Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tiger Slideshow: Pretty Mac OS X Pictures

Comments Filter:
  • by JPriest (547211) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:04PM (#9603307) Homepage
    People that own PC's don't like to buy software, so most PC software people use is either cracked shareware or adware.

    People that use Linux don't like to pay for software or deal with adware and shareware, so they have free second rate versions instead.

    People on Macs actually pay for software, so Mac software (of you can afford to keep up) outclasses that of of the competition.

    Apple also makes more software than Microsoft, and OSX comes with more free high quality tools. All that power in an OS and it still comes with a real comand shell. For the small market share Apple has, they seem to be doing a fine job of producing quality software.

  • by The Lord of Chaos (231000) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:05PM (#9603319)
    Looks like you can turn on and off a private browsing feature.

    Sure beats creating a second firefox profile and clearing all your privacy info just to go surfing for pr0n...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:07PM (#9603331)
    Like 64bit support, and the return of metadata. While Tiger is sure to boast some nice GUI improvements, such as Dashboard, some of its greatest strengths are not visible in pictures.

    Jaguar seemed pretty polished to me, and Panther is simply the bomb. Tiger, I think, is going to be utterly and undeniably HOT. And consider this: It's not coming out for probably almost another year, and MANY more goodies will likely be unveiled in that time.

    Who said Apple was really just a hardware company? I don't think so -- they are a computer company, and that means hardware and software, at least as far as they're concerned. And the synergy is simply amazing.
  • new features (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dncsky1530 (711564) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:08PM (#9603343) Homepage
    The most interesting thing is that this is the third Mac OS X release to include more than 150 new features.

    Apple is already anticipating Microsoft will copy them, just check out the Shirts [ebay.com] from WWDC!

    Also notice how little features each windows released comes with, even though they are released every 3 years. Well according to MS 'longhorn' will be more stable, of course only if you have 2 gigs of RAM.
  • by FlipmodePlaya (719010) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:10PM (#9603351) Journal
    I won't touch that second rate comment, I'm sure a hundred zealots will have defiled you by the time I finish this post.

    I think you're wrong about Windows users (who I believe you were referring to) not buying software. They must, looking at the sales figures of popular programs like Photoshop and MS Office, as well as games. For ever script kiddie playing a hacked copy of UT2K4, or whatever, how many do you think bought the real thing?
  • by bsartist (550317) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:21PM (#9603416) Homepage
    If I used OSX I'd want a minimual install option

    If you used OS X, you'd know that such an option already exists. Just click on the "advanced install" button and deselect the packages you don't want. Couldn't be simpler.
  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:34PM (#9603479)
    OSX is way snappier than XP. I have a 3GHz and doing something as trivial as opening a folder in treeview in windows explorer can often have me drumming my fingers for seconds. That very rarely happens on my Mac and that's only running at 800Mhz.

    Yes, OSX used to be slow, but that's not an issue I've had with Panther.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:38PM (#9603500)
    My computer got 25% faster between 10.2 and 10.3. That's a service pack?

    Windows 2000 = WinNT 5.0
    Windows XP = WinNT 5.1

    Is that a service pack too?

    Yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls...
  • by OneNonly (55197) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:39PM (#9603503)
    I didn't say it was new.. I said it was being brought to the masses :) This is a Good Thing!! And I'd assume (not having used BeOS) that it does it differently (allowing all types of files to be browsed interactively through a real time search..)

    The obvious advantage is that it takes less time to find what you're after - but when hundreds of thousands of users start using this on their desktop, what will be next.. ? Perhaps a move away from straight hyperlinked navigation on the web - perhaps real time searching (as opposed to search engine type searching) for moving around websites may be possible.. ? I would *love* this.. So often I have to drill down through 10 levels of a website to find what I'm after, when a simple Go To: "geforce4 driver linux" or "contact address map" would give me want I wanted straight away...

    More exposure to this sort of facility through something like OS X will only spur on development in other areas.. Bring it on :D
  • by mdarksbane (587589) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:43PM (#9603534)
    For the last time:

    There are more games available for mac than you can ever play in one lifetime.

    Yes, you can't build an awesome gaming rig for a cheap, and there are some games that will never make it over. Likewise, you will never be able to play Halo on PS2.

    However, thousands of games are ported/written for mac every year, and while the video cards in most macs aren't anything to brag about compared to PC, they'll still play every game that comes out for them.

    No, not breakout, or even super-breakout. I'm talking Halo, Unreal Tournament 2k4, Battlefield 1942, Age of Empires II, Dungeon Siege, etc, etc, etc. No, you can't play Counterstrike, but there's a lot more to gaming than CS.

    Gah. Yes, buying a mac to do nothing but play games is stupid. However, "I like to play games" is *not* a good reason to not get a mac if the rest of your computing experience is at least as important.
  • by crayz (1056) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:43PM (#9603536) Homepage
    XP is snappier in some ways, but it's also easier to totally grind it to a halt. OS X almost never gets to the point of a frozen UI
  • Re:But boy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acceleriter (231439) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:51PM (#9603565)
    Now, if MS were to offer something similar, you whackos would be screaming for anti-trust violations...

    Maybe that's because Apple hasn't repeatedly abused the trust of its users and its software doesn't call home without the user's knowlege or consent?

  • by generic-man (33649) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:51PM (#9603567) Homepage Journal
    Get off your high horse. For all the utilities on VersionTracker that cost $20 to register, there are tons of serial numbers floating around on the web. I know plenty of Mac users who feel entitled to use all their software for free -- including Mac OS X itself.
  • Re:new features (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Moridineas (213502) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:55PM (#9603577) Journal
    How little features each windows release comes with? I assume you mean how few new features. I have to disagree with this.

    95-98-ME were all fairly incremental installs, though 98 was pretty signifigant over 95. The discussion for these dead operating systems is pretty much over though--unless you want to argue about 4 year old systems.

    NT -> 2K -> XP on the otherhand have all been huge releases--much bigger than any of the OSX releases, though 10.0 -> 10.4 is pretty damn big.

    And also, let's not forget while frequent OS updates are fun for hobbyists to play with, they're a pain for professionals and others who use their computers as a tool and at work. That's one of the biggest bitches about OSX--for the "old school" Mac users--artists, professionals, etc--OSX offers few performance or productivity advantanges. For home computers I think OSX is great, and I'm using a powerbook as I write this message, but let's not go nuts about it.

  • by willy_me (212994) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:19PM (#9603669)
    When launching applications, hard drive speed is the limiting factor. Laptop drives are much slower then those in a desktop. If you want to speed things up just get an external 1394b drive and more memory. Memory is essential because OSX uses a lot of it and more memory prevents VM swapping to the slow laptop drive.

    I have the same Powerbook, and upgrading to 1Gig made a noticeable difference. By the way, Safari is under 2 seconds if it has been cached in memory. Granted it's slower when launched for the first time, but this just shows that initializing the app doesn't take long, it's loading it into memory that is the problem. This is a problem for all computers using 2.5" drives.
  • Spotlight (Score:2, Insightful)

    by The Real Nem (793299) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:20PM (#9603672) Homepage
    Why is everyone so concerned with searching for files these days? I honestly don't understand why database like file systems are major features of both Mac OS X and Longhorn. I guess it makes sense if you are talking about someone who is computer illiterate, someone who saves their files wherever the default location is and has no concept of file systems. But I don't think I've had to search for more than three files in the past year. That figure might be slightly affected by the fact that searching for files on Windows is quite slow, but if you just organize your files to start with I don't see what the problem is.
  • Re:Get an eMac (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bedouin (248624) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:21PM (#9603682)
    Why would you spend $800 an a 1.25 Ghz (!) machine and even more for 512 MB ram (!!) to do email, internet, documents, etc.? If the "etc" is not too heavy, any second-hand $200 PC or $300 laptop is enough.

    Because OS X doesn't run on x86 laptops from 1998, and that's what he wants to run?

    Nothing wrong with a 1.2ghz G4 by the way, though I hate to get into the whole 'megahertz myth' argument, so maybe next time.

    My dad bought an eMac a few months ago. The extra $200 for a system that runs OS X makes up for the hours I'd have to spend removing spyware, patching, and keeping anti-virus definitions up to date. Not to mention those wonderful moments when nothing but a complete reinstall will do.
  • by dmaxwell (43234) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:22PM (#9603689)
    I hate to be the smartass to point this out to you but the guts of your perfect OS are based "free second rate stuff" and are even compiled with "free second rate stuff".
  • by rmull (26174) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:37PM (#9603739) Homepage
    OTOH, you might want to take a look at my other post in this article--among professionals, a signifigant number have stuck with OS9 because osx gui etc and overhead is so much heavier than in os9 that programs like photoshop, illustrator, quark, etc run a lot slower.

    Part of it is GUI overhead, but a lot of it is probably having a proper scheduler, memory protection, and all the other trappings that go with a modern OS. Plus all the apps are made with higher-level libraries that incur more overhead themselves, but lead to better software in the end. I'll bet Win95 would be pretty snappy on my Athlon too.
  • by SilentChris (452960) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:45PM (#9603766) Homepage
    "Jaguar seemed pretty polished to me, and Panther is simply the bomb. Tiger, I think, is going to be utterly and undeniably HOT."

    Oh God. Can we talk objectively for once? This nonsense of admonishing everything Apple creates on Slashdot is getting a little insane. And this is coming from someone currently typing on an iBook.

    Apple makes very good UIs. They also tends to come out with some hardware hits (iPod) and misses (tie-dye iMac anyone)? They're a corporation like everyone else. They remain silent on security issues, continue to charge an arm and a leg for software updates (10.3, despite what some people felt, wasn't worth $100), and steal from the few developers that actively support the platform [konfabulator.com].

    The fact that I'm hearing people say "I'd pay $100 just for Dashboard" is absolutely nuts. Look at what you're getting. Think sensibly for once.
  • Re:new features (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WasterDave (20047) <(moc.pekdez) (ta) (pevad)> on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:58PM (#9603808)
    2k to XP was big? How'd you figure that?

    Dave
  • by Bishop (4500) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:15AM (#9603877)
    As someone who uses a Mac I have to say that MacOS is not that special.

    MacOS is a good operating system. The gui looks good, and is fast enough on good hardware. The BSD bit is great. Especially the compiler and the access to all that *nix open source software.

    The problem is that MacOS has annoyances just like Windows has annoyances. The annoyances are different, but I don't think MacOS has any fewer then Windows. Mac users like to say "It just works." By the same criteria I think you would find that Windows XP "just works."

    I find that my Mac screen gets cluttered quickly. Expose is a required feature for MacOS, otherwise it is too easy to lose track of application windows. Windows achieves similar results with the task bar showing every open window, but it breaks if too many windows are open. Alt-tab works better under Windows then the MacOS equivalent. I find that MacOS relies more heavily on the mouse then Windows. I have yet to find a way to maximize a window with the keyboard. The MacOS Maximize button dosen't maximize to full screen like I would expect it too. Windows applications have an annoying habit of grabbing keyboard focus when you least expect it. MacOS applications don't grab keyboard focus when you would expect it. The top application window in MacOS may not be the active application. I find that Windows is more customizable then MacOS. For example you can properly set the dot pitch of your screen under Windows. MacOS is locked to 75dpi (patheticly coarse). My monitor does 100dpi easily.

    These are all petty little problems: or annoyances. Both Windows and MacOS have their fair share. Don't believe people who say MacOS is perfect. Don't believe the hype.

    I think both work equally well. The only reason to choose one over the other is if one has specific features that you want. Features such as software or hardware.
  • Re:Spotlight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrchaotica (681592) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:25AM (#9603950)
    The idea is to make it so that the computer takes care of organizing files for you, so that you don't have to.

    Also, you can make special "views" of files for specific tasks. For example, you can have all the files associated with a certain project in a saved search, when they are actually organized in a different way (say by file type)

    More concrete example: You're working on a video. You have source footage, audio tracks, and images in ~/Movies, ~/Music, and ~/Pictures, respectively. These were created by various co-workers, and not all of them are being used for the current project. Spotlight would let you create views for "show me all the files associated with my project" and "show me all the files created by $this_other_guy", etc.
  • by HSpirit (519997) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:30AM (#9603984)

    Perhaps the most significant improvement is what seems to be the integration [apple.com] (finally) of complete HFS+ file-system functionality into the mainstay command-line apps such as cp, tar, rsync etc:

    Tiger provides a standard, Darwin-level API for managing resource forks, filesystem metadata, security information, properties and other attributes in a consistent, cross-platform manner. For example, common UNIX utilities such as cp, tar and rsync can properly handle HFS+ resource forks.
    It's been a long time coming, but I think finally we have a fully scriptable Mac at all levels of system administration.
  • by bigman2003 (671309) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @01:28AM (#9604173) Homepage
    Prior to entering into a 'professional career', I did not know anyone who actually purchased Photoshop.

    But, 15 years later, I don't know anyone who steals any software.

    When you make real money, with a real career, you have real expenses. Software is just one of them. But spending $500-$700 is not that big of a deal for a legitimate business.
  • by Dixie_Flatline (5077) * <vincent.jan.goh@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @02:07AM (#9604291) Homepage
    Anecdotally, I find the interface under OS X to be faster and easier to use, and OS X as an OS considerably more stable. It handles greater loads for longer periods of time than my XP machine at work.

    I won't claim that OS X and the iApps are perfect (I file bugs about interface problems all the time), and quite a lot of people don't like the way the finder works, or how the dock is implemented. However, I wouldn't say that XP works 'equally well'. At best, I find it performs adequately well. It manages to stay stable enough for me to do my work for a few days before I NEED to reboot (or it kindly arbitrarily does it for me), but I often find myself looking for menu options that aren't there, or trying to do things that may as well be entirely impossible. (The 'services' menu option that's available in every OS X application by default is something that's terribly useful now and then, and drives me nuts that XP doesn't have.)

    In any case, everybody's personal experience is just that - personal. I could contest your points one by one, but I'm not really trying to convince you. I couldn't really let that comment go, though.

    Given that I don't think that they work equally well, I would advise potential switchers to find an OS X machine and sit down and see if it does what you want, and if you can live with the differences to XP. As long as OS X stays on this track, I'll never buy another Windows box. I can work faster, longer and more enjoyably on a Mac.
  • by Stinking Pig (45860) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @02:36AM (#9604369) Homepage
    Agreed. I use Panther, XP, Windows 2003, and Mandrake 10 with Xfce4 on a regular basis. Xfce4 remains my favorite interface, maybe because I've gotten most used to its annoyances :) I'd like Mac OSX better if I had an external mouse with enough buttons (jesus, give up on the lame single button thing already!) and if I could turn off that damned bar across the top. I gather these are things that the Mac devotee love though, so they probably won't go away.
  • Re:Oooooooo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rk87 (622509) <chris DOT r DOT walton AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @03:11AM (#9604440) Journal
    alright, the moderator who modded this interesting should be shot, hung up by his balls, fucked in every body cavity by 15 black men, 4 horses, and an elephant, then finally defenestrated on a cliffside falling a very steep 3km into shark infested waters. ITS FUNNY, NOT INTERESTING. Sheesh.
  • by killjoe (766577) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:30AM (#9604660)
    Given that both OS have their quirks, given that they both work just about equally well, Mac OS X is still better because it allows you access to the BSD layer. As an added bonus you also get X-11. In other words you get to run all the Mac software and all the nix software you have come to love.

    Having said that I do think that OS-X is much better then XP. Expose alone is enough to give it the edge over windows. Once tiger comes out it won't even be close.
  • Re:Dashboard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by killjoe (766577) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:43AM (#9604711)
    Actually Macs are a developers dream. They come with Xcode and a gui builder bundled for free. Xcode is a pretty good IDE and the next version (tiger) will be even better. The interface builder is awsome. They also let you program in java and objective-C. Using pyobjc you can even do python development. On top of all that they provide you with a very rich API that takes care of all the hard work.

    What they have done now is to make it even easier for ordinary people to write little applets.

    If you are kid learning to program I can't think of a better platform for you to learn on.
  • Re:Dashboard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:59AM (#9604754) Homepage Journal
    ``Actually Macs are a developers dream.''

    Oh, yes, I very much agree.

    ``What they have done now is to make it even easier for ordinary people to write little applets.''

    Well, what's easier than designing an interface with Interface Builder, and putting in some Objective-C code to tie it together? Certainly not writing HTML and JavaScript...

    ``If you are kid learning to program I can't think of a better platform for you to learn on.''

    Again, same point. Why is HTML+JavaScript _better_ than Interface Builder + Objective C? Last I checked, Cocoa/ObjC was a lot cleaner than DOM/JavaScript.

    As an added benefit, Objective C can use all the system has to offer, rather than some subset of it.

    If you really want to describe your user interfaces in XML (like me), you can always use Renaissance [gnustep.it]. This makes your apps work on GNUStep, too, meaning they can run on Linux, BSD and even Windows systems.
  • by jos3000 (202805) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:08AM (#9604891) Homepage

    Some things I can't say were related to these displays... There were at least 3 (nda) sessions I attended where I kept thinking mentally. "It's about time. I wonder if the 30" displays made the engineering teams decide to finally add this to Mac OS X". The Mac has always said that they have a well engineered foundation for graphics, but I think making these displays a reality will be a nice impetus for getting some of those ideas out of the realm of theory and into reality as well :-)



    These displays are a great thing that will benefit Mac users even if you don't have a 30" display.



    I'm guessing that you're talking about resolution independant graphics for GUI elements - Menu bars, buttons, scroll bars... perhaps even icons.



    I'm only guessing this because I was bitching to a coworker yesterday that this is a feature that Windows and Mac OS X should have had from the beginning. If I'm right, it's the start of a new age in GUI technology... And it will allow Apple to use super hi-res displays on their laptops without making the OS look stupid (something Sony and Dell don't seem to mind)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @07:50AM (#9605069)
    That's what happens when a company concentrates on making the best god damn cute animated dog instead of rethinking the search science.

    Remember Computer Science? Nothing to do with PCs/Macs or mainframes, it's the science of computing as in processing data and getting a result.
  • Re:new features (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KH (28388) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @08:17AM (#9605161)

    I'm not 100% sure OSX has this today? I also believe OS9 didn't have it.


    I was doing expanded desktop on my SE/30 running System 7. It may be that Mac had expanded desktop (meaning that if you connect a second monitor, you get a big connected desktop) has been around at least since the System 6 days.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @09:19AM (#9605354)
    ...in my opinion, apple would make A LOT more money if they released a PC version of OSX

    No, they wouldn't. It would cost much more than $129 because it wouldn't be subsidized by Apple hardware sales. That would drive all the Wintards to pirate it (actually they'd probably still pirate it if it was only $129), making Apple no money. Apple would also see a huge slowdown in sales of their hardware, which is their major source of revenue. In short, releasing a version of OS X that ran on x86 would kill the company. Were you not paying attention in the mid 90's when Mac clones almost killed Apple? Apparently not.

    OS X will never, never, never run on any hardware that Apple has not produced-- so surrender the fantasy of running OS X on some homebuilt x86 shitbox, or even a Dell. The major selling point of the Mac is the "it just works" factor-- the tight integration between Apple software and Apple hardware. They won't be able to deliver that if they suddenly have to support hundreds of varieties of commodity hardware flying out of factories in East Bumblefuck, Asia. Microsoft has blown through umpteen billion dollars over damn near twenty years in their attempt to do it, and they still haven't got it right. And if you think Dell would offer OS X as a preload option on their machines, think again. Microsoft would revoke their Windows license in a heartbeat and try to put them out of business.

    Apple is a hardware company, period. Their software is just a selling point for their hardware. Look at iTunes and the iTunes Music Store as another example-- iTunes is a free download, and they barely make a profit on the sale of iTMS music. The whole thing is set up to sell iPods, and ideally induce some satisifed iPod buyers to switch to the Mac.
  • by foidulus (743482) * on Sunday July 04, 2004 @09:28AM (#9605390)
    All macs are capable of running Linux, check out yellowdog or debian, they have mac distros.
  • Re:Get an eMac (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:34PM (#9606463)
    Does nobody rob Fort Knox because it's more secure than a bank or a bank is more common?

    Windows is never designed for security. Even Microsoft admit that. We'll see with Longhorn, but by all indication, it'll not be much different. The problem with Microsoft is they try to tie so many things together just because they can or just because they want to dominate a certain market. Security consideration is a second priority. Take IE and Windows for example. Many security issues comes from IE.

    OTOH, Mac OS X is designed with security in mind. Of course like any OS, it has it's own vulnerabilities, but they are fixed quickly and most are not as severe as Windows vulnerabilities. It took MS 200 days to fix a critical security problem. The main issue with OS X is Trojan Horses since they rely on social engineering. There is no virus/worm found yet on OS X to date and there is one instance of a Trojan, an tiny app masquerading as MS Office 2004 Beta installer, loose on P2P. The other is a proof-of-concept trojan, using the old Mac OS 9-style resource fork of an MP3 to deliver a payload, which does not work in OS X unless it's packaged and delivered in a format that preserve the resource fork like SIT (StuffIt) or BIN (MacBinary).
  • Re:new features (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @03:57PM (#9607843) Homepage
    Well, the first Mac that I know of that did this out of the box -- given multiple video cards -- was the Mac II. It shipped with System 4.1 and Finder 5.5 back in, what, 1987?

    It's an OLD feature.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...