Review: Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar

I am a bitter old man. I hate change. Mac OS -- not Mac OS X, which is a different OS -- in its various iterations has been my OS of choice for over 15 years, and I have not looked fondly on the day that streak ends. But that day may very well be at hand. I like Mac OS X v10.2 enough that it may soon become my primary OS.

From the day Apple acquired NeXT, and Rhapsody was announced, I was excited about the prospect of a "modern operating system" (read: Unix) that would look and act like my beloved Mac OS. But as Mac OS X started to become a reality, it became clear that this was not going to be Mac OS. It was going to be MacNeXT.

Oh, it wasn't entirely un-Mac-like. But it was different enough that I wasn't comfortable in it. I love Mac OS because of its ease of use and applications and interface and all of the little things. I sit in front of this darned computer for most of my waking hours, and if I am not comfortable with it, then it's no good. Life is too short.

Mac OS X v10.0 was a disappointment to me, and many loyalists to Mac OS. Many things in the interface just didn't work at all, or as well as, they did in Mac OS. Many still don't work right, including cmd+arrow keys to open and close arrows in Finder windows (half works: cmd+opt+arrow should open or close all hierarchical folders) and in dialogs with progress bars, such as file copying (doesn't work). The file dialogs, stuck in a column view, are, in my opinion, a glaring design flaw. In many places in the OS, you can't merely hit "return" in an active dialog to select the default button (if there is a default button at all), or "escape" to cancel.

But these problems were just the beginning. In 10.0, performance was bad, even on G4s. This improved significantly in 10.1, but Mac OS v9.2 still seemed faster. The entire Mac OS X UI -- while eminently "lickable," like no OS before it -- was tiring to look at. Anti-aliasing made things harder to read, especially on LCDs, even with the unnaturally large fonts in the Finder; many of the UI elements, including the aqua ones, often distracted the eye.

But in 10.2 (Jaguar), much has changed. The aqua elements are sharper, crisper ... perhaps shinier. Many of the UI elements, such as the Dock, are more subdued. The Finder has more options for changing the appearance of elements such as font size. Gosh, complaining about font size sounds petty, but darnit, it is so much nicer to look at.

The cursors are improved: the busy cursor has gone from an ugly rainbow pinwheel to a cute rainbow pinwheel (and how long before Steve makes it monochrome?). The arrow cursor has a better outline around it. The I-bar cursor still needs work; I lose it on dark backgrounds. In Mac OS, that cursor would change from dark to light when it passed over something dark.

Similarly, I also now lose my selection box in the Finder; in previous versions of Mac OS X, a selection box in a white space would appear grey. Now it is white, and invisible. Oops.

But while in the Finder, one of my old favorites is finally back: multiple Get Info windows. If you select multiple items at once, you still get the single window with all the items, but you can at least now open many Get Info items for individual items, one at a time. And you can get the old behavior of a single floating window ("Inspector") by holding down Option.

I still can't copy the content of a text clipping in the Finder. That's just insane. Open the clipping. Read it. Cmd-c to copy the contents to the Clipboard. This is a no-brainer.

It's all of these little touches that make a significant difference in whether I can comfortably use the OS on a daily basis. And for the first time ever, despite the problems that still exist, I am mostly comfortable.

And man, is Jaguar fast. Everything is just more responsive. Previously, clicking on UI elements would begin a delay that isn't there anymore. It's noticeably quicker. Even Classic seems quicker, despite the fact that Mac OS is no longer included with Mac OS X.

But I still can't do everything in Mac OS X, even with Classic. My UMAX (*spit*) scanner won't work, and likely never will; I use it seldom enough that it's probably a better use of my time and money to boot into Mac OS to use it, for now. I am having trouble getting reliable fax software to work, so I booted into Mac OS to use FaxSTF last weekend (I was going to install the 10.0 installer I have and then the Jaguar update when it comes out, but 10.0 won't install at all on Jaguar, so I am probably out of luck with that, though I am keeping my eye on Cocoa eFax, too).

But most important to my comfort is that all of the apps I know and love from Mac OS -- BBEdit, Interarchy, DragThing, Mozilla, Eudora -- work natively in Mac OS X. The operating system exists to host applications. They are the reason I use the computer. I want the same apps, and, thankfully, I have them. Further, much of Mac OS is still there, like QuickTime, AirPort, Keychains, AppleScript, and Internet Config (although this works somewhat oddly in some cases, and there's not much of a UI for it).

But the big question is: why should I use Mac OS X? If I am just trying to recreate Mac OS, why not just stick with Mac OS?

There are two answers. The first is a single word: Unix. I don't need to describe in detail why Unix is a Good Thing to Slashdot readers, but I will say that XDarwin and fink are two of the most important features of Mac OS X, and having a stable operating system is a joy. The stability of Mac OS certainly was pretty good -- ignore the hypocrites who used to praise Mac OS but now decry it -- but it can't match Mac OS X. That I can put my laptop to sleep, and wake immediately, and still have many TCP/IP connections open, is incredible to me.

The second answer is that new features are added to Mac OS X to make it too compelling to ignore.

The i* software suite -- iChat, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, iCal, iSync, iProbablyForgotSomething -- are in many cases some of the best products to hit personal computing in many years. iMovie and iDVD are leaders in their niches. iTunes was a bit flat in its earlier versions, but gets more compelling in its feature set every year. iChat is actually a nice chat client: unobtrusive, mostly well-integrated into the system and Address Book, and easy on the eyes (it's also a little buggy; expect a few crashes). iPhoto is a nice beginning, but really needs better features for more flexible exporting of image metadata to be well-used. iCal and iSync aren't yet released, but by all accounts look very promising: how long before I ditch my PDA, or at least Palm Desktop's contacts and calendar apps?

Then there's Rendezvous -- the "zero configuration" networking -- which is only beginning to get significant use, but is sure to be a staple of many applications for years to come. Despite having some problems with printer sharing (making a comeback, finally) via Rendezvous -- I mistakenly had some computers on my network with a 255.0.0.0 subnet mask while others were 255.255.255.0, and this was enough to throw it off -- it requires zero configuration once you're configured properly.

Sherlock is now finally its own separate beast, with Find integrated into the Finder (imagine that!) and no longer is it scraping web pages, but it is enabled with web services goodness.

All of these features and more are only available in Mac OS X. If you want them, you need to switch.

Still, some things simply don't work in Mac OS X v10.2. The upgrade went smoothly, but various third-party apps, and even some Apple programs, had trouble. My chosen replacements for the Dock -- DragThing and LiteSwitch X -- both needed updates (Proteron says LiteSwitchX update should be available any day now). WeatherPop needed updating. WirelessDriver -- a serious boon to PowerBook G4 users who need to work more than 20 feet from a wireless base station -- no longer works, and it's not been updated in many months.

Apple Remote Desktop 1.0.x doesn't work; you'll need to run Software Update to get version 1.1. Unfortunately, even the new version only half-worked for me; the client side seems fine, but the Admin app says it is not installed properly. I wanted to just uninstall the whole thing and start over, but there is no uninstall option, that I could find. So I deleted all the files that the Installer installs, and then tried to reinstall, and the Installer says it is already installed. So now I have nothing, and I can't change it.

I thought for awhile that Apple's ScriptMenu didn't work, too; it was still sitting in /System/Library/CoreServices/Menu Extras/ where I had left it, but it was not launching. I searched for ScriptMenu on the discs and hard drive for information or a replacement, and on Apple's site, but found nothing. I was later informed the name had been changed from "ScriptMenu" to "Script Menu": the replacement was in the /Applications/AppleScript/ directory. Oops.

fink has a few problems, as one might expect with an OS update that sees a move from gcc2.9 to gcc3.1. Most of the things I tried worked fine without recompiling, including XFree86. But xterm and bash broke because of dependencies relating to the change gcc3.1, and manconf (a wrapper for Mac OS X's man) broke, because the Jaguar man doesn't accept the -C option to specify a configuration file. The workaround is to install fink's man, or at least remove /sw/bin/man in the meantime. The fink team is working to resolve the issues, and updates are forthcoming. An update for xterm is available on the XonX page.

SSHAgentServices, which sets an ssh-agent for the entire login session, stopped working; but the author of SSHPassKey, which I use to provide the ssh password to GUI apps, said he would integrate ssh-agent services into the next version of his application. Some of TinkerTool was obsoleted by 10.2, as Apple has added some of those preferences into their UIs, things like Terminal transparency, and what to do with newly mounted CDs and DVDs, so there's a new version available.

Currently, SharePoints doesn't work. This configures NetInfo to allow you to share arbitrary folders with any users via file sharing. So now I don't have a reasonable file server, unless I want to give everyone admin access to see all the volumes on the machine. But the author says he has discovered the problem, and a new version is forthcoming. This makes me quite happy.

There's also the long-standing and unresolved problem of AvantGo not working with Mac OS X. It's amazing that this is still broken.

I'm not making any firm commitments, but I am using Mac OS X as my primary OS right now, and it's the least painful it's ever been. That's more of a compliment than it seems. But there's enough that doesn't work, enough that's raw -- especially with third-party software -- that I'd recommend people who don't like pain to wait at least a few weeks, if not a month or so, to allow all of the issues to be worked out, tech notes to be published, and workarounds to be posted.

Smile

[gralem]

Some had to start making the hard changes. Apple is STRENGTHENING itself in the long run. I think most people on /. are warming up to Linux. Most "classic" mac users I know finally find Jaguar usable. For every complaint I've heard about OSX, I can list 10 or more features and reasons why we should ALL be using it. Starting at Apple's not-so-crappy Open Source involvement (gcc3 work gets back to the gcc3 people), to it's stability and use of Unix.

---gralem

Re:Smile

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

"I think most people on /. are warming up to Linux".
You might be onto something! :-)

Re:Smile

[stoney27]

What you said is true, but you have not added any software with your system. Which would increase the price.

Also your machine wouldn't look cooler then the imac.

But then not everyone has style :)

-S

Re:Smile

[MoneyT]

You've obviously had a bad run with the macs you own, my sincerest apologies. However, I would like to point out 2 facts:

1) You're case seems to be in the extreme, just like the horor stories of windows machines that crash every 15 minutes, or on linux users that can even launch netscape wthout creating kernel panics. And of ocurse there's the other end of the spectrum, winodws users who claim never to have had a crash in their life. Linux users whol claim that it was easier to use that windows and mac users who swear up and down that their machines are 100% perfect and never crash. Each of these cases is on the extreme end of computing, and while some of them may be valid (as in your case) they are not the normal user experience.

2) There is something in the mac that keeps you buying. As you said, your first iMac had problems, but implying you have more than one. You speak of beige G3s and B&W G3s, plus you continue to buy the OSes, so there must be something in the mac which you like. And like alot because any PC user buying computers with those problems from Del of Compaq would have stopped long ago. It is for thise reason that people buy macs. Not for just style, but for whatever it is that they see in the mac that makes it worth ignoring a couple lousy hardware setups.

I agree with you in your stance of not wanting to buy OS X.2 quite yet. However, I offer a suggestion. Go to compUSA and buy yourself a copy of X.2. If I recall correctly CompuUSA has a 14 day return policy on software. Take the software home, and try it out. See if it work son your machines. If it doesn't, take it back to CompUSA for your refund, if it does, you could keep it, or take it back and shop for a better deal. Either way, you get to find out whether the system will work properly, and there is little risk involved.

Re:Smile

[gig]

> People buy PC's because of price, Mac's because of style...

I buy Macs because they just work. I used to build my own PC systems, but now I just buy a new Mac ever 2-3 years and get everything I need in one purchase, along with a great service contract (AppleCare), and an OS feature called Software Update that automatically keeps all the included software (Mac OS X, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, etc.) current. Now I spend less overall, too, because I don't have to upgrade piecemeal to make up for what the vendor left out. For example, the oldest of the four Macs here is from January, 1999, and it has FireWire, USB, a 15" flat panel display, and 1.5GB RAM. It runs Mac OS X great (especially 10.2) and can edit DV, be a jukebox, play DVD's, burn CD's and all kinds of other stuff that people are doing TODAY with computers. It also has space for four hard drives and three empty PCI slots. That computer has paid for itself again and again and again and it is still trucking. It does have style as well ... translucent blue display, tower, mouse, and keyboard look beautiful ... that's just candy, though ... an extra.

Re:Smile

[mosch]

Yes, it's cheaper to build your own than to buy a well-integrated, well-tested PC, that has a guaranteed product support life (mac or PC). If you want a relevant comparison, you'd really need to compare the iMac to something from the Dell Optiplex line.

• 1GB Ram
• 40 Gig HD
• DVD-ROM/CD-RW
• 15" flat screen

Dell's price: $2041.00, or about $300 more than the iMac.

If you want to deal with all the incompatibilities that exist between various pieces of hardware and their drivers, then yes, you can build a system on the cheap. If you want to buy something that will Just Work(tm), and will continue to do so for at least 3 or 4 years, Apples are a good deal.

Re:Smile

[gig]

> It is also useful to know exactly what parts are in the machine so
> that if something does not work it is very easy to select the correct drivers.

I don't want to know that stuff anymore ... that's why I use Macs now. I just upgraded three Macs to Mac OS X 10.2 in the past few days, and it was the simplest procedure you can possibly imagine. And (read this carefully) every change was for the better ... it just worked. The "family 5-pack" of full versions of Mac OS X that I used is also only 2/3 the cost of one copy of Windows XP Pro, and there is none of the product activation bullshit to go through. I might keep a fourth Mac I was going to sell, since putting Mac OS X on it is free.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I know my PowerBook G4 has ATI graphics hardware (a RADEON with 16MB I think), and my Power Mac has an NVIDIA GeForce something with at least 32MB. I know this because I read it in the specs when I bought the machines. I was interested at the time only to make sure that each machine would display fast graphics with great quality in full color at the highest native resolution of their displays, and that's what they do. It just works all the time and it's one less thing to be responsible for. I use multiple computers now, with all kinds of other hardware ... the fact that a Power Mac or PowerBook is ONE widget really, really simplified things for me. It was more than six months before I opened the Displays system preference on my Power Mac with Cinema Display. I just never had a single moment where that ever seemed necessary. I plugged the single cable from the display into the only place on the back of the computer where it would fit, and switched on the system and it Just Worked. It wasn't just that it lit up, or that I could see a picture ... the picture was perfect, in full color, at the right resolution. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a PC user's house and see a modern graphics adapter with 21" display running 800x600 with thousands of colors, and the user is scrolling around in little windows all the time. They simply don't know that they can choose to see full color and 2 or 3 times the screen real estate. Their system is using all these "safe" settings that geeks think of as nice starting points for tinkering.

> I have built quite a few PC's that Just Work as soon as I install an OS

Look, you don't understand the "Just Work(TM)" thing. When I got my latest Mac -- a PowerBook G4 -- I took it out of the box, hit the power button (battery already had a 2/3 charge), it asked me what I wanted to name the computer, what I wanted to name my account, what I wanted my password to be, and then I was at my desktop. There's an AirPort (Wi-Fi) menu at the top right of the display, which I used to tell the PowerBook the name and password of my wireless LAN (it would have found the Wi-Fi network automatically and just asked me the password if the base station was set to advertise itself like most do). That's about five minutes, tops, and I'm already on the Internet using IE, Flash, QuickTime, iTunes, Mail, etc. The QuickTime subsystem is already there, with its knowledge of every audio and video and media file format I've ever run into, there is a huge collection of high-quality fonts, Apache is ready to be turned on with a click of a button, Java2 is there, UNIX tools, and on and on.

Here's a good example of Just Works: Mac OS X applications are single icons that can be stored anywhere in the file system that you have permissions to place things. You don't have to "install" them, you can move them, you can rename them, and they still work. You can drag them from your desktop to your notebook and they still work. You can put 3,000 other applications on your system and that first one will still work, because even though there are facilities to share libraries, the app still carries the ones it came with within itself as (at minimum) a backup, if it can't find any newer libraries in the shared spots. Until you have used a Mac day-to-day-to-day, you don't realize how much time and trouble a thing like that can save you. It is also nice to put things where you want them on your own system.

From a non-geek perspective (someone who doesn't know all the excuses that programmers make when things fail), dragging the IE 5 application from a Windows desktop to a Windows notebook that only has IE 4 should be all you have to do to run IE 5 on the notebook. What is it about transporting IE 5 across my own local network that broke it? Yeah, I know that "IE 5 for Windows" is really 1,000 various files all over the place on a Windows machine, but there is no excuse for that. On the Mac, IE 5 is a single icon. Why would I want to manage or even look at more than one icon for "IE 5"? Ugh. That's why there is a "Mac faithful" ... it's not because we admire Steve Jobs or because we're romantics or something (although there's some of that), it's because when you sit down at Windows or a plain-UNIX after using a Mac for a while, things just seem broken on other systems. You don't want to run a bunch of installers and patchers on your notebook before you go on the road just so you can get the same damn apps on there that you were just using on your desktop. The other side of this is that when people go from Windows to Mac, they often spend months or years trying to do things the hard way. You see them in forums complaining that they unplugged this or disabled this or reformatted this or painstakingly typed in certain IP addresses, or rebooted, or whatever, and you have to keep telling them things like "just drag the icon to where you want it" or "just plug it in, you don't need a driver disc" and they're AMAZED. STUNNED.

OS X is a step in teh right direction

[istvandragosani]

I use Linux mainly for my own workstations & server on my home network, byt my wife is a diehard Mac user. After seeing her frustrations with Mac OS 9 constantly locking up and crashing (on a G4 even), I convinced her to upgrade to OS X. It took a little getting used to, but she was impressed by the fact that I can ssh in to her box now and do stuff on it without making her get up from her seat, and overall she likes OS X more than OS 9.

Re:OS X is a step in teh right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

I can ssh in to her box now and do stuff on it without making her get up from her seat

Talk about leaving yourself open to a joke...

This upgrade saved me $500

[Microsift]

I was seriously considering buying Office v.x so that I wouldn't have to switch to classic everytime I wanted to run Excel. Switching to Classic is far less painful now(Launching classic and Excel took 40 seconds). Granted this is not super speedy, but it is a significant improvement.

Re:This upgrade saved me $500

[randomErr]

Save yourself a few more buck and use OpenOffice [openoffice.org] on OSX.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This upgrade saved me $500

[laserjet]

I don't think it's just OpenOffice. When I use MS Office v.X on my iBook 600, I sometimes have to wait for typing latency as well. annoying, that's for sure.

Haven't used open office on the mac, but on PC it seemed about as fast as it's competition.

OS X OpenOffice

[dmaxwell]

This is a very new port that depends of XFree86 to work. The speed of OO is just fine on Linux and Windows. Give OS X OO a few more months and try it then. A native Quartz version that has no XFree dependency is in the works but that will take some time. There are good reasons why they called it a "Developer Prerelease".

I'll bite

[MoneyT]

Cause I have nothing better to do.

1) If it takes overclocking my processor and 1.5 gigs of RAM to get a word processor to run "fine" on my computer, I'd rather use notepad ( or MS office, Apple Works, Simple Text etc etc etc). I should not have to superchardge a machine to get something as simple as a wordprocessor working.

2) Open Office is nice (I use it primary on my Athlon machine) but it is slower than other word processors that I've used. It hase some great features (auto word complete is great)and lot's of potential. But it truely is not up to commercial program standards yet, it still feels like a hacker developed program, un polished, not quite finished.

3) It's ironic to see someone call another person a troll and then go on to bash them, bash their OS and call names. Might I suggest you get off the computer, pay attention to your teacher and finish your work, recess is starting soon, you don't want to be left behind.

Re:This upgrade saved me $500

[MaxVlast]

I sure wish they would have used the available objects, though. Their text widget remains really, really awful. I'm happier using Cocoa applications, not custom-coded almost-right-but-not-quite interfaces that work subtly differently and are frustrating therefore.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nice Review

[HimalayanRoadblock]

Very nice review. Just wanted to put my favorite quote. it requires zero configuration once you're configured properly. That's classic.

Re:Nice Review

[foobar104]

Yeah. And it also makes it pretty clear that Pudge doesn't understand Rendezvous. And the whole "printer sharing with Rendezvous" thing sounds fishy to me. Methinks he's actually talking about AppleTalk, not Rendezvous.

In the interest of clearing things up for the layman-- web resources on Rendezvous and ZeroConf are pretty obtuse-- here's the briefest possible explanation. I don't guarantee it's 100% right, but I think it's pretty close.

Rendezvous comes in two parts: hostname-to-IP mapping and service advertisement and discovery. With Rendezvous, you can make two machine talk to each other by name without host tables or DNS servers. When I'm on one machine-- felix-- I can address the other machine-- oscar-- by name by using the FQDN "oscar.local." For example, I type "FTP oscar.local." All the Rendezvous-equipped machines on my LAN are listening to a special link-local multicast address for DNS-style queries. When oscar receives my machine's query asking about "oscar.local," it replies with its IP address. This works for any combination of IP addresses, but it works best with self-assigned ones. You know, the 169.254 addresses your computer comes up with when no DHCP server responds. This works perfectly now between two Macs with Jaguar. I've been using it every day for months, on developer program pre-release builds. There were some problems with mDNSResponder running amuck, but that has apparently gone away in built 6C125, which is what I'm running now.

The other part of Rendezvous is service advertisement and discovery. That's not implemented in very many apps yet, but one that has it is iChat. When iChat starts up (if Rendezvous chat is enabled) it sends out a query looking for all machines on the local net that support the service "so-n-so." (I don't remember what the iChat service is called.) All the iChatty machines out there respond, and among themselves they set up a sort of ad hoc peer-to-peer network where one machine can message any other machine directly.

iTunes will have this functionality someday, but it doesn't yet. We've all seen the demo where Steve browsed Phil's library over the network. That was a concept demo, not a real feature demo. That's not finished yet.

So Rendezvous is confusing at first.

Partially this is Apple's fault, but in all fairness, how would you market multicast DNS as an operating system feature? It's fucking cool, so you want people to know about it, but exactly how would you describe it?

The end result? Everybody's excited about Rendezvous, but hardly anybody gets it.

Re:Nice Review

[pudge]

No, it wasn't AppleTalk. AppleTalk is turned off on all my machines. Heck, it sounds like you don't understand AppleTalk, because changing subnet masks would have nothing to do with AppleTalk, which doesn't rely on TCP/IP. :-)

I don't know why you think what I said is problematic; oh, maybe you thought from my language I meant that there is some special protocol to print over. I guess my language was confusing, but no, I only meant that the shared printer couldn't be seen by a client with the incorrect subnet mask (the discovery part you mentioned).

Re:Rendezvous doesn't fix problems with peer-peer

[foobar104]

The DNS-less stuff doesn't work either. It doesn't find any of my other machines.

Rendezvous can only find other machines on the LAN that also support Rendezvous. It won't help you find your OS/2 machine or your eComStation (wtf?) machine.

All I want is a nice simple host table . On Linux or OS/2 I could easily add all of my host table entries in under a minute.

You can do it on your Mac, too. Starting in 10.2, your host table works just like you'd expect. In 10.0 and 10.1, lookupd was configured to ignore /etc/hosts, but in 10.2 it's set up differently by default. You can confirm this by looking at the output of lookupd -configuration.

LookupOrder: Cache FF DNS NI DS
_config_name: Host Configuration

(Among other stuff)

That means that lookupd will try to resolve host names by looking first in its own cache, then in the flat files (/etc/hosts, in this case), then in the DNS system, then in NetInfo. All this is documented in the man page.

All the other items in your list of complaints have similarly simple fixes. Except, of course, for that shit about OS/2 compatibility. What's that about?

Re:Actually it is Rendezvous...

[rworne]

Yes, it was so foolproof that I actually noticed this behavior and thought it was busted. The shared printer simply appeared in the print dialog and I ignored it and started fiddling with the print settings because things NEVER work that easy.

Funny thing was the printer could not be deleted from Print Center, and before I got in a full-blown panic, I decided to do a test print. Lo and behold it "just worked".

Re:Nice Review

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

That's classic.

No, classic is dead. Switch allready, you bearded Unix hippie. Let go off the past and lick those candy buttons!

Re:Nice Review

[Anonymous Coward]

He said that he had some of his machines configured with /8 netmasks and some with /24, which is simply wrong. When they say that Rendezvous requires "zero configuration", that's still greater than "negative configuration", which is what he had...

Faxing solution

[MouseR]

Try PageSender available from Smile Software [smilesoftware.com].

It provides printer-like setup and fax capabilities. Exactly what e've all been waiting for. it's a shareware, and makes use of OpenSource code like eFax.

It supports faxing my modem and web-based fax services.

THIS is the faxing solution that should have come bundled in the OS.

Re:Faxing solution

[MouseR]

A few typos in there (dang coffee not kicking in yet).

I'm sure you all guessed it doesn't support faxing MY modem, but supports faxing BY modem.

Modern OS?

[diamondc]

Unix has been around for 30 yrs+...

Re:Modern OS?

[Oculus Habent]

Perhaps it should not have been "modern" but more appropriately, "good"

Re:Modern OS? (all inclusive)

[BoomerSooner]

You've got to look at the improvements. So you're saying the UNIX of today is the same as 30 years ago? Right.

It's just like (to use another car analogy) when Ford released the *new* Thunderbird. Yes it has been around for 40+ years and yes it IS NEW!

Amazing how some people cannot seem to catch on that things can be modified into something new.

Re:Modern OS? (all inclusive)

[laserjet]

Good point. I've often thought it would be fun to go back in time with maybe a new Linux box and a new Mac with OS X and show them what became of "their" Unix. I think it would suprise the heck out of them.

It really shows the flexibility of such systems, while retaining the good parts.

Re:Modern OS?

[Junks Jerzey]

Unix has been around for 30 yrs+...

It's "modern" as in "modern art." More of a period thing than a term meaning "cutting edge."

Networking

[I_am_Rambi]

it requires zero configuration once you're configured properly.

I work at my university setting up studetn owned computers. I have set up a few Macs, even a 10.2 TiBook the other day. Networking is pretty easy. Select what device (Airport, ethernet) and tell it dhcp. No restarting. Web will then work. The only problem that I have ran acrossed is working with proxies. We have three proxies on campus, and IE 5.x does not like to work with the proxies to go outside of the intranet.

I have found away around this problem. I have to tell the system what proxy to use, and then hard code the sign in proccess screen, as the homepage using the same proxy. When IE starts up, the user is then given the choice to sign in (or if he is sign in to go the internet, it will say). Since IE doesn't like to use connection scripts, this is the only solution I have found.

This small problem is not bad, just wish M$ would fix IE to run connection scripts.

Use Mozilla

[stego]

Just recently had my first proxy experience setting up my gf's iMac for UVA. Mozilla worked just fine from off campus using the proxy.

Re:Use Mozilla

[laserjet]

Just as another data point, I have also found that Mozilla seems to work better with proxies than IE 5 on OS X. Not sure why.

Now if only they could be more stable. IE and Mozilla seem to crash more on OS X than on a PC - Anyone else notice the same?

Re:Networking

[asv108]

Select what device (Airport, ethernet) and tell it dhcp. No restarting.

Yeah, Linux and windows 2000/XP does the same thing.

An appealing product.

[catwh0re]

Apple have stumbled on wealth the right way: by producing an appealing product. With microsoft still producing bug filled, insecure garbage, that has issues with the software designed to run on it, as they weren't so willing to give proper api to developers, Apple's market share will do nothing other than increase. It's a breath of fresh air.

My thoughts

[Phroggy]

Aqua has indeed improved. Buttons, in particular, are more... subdued? It looks like they're trying to make things more functional and less flashy.

The arrow pointer looked weird at first, particularly when over a white background, but I've gotten used to it, and it doesn't bug me anymore. Over a darker background it's perfect.

I also have a UMAX scanner, and it may never be supported natively. I did find VueScan [hamrick.com] which also works on Linux, but I'm not really thrilled with the UI - guess I'll have to play with it some more.

I never really used Sherlock for anything besides searching for files. Thank god they've put that functionality back where it's supposed to be. I may use Sherlock now, but I'm not forced to launch it if all I want is a quick search for a file.

I recently discovered LiteSwitch X, and I miss it. You'd think Apple could make a decent task switcher. Under OS9 I was using the Microsoft Office Manager, which was just about perfect.

"The least painful it's ever been" sums it up quite nicely. It's only getting better, and eventually won't be painful at all. That hope keeps me going. :-)

Why use OSX? First, the OS doesn't crash as often. Second, it's UNIX. I love being able to ssh to my Linux box from work, send a WOL packet to my Mac to wake it from sleep, ssh into it, locate a file, and use scp to send it where I need it.

Now if I can just get ghostscript to work, I'll be able to print from Linux to the printer on my Mac. I'm really impressed with cups.

You might want to try VueScan for your scans

[teamhasnoi]

This [versiontracker.com] allows me to use my UMAX scanner from OS X. It's updated all the time, and works relly well. YMMV.

What I find ironic, is that my mom is using the most advanced unix ever at home, while I'm still futzing with Windows. I knew there was a reason I go to work.

I ran into the same problem with SharePoints and eventually had to move the entire pile of folders to my public folder to share. BAH!

And I'm still trying to get a VNC server that works on OS X, then I could pretend that I have OS X 10.1 at home.

See, I'd pretend 10.1, cause the connection would be slow.. :P

i agree

[tps12]

It is tragic that OS X is finally displacing the "true" Mac OS we've all come to love. As of three weeks ago, I was running a nice pre-MultiFinder System 6 over HFS on my dual G4 tower. Cooperative multitasking and a "free love" address space make programming a joy, without all the bloat that characterizes MacOS since 6.0.8.

Re:i agree

[karlm]

Mod parent up, funny.

"Free love" is a good way to characterize the unintentional interbreeding of memory contents in the old Mac OS. I can't count the number of times my old PowerMac had a cascading memory orgy and had to be restarted. One machine gets a bad pointer and screws a few pointers in another program and it's one big cluster fsck.

Shrug

[ptomblin]

I'm a little ambivilant about the upgrade. I bought my TiBook around about when 10.1 came out, so I never saw 10.0. 10.1 is good, but slow. 10.2 is as good, and a little bit faster. Some things, like booting, are a lot faster.

It broke Vim, but I downloaded a new one the same day. It broke uControl, but I see that there is now a 10.2 version of that on the web site.

More exciting than the OS upgrade for me are the new apps. Some of the new apps look good, but I haven't played with iTunes 3 much yet, and I don't have an iPod yet so I don't yet care if iTunes syncs with it better than iTunes 2 did. But iCal and iSync look great - I hope iSync works with my Clie.

Personally, I'm most anxious for the upgrade to Java 1.4, but that's because Java development is my main thing these days.

is the new iMail any good?

[rhetland]

Absent from the review is a discussion of iMail. I have seen that there are quite a few improvements planned, like auto-detecting spam.

Does anyone know: is it really all that good?

It's just that I don't really like Eudora, and I want some alternatives...

Re:is the new iMail any good?

[veddermatic]

IT's quite good... I don't think it's as full of features as Eudora, but if you want "simple" a mail client that can turn off HTML content in recieved messages, do plain or formatted sending, deal with multiple accts, it works well.

The "junk mail" filter is pretty darn good out of the box, and you can "train" it further by hitting the "JUNK" ubtton for messages that are spam.

I siwtched over to it from Eudora, and I'm very happy after a few weeks with it.

Re:is the new iMail any good?

[tbmaddux]

I like the new Mail.app after having to make some adjustments.

The Junk mail filter is apparently a heuristic filter that will learn as you give it feedback. I have it turned on in "training mode" right now; there is a "Junk" icon to flag junk mail; it turns to "Not Junk" if you want to de-flag some mail. When you put it into automatic mode it creates a "Junk" folder that you can then set to automatically empty after a certain period of time.

Other filters (Mail.app calls them "rules") are more capable; you can AND/OR (match "any" or "all") the rules before applying an action.

Unfortunately, the SpamCop mailbundle for MacOS X Mail.app is broken with the new version of Mail. So is GPGMail, but there is a beta version already available [sente.ch] for download.

The mailboxes "drawer" on the right has changed its look a little bit, which I had to mentally adjust-for. Most irritatingly, I was only able to see my IMAP folders by enabling my .Mac email (it just forwards to my IMAP account anyway). It was a little clunky/inconsistent with things like "On My Mac" appearing/disappearing, but eventually I got the look of it stabilized.

Also

[OrangeHairMan]

There are a lot (300+) user comments/reviews on MacSlash: http://www.macslash.org/articles/02/08/24/0410244. shtml [macslash.org]

Orange

iMicrosoft?

[Telex4]

I know I'm going to get flamed to pieces for this, but isn't the i* software suite just doing what Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer?

If you install your OS and get iChat, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, iCal, iSync and whatever i* software they put in next:

a) are you going to look for/know of alternatives?
b) are you going to use them, especially if they won't integrate as well with the OS and other apps as well as Apple's i* series will?

Surely the point of taking Microsoft to court for bundling IE and therefore slaying the browser market was not just to get at Microsoft, but to prevent OS vendors from dominating and killing off large sectors of the software market?

Re:iMicrosoft?

[BeeShoo]

"I know I'm going to get flamed to pieces for this, but isn't the i* software suite just doing what Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer?"

Nope. There's big difference between included with the OS" and "part of the OS".
Having said that, I don't believe for a second that IE is truly part of the OS. But, you don't get a choice whether or not to install it (the iApps do not have to be installed), and there is no way (at least, none provided by MS) to uninstall IE. The iApps can all be removed simply by using the delete key. No harm to your system. Install your preferred app, get on with your life.
BIG difference.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[Telex4]

Big difference to someone like you, yes, but not to the average consumer who will either buy a Mac with it all pre-installed, or will install MacOSX themselves and install it all because it is recommended and probably a very good thing for them. There's a technical difference, but not a very practical one.

Are you joking?

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

You make it sound like it's bad for the "average comsumer" to get software pre-installed. Let go of the "I'm a hard core geek and I compile my own stuff and the rest of the world shoud respect that fact and do the same" attitude.

Besides that point, can you really compare the crap M$ included with it's OS and the quality apps that appear in Max OS X? Compare MovieMaker to iMovie. Compare the crappy picture viewer and it's little green arrows in M$ to iPhoto. WMP to iTunes? No comparison. Don't like it? Get gentoo and compile from A to Z. Otherwise, there are a few million of us that just want to USE our boxen to enjoy our music and pr0n, and don't want to read through a bunch of man pages or crappy O'Rielly books just to get something to work.

Re:Are you joking?

[ckd]

It would be fairly easy for Apple to start a database much like freshmeat which would serve as an easy starting point for OSX users to find the software they want.

You mean like the second item in the Apple menu, called "Get Mac OS X Software..." that sends your browser to http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/ [apple.com]?

Re:iMicrosoft?

[bmajik]

You don't beleive IE is a part of the OS because you clearly dont understand how windows and COM work.

IE hosts the HTML rendering COM component that essentially everything in windows uses. Think of it as a shared library.

How functional would your linux install be if you started removing shared librares. Say you removed libpng ? Sure, the system would boot, many many things would work, but suddenly apps compiled to render pngs wouldn't - at all. Depending on how they were written, they might not even start, because ld would not resolve the symbol at load time. Or, more analagous to the situation with COM, they'd load and start executing, and when they tried a dlopen() (or LoadLibrary or CoCreate or similar on windows) the app would be unable to continue properly.

So, given the huge number of apps that rely on the IE-supplied HTML rendering library (HTML help, the Add/Remove programs control panel iirc, just to name two big ones), blindly yanking all traces of IE seems like a monumentally stupid idea, no ?

Linux will run into the same thing in a few years, if app developers ever get smart and start using moz_embed instead of writing their own crappy broken HTML parsers/renderers. Suddenly browser choice will go away because effectively every app requires the mozilla rendering engine to be included.

Incidentally the way this could be avoided would be to write a shared library HTML renderer specification (something like a COM Interface in windows) that could be implemented by a stub .so library that mapped the incoming library calls to a run-time bindable implementation library of moz_embed, konquerer_whatever, or anything else you might like. The same could be done on windows, but there was never any collaboration to come up with a COM Interface for a "System html rendering component".

Re:iMicrosoft?

[Cutriss]

You raise good points, but the fact is that most of the "bonus" software that you don't already have is part of what you're paying for when you buy the OS upgrade, and many people purchasing that upgrade already have solutions for some of those apps.

iChat = AIM
iTunes=MacAmp or XMMS

Outside of those, the rest of the software is functional enough for toying around and playing as a home user. iPhoto isn't taking any business away from Adobe. iMovie and iDVD are low-end versions of high-end software that Apple already dominates the market in.

The big thing is that, mostly because of the way that the OS works, nothing in any of those programs keeps you from using an alternative solution, and they do nothing to hinder the performance or sabotage operation of other apps. If you don't like iMovie, drag its folder to the Trash.

Also, with the sole exception initial-purchase-consumer-attraction, and Internet Explorer, I can't think of any way that Apple uses its installed base for business reasons. They don't take you to their own ISP for a search engine when your DNS lookup fails. They don't advertise partners and services in iChat's windows. They don't put all sorts of other ads and offers on the screen when you use iTunes. Internet Explorer defaults to Apple's Netscape homepage (ironically enough), and it comes with a default set of saved URLs, but all that's easily changed.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[Telex4]

Yes, they're certainly no way near as bad as Microsoft's bundling techniques, but I still worry for the creators of software like XMMS, Winamp, AIM, ICQ, Pixie, MPlayer, and any other software the i* suite replaces, especially those that are commercial enterprises.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[overunderunderdone]

There is only one difference. Apple is not a monopoly. Everything that Microsoft did is perfectly legal EXCEPT if you are a monopoly. That is a legal distinction you are still free to judge them on the ethics of it.

Perhaps I was wrong and there is one other subtle difference between Apple including free apps with the OS and Microsoft. Appple is not doing it to drive a competitor out of business. Microsoft was threatened by Netscape & by Sun's Java (& the internet in general) with the rumbling of crossplatform compatibility and open standards threatening to make the PC world competitive for other OS's. So they buried Netscape by including a free browser (& making it *part* of the OS) they cut off the cross platform threat of Java by "embracing & extending (& extinguishing) it, so it would no longer be crossplatform.

Apple on the other hand is not threatened by Watson or or Adobe or any of the other developers their iApps compete with. Their motivation is not to create a "good enough" free product to drive a competitor out of business but to create superior products to compete more effectively with that other OS. Inadvertantly it hurts (some) developers they 'compete' with on the mac but that is not their intent - they want as many apps on the mac as possible. And in most cases they are not scaring away developers, for every developer that stays away from the Mac because they dont want to run the risk of competing with a bundled iApp there is probably another developer that come to the mac hoping his little App will be bought by Apple to become that bundled iApp - like SoundJam MP (iTunes) Macromedia FinalCut Pro (iMovie and Apple FinalCut Pro) & all the audio & video developers Apple is buying up right and left.

Re: iMicrosoft?

[Saint Fnordius]

Your questions are valid, but I don't think Apple is doing the same thing that Microsoft did.

a) most of these programs are stand-alone apps that can be removed without fuss. If you own Photoshop, you can delete iPhoto without breaking anything.

b) integration between the iApps is no more than what Apple allows other programs to do. In fact, I think Apple uses these programs as technology showcases/examples to inspire developers.

Apple's philosophy behind including programs is markedly different than Microsoft's. MS adds programs to the OS in an effort to squeeze out competition, but Apple wants to make its hardware more attractive-sell more units. That's why they include these iApps without integrating them into the OS. You really can take them or leave them.

Not the same at all

[SuperKendall]

With Apple systems, it's easy to just ignore the extra apps if you like.

With Microsoft systems, I've found it more invloved to use something besides the default apps (browser is the main thing of course but others have gone over that).

Also, with the Apple apps it's easier for users and third parties to extend them - like plugins for iMovie or enhancements for iPhoto. With Microsoft apps generally they are pretty inflexible or you are only going to get enhancements from Microsoft. I think that's one of the key differences, with the Apple OS and included software you get more of a base to build on than something that is supposedly a complete package. It's this flexibility I find missing with Windows and really enjoy in OS X.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[2nd Post!]

I want to respond to all your points:
"I know I'm going to get flamed to pieces for this, but isn't the i* software suite just doing what Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer?"

No, it's not the same. The closest to what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer is the *integration* of PDF into the OS.

The iApps are bundling, and can be unbundled. Drag to trash and delete.

IE is integrated and there's no way to remove it *safely* and retain full functionality in Windows XP, for example. Likewise, PDF is integrated into OS X and is used extensively for print preview, render to screen, and save to file.

"If you install your OS and get iChat, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, iCal, iSync and whatever i* software they put in next:

a) are you going to look for/know of alternatives?
b) are you going to use them, especially if they won't integrate as well with the OS and other apps as well as Apple's i* series will?
"

You mean,
a) are you going to look for *better* alternatives?
b) are you going to use software that doesn't integrate as nicely with other software?

Firstly it requires that there are better alternatives; there are, and the hard part is finding them.

It's not Apple's perogative to *cripple* it's software so other people can make a profit. Apple does a favor to the user when it releases best of class software like iTunes3, iMovie2, or iDVD2. iPhoto is not yet best of class. Don't forget the users.

As per integration, isn't it the responsibility of the developer? Apple is a developer like anyone else (except they have lots of resources). Right now there are programs that *do* integrate with the iApps, via plugins, but if another developer wants to write a better iTunes and it doesn't integrate with the iPod, with the CD burning software, with Rendevous, or iSync, why is that Apple's fault?

"
Surely the point of taking Microsoft to court for bundling IE and therefore slaying the browser market was not just to get at Microsoft, but to prevent OS vendors from dominating and killing off large sectors of the software market?"
"

The difference being that Microsoft integrated and bundled with the intention of killing of competition while Apple bundles and integrates with the intention of offering better product.

Apple would love it if you created a better iTunes or iPhoto or iDVD for them; it woule remove the responsibility and support costs from their budget! In fact, if you think of it, that's *how* iTunes, iDVD, and iMovie exist; Apple bought 3rd party software, and in the case of iDVD and iMovie, didn't exist on the Mac, and rebundled/released it for the Mac. Same with their purchases of eMagic and Nothing Real; they're going to release Shake, Rayz, and Logic software and technology for the Mac because there's currently nothing there.

"Yes, they're certainly no way near as bad as Microsoft's bundling techniques, but I still worry for the creators of software like XMMS, Winamp, AIM, ICQ, Pixie, MPlayer, and any other software the i* suite replaces, especially those that are commercial enterprises."

In any case, it's their responsibility to remain competitive, no? Apple, unlike Microsoft, has done nothing illegal with it's bundling, and certainly nothing illegal with it's integration of PDF. Acrobat Reader still works, and Apple doesn't prevent (and, in fact, releases with Reader installed on the drive) Reader from being installed or used, doesn't write legal clauses to prevent resellers from installing Reader.

Apple has no qualms with Adobe, with Premiere, with Photoshop, with Illustrator, with Acrobat, with Office, etc. They are all free to code to the Mac and Apple won't *squish* them because they threaten Apple's market. That's all Microsoft's game.

"I wasn't suggesting consumers should have to compile their software, far from it. I like to sometimes, but when there is an RPM available I usually use it - so much simpler and quicker. It would be fairly easy for Apple to start a database much like freshmeat which would serve as an easy starting point for OSX users to find the software they want. An icon on the desktop/dock, a bookmark in all the browsers, perhapos a helpful start page, a mention in the manuals, there are many ways of making it easy to people to find alternatives. "

That exists. Second entry in the Apple Menu. It's also linked at the Apple->OS X tab, quite prominently.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[Telex4]

Microsoft does (or has got as close as a company could). But this is a matter of principle, not of bashing the monopolists. What good is it in downsizing a monopoly, and replacing it with a monopoly run by two companies?

Re:iMicrosoft?

[Elwood P Dowd]

But this is a matter of principle, not of bashing the monopolists. What good is it in downsizing a monopoly, and replacing it with a monopoly run by two companies?

Uh... That's the dumbest question I've heard in a while. The good is: A monopoly run by two companies is not a monopoly. *All* of the disadvantages of a monopoly are diminished greatly. For example, the two companies must compete for your business.

Of course, if the two companies collude to keep prices high, that's price fixing, and it's got it's own set of problems. It's also illegal, IIRC.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[foobar104]

What good is it in downsizing a monopoly, and replacing it with a monopoly run by two companies?

I don't know where to begin telling you what's wrong with that sentence.

Re:iMicrosoft?

[foobar104]

Apple is also a monopoly in PowerPC machines.

We've talked about this before. Every company is the sole provider of its own products. This does not make it a monopoly. I can only buy Beetles from Volkswagen. That doesn't mean Volkswagen has a monopoly on Beetles. "Monopoly" isn't a word you'd use in that situation.

Similarly, Apple makes Macs. Nobody else makes Macs. That's because a Mac is a product, not a class of products. If Apple were the only company that made personal computers, they'd have a monopoly on the personal computer market. But that's not the case. So no, Apple doesn't have any kind of a monopoly, over anything.

The devil is in the details

[Jeppe Salvesen]

It's becoming my favorite saying. Little things like font size and saving a few clicks here and there really do make the day when you sit in front of a computer all day long.

If we can chase the devil from the desktop like Apple tries to, Linux may too one day become a good desktop environment.

pudge: master of the painfully obvious

[bgarcia]

...it requires zero configuration once you're configured properly.

Yeah, most things seem to work that way.

Unix = modern?

[EchoMirage]

From the write-up:

I was excited about the prospect of a "modern operating system" (read: Unix) [...]

Unix is modern? Compared to what? Unix is old, tried, tested, and true. That's what makes it so good.

For your scanner...

[mrbill]

Try <a href="http://www.hamrick.com">VueScan</a> . Best $40 I ever spent - works better with my $750 HP ScanJet 7450C than the software HP wrote for it does.

It's you ...

[bigjocker]

I am a bitter old man. I hate change

It's you, JonKatz, aren't you? you sneaked in poor pudge's account ...

What a bunch of whining!

[BitGeek]

Sheesh. You want Unix but you want it to work just like an operating system designed in 1984? This is silly, these absurd expectations.

OS X, 10.1 runs fine, if a bit sluggish on my 9500. To hear people complaining about its performance on G4s makes me laugh. I don't buy it-- I think this is just an excuse from people who are too grumpy to switch from OS 9.

I made the transition from OS 9 really easily. The UI? Much better in 10. The cruft? Gone in 10.

Umax doesn't support OS X? Bitch at Umax, not Apple. Some software breaks? Well, those are the breaks-- probably the person who made it will fix it. But Apple hasn't done anything wrong (Except provide some nice features in 10.2 tempting us software makers to make our products 10.2 only.)

To completely gloss over the fact that OS X is a new OS (not a warmed over version of NeXT) with a lot of new fiatures, and complain (and complain and complain) about the fact that its different than 9 is absurd.

If apple had shipped something that looked like OS 9, the OS would have been a complete failure. Instead they shipped something good and made a break with the past-- its about time. 15 years with the same UI is too long... and now they can migrate and update the UI much faster so it doesn't get stale, crufty, and pointless like OS 9 was getting. (Note the changes in 10.2, every button is different, etc.)

ITs time for a moratorium on OS 9 whining. IF you don't like 10, don't switch. But don't complain that you can't have your cake and eat it to. Its absurd.

These are a few of my favorite things...

[frankie]

1. SMB server browsing. It's not quite perfect yet; it should be integrated into Finder --> Network, and it doesn't show me admin shares (C$). But unlike Sharity, I can mount as many SMBs as I want.
2. Subpixel Antialiasing. I'm really surprised more people haven't mentioned this yet. Font smoothing on my Pismo is much nicer than in 10.1.
3. Integrated Finder Search, and Watson too. Much better than Sherlock 3. 'nuff said.
4. Faster, faster Pussycat! In 10.1 I would cringe in horror every time I accidentally opened a folder with 30+ items, because arranging the icons seemed to be an O(n^2) algorithm.

There are still a few kinks though. Many of my favorite Haxies stopped working. Several apps with kernel extensions need to be reinstalled. And a warning: Jaguar Printer Sharing is completely incompatible with OS 9 Printer Sharing, in both directions. I was hoping this would be the update to let my home network finally work, but it's not going to happen.

Re:These are a few of my favorite things...

[pudge]

Jaguar Printer Sharing is completely incompatible with OS 9 Printer Sharing, in both directions.

Not quite true. A shared printer on Jaguar can, theoretically, be accessed as an lpr printer, and then printed to using the generic printer description and the LaserWriter printer driver on Mac OS 9. Yeah, it sucks, but it is better than nothing. Maybe.

I, Too, am Impressed...

[superdan2k]

So I waited in line at the Mall of America to get Jaguar on Friday night (the whole tirade about that is in a recent posting in my livejournal [livejournal.com]). Prior to this, I upgraded my 500MHz dual-USB iBook from 256MB of RAM to 640MB. It seemed a bit snappier, and things definitely went more smoothly while running with tons o' apps.

Enter Jaguar. Faster, snappier, crisper. This was worth the wait and worth the money. The integration between the basic iApps (iChat, Mail and Address book) is <cartman>sweeeeeet</cartman>. None of my major apps required updating. I haven't spent that much of a weekend futzing around with an OS (and enjoying it) since 10.1 came out.

Minor tidbits: the firewall GUI is nice. PHP is now part of the standard install (however you may want to visit Mark Liyange's page [entropy.ch] to see how to re-enable a lot of the functionality that Apple dumbed-down. (This page also has package installers for MySQL, Ruby, and tons of other cool stuff.) The Mail app seems to be pretty adept at identifying spam...and getting better and better over the last couple of days...and the bounce-to-sender feature makes it look like you don't exist anymore...it's not perfect but it seems to have reduced the incoming flow by about 10-15%. iChat, a little buggy, but nice...I thought I was going to hate the voice-balloon interface, but I discovered that, strangely enough, it's easier on the eyes than multiple lines of text.

All in all, I'd say that they've outdone themselves again.

Dude, check out my OSX 10.2 Desktop

[ryanw]

Dude, gotta check out this Desktop picture [puter.net]! It's completely OpenGL with the fish swimming around and stuff ....

Since it's a complete OpenGL Environment it takes 2 seconds to launch any OpenGL screensaver to be your wallpaper ... Here's the script I used to do it. [puter.net]

I originally was using the Desktop Effects [versiontracker.com] program.

Speed and new features

[shaper]

10.2 is much faster than 10.1 on my DP533. So far, almost every program launch that I have seen takes 1 Dock bounce. I think I saw 2 bounces once, but I don't remember now which app it might have been. Everything just zaps across the screen, even with my puny GeForce2 MX.

Love the new Get Info, especially the integrated ownership/permission view and change options. Love the file find integrated into the Finder and it's fast, too.

One feature I haven't heard mentioned much, is the better user account management. I have 3 kids and now I can set up their accounts restricted to do only the things I give them access to, and they can't wander around the filesystem accidently trashing stuff that I forgot to restrict the file permissions on. Really nice.

New Internet sharing and built-in firewall "just work". I'm planning on buying a new phone just to get the new contact and calendar sync features with iSync and iCal. It will be great having Apple write the sync software, not having to wait forever for Palm or Microsoft to remember Mac users.

I was an early adopter of Mac OS X 10.0, mainly for Unix features and stability. Now Mac OS X 10.2 rocks in a lot of other ways.

Thank you!

[sootman]

The stability of Mac OS certainly was pretty good -- ignore the hypocrites who used to praise Mac OS but now decry it -- but it can't match Mac OS X.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. I can't stand people like that, and they come with every OS. I've heard it plenty from Mac people (all along telling me how infinitely superior to Windows it is, then once Mac OS X comes out, all they have to say is that 9 was an unstable bag of shit but OS X is really it) and Linux people as well, as we went from 2.0 to 2.2 to 2.4 kernels. Also cars, video game consoles, etc etc etc. I hate those people.

Also, the rest of the article was good. I'm not a fan of OS X, but we just got out Jaguar discs in today, and I'm about to head upstairs to get mine and try it out.

GCC 3.1?

[beswicks]

If Mac OS X.2 features GCC 3.1, with GCC 3.2 having just been released to 'stabilize the C++ ABI' [slashdot.org] are Apple setting developers up for a bunch of problems by shipping a buggy compiler?

Also is there likly to be any fallout with 3.1 ABI not being compatable with the 3.2 one? I would guess not until apple release next mac os toolkit?

Quibble, and Regret

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's not "An Ugly, Rainbow Pinwheel."

It's an OPTICAL DISK - a legacy NeXT UI element, which had, until now, been left in OS X as a little 'tip of the hat' to NeXTStep 3.x.

It's understandable the Mac folks want all the niceties of post 7.2 MacOS restored to the new system. After all, these are Macintosh computers. Still, there are sentimental attachments for old NeXT users -all twelve of 'em. It's a pity to se the last of this Grey Lady slowly subsume into the Aquatic realm...

You like what you are familiar with

[Junks Jerzey]

I am a bitter old man. I hate change. Mac OS -- not Mac OS X, which is a different OS -- in its various iterations has been my OS of choice for over 15 years

Quotes like this remind me of the crazy people who pine for the days of MS-DOS, because they're convinced that OS is cleaner and faster than Windows.

Wireless PCMCIA drivers coming soon.

[colaboy]

Regarding the mention of drivers for wireless pcmcia cards not being available for 10.2 and http://wirelessdriver.sourceforge.net not having been updated in months;

An announcement was sent to the wirelessdriver announce list over the weekend stating;

=-=-=
Hi all,

I've (finally) posted a build of the driver built for OS X 10.2 to my iDisk. The can be reached via the following URL: <http://homepage.mac.com/robm>

This installer is a preliminary release. I will post to SourceForge in the usual place and make an announcement to VerstionTracker once I've had a few feedback reports.

This build is, essentially, a top-of-tree build from the CVS archives. I have made several changes to it to support compilation under Jaguar and have added a few lines of code towards trying to solve the AppleTalk issue, although I haven't had any opportunity to test that yet.

Let me know how you make out with it and I'll get whatever changes done that need to be made and make a final announcement.

-Rob McKeever
[e-mail]
=-=-=

sshAgentServices alternatives (while U wait)

[graffitiboy]

Like the gui? Try the very nice SSH Agent [phil.uu.nl] built in apple's project builder with source (yay).

If you want to see the shell script that's ultimately under this, Apple made it in csh.

A decent csh (or tcsh) script for running ssh-agent at login is described by apple Here [apple.com]. I have the "terminal.app" on my dock, and the script described goes into my login. I just have to run ssh-add, and from then on my applications do fine.

I rewrote it for my .bash_login and pulled a lot out of it, and dropped it here:

# for ssh-agent (magic!)
# first check the ssh_agent_state temp file
export SSH_AGENT_STATE="/tmp/.ssh-agent-state.$USER"
if
[ -f "$SSH_AGENT_STATE" ]; # tempfile exists?
then
source "$SSH_AGENT_STATE";
if
[ ! -S "$SSH_AUTH_SOCK" ]; # socket writeable?
then
echo INFO: ssh-agent needs to be restarted
rm -f "$SSH_AGENT_STATE";
echo INFO: starting ssh-agent
ssh-agent -s | grep -v '^echo ' > "${SSH_AGENT_STATE}";
source "${SSH_AGENT_STATE}";
echo INFO: ssh-agent started [ $SSH_AGENT_PID ]
else
echo INFO: ssh-agent already running [ $SSH_AGENT_PID ]
ssh-add -l
fi
else # no tempfile, start the agent clean
echo INFO: starting ssh-agent
ssh-agent -s | grep -v '^echo ' > "${SSH_AGENT_STATE}";
source "${SSH_AGENT_STATE}";
echo INFO: ssh-agent started [ $SSH_AGENT_PID ]
ssh-add -l
fi

Wow, now that's an interface!

[AntiGenX]

I have never in my life heard an interface referrered to as 'eminently "lickable,"'. I mean lickable, WOW! That's the interface of the future, taste! Imagine browsing your files by running your tongue all over them. (Warning: Windows may REALLY leave a sour taste in your mouth)

Apple Remote Desktop

[artfulbodger]

Apple Remote Desktop 1.0.x doesn't work; you'll need to run Software Update to get version 1.1. Unfortunately, even the new version only half-worked for me; the client side seems fine, but the Admin app says it is not installed properly. I wanted to just uninstall the whole thing and start over, but there is no uninstall option, that I could find. So I deleted all the files that the Installer installs, and then tried to reinstall, and the Installer says it is already installed. So now I have nothing, and I can't change it.

I noticed this "not installed properly" stuff on OS X 10.1 actually, and it took a few tries to get it to work. ( I think I ended up having to delete coresponding files in /Library/Receipts, to get OS X to think it hadn't installed it in the first place.)

In general Remote Desktop is really not a very good program, and needs some serious updating. It's buggy, slow, and the UI really blows. The thing that really gets me is that it uses the "Computer Name" (AppleShare) as unique IDs for clients, I would much prefer hostname/IP address for my enviroment.

Flurry - on your desktop (a cute trick)

[PatJensen]

For a good time, set your screensaver to the OpenGL Flurry saver in OS 10.2. Then, go into a Terminal window and paste the following:

/System/Library/Frameworks/ScreenSaver.framework/R esources/ScreenSaverEngine.app/Contents/MacOS/Scre enSaverEngine -background &

Make sure you do this on a machine that supports Quartz Extreme. Drag a translucent Terminal window over it for added fun. Watch how little it effects performance, trying playing some MP3s at the same time. Cool, huh?

(fix the spaces in the path above because slashdot eats them)

-Pat

My 10.1 beefs..Resolved? Anyone?

[NoData]

Here's a few things that bug the hell out of me in OS X 10.1.x. If somebody knows if they have/have not been addressed, I'd appreciate it.

Long file name display. Aqua shows the first handful of characters of a filename, followed by ellipsis (...) and then THE COMPLETELY UNINFORMATIVE last few characters. It should, of course, show AS MUCH of the leading the part of the filename as possible, then perhaps ellipsis and the extension. Perhaps.

File Dialogs. These stink. First, they're stuck in NeXT style columnar view. That in and of itself is not the worst. The worst is that as you expand the dialog (to see your filenames which are riddled w/ %@&!ing ellipses), the individual columns get wider...up to a point. They get nominally wider, but then further expansion ADDS ANOTHER COLUMN to the view, all columns being re-squished to their minimal width!! GRRR. AND, of course, there's no option to sort the file dialog by anything but name...a feature in Win. since 95.

Incomplete UNIX-length file support. Speaking of long filenames: Darwin allows standard UNIX-length filenames (what is it? 64? 128 chars? Plenty). Just about every OS X app still limits you to Mac's 31. GRRR. Is this just a limit for "carbonized" apps?

Finder won't show .hidden files. THIS is UNIX?

Line termination character woes. This is a long standing problem, but I feel Apple just kinda ignored it. Standard Mac line term. char: CR (ASCII 0x0d). Standard UNIX (and, ergo, Darwin's) line term. char: LF (ASCII 0x0a). Mix programs that by default generate one or the other in one system...try grepping or awking (or your favorite report management) anything useful...hilarity ensues. THIS is UNIX??

Is it possible to get lpd running, in light of all the built-in OS X printing overhead? OK, this last one just thrown in from a position of admitted ignorance.

Otherwise, I love it.

Re:My 10.1 beefs..Resolved? Anyone?

[Apotsy]

Just about every OS X app still limits you to Mac's 31. GRRR. Is this just a limit for "carbonized" apps?

It's got nothing to do with a limitation on Carbon, it's just those straggling developers who have not updated to the latest file dialog APIs [apple.com]. Newer NavServices dialogs give full 255 char Unicode-aware filenames. It's just a matter of getting developers to use them (they've been around since 10.0, you'd think they would get on the ball at some point).

Finder won't show .hidden files. THIS is UNIX?

Try this:

>

defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles True

Then logout/log back in.

Re:My 10.1 beefs..Resolved? Anyone?

[JamieF]

TinkerTool [bresink.de] will let you show system and hidden files.

Reinstalling Apple Remote Desktop

[adjusting]

Did you delete all the receipts before trying to reinstall?

You can find them in /Library/Receipts/
I believe the ones related to remote desktop are:
RDAdmin.pkg
RDClient.pkg
RDClientUpdateFor 10_2.pkg
RDDocs.pkg
RemoteDesktopUpdateFor10_2.p kg

The only reason not to use X

[Aqua OS X]

10.2 is a fairly nice OS. It's one of those things you install and end up saying "woh... this is cool"

Nevertheless, even though OS X is a native 32bit audio OS with a system Midi / audio Manager and system level support for Steinberg and ProTools plugins (which is just -too- damn cool), is does not have a lot of pro audio apps ported to it.

Steinberg and DigiDesign really need to get their a**es together. These guys are camped out on OS 9 Island all by themselfs and it's holding a lot of people back.

OSX lost Apple a sale

[Andy Smith]

Last month I bought a new computer. I'd gone through a phase of *hating* PCs so I decided to get an iMac. I had 100% made up my mind.

So I trecked the 40 miles to the nearest store that had a display model, and spent half an hour or so playing with it. Went home, convinced. Yep, that's the system for me.

Went back a week later to buy it. Decided to have another look and spent about 3 hours just fiddling with stuff, finding out how to do things, and seeing how quickly I could do the tasks that I have to do hundreds of times every day.

I went home without an iMac. Three days later I bought a new PC, a Dell, and I love it. The PC rocks. WinXP rocks. I'm happy.

I've never used such an awkward OS as OSX. It seemed to me that for every little thing about the interface, someone had sat down and thought "how can we do this to make it as illogical as possible?" and then they'd done it. I don't think I need to go further than this one example: Select a folder in the finder and press enter. Should open the folder, right? Bzz! Renames it!?!

Apple had a guaranteed sale. But they want people to "think different" so they created an operating system that I, personally, would find impossible to use on a daily basis. All that praise? All the awards? Bleugh. I found OSX to be unintuitive, silly and downright annoying.

I'm even getting a bit angry thinking about it as I'm writing this! :-)

Just my 2 cents. I hope this doesn't come across as a rant/flamebait/troll.

"Linux will not be able to take over the PC deskto

[BoomerSooner]

"Linux will not be able to take over the PC desktop" is the best part of your post.

I have tried to run Linux as a desktop system since 1996 and have never been completely satisfied. The day I bought my G4 with OS X 10.1.5 is the day Linux died on the desktop for me. I can ssh/sftp to my servers (linux/solaris) and use wonderful apps that are unmatched on linux (Photoshop, Acrobat-Full, InDesign, FlashMX, Office-waiting for StarOffice).

Linux is 10 years behind OS X and I cannot wait for my 10.2 upgrade to come in the mail (thank god I waited to get my G4 until the 17th).

Re:"Linux will not be able to take over the PC des

[axxackall]

The day I bought my G4 with OS X 10.1.5 is the day Linux died on the desktop for me.

The day I've installed Linux/PPC is the day Mac OS died on the Mac for me.

Re:Software

[foobar104]

God forbid this conversation on apple.slashdot.org should actually be about Apple's operating system. No, no, can't have that. Have to co-opt this conversation for the Linux crowd.

Only on Slashdot would four people have found this comment "insightful" while no one modded it "off-topic." Bah. Complain, complain.

Re:huh?

[Oculus Habent]

Some people like and are much more comfortable with their Linux software, and want to run it, no matter where. MacOS X offers you the ability to run XFree on it if you choose, giving you access to all the games you played on your Linux box. :) It's just another choice that Apple can offer people with MacOS X. -- Not everybody wants MacOS X. Not everyone wants Linux. Thankfully, not everyone wants Windows.

Re:huh?

[blakespot]

So you can compile and run, say, Linux apps that havea GUI. Linux uses X-Windows System and Apple's GUI is (superior and) proprietary. GIMP is an example.

blakespot

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:OS 10.2 and Audio Apps

[mr100percent]

From what the Mac news sites have been saying, 10.2 has much much better audio and MIDI APIs systemwide, which may explain why so many audio companies have been going slow in porting an OS X version. Expect more announcements now.

Re:What 'll happenned after macOSX 10.9 ?

[Genom]

Nah...it'll be OS XI (11), which people will take to calling "OS Zee" - causing much confusion, as everyone who does will wonder whatever happened to "OS Y" - the rest of us will sit back and have a good laugh. =)

Re:Color me Crazy

[Aquaman616]

Apparently you haven't *used* a Mac. I've been trying literally for *years* to move to Linux as my primary desktop OS and it just is not there. Period. Apps don't work together - it's aweful.

I still use Linux and other *nices as my server OSs (that's not changing - ever) but on my desktop OSX is soon going to rule to roost. I've bought my last PC.

Seriously, *try* a mac. Try to do everyday things - it just works - not all the time granted, but most of the time - which is a huge improvement over every other OS out there.

article I'm looking forward to

[hype7]

ArsTechnica's John Siracusa, he's had the best reviews of OS X throughout it's life (from the Developer Previews right through to 10.1). I'm not going digging for URLs, but IMO he's the journalist who's had the single largest impact on OS X's development, and his reviews are always worth reading.

-- james

Re:AvantGo..and Alternatives

[Spencerian]

I simply refused to go without my beloved web sites downloaded to my Palm when I made the switch a year ago. This link at Mac OS X Hints [macosxhints.com] gave me that alternative--Plucker.

While a bit more hands-on than AvantGo, you get very similar, if not identical results with Plucker. (This is open source, so Linux guys who switched from Windows can get it too.) Be mindful that these instructions were based on 10.1 and not 10.2: the needed Python parts may have an issue from the binaries, so I'd compile it if I were you.

Re:From a Windows user considering a switch

[illerd]

I hear you about the maximizing. I used to use Windows and I maximized everything. Then I got a mac and sorely missed the maximize button. I started writing emails to app makers like OmniGroup asking them what the deal was with their maximize buttons. Their response put me in my place. As it turns out, the maximize button is not supposed to make the window full screen, it's supposed to make the window just big enough to fit all the content. To me, this actually makes a lot more sense. Once I knew what was going on I started noticing it all over the place. Its a godsend in the finder. If you're in details-style view (with columns for file size, type, etc) then you hit maximize and it blows the window out just wide enough to fit all the columns. If the directory only has a few files, it will trim the heigth to just barely tall enough to loose the scroll bar. If theres a lot of files, it will make the window as tall as the screen. It's really quite nice. Very handy for dragging stuff between windows. OmniWeb's still needs some work, as it seems to ignore table content and smushes the cells, but its still a great feature. Now, if you really want something to be full screen, you have to go to the window menu and choose zoom. Remember the window menu? That oft-unused menu in MSWindows, second from the right? It's completely redundant in Windows, but it's actually usefull on a mac because its always in the same place at the top of the screen. When its always in the same place, you don't have to think about it, you just use it. Like the start menu.

Re:How many copies of OS X 10.2 can you use at onc

[phillymjs]

This is nothing new, Apple has just never offered people the option of a discount on multiple licenses before-- but you should be buying one copy of the Mac OS for each Mac you have, if you want to stick to the letter of the EULA. I would assume this is the case for all versions of the Mac OS not freely available for download from Apple.

However, should you not want to comply with that, there's no product-activation type crapola going on. Feel free to install one licensed copy of Jaguar on all the machines you want, there is no built-in, technical means to prevent you from running it simultaneously on multiple Macs. You'll just be violating the terms of the license.

~Philly