). You could even be... creative. But the perception persists because Apple has made their marketing work so well that _YOU_ believe it.
Re:OSX -- LINUX -- WIN (Score:2, Informative)
"
A myth? The state of color correction on Windows is vastly inferior to the Mac. Colorsync is system wide. You don't have to _think_ about it. Any user can take a picture from their camera, and print it out. On a Mac, it will look exactly like what is on the screen. On Windows, you're lucky if the colors look similar.
Re:OSX -- LINUX -- WIN (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the prevelance of this myth is that it used to be quite true. Several years ago if a freelancer claiming to be a professional designer came to me looking for a job but told me he used a PC he would not get the job. Why? because he was not and could not be a professional. Professional art and design software simply wasn't available on the PC. Since those days Adobe, Quark etc. have all ported their apps to the PC and now it is not only possible to be a professional designer using a PC there are actually some that do.
Today the advantages are subtler and found in smaller details. First off there is simply the inertia of the industry and compatiblity with that industries standard. nearly all of your professional peers and all the vendors you need are primarily mac based. Designers, photographers, service bureaus, printers etc. are all using macs - You are on the wrong side of whatever (ususually minor - but still there) compatiblity issues remain between PC's and Macs.
Secondly: ColorSync. Systemwide and well supported color management is HUGE for a visual artist. Particularly the art-director or designer who is responsible for making sure that the photo looks the same to the photographer, to the designer, to the client, to the proofsheet, to the final printed piece. You have no idea what a big, important, potentially costly issue this is. You would be amazed at how much color can change each step along the way without good color management and how screwed you are if it comes out wrong.
Finally, and this advantage is not limited to artists though they are perhaps more impacted by it than most, ease-of-use, "intuitive" UI and that cohession the article spoke of. Artists, designers, musicians etc. are "right-brained" they tend to be more intuitive than deductive. The computer is only a tool to them, they often have a love/hate relationship with it. They love it for the creative power it gives them. They hate it's fussiness and the technical crap they need to learn to get it to work. The less technical crap the better - the more that technical crap is hidden away or the better they are able pursue their real goals (the creative stuff they love and get paid for.) Linux and Unix in general are complete failures at "intuitive" UI. Everything is learned jargon and technical details - great and natural for the "left-brained" engineer or Programmer but an unnecessary nightmare for the creative professional. Windows is not so bad and is always getting better. But it still isn't quite as natural to an intuitive thinker than the Mac - it still carries some of the baggage of it's more technically minded past. One of my favorite quotes from "Triumph of the Nerds" was when Jobs said that Gates' problem was that "he had no taste - and I mean that in a large way" Jobs also made the point that Apple had (because Jobs hired them) programmers that were also artists and musicians - people that in his mind were not only technically astute but who had "taste" or a sense of aesthetics. Gates hired people like himself - technical astute but without any aesthetic sensibilities whatsoever. The initial products from each company reflected that. It has changed over time, Apple after Jobs became less of a creative place, Microsoft as it grew learned to appreciate the value of good design (and hired away many UI people from Apple). But the products still reflect the philosophies that went into their creation.
G4 updates at Seybold???? (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that we won't have a major tower announcement until the Apple show this summer. At that time, I would expect the G4 towers to become the G5 tower, as Motorola will be ready to ship in quantity during that timeframe. Why spend cycles updating the towers for faster G4s when new G5 models are just around the corner?
Re:G4 updates at Seybold???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, the G4 Apollo chip is ready to go. They could at least break the Ghz barrier with the G4 line. Then in summer annouce the new G5 towers.
Re:G4 updates at Seybold???? (Score:2)
You may be right I don't expect a major upgrade to G5's until summer. But I would expect at least a speed bump at Sybold or MacWorld Japan. For marketing reasons they can't have their consumer machines kicking the ass of their professional machines.
MicrosoftWorld (Score:3, Funny)
Sure there is. Ever heard of Defcon?
Are there Windows boosters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm... In the 15+ years that I've been working with computers, I don't think I've ever met anyone who was a Windows booster (who don't also work for Microsoft), and certainly none of the people I've met who have had to manage or support a Windows network have been real fans (myself included). At best I'd say people were neutral. [That's not MS-bashing, that's a true observation!]
In my experience, most people who do praise Microsoft do so for their business success (which is another issue, which I won't go into here) rather than the merits of Windows.
But, that aside, it seems to me that non-technically-savvy Windows-users would not be interested enough to want to attend a UG or convention, and technically-savvy Windows-users know enough about the problems with Windows that are hard to deny.
Linux fans can rally around the Open Source warcry; Mac users can bond over the cohesion of their systems. What can Windows users use as our mantra? "BSOD"? "Buffer Overflow"? The best we can use seems to be "market-share".
But the people with enough passion for the technology (who would be likely to organize/attend a convention) don't really care about Market-share, in my experience. We're motivated more by Cool-share.
With Microsoft's current totalitarian licensing scheme (e.g., forcing people to create a Passport account), the message that they send is that Microsoft isn't interested in cultivating user loyalty; they're more interested in developing subordination as a means to get to our money. [Okay, that _is_ a little MS-bashing, and a slight rant.
But that's just my opinion.
-- D.
The MacWorld floor (Score:2, Interesting)
He must have had the same experience that I did. It was like they carpeted over a previous show without breaking it down first. I nearly faceplanted about nine times just walking around. I swear one of the lumps under the carpet was human-sized. Anyone seen Woz recently? I'm beginning to worry.
name for M$ equivalent MacWorld (Score:2, Funny)
It's called PC Expo (Score:3, Informative)
Last year's PC Expo is summarized here [techxny.com].
The next one will be held June 25-27 2002 at the Javits Convention Center in New York.
Re:The main reason all the Mac stuff work cohesive (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would KDE and GNOME developers need to break X compatibility in the first place? Both toolkits are abstracted from X enough so that both toolkits are pretty portable and only use X on Linux because that is what everbody else uses and some apps talk directly to Motif or Xlib which some people feel they can't live without.
Re:The main reason all the Mac stuff work cohesive (Score:2)
I think that USB floppies are supported, but that the built in floppies on old machines (such as on my 8600 and maybe the beige G3's) are not supported.
I can mount a floppy in my USB drive, but not the built-in, under OS X.
Re:Linux integration & Linux needs iDVD! (Score:2)
Re:Linux integration & Linux needs iDVD! (Score:2)
Re:What could linux learn from Apple? (Score:2)
2. Grub
3. You'll always find flaws in your design no matter how much thought is put into it. Thus the evolutionary progress of *all* OS's. OS X versus OS X.1 is a great example of that.
4. I would have to say that that number of people using and developing Linux under all the different configurations out there can be construed as taking input from "a number of external sources." Not to mention Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc. and their feedback.
5. The Linux source code is controlled by the maintainer of the kernel series. Different people have tried different source control tools and none have worked yet.
I'm not going to say there aren't things wrong with Linux, but you certainly haven't pointed any out here. And none of what you said makes it easier to debug OS X. And even if you do find a bug in it, are you going to write up a patch and submit it to the maintainers? Nope, didn't think so.