Apple Drops Mac OS 9 675
Eugenia Loli writes "MacCentral has the up-to-the-minute updates on the Apple WorldWide Developer Conference. The first big news is that Apple drops Mac OS 9. 'It's time to drop OS 9,' Steve Jobs said. 'We can do things in X that we just can't do in 9... a hundred percent of what we're doing is X only. [...] Mac OS 9 isn't dead for our customers, but it is for developers. Today we say goodbye to Mac OS 9 for all future development,' said Jobs." We all expected this to happen sooner or later, more sooner than later. There's been no new Apple development for Mac OS 9 in some time; only maintenance updates. But I won't stop Mac OS 9 development. You can't stop me! Muahahahaha! Update: 05/06 18:31 GMT by P : More news from WWDC continues to roll in.
Eugenia Loli writes "Probably the really big news is with Jaguar, the codename for Mac OS X 10.2. There is handwriting recognition technology that will be recognized by any application that uses text. Apple also introduced Quartz Extreme, which takes the compositing engine in Quartz, and accelerates it in graphics cards, and combines 2D, 3D and video in one hardware pipeline via OpenGL. 'Everything on the screen is being drawn in hardware by OpenGL.' It requires AGP 2x and 32MB of video RAM. It is not possible on older graphics cards like RAGE 128 cards, said Jobs -- that means it'll work on newer iMacs and eMacs, but not on older machines, he emphasized. Jobs said this puts Apple two years ahead of 'the other guys.'"
Update: 05/06 18:46 GMT by P : An anonymous user writes: "Apple is releasing Mac OS X Rackmount Servers. Also releasing AIM-compatible messaging called iChat; you can create buddy lists of anyone on the local network, and you can use your mac.com username to log in to it."
Rendezvous sounds interesting... open standard too (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called zeroconf (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's called zeroconf (Score:2)
Re:Rendezvous sounds interesting... open standard (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rendezvous sounds interesting... open standard (Score:2)
So... you can easily share your stuff with anyone on the internet -- though I wonder how autodiscovery would work like that (wow.. 30 million mac users online).
Kinda brings new meaning to p2p integration if it's directly tied into the burning suites.
Re:Rendezvous sounds interesting... open standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rendezvous sounds interesting... open standard (Score:2)
Re:Rendezvous sounds interesting... open standard (Score:5, Informative)
What Apple is calling "Rendezvous" begins with link-local IPv4 addressing and adds "multicast DNS" (which Microsoft wants to call "link-local multicast name resolution," i.e. LLMNR... sigh).
Here's what Rendezvous *actually* is: it's the last little bit of what Appletalk had going for it, finally "ported over" to work on the Internet protocol. Not only is Mac OS 9 in the terminal patient's ward-- so is the Appletalk network protocol. Happy happy day.
--
Oh Happy Day (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
And again it shows that Apple are able to make gutsey decisions and lead the market rather than follow it. Whatever you think of the relative merits of X vs. 9, this is the kind of bleeding-edge decision making that Apple needs if it is to differentiate itself from the Windows platform.
Re:Makes sense (Score:2, Informative)
Another thing that I discovered recently... many printers that don't work right away in OS X suddenly start working fine when you install Sharity (SMB file sharing app... check versiontracker). oddest thing.
However, from what I understand, most of the printer issues OS X brought will be solved either in 10.1.5 or in 10.2. It's just a matter of being patient (ha!)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
No. I'm a rabid Mac addict. Nevertheless, Apple's current behavior would be totally unacceptable if they were in charge. But. They're. Not. And that makes all the difference in the world.
If Apple and Microsoft magically traded places, and Steve Jobs controlled 90% of the computer industry, the world would be much worse off. Lord Steve is a brilliant visionary, but he's also a vicious tyrant (when he gets the chance to do so). Imagine the alternate universe from Treehouse of Horror where Ned Flanders ruled the world. It would be like that, only with lickable widgets.
Restatement: the rules are supposed to be different for a convicted monopolist.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
--Bud
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
How in the hell are .NET and OS X similar? One is a new Unix-based operating system leveraging Apple technologies, and one is a completely new "applications as internet services" paradigm. Hell, I'll go even further to prove my point that switching words proves nothing:
"This makes huge sense for The Legions of Satan: their future is .Mussolini and the company has been saying this for some time. I'm glad they are making the cut now, still relatively early in .Mussolini's life cycle. This will help push developers onto the new platform; in turn this is good for end users because the applications they need to run are more likely to appear on .Mussolini.
And again it shows that The Legions of Satan are able to make gutsey decisions and lead the market rather than follow it. Whatever you think of the relative merits of .Mussolini vs. traditional COM applications, this is the kind of bleeding-edge decision making that The Legions of Satan need if they are to differentiate itself from the other platforms."
Of course changing the words to something inherently changes their meanings. That's how language works, dummy.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
> "Microsoft" and "OS X" with ".Net". The result
> shows just how hypocritical slashdot visitors
> are when it comes to Microsoft vs how much they
> praise Apple/Linux/Whoever for the same thing...
I've got mod points to assign, but I'm going to respond anyway.
What you've discovered is not hypocrisy, but context. As someone pointed out earlier, the actions of a monopolist are treated differently than those of just another company. Don't like it? Well, to paraphrase and reinterpret Mel Brooks, sometimes it sucks to be the king.
In other words, underdog companies trying to struggle out from under the thumb of a company convicted of illegally abusing their monopoly and said monopolist are generally treated differently. Read the former as Apple and Microsoft respectively. If you don't understand this, try reading the following examples for additional edification.
Statement: "My dad ate the last slice of ham? I'm going to kill him!"
When said by you: just a statement
When said by a convicted sociopath and murderer: probably a parole violation
Statement: "Whoa, nice rack"
When said by 14-year old boy: probably normal
When said by 41-year old female priest: She'd better be talking about lamb!
Statement: "I made a poopie in my pants"
When said by 1 year old child: probably cute
When said by the guy sitting next to you on the bus: very disturbing
Statement: "Soon we'll be laying off 120% of our staff"
When said by a your disgruntled co-worker at lunch after a recent layoff: vaguely humorous
When said by your CEO: scary
Statement: "I'll rip his head off, and shit down his neck! And I'll laugh like a motherfucka! I'll laugh like a motherfucka! 'Cause I hate her! 'Cause I hate her!"
When said by Alain Jourgenson of Ministry: you're probably slam dancing circa 1990
When said by your father: you're probably talking to a police officer a few hours later
See context can be fun! Statements can take a wildly different meaning depending whom the statement is related to. Last one.
"We're going to take unfair advantage of the fact we own both the hardware and the software."
Steve Jobs originally said this about a year ago. Considering he's CEO of Apple, a company that has been struggling to increase their market share from 5%, and almost went out of business 1997. To hear him say this is to hear that he's serious about building differentiators into the Macintosh. And seeing where Mac OS X is today, it's good to hear.
If Bill Gates or Steve Balmer had said this? You're darn tootin' we'd probably be done with this whole antitrust case and some geek with glasses would be fending off the amorous advances of the ham-eatin' sociopath from the first example.
Don't like it? Don't think it's fair to Microsoft? Don't feel bad; Microsoft would rather be in this position than in the case where they have to scrape and claw their way from 5% market share. If they didn't want to deal with the hassles, they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
Not quite as good as 9.x yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there are programs I used everyday, MUSIC programs, like Finale and Digital Performer, that don't work (Performer) in OS X or are buggy (Finale).
I mean, it's great that they want to move to OS X. It's a great OS. I love running it. I just can't get all the things I need to work on it yet. And, if memory serves me, didn't Apple support System 7.X for a long time after System 8 came out? And when they switched to Power PC Chips from Motorola 680XX chips. We had FAT (68K/PPC) programs for like years.
What is the big rush Steve?
Re:Not quite as good as 9.x yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there are programs I used everyday, MUSIC programs, like Finale and Digital Performer, that don't work (Performer) in OS X or are buggy (Finale).
Well the biggest incentive for a developer to port their software to Mac OS X is that Mac OS 9 isn't going to be developed in the future. So their revnue streams dry up if they don't make the leap to the new OS. I'm sure this move is primarily aimed at getting more third party software to X, so it should address your concern.
I mean, it's great that they want to move to OS X. It's a great OS. I love running it. I just can't get all the things I need to work on it yet. And, if memory serves me, didn't Apple support System 7.X for a long time after System 8 came out? And when they switched to Power PC Chips from Motorola 680XX chips. We had FAT (68K/PPC) programs for like years.
Apple haven't announced they will stop supporting 9. I would guess (no inside info) that they'll support it for years to come. They've just announced they won't be developing it any further. That means no more releases of 9.x except for bug fixes. This is exactly what happened with the shift from 7.x to 8.x: they continued to support 7.x but didn't release any version after 7.6 (if that's the right number).
What is the big rush Steve?
Don't forget this was announced at the developer's conference. The venue is significant. It's Apple's way of telling its third party developers that it is time to port your software to Mac OS X.
Re:Not quite as good as 9.x yet (Score:2)
Re:Not quite as good as 9.x yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple will continue to update OS 9 a little, but no new features should be expected, only the occational bugfix and updates to CarbonLib so that OS 9/X compatibility will be maintained.
I expect that classic will become an optional install (not by default) sometime in 2003 and it will probably be wiped out all together by 2005.
Also, FWIW, OS 8 was going to be OS 7.7 but Apple decided to call it OS 8. There were not that many changes. It was certainly nowhere near the OS 9 to OS X shift.
Re:Not quite as good as 9.x yet (Score:2)
While 8.0 was mainly just 7.6 with a Platinum facelift, OS 8.1 (free update) was a big jump. HFS+, control click, etc.
When Lord Steve first announced Carbon, he promised that Carbon apps would run on 8.1 (and that any G3 would be fully supported in OS X). Yeah, he distorted reality to the point of falsehood. But 8.1 can run the handful of Carbon 1.0x applications that exist.
So sad to see it go... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, I'll sure miss Pre-X MacOS...
*nix marches on (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X brings Apple into a larger community and out of isolation. It may take some time for all of this to become apparent, but I think it is pretty obvious that everyone involved (Apple evangelists, *nix evangelists) will be better off with this move.
Guac-foo.
Rest in Peace, MacOS 9 (Score:2, Informative)
MacOS 9 had a great existence, but MacOS X is superior in every way.
Re:Rest in Peace, MacOS 9 (Score:2)
Re:Rest in Peace, MacOS 9 (Score:2)
Until OS X has a tool comparable to FinderPop [versiontracker.com], it is not strictly superior to OS 9. It's that simple.
p.s. Navigation in the OS X file dialog is freaking miserable. What are the keyboard shortcuts? AFAICT, any key other than Tab or Return is linked to the command "jump to random location that the user doesn't want".
Does this really impact developers? (Score:2)
OTOH, being an embedded systems developer, I know the havoc that can be caused by a vendor pulling a platform from under your feet. Are there actually any (commercial) developers who will be adversely affected by this? Does anyone really care that it's on its way out?
My own opinion is that OS X has so many advantages that it's a hands-down winner 'twixt the two.
Shine on, OS X!
Re:Does this really impact developers? (Score:5, Interesting)
For our Mac version of the product, we had just decided (last week!) to drop support for Mac OS 8.6. Carbon on 8.6 was a major pain.
By going 9-up only, it'll spare us about 4 weeks testing.
Now that Apple itself is dropping support for Mac OS 9, it'll be easier on us to talk about dropping 8.6 support.
We'll continue supporting Mac OS 9 for this release, but for the next release, we'll have ample munitions to entirely drop classic Mac OSes. That ought to trim the application code by about 10%, and accelerate the runtime because of all the IF X switches in the code.
Might not sound like that big of a deal, but when your networking stack checks, at runtime, which layer you're using (Mac TCP for 8.6, OpenTransport for 8.6 up to X, and BSD for X), this really adds up. Let alone all the Classic vs AQUA UI tweaks.
Out of curiosity, I just grepped our sources for this specific runtime switch. There are 87 occurences of it!
Instead of sprinkling around duplicate code... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Instead of sprinkling around duplicate code... (Score:5, Informative)
Since the OS isn't going to change under your program any more than the hardware changes underneath the Linux kernel, there's no reason to be constantly testing the platform. This changes the overhead of all the if-then statements to a single if-then statement, some function pointer initializations at startup, and a jump to a function pointer instead of a fixed constant each time you call the function. If the if-then statements are that much of a problem, you'll trade some minimal code bloat (in the form of the now repeated OS-independent parts of those functions) for much improved execution speed and significantly easier to read code (if done correctly).
A benefit is that it makes it relatively easy to add and drop OS support without having to go through code with a fine-tooth comb. Just delete or add the relevant functions and add/drop that OS from the test at start-up. The only downsides are tracking similar changes between versions and the tendency for code to severely mutate into completely diverse codebases if you don't have good design discipline.
Gutsy move (Score:2)
It's a risky move on a business level, but on an engineering level, it makes a lot of sense. I just have to hope that good design will beat questionable marketing.
Re:Gutsy move (Score:2)
It's not the first time they did this... remember when they switched from the 68xxx series CPU to the PowerPC based CPU? That was quite gutsy as well as they had to use emulation to support the old 68xxx for quite some time after those machines ceased production.
I wonder if anyone is masochistic enough to attempt run an old 68xxx application in emulation mode in OS9 while running that under classic mode in OSX :)
Re:Gutsy move (Score:5, Interesting)
I just couldn't let this one pass by unchallenged. My first Mac was a Quadra 700 and the software I used then was WriteNow (68K Assembly ), FoxBase+ (68K) and I added
Cyberdog as a browser with OS 8 on my PM6500. All run flawlessly under OS X 10.1 on my G3 400 PowerBook. In fact they a much more stable and I don't notice any
difference in speed. My hat off to Apple Enginerring. An incredible feat of backwards compatability.
Re:Gutsy move (Score:2)
Try that, Windows boys ;-)
-jon
Re:Gutsy move (Score:3, Funny)
If you want to talk backwards, compatible, I have DESK ACCCESSORIES from 1985 that run without a problem on my iBook and iMac today.
Try that, Windows boys
Actually I've run Windows 1.0 in a window on top of windows 2000. The applets, write.exe, calc.exe, and paint.exe - all work fine. No overlapping windows though - damn that Apple lawsuit...
-josh
Great Category (Score:5, Funny)
:)
-Waldo Jaquith
Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Down inside, the original MacOS was a lot like DOS - single-application, single thread, and no memory protection. Over the years, multiple applications were retrofitted to the thing, resulting in a horrible mess. CPU dispatching was the worst part. "Cooperative multitasking" wasn't enough. But instead of putting a real scheduler, all sorts of "tasks" (timer tasks, vertical blanking interval tasks, system tasks, deferred tasks, multiprocessor tasks, Open Transport tasks, etc.) were added over time. Each of these had a different set of restrictions on what it could do. It would have been far simpler to put in a real CPU dispatcher early on.
Better late than never, I suppose.
Why the icon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why the icon? (Score:2)
Re:Why the icon? (Score:2)
"Muahahahaha!" (Score:2, Funny)
You're mad! Mad, I say, mad!
BTW, how long till the first OS-9 emulator hits the fan? ;)
One rather ballsy note from Jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple seems to be taunting them on purpose, consider their "Rip. Mix. Burn." ads. Gateway payed Apple the sincerest form of flattery with their later ad campaign, but still Apple was the first to stick their neck out.
Re:One rather ballsy note from Jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Um... I don't think so. I'm not there or anything, but I don't believe that's what happened.
Steve was talking about a home environment with several Macs using iTunes on one of them to stream MP3s over AirPort to the others. Rendezvous would make it easier to get something like that going, because the Macs would all be able to automatically discover one another without anybody having to manually set up IP stuff. Similar to DHCP, but without the server.
This is really different from peer-to-peer file sharing over the internet.
Incidentally, what Steve described is exactly how I'm set up right now. I've got about 12 GB of MP3s on my iMac (most of 'em ripped by me from my collection of 200+ CDs) and I stream 'em over AirPort to my other Macs, including the iBook I'm using to write this. The only difference is that I'm not using iTunes to serve streams, obviously, because it doesn't do that yet.
Re:One rather ballsy note from Jobs (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm. Evidently dingos ate my post.
My response went basically something like this: I'm using QuickTime Streaming Server, which is available for download from Apple's site. It's free, and it runs just fine under OS X, although Apple will only give you tech support if you're running it under OS X Server. (Support is one of those things your server license pays for.)
QTSS is also open source, via APSL, and it's available in binary form for Sun and FreeBSD and a few other things. Linux, maybe? I forget.
The QTSS MP3 streamer requires practically no CPU once it gets going-- although starting it up for the first time and having it go through 2500+ MP3s took about half a minute of serious crunching. It caches the info, though, so that's no problem. I just tell it to randomly walk through my entire MP3 collection, and I can tune in to it from any computer on the LAN, using iTunes or any similar HTTP-savvy streaming client. Easy-peasy.
Re:One rather ballsy note from Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Good coverage at Spymac (Score:3, Interesting)
Spymac is bogus (Score:2)
Try macnn.com [macnn.com] instead.
Re:Spymac is bogus (Score:2, Informative)
I agree and I didn't say there were a good source of news. The rumors they post are highly unreliable.
But they did have good minute-by-minute coverage of the keynote, which is what I posted about.
goodbye beige (Score:5, Funny)
With it go some of the things that Mac users have come to love about their quirky boxes...high quality (but expensive) parts, Easter Eggs, strange homebrew interfaces (ADB, anyone?), tiny screens, humorous error messages that convey no information...everything that at one point made Apple Apple.
Well, I don't like it. You can have your protected memory. And while you're at it, you can remember to take your preemptive multitasking, too. We Mac users have always maintained that that kind of stuff just isn't needed for the home user, and I stand by it, even if Steve Jobs won't.
Call me crazy, but I appreciate an intuitive interface; yeah, that's right: intuitive. Since when does it make sense for "Shut Down" to be classified under a little picture of an Apple? How is your average Joe or Jane going to find it there, when it clearly should be labelled "Special". There was a time when the Apple icon was reserved for "Chooser" and "Calculator", but that time has come to pass.
Not to mention the new "brushed metal" appearance of the Apple CD player. Once upon a time, a user could choose (yes, remember choice?) from an extensive handful of horrid, non-standard color schemes for the late, great Apple CD Audio Player.
So let's raise our glasses in honor of Mac OS 1-9, the interface we hated to love for so many years. And let us launch off our Holiday Rockets in honor of Steven Jobs, our own great Lincoln, liberating the slaves of the antebellum command line. And raise too our voices, for tonight we give thanks where none thanks have dared yet go.
Thank you, Macintosh, for everything. The Last Mac Purist,
Re:goodbye beige (Score:2, Informative)
Re:goodbye beige (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally think the way they have menu layouts now make more sense - all system stuff (shutdown and restart) under one easy to find and always availiable apple menu. Then really common app things like preferences or services (and YES that is an app specific menu, read the UI development guidelines) or Quit belong under an app menu, followed by all the other menu items an app might need.
Just because you are used to doing something a certain way does not make it more "intuitive" for new users. I herald the approach of systems with a whole new level of rationally thought out intuitive and powerful interfaces - sure there will be missteps but it's time for a breath of fresh air in something that has been written in stone for fifteen years without question. Do you really think that ideas for UI's developed on computers that long ago need no more rethinking? Even the constitution has amendments, and the way you govern people doesn't change as fast as computers do.
Re:goodbye beige (Score:3, Informative)
Umm... I believe my biege G3 is still officially supported. Unfortunately it uses ADB ports rather than USB so my Wacom tablet doesn't work on X, but everything else seems to work fine.
Re:goodbye beige (Score:5, Funny)
Damn straight. Everyone knows it should be listed under "Start".
Re:goodbye beige (Score:2)
Note that this reasoning could be used to justify putting every command from every program under the Apple menu...e.g.,
What kind of fool thinks that the action "checking the mail from your Apple computer" should be under Apple -> Check Mail!
No, I stand by my original point. "Shut Down" is a "Special" command, like "Restart", "Sleep", "Empty Trash", "Clean Up", and "Put Away". These should all be under the "Special" menu, where people will naturally look when they want to perform something special. The Apple should be reserved for activities such as Choosing and Key Caps.
Re:goodbye beige (Score:2)
Re:goodbye beige (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, Thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
B. Thanks for getting the maccentral.com link hammered halfway through the keynote. I always enjoy having my keynote newspage refreshing session destroyed by a few million of the unwashed slashdot masses, half of whom are probably just trying to read the article to find trolling material. This ties back to A. in that if you had waited to post this till after the keynote, those of us that *really* care would have been able to finish getting updates about the keynote before the link was trampled.
Mod me down, I don't care. I'm frustrated.
Woo Hoo, Spring Loaded Folders is all I wanted. (Score:2)
Jump out in front, Steve (Score:2)
BTW, guys, I like the 'Aqua' slash theme... but won't you get sued [slashdot.org]?
Dammit! (Score:3, Interesting)
WTF is that?!? The iBook, a machine they are selling RIGHT NOW does not meet those specs. So basically their current 'entry level' model is never going to have accelerated video? This is ridiculous.
I had one, it was so slow that I sold it. This video driver issue is probably the reason why.
Macs last longer than PCs, huh? How long is an iBook with no video acceleration going to be able to keep up with OS X? Apparently by "two years ahead", Steve means "you'll need the machine we'll be selling two years from now to keep up with the OS we're selling today".
Re:Dammit! (Score:2)
Re:Dammit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh, you're a slow learner, aren't you?
Notebooks are crap. They have the worst possible ROI. You pay the extra money for a cute portable system, that's a bitch to upgrade and a fixed video system.
Back in '95, our family bought a 7200/90. The next year I bought a PB 1400/117 (first rev). They were at par with each other (601 vs 603e). Then we put an L2 cache in the 7200. Holy shit. And now it's hosting several GB of HD space. My PowerBook is still stuck with it's 740 MB HD and 32 MB of RAM; and I'm not spending a dime to upgrade those. The battery's dead, and that bugger itself is too expensive. Who wants to work on a 117 Mhz PPC with no L2 cache? The 7200 still runs Office and we use it daily.
Two years later, my bro bought a PB G3/233 (Wallstreet). Damn nice. Same price as my PowerBook, whose performance was going in the gutter. We also bought a Beige G3/233 MT that year.
The MT is still running; 256 MB of RAM, Rage 128 and a 400 MHz G3. It's got USB too now. My bro's PowerBook is pretty much stuck with its initial config (more ram, better HD- but still a slow notebook HD). It's not a fraction of the machine that the MT is.
Notebooks cost more, they use non-standard, fragile, expensive parts, and they last two years if you're lucky. This is standard fair.
Macs last longer than PCs, huh?
That 7 year old 7200/90 is chugging along just fine. My Powerbook makes a very pretty doorstop (it's got one of them BookCover things; I put a Craig Mullin's Oni painting-printout in there).
Notebooks are great if your company pays for one. Hell, it's a win-win for companies, take your work home with you! Do it on the train! In the airport! Otherwise they suck.
yet i'm still tempted to buy an ibook.
Still a Few Important Apps Have Yet To Migrate (Score:2)
Yeah, they're all audio apps, and the funny thing is, OS X is supposed to have inherited a kick-butt set of classes/APIs for dealing with Audio and Music (MusicKit), but I haven't seen a whole lot come of it yet. Hmmm
Reason (Score:2, Informative)
It's fully OSX native and has two more instruments over and above Reason 1; a new graintable synth and an advanced sampler. The OSX drivers for my Roland UM1 midi interface are also in beta now and can be downloaded here [edirol.com].
Nice to see X in full, but visit 9 sometime (Score:2, Interesting)
I am glad to see OS 9 as 'dead' because this forces developers to start creating more native support for OS X and not settling for 9 compatibility. As of right now, I have an Epson scanner with no native X drivers.
On the other hand, I am very concerned of the loss of support for 9 users. One example that comes to my mind is the Western Michigan University Theatre department [wmich.edu] which run 9 on all of their Apple computers, most of which can't even run 10.1, let alone the new demands of 'Jaguar.' Also, all of the major programs (besides Office) are either not available in X or require a major upgrade to become X compatible. That's a lot of money to spend, epically when most of your computers can't run in X. The question can be raised that the department needs to update their hardware, but when the current setup is fully functional, why spend the money to change it all?
I believe this move is to create a focus for developers to develop support of X that take charge of very innovative technologies that X has to benefit the users. I only hope that we 9 will still be supported and at least welcomed. Hopefully someone will visit the retirement home once-in-a-while and say hello to 9.
Sticking it to Gates! Apple and AOL (Score:4, Insightful)
iChat: AIM-compatible messaging built in to Jaguar. Can create buddy list of anyone on the local network, as well. You can use your Mac.com name and don't need AOL account. Sorting. "First time AOL has let anyone under the tent," said Jobs (although others have reversed-engineered AIM compatible chat apps).
I think this is a huge announcement from Apple. With AOL taking Netscape/Mozilla and using it as its Web App replacing IE, we saw the first shot across the Microsoft bow by Case. Now Jobs and Case are teaming up to make AOL IM a bundled part of Mac OS X. Taking Microsoft's game and shoving it right back them. I assume this is why MSN has finally started supporting Mac OS with their service. They are reading the writing on the wall.
We have been seeing Apple getting more aggressive in dealing with Microsoft. Jobs balked at the Microsoft/DOJ "Give the Kiddies Windows" settlement, Apple's website now shows you that Mac OS X kicks XP's butt, the famous Photoshop "bakeoffs" and now the AOL IM in Jaguar. What next?
XDarwin? (Score:2)
Re:XDarwin? (Score:2)
Having upgraded recently... (Score:2)
As far as complaints about speed goes, I cannot see them. Of course, I never boot into OS 9 on the 933, so it is hard for me to compare. OS X on the 933 is definitely fast enough for me.
I have come close on several occasions to deleting OS 9 completely from the new Mac. I do not need it, and I hope to never have to boot into it. Most of the programs I use on a daily basis have been moved over. I am glad to see Apple pushing developers so hard to move over the rest of the programs out there.
The most telling thing I can say is that if I find I need/want a program that will only run under Classic, I find an alternative or I do without it. I think that more and more Mac users would agree with that, and Apple is finally telling the developers that.
One concern I have is with the new chat program that is going to be released. I currently use Adium, which is a simply *fantastic* program. I never knew how good chatting could be until I used it. The current AIM client for Mac OS X is apparently pretty bad (it does not support logging, which is needed for me, and the reason that I never gave it a chance, so I cannot say based on my experience).
I would really like to see iChat take some cues from Adium.
Hopefully speed will also be covered in 10.2 so as to keep all of the whining to a minimum.
As far as everyone calling for open-sourching MacOS 9, I am not sure that Apple is going to give away quite that much. I think that calling for an open-souce 7.6.1 or so would be doable. Apple gives away 7.5.3 for free, as it is.
2D Acceleration? (Score:2)
Ok, is Quartz-Extreme going to be our only option for 2D acceleration in 10.2? Right now there isn't any 2D acceleration from the video card on OS X, and it shows any time a user tries to do much 2D anything, especially on the slower Powerbooks and iBooks, which do not have the video requirements to handle Quartz-Extreme. Does this mean that only people with higher-end Macs are ever going to be able see any decent performance when web-browsing on OS X?
Will Slashdot Drop the OS 9 Icon? (Score:4, Funny)
Inkwell: The real news (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm excited because it's so useless. There is no way that Jobs would put his people through the effort of bringing handwriting recognition to OS X unless it was a precursor to the iPad [fury.com]. My guess is October, January at the latest.
Soooooo happy.
32MB VRAM NOT required (Score:3, Informative)
nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.
RECOMMENDED, NOT REQUIRED
Check the info before you start the next flame war.
Re:That sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Guess you didn't read yet:
Quartz Extreme: Takes the compositing engine in Quartz, and accelerates it in graphics cards. Combines 2D, 3D and video in one hardware pipeline via OpenGL. "Everything on the screen is being drawn in hardware by OpenGL." Requires AGP 2x and 32MB of video RAM.
There *IS* a caveat:
It is not possible on older graphics cards like RAGE 128 cards, said Jobs -- that means it'll work on newer iMacs and eMacs, but not on older machines, he emphasized. AGP 2x and 32MB video RAM are required for this new technology. Jobs said this puts Apple two years ahead of "the other guys."
Re:Two years ahead of the "other guys" (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing I have to say about this is that Microsoft is doing the exact same thing with their next windows release - dubbed "Longhorn". The gui is going to be accelerated by your graphics card using the 3d features of your card. This will (no doubt) use Direct3d instead of OpenGL but it serves the same purpose.
So your argument is invalidated because both sides are doing the same thing - Apple just happened to beat them to the punch, and I , for one, applaud them for it.
Derek
So what? (Score:2)
Re:Two years ahead of the "other guys" (Score:4, Informative)
You're worng.
Think of OpenGL: if your graphics card can do OpenGL stuff, then the libgl on your computer will hand off the OpenGL processing straight to the graphics hardware. If it can't, your libgl will do the OpenGL stuff in software.
(At least, that's how it's supposed to work. Seems like in PC-land it doesn't much of the time.)
If your Mac has support for Quartz Extreme, it'll use it. If it doesn't, it'll continue to use software-based Quartz rendering.
Steve never said you had to have hardware accelerated graphics to run Jaguar, or anything that would imply that.
Re:Two years ahead of the "other guys" (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't going to "force" anybody to do anything. I am typing this from my 4-year-old Mac running OS X. It's slower to respond than OS 9, but I like the OS so much better that I put up with it. (The developer tools alone are simply wonderful, and worth the switch.) There's nothing I have to "go without" in using my old computer, I just have to wait longer for it to happen. Same deal here. Don't want to upgrade? Then deal with it -- it won't suddenly get worse than it was, just because of Apple's decision.
they are dead last in Legacy Support
I can't agree with this. Yes, there have been many times when Apple said, "We've decided to ditch this old technology, and move to something far superior". Every time it happens, people whine and moan. But they always have plenty of time to upgrade (years, usually), and backwards compatilibily has always been excellent (68k to PPC, for example).
Your computer doesn't become less productive when Apple decides to put in a new feature. This is ridiculous. I can understand some frustration when your 1337 new computer isn't the hottest thing on the market anymore... but it really is silly. Apple says, "Buy a new iBook tomorrow and you'll get [feature]!!" And everyone who bought an iBook last month complains that Apple isn't selling the same product for 5 years. Look at the big picture, people.
Re:Two years ahead of the "other guys" (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, you need a LOT of video ram to make this work fast. I guess 32mb is a lot, but still, if you run out the card starts swapping between video ram and main ram, which is slow. I don't know how much space all those Aqua graphics take up with animations, but I'd be surprised if it's a lot less than 32mb.
Secondly, OpenGL just wasn't designed for 2D graphics! It has virtually NO support for 2D drawing, if you wish to display something it must either be sent directly to the card as pixel data (slow) or uploaded to video RAM and displayed as a texture on a polygon. This seems like a rather strange way to go about things.
Take the lack of support for text in the API. When writing the VGL, which is the OpenGL widget set for my game (btw I'd be the first to admit I'm not a hotshot coder) I had to create my own text/font system. It was fast certainly, but required you to upload the font to video ram again, which placed restrictions on how you managed font textures.
I can't figure out why anyone would want to use 3D acceleration for making 2D stuff go faster. As far as I know, 2D and 3D acceleration are different things - am I wrong?
Re:Two years ahead of the "other guys" (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is a quiz for you:
1. which company bought. Raycer Graphics?
2 Who was the Head of 3d engineering at Apple
(Answers: Apple, ex-CTO of Raycer)
Really Good Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Oct 2000, there were only 2 minor updates to OS 9 anyway.
Just because they arn't going to develop for OS 9 anymore doesn't mean OS 9 that's installed is going to stop working.
Tough Shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
MacOS 9 sucked. MacOS X is better. The next release should suck even less. That's how these things work. You can whine about it all you want, but whining never turned the tides of progress (if it did, slashdot would be trend-setting.)
- A.P.
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:3, Funny)
but what about Windows XP? I have not found any compelling reason to switch from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. The only reason I have even considered it is the ClearType font blurring and the fact that the Start button and scroll bars "hit areas" actually extend to the edge of the screen, making them easier to click. This is very advanced technology, I think..
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:2)
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:5, Funny)
This can be very beneficial!
- A.p.
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac world had the same problem with the shift from System 6 to System 7. I was a die-hard System 6 user. As far as I'm concerned, it still represents the peak of the Classic Mac experience.
The initial System 7 was buggy and made some fundamental changes. Most of those changes were good, although about half of them took awhile to convince everyone. System 7 eventually stabilized and the last die-hards migrated. I lived. :) MacOS 8 and 9 made a lot of great innovations, but didn't change anything fundamentally with what System 7 was doing, and so there wasn't near as much of a shakeup with upgrades until OS X, which again is making fundamental changes.
Re:Really Bad idea. (Score:2)
The question is: why aren't they moving? The answers I've most often heard are:
1) Not enough applications on X yet.
2) Not enough hardware drivers on X yet.
3) Don't like the UI
Killing development of 9 is the best way Apple can incent third party software developers to address issues 1 and 2, which is exactly why this is a good move, IMHO. There's not much they can do about 3, but most Mac users I know who have tried both actually find Mac OS X works fine for them. YMMV.
Re:Really Bad idea. (Score:2)
I just checked out one of the new LCD imacs the other day, and found it to be running OS X at quite acceptable speeds... OS X seems great on a machine with the actual horsepower to run it, but apples recommended configuration is too lenient.
So, chalk another onto the list of why peopel aren't upgrading... Their computers aren't up to OS X's requirements.
And many publishing companys aren't moving to OS X until Quark is availalbe... Though some are so excited about OS X, that they're checking out Adobe's Indesign to see if it could be ready to steal Quarks thunder...
Re:Really Bad idea. (Score:2)
Re:Really Bad idea. (Score:2)
You see, that's just the problem Apple is dealing with here. People aren't adopting Mac OS X fast enough. In order for them to really kick butt they need to get Mac OS into the hands of more people (so more developers will create software, so more people will switch, etc--it's a vicious circle).
Besides, they're not telling people they can't use Mac OS 9 anymore, they're telling the developers. It's all part of the master plan... and it does more good than bad. So what's the problem?
Re:how about the source (Score:2)
Re:Byebye iBooks (Score:2)
Re:Update from WWDC (Score:2)
I know - I have one. It'll suck if Quartz Extreme won't take advantage of my TiBook.
Re:Ethernet (Score:2, Funny)
Re:so SLOW (Score:4, Informative)
If you install the dev tools, the
- /Developer/Applications/Quartz\ Debug
application can be used to disable double-buffering. You'll see how different the system feels when using the "Autoflush drawing" switch.Now, in terms of actual speec, getting a task done un X means not stopping other tasks, unlike in Classic. One striking example is those Photoshop bake-off Apple likes to do against Intel.
This really doesn't prove anything, because while Mac OS 9 -based Photoshop creams Intel-based Photoshop in throughput, the Windows version actually still lets you run stuff in the background, where as Mac OS 9 would technically suck the entire processor to itself, making background processes grind to a halt.
It'll be interesting how Photoshop back-offs will do, now that Adobe finally released it.
Apart from the UI perceived sluggishness, there are area where Mac OS X is clearly faster. We've noticed this from out (heavily) network-based application. Download speeds are much more efficient using BSD sockets than OpenTransport. On the plus side, the machine is not rendered useless when downloading data.
Sucks for you. (Score:2)
Re:Will classic apps still run in classic environm (Score:2)
Presumably the Classic environment will always be functional, until it goes away forever. See, this is a developer's conference. When Apple announces that they're EOL'ing OS 9 to developers that means they're stopping development on OS 9. No future development on OS 9 means no need for future development on the Classic environment.
Re:Can somebody explain to me AGP memory sharing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jaguar (Score:4, Funny)
First of all, this is just a code-name. But, on that subject, did you ever hear the story of Carl Sagan's lawsuit against Apple? The Power Mac 7100 was developed under the code name "Carl Sagan," and when that worthy found out, he sent his lawyers a-calling. The Apple engineering team obligingly changed the code-name... to "butt-head astronomer."
Re:upgrading old video cards? (Score:3, Informative)
Is your display VGA or ADC? The latter will be decidedly more expensive to replace your video card on - you'd have to get the DVIator or a similar device, since third-party Mac video boards don't have ADC ports. However, the actual video-card replacement is pretty easy:
- Open case. (i.e., pull tab on side, swing side panel down.)
- Remove retainer screw from video board.
- Remove old video board from slot.
- Insert new video board into slot.
- Put retainer screw back in its former place.
- Close case.
- Plug everything in and turn system on.
It's really not that hard. Video RAM is on the video board, and may not be upgradeable at all. The first Rage128 RE PCI boards had header connectors for RAM daughtercards, but the newer boards quite possibly won't.
I have the same machine you do (Score:3, Informative)
When I load up loads of windows, for some reason the menus get sluggish. I think this may be about the memory the web browsers are using as much as anything else, but it's odd considering that I have 1.5gb RAM.
The new 1ghz system is only about 30% faster than the dual 450. So I wouldn't worry about getting rid of the dual 450 just yet.
Hope that helps.
D