I was blown away by OS X-Tiger (10.4)

[GTKpower]

Although I'm a huge GNOME fan, I was recently given a rather thorough demonstration of Apple's OS X-Tiger's (10.4) capabilities, on a MASSIVE (with a captial M) widescreen LCD. Picture was as sharp and clear as day.

Wow. I have never seen such a tightly-integrated and polished OS that does such a good job with multimedia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm staying with GNOME. But I have to say, OS X is a real Windows XP-killer.

So, have any of you used OS X, Jaguar, Panther? What features would you like to see from OS X implemented in GNOME, and vice-versa?

Spotlight, for example, is a phenomenal application.

I truly hope that GNOME is heading in a very similar direction to OS X, although with an interface that remains a bit more toned-down than its "big cat" counterpart. ;-)

[az]

The only thing wrong with Mac os is that it is proprietary.

[GTKpower]

Very true, azz.

I wasn't impressed with the fact that for some reason (obvious ones, if you think about it), a person can't swap out one Apple processor and replace it with another one, like with an AMD Athlon, for example. This limits the life of the hardware, although in fairness, one can easily add RAM to an Apple mobo, as well as a new videocard, etc.

With Beagle (still in development), GNOME seems to be heading in an OS X-like direction. But it still lacks alot of solid, well-integrated multimedia apps.

I wonder what goodies (meaningful ones) GNOME 2.12 (or 3) has in store for us . . . . .

[poofyhairguy]

So, have any of you used OS X, Jaguar, Panther? What features would you like to see from OS X implemented in GNOME, and vice-versa?


Recently my sister got a powerbook so I tried out Tiger. Dashboard is neat (but kinda useless) spotlight is cool (but not the best thing since sliced bread), and I like all the visual cues (jumping icons, genie effect, etc.).

Unfortunately Tiger also acted kinda unstable around me (I guess its too new) and it still has that horrible finder thing. Its a pretty good OS, with its biggest problem being the fact that software for it costs money.

[GTKpower]

Recently my sister got a powerbook so I tried out Tiger. Dashboard is neat (but kinda useless) spotlight is cool (but not the best thing since sliced bread), and I like all the visual cues (jumping icons, genie effect, etc.).

Unfortunately Tiger also acted kinda unstable around me (I guess its too new) and it still has that horrible finder thing. Its a pretty good OS, with its biggest problem being the fact that software for it costs money.


As far as I know, there is alot of Open Source apps out there for the mac. OS X uses Darwin, Mach kernel, which is BSD-based (Unix.)

I believe there is an OpenOffice version for OS X, etc.

What really burns my *** is that Apple's cranking out new versions of its OS almost yearly, and you have to pay for each of them. To be fair, people who bought a Mac after April 12 or something get to update to Tiger for 10 bucks.

[Kyral]

You don't NEED to pay for software on OS X. You can install Portage on it :D

As for what I would like to see integrated into GNOME, that cool dock/StarterBar/Engage thingy (still can't get Engage working right)

[poofyhairguy]

As far as I know, there is alot of Open Source apps out there for the mac. OS X uses Darwin, Mach kernel, which is BSD-based (Unix.)

I believe there is an OpenOffice version for OS X, etc.


You are talking about Neo Office:

http://www.neooffice.org/

And it (like Firefox or any other big OSS app) only has horrible OSX ports. I think that Abiword is the best by far. The rest don't work well with OSX and/or require Xorg (and if I'm gonna need X I might as well use Linux anyway).

[GTKpower]

Kyral . . . . hehe . . Mythbusters is very cool.

I like the way Spotlight is integrated into the desktop. There's a little module for it always present on the desktop. All the guy did (who was demonstrating it for me), was type in the first few letters, and spotlight automatically synced it up, almost like autocimplete. Pretty nifty little app.

I guess Beagle is basically the same thing . . . ?

[enquiry]

Although I'm not a supporter of proprietary software, I think it's bad that Apple doesn't port OS X to the x86 platform. I guess they want to make money selling their own hardware, however a lot of people would be interested in running the OS without having to purchase a new computer. Also, by recruiting new OS X users, they might just get more people interested in the hardware as well.

[poofyhairguy]

Although I'm not a supporter of proprietary software, I think it's bad that Apple doesn't port OS X to the x86 platform. I guess they want to make money selling their own hardware, however a lot of people would be interested in running the OS without having to purchase a new computer. Also, by recruiting new OS X users, they might just get more people interested in the hardware as well.

Their hardware at a higher cost for less compared to x86 hardware. The day x86 OSX comes around is the day they lose all of those hardware sales.

Which is why it won't come.

[Kyral]

Rumor has it that Apple maintains an x86 version of OS X and that they are just waiting for the right moment

[az]

Rumor has it that Apple maintains an x86 version of OS X and that they are just waiting for the right moment

It would probably suck if ran on non-accelerated video hardware. There is a lot more to it (macOS) than just the software...

[GTKpower]

Rumor has it that Apple maintains an x86 version of OS X and that they are just waiting for the right moment


Where'd you hear/read this very interesting rumour?

[jdong]

Kyral . . . . hehe . . Mythbusters is very cool.

I like the way Spotlight is integrated into the desktop. There's a little module for it always present on the desktop. All the guy did (who was demonstrating it for me), was type in the first few letters, and spotlight automatically synced it up, almost like autocimplete. Pretty nifty little app.

I guess Beagle is basically the same thing . . . ?

I use Beagle. If you've used Google Desktop Search under Windows, it's like the same thing, only MUCH faster to index.

[StacyWebb]

Well, Apple is already made deal with Intel for the next processors, Apple Rumors (http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/050523/feature.html?.v=1)
It would make sense if it also ran on an x86 architecture.
:grin:

[poofyhairguy]

Rumor has it that Apple maintains an x86 version of OS X and that they are just waiting for the right moment

I've heard that too. Its the reason an x86 darwin exists. But from my knowledge the entire project is to force Microsoft to keep Office on Apple's platform. If MS ever pulls Office, the Apple will threaten to let x86 OSX loose. Neither will happen, Apple will remain Office platform.

[Optimal Aurora]

Yes they have an 32bit version of the Tiger and maintain it (afterall what do you thing the G4 processors in the mini and the others have as an operating system) and in the G5s they have the 64 bit version... However the only thing about mac os-x is that it is built on the FreeBSD platform but you can't modify everything on it unlike you can on FreeBSD... But trust me I love a Mac especially the PowerMac G5 even in its 2.3GHz Dual processor state...

[benplaut]

Their hardware at a higher cost for less compared to x86 hardware. The day x86 OSX comes around is the day they lose all of those hardware sales.

Which is why it won't come.

well, as long as they could not allow retailers to sell computers with the OS installed (is there a way?), they would still get all the people who don't feal like installing it themselves

i wish someone would leak it onto the BT networks, though http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

[enquiry]

Their hardware at a higher cost for less compared to x86 hardware
True in some cases, but the PPC architecture is in many ways superior to x86, so not everybody uses it just because of the OS. I'm seriously considering purchasing an iBook 'cause of its nice design and good battery life, and I probably won't be using OS X at all.

[kvidell]

There's a whole cool section of the apple website with little free apps... lots of them too... Some very useful ones.

And not only is there portage, but also The Fink. Fink is our friend.
- Kev

[jdong]

Their hardware at a higher cost for less compared to x86 hardware. The day x86 OSX comes around is the day they lose all of those hardware sales.

Which is why it won't come.


With all due respect, I find the opposite true in an X86 vs PowerPC game: For the price of a Mac Mini, the Intel equivalent... heck even if I build it myself... cannot come close to the sheer strength of a 1.2GHz PowerPC processor. Megahertz comparisons don't cut it...


AMD's 64-bit line does bridge this gap though.... My Athlon64 3000+ came together in about 600 bucks.

[oracle2025]

Well, I own an iBook, and I have to admit I run mostly Linux on it, MacOSX is nice, but after using it for a while, I felt too limited.

As for Spotlight, sure it's quite nice to have fast indexed Searching for the whole HD, but for me it's not really a 'Killer Application', c'mon, I use grep every once in a while, but I can't imagine searching all over my Harddisk every day for hours, it's nice to have, but most of the time you won't need it.

BTW. OSX in x86 would suck, because most of the hardware wouldn't be supported. A little eye-candy here, and a little searching there can't compensate this.

And x86 is inferiour to PPC, so why would I want to run OSX on an inferiour platform, if it's available for PPC?

[GTKpower]

"x86 is inferior to PPC"

Wrong.

Apple's software is specifically desinged for its hardware, and vice-versa, if by "PPC" you mean a PPC running OS X. This tight integration means that it runs ITS OWN SOFTWARE very fast. It is proprietary to the extreme, notwithstanding the bit of freedom its BSD heritage affords it.

This is the same reason an XBOX (which, laughably, contains a seemingly underpowered Celeron processor, last I checked) runs its own games so well.

x86 and PPC cannot, and should not, be compared.

Besides, as far as I know, the fastest 64-bit desktop CPU today is made by AMD, if we're simply talking raw chip speed, not OS performance.

[kvidell]

"x86 is inferior to PPC"

Wrong.

Apple's software is specifically desinged for its hardware, and vice-versa, if by "PPC" you mean a PPC running OS X. This tight integration means that it runs ITS OWN SOFTWARE very fast. It is proprietary to the extreme, notwithstanding the bit of freedom its BSD heritage affords it.

This is the same reason an XBOX (which, laughably, contains a seemingly underpowered Celeron processor, last I checked) runs its own games so well.

x86 and PPC cannot, and should not, be compared.

Besides, as far as I know, the fastest 64-bit desktop CPU today is made by AMD, if we're simply talking raw chip speed, not OS performance.
The x86 archetecture is on it's last legs, really.
It's old and vastly outdated. And while they're able to continually give it face lifts.. eventually the collagen is going to wear off.

x86 has a lot of problems, and while it does a lot of things right, I've been of the opinion for a long time now that chip manufacturers really need to start a gradual transition to something better, and they need to start soon.

I'll go ahead and disagree with what you said and agree with whomever said that x86 < PPC.
PPC is a good platform. Also, with it's problems, but I feel that it's problems are in places and in such quantities that they're not as big of a problem is the x86 archetecture's.

My $0.02 :)
- Kev

[Optimal Aurora]

The x86 archetecture is on it's last legs, really.
It's old and vastly outdated. And while they're able to continually give it face lifts.. eventually the collagen is going to wear off.

x86 has a lot of problems, and while it does a lot of things right, I've been of the opinion for a long time now that chip manufacturers really need to start a gradual transition to something better, and they need to start soon.

I'll go ahead and disagree with what you said and agree with whomever said that x86 < PPC.
PPC is a good platform. Also, with it's problems, but I feel that it's problems are in places and in such quantities that they're not as big of a problem is the x86 archetecture's.

My $0.02 :)
- Kev
Well if you think about it so is the PPC, because PPC is being replaced by the G5 which apparently according to apple uses their another type of architecture that is 64 bit compatible and is just a little different from the PPC architectures of the G4 processors

[kvidell]

Well if you think about it so is the PPC, because PPC is being replaced by the G5 which apparently according to apple uses their another type of architecture that is 64 bit compatible and is just a little different from the PPC architectures of the G4 processors
I was under the impression that "PPC" just referred to any Mac processor. The archetecture is the G? label.

G5 is the reinvented brainchild on Motorola's processor by IBM. It's purdy :)

And yes, they currently have a dual core 64bit G5 (Possibly even a dual core G4 for their laptops) currently coming down the pipe. Should be nice :)
- Kev

[RastaMahata]

I used panther, and I must say, I hate finder. One single window for everything, restricted on what you can see is not what I'm looking for.
I also didnt like the way windows are managed. Sure, the toolbar at the top is great to keep a desktop clean, but when minimizing or any other things, you just dont know how many windows of each thing are currently open. In my experience (2 days), i was browsing with firefox, and at one time I realized i had 3 windows open, each one with different tabs. I was confused, so I decided not to minimize anything and keep working on the full-of-windows desktop.
Everything else, I loved it.

Please forgive my english, and understand that I only used the mac for 2 days (9 hours?).

[GTKpower]

Good points, Rasta.

Is two days enough to get a reasonable "feel" for an OS? Some would say, no. But with enough time, a person could get used to anything, even a poorly designed UI. As we know, a whole generation of Windows users have become accustomed to one of the worst violaters of Human Interface Guidelines: navigational browsing (as opposed to the human-oriented approach of spatial navigation.)

That is just one example, and it really isn't my intention to debate browser vs. spatial navigation here. Suffice it to say, if we are exposed to a particular set of steps required to get to our files, play music, print, browse the net, we'll get used to them, even if some of those steps are unnecessarily long, or make no sense, etc.

I think if after 2 days you are still having gripes with an OS, it's a problem. The real danger is that you'll grow accustomed to the problems and gradually accept them out of necessity.

Many Mac-users, even the most loyal ones, have agreed that the Finder in its current state is broken. It is a mediocre shadow of what it "could" have been (and what it was.) There is a shareware Finder-like app made by a SINGLE PERSON, for instance, that puts OS X's Finder to shame.

Having said that, to be fair, I was indeed impressed with certain parts of OS X-Tiger, namely, it's multimedia apps, the way in which they integrate into the OS as a whole, and the functionality of Spotlight and its integration into the OS.

I'll admit that OS X is a bit "much" visually. Lots of confusing UI elements, an ***-ugly mail app, and this ridiculous fascination with that brushed-metal look, which diesn't fit very well with the rest of the Tiger UI look.

I used OS X previously, in both its Panther and Jaguar incarnations, and I have to say, it wasn't really "get up and go." I had a heck of a time figuring out how to get to my files. That toolbar at the top, when in the desktop mode, is very confusing, for instance.

Would I still use OS X? Yes. For certain tasks - multimedia, mainly. Otherwise, GNOME is my choice for an everday workhorse OS.

[kvidell]

I used panther, and I must say, I hate finder. One single window for everything, restricted on what you can see is not what I'm looking for.
I also didnt like the way windows are managed. Sure, the toolbar at the top is great to keep a desktop clean, but when minimizing or any other things, you just dont know how many windows of each thing are currently open. In my experience (2 days), i was browsing with firefox, and at one time I realized i had 3 windows open, each one with different tabs. I was confused, so I decided not to minimize anything and keep working on the full-of-windows desktop.
Everything else, I loved it.

Please forgive my english, and understand that I only used the mac for 2 days (9 hours?).
The cluttered desktop workspace thing is a big problem, in my book.
My friend who uses Mac laptops has a little pager app that can switch between workspaces just like Openbox and Metacity.
It's really really nice. It even does the naming and everything exactly the same. That was a big help in cleaning things up a little.

It's 3rd party of course but it works flawlessly. Combined with the different Expose features, he has a relatively fluid experience going.
It's also a lot nicer after you install X11 and use xterms and xvnc and such.
Very, very nice.
- Kev

[poofyhairguy]

With all due respect, I find the opposite true in an X86 vs PowerPC game: For the price of a Mac Mini, the Intel equivalent... heck even if I build it myself... cannot come close to the sheer strength of a 1.2GHz PowerPC processor. Megahertz comparisons don't cut it...


The mini's big problem is its default slow hard disk and a really weak video card.

[MechR]

As we know, a whole generation of Windows users have become accustomed to one of the worst violaters of Human Interface Guidelines: navigational browsing (as opposed to the human-oriented approach of spatial navigation.)Meh, I don't buy spatial. I can't live without a tree-view sidebar :razz:

[jdonnell]

I used panther, and I must say, I hate finder. One single window for everything, restricted on what you can see is not what I'm looking for.

I've heard a few people say this, but I don't understand what exactly is the problem. How is the finder worse than the way you work on gnome,

btw, I'm a kde user and a mac user. Konqueror is by far the best filesystem browser I've used, but mac os x is a better all around environment than gnome or kde. I really don't like gnome :neutral:

[blinksilver]

dude, i have just had about enough of this x86 bashing, x86 is dead there is no such this as an x86 cpu, my athlon64 is an ALPHA, (amd bought alpha) at least at its core, the x86 instuction get converted on the spot and are just there for backward compatiblity. (ever wonder why an athlon64 at 2.2ghz is so much faster the an AXP at 2.2ghz, now you know, don't believe it when people say it is the same chip with 64ibt extension)

the POWER arch as IBM calls it (and since they developed it they can call it whatever the want) is a very pretty arch, and by that i mean it is designed in way is not a hack job, i would much rather write POWER asm the x86 asm, but that means nothing, it is not a perfomance anything, (in case you were wondering the ALPHA is very pertty as well, it just has alot of x86 red tap around it)

intels chips are pretty amazing as well (and also not really x86),

and yes the 64 bit "x86" chips bet the G5, being twice as fast sometime.....don't believe me... http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2111p026id112749.htm

that is why i will never buy a mac, slow expensive hardware, on bsd, i personally think linux, with E17 or on and nvidia card with xcompmgr and snappy-XD is prettier, oh and not to mention more custom to your needs

just my 2 bobs...

[TopDog]

I'm waiting for my first Mac to arrive. I've bought an iBook G4 with Tiger on, it should arrive any day now (hopefully today).

I got a big bonus at work and wanted to buy a laptop for easy use at home, so I landed on Apple to see what the hype is all about :)

When I've used it a week or two, I'll give my feedback to what I think of it.

[smilelover]

The only thing wrong with Mac os is that it is proprietary.

the only? looks like you're a rich guy........ :? ;-)

[kvidell]

the only? looks like you're a rich guy........ :? ;-)
Mini's are pretty nicely priced.
I might get one. I'm kind of considering the PowerBook Titanium's too.
- Kev

[ubuntu_demon]

I've bought my father an imac. And he's very happy with it. He's almost capable of doing all the basic stuff (he is a green user) but when he learns how to do something he often thinks it's so easy that he doesn't forget..

I had never worked with an imac but after installing some necessary software and clicking around a bit I'm already capable of offering them the support the need to learn to use them.

I would recommend an imac to all people who have to use computers who are not nerds. Most nerds (like me) will prefer to run linux/Ubuntu and have cheaper hardware. For people who can't afford an imac I recommend choosing between mac mini and ubuntu (if their periferals work in ubuntu). For gamers I still recommend windows XP SP2 (with virusscanner,spywarescanner,etc).

my thread on project father :
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=19774&

[GTKpower]

I'm waiting for my first Mac to arrive. I've bought an iBook G4 with Tiger on, it should arrive any day now (hopefully today).


I got a big bonus at work and wanted to buy a laptop for easy use at home, so I landed on Apple to see what the hype is all about :)

When I've used it a week or two, I'll give my feedback to what I think of it.


Yes, please do let us know.

I'd like to see how fast you can get up and be productive, send e-mails, word-processing, web-surfing, etc.

Maybe compare some aspects to Ubuntu.

To me, the UI of OS X seemed rather illogical. I had a very hard time finding certain things.

[blinksilver]

i can't comment for the rest of you guys, but expose is pretty amazing, but of course it has x86 counterparts, although the unified bar at the top and the lack of a taskbar (yes i know the dock is a taskbar, but is no the same) is strange

[jdonnell]

the only? looks like you're a rich guy........ :? ;-)

Macs aren't that much more expensive than pc's. Compare pc laptops to the ibook and the prices are very close. The 20" imac is a good price for what you get. Show me a pc with the same specs that is way cheaper and I'll start listening. Otherwise I'm tired of people making this statement without backing it up.

Btw, my time is money and in this regard my mac is far cheaper than a pc with either linux or windows. I think this point is the most important

[bored2k]

A Linux Geek Embraces Mac OS X (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1755541,00.asp)
Some of you might be interested in reading this little dates article.

I agree wiith demon666_nl: Macs are not for geeks/nerds. It's really sweet to get everything done for you blindly, but some of us sometimes really like to see things happen & be able to tweak à la carte. And of course, Azz is right, software is not free and it has a mad absurd (IMO) pricetag.

[ubuntu_demon]

it's the tweaking and the open source/free part for me. I would really appreciate it if everything works out of the box and looks as nice as OS X tiger!

edit :
obviously the most important thing is that the OS is usable. And I think Ubuntu is pretty usable :)

[kvidell]

A Linux Geek Embraces Mac OS X (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1755541,00.asp)
Some of you might be interested in reading this little dates article.

I agree wiith demon666_nl: Macs are not for geeks/nerds. It's really sweet to get everything done for you blindly, but some of us sometimes really like to see things happen & be able to tweak à la carte. And of course, Azz is right, software is not free and it has a mad absurd (IMO) pricetag.
I'll only use them if I ever get really lazy or for Graphic Design. They're really sweet for both of those ^.-

I'd like them a lot more if I could dumb down the interface.
You can install XTerms on them and do ~some~ tweaking via those that you can't do via the GUI (You could always use the built in terminal app, but it's not very good).
- Kev

[weekend warrior]

from A Linux Geek Embraces Mac OS X:
The grand total for this little incursion into the world of Apple totaled about $3000 when all was said and done. Whew! Talk about jumping in with both feet into the deep end of the pool! Or perhaps it's off the deep end...
I'd defo say the latter :razz:

[jdonnell]

Macs are not for geeks/nerds. It's really sweet to get everything done for you blindly, but some of us sometimes really like to see things happen & be able to tweak à la carte.

Maybe you should rephrase your statement to "Macs are not for TEENAGE geeks/nerds". :razz:

Us grown up geeks need to get work done with our geek powers and spending hours trying to tweak my linux box so it can print through a windows shared printer is not what I need to be doing with my time. I'm a web programmer and I need to write web programs not learn about the internals of linux.

btw, I use a suse workstation at work and suse, ubuntu, and a mac at home.

Oh, I thought this was interesting in relation to your comment about macs and geeks/nerds.

I started going to the JavaOne conference in 1997. Over the last three years, I've seen the number of Macs at that conference go from, oh, zero to 70%.

And we're talking about the largest programming language conference on the planet.

Then I'm off to ETech, and it's the same thing. I'd put it at around 80% Macs to 20% something else (which at that conference, the "something else" often meant Linux.

Same thing at O'Reilly's Foo Camp. (http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/06/tell_microsoft_.html)

It seems a lot of professional geeks are using macs :)

[andrewpmk]

It would be nice if Apple were split into two companies: Apple (hardware) and Macintosh (software). Then again, that will never, EVER happen... (unless the DOJ goes after the iPod/iTunes monopoly)

[Ironi]

It would be nice if Apple were split into two companies: Apple (hardware) and Macintosh (software). Then again, that will never, EVER happen... (unless the DOJ goes after the iPod/iTunes monopoly)
When pigs fly? (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5731398.html)

Never say never.

[bored2k]

It would be nice if Apple were split into two companies: Apple (hardware) and Macintosh (software). Then again, that will never, EVER happen... (unless the DOJ goes after the iPod/iTunes monopoly)
The iPOD company would be better.

[GTKpower]

I think my comments about being blown away were either misinterpreted, or was an overreaction on my part.

I DID overreact, in a sense. All that well-integrated multimedia and desktop eye-candy and window-shadowing actually conceals what is in many respects a very poorly-designed UI. Even the "reviewer" in that article said that it took him a while to get used to the interface. There's your first clue: NO interface that has been well-designed will require you to "get used" to it. GNOME's HIG, for example, is a shining beacon for others.

I came from a Mac background - running System 6 all the way up to OS8. When I migrated to Windows XP in June 2002, there was no learning curve at all. Love it or hate it, XP's UI design is logical, and nothing could be easier to use. Ubuntu has followed a similar road.

In a nutshell:

OS X suffers from a terrible Finder, that even many loyal Mac users simply hate.

OS X suffers from bad UI design. The "bar" at the top could be 100x more effective if it was where "quicklaunch" buttons resided, where you could get to your programs through a couple of logical menus that were at most, two menus deep, etc.

Apple has been known to implement features simply for the sake of doing so . . . and, simply to differentiate itself from Windows to an even greater degree. That's disturbing, to say the least.

I was "blown away" because, frankly, I was taken in by all the flash, and to be fair, the multimedia integration and image editing, which is the best I've seen yet. Otherwise, OS X is a pain to use. If a person can't get reasonably comfortable with an OS after a full hour of use, that OS has some deep design problems.

The reviewer was also right when he wondered why on earth application buttons and menus didn't reside IN the application!!

In terms of getting to your files quickly and actually getting work done, Ubuntu takes the cake, and does so with an ELEGANT UI-look, not one that screams at you. Not only does OS X scream, but some of it is an inconsistent mess. If you've used Tiger's Mail application, you'll know what I mean. I do grant that it is possible to change OS themes in Tiger, but when I was using it, I was told that I only get that . . . one . . . theme. Ouch. The theme-changer app, Shapeshifter, is not free. There might be other ways I don't know about, however.

I'm glad to see Ubuntu (Gnome 2.10) taking some design ideas from OS X. We have a wickedly clean, elegant, brilliantly laid-out interface. The next step is to keep this great HIG and start working on GNOME mutimedia applications and integration.

Anyone remember our virtual desktop feature? Let's not forget just how brilliant it is.

Oh yes . . . and Beagle. Beagle is GNOME's Excalibur.

[zenwhen]

I bought an iBook about a month ago, and was barely using my PC at all until this week when Gnome drew me back in to play. I am posting this from my iBook, though.

Apple's hardware and software come together to form a whole different computing experience. it is just "different" than using Linux or Windows. Yes, it takes some time to adjust, but once you do, you wonder how you computed before. Expose makes my 1024x768 screen feel bigger than any monitor I have ever worked on. The tight design standards that most OSX software devs stick to make the whole software experience seamless.

My 12" iBook is light, white, and tight. :) It fits perfectly in the crook of my arm, and is silent. I get nearly five hours of battery life, and awesome wireless reception.

I've never been happier with a computer.

[GTKpower]

I bought an iBook about a month ago, and was barely using my PC at all until this week when Gnome drew me back in to play. I am posting this from my iBook, though.

Apple's hardware and software come together to form a whole different computing experience. it is just "different" than using Linux or Windows. Yes, it takes some time to adjust, but once you do, you wonder how you computed before. Expose makes my 1024x768 screen feel bigger than any monitor I have ever worked on. The tight design standards that most OSX software devs stick to make the whole software experience seamless.

My 12" iBook is light, white, and tight. :) It fits perfectly in the crook of my arm, and is silent. I get nearly five hours of battery life, and awesome wireless reception.

I've never been happier with a computer.


I'm actually quite happy that you're enjoying your ibook. Congratulations on a satisfying pruchase!

How is Spotlight working out for you (assuming you're using OS X Tiger)?

[dresnu]

The mythical G5...

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

[GTKpower]

The mythical G5...

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436


Well, the G5 is very competitve, from what the article says. But it aint no AMD . . .yet.

Part of the problem is OS X. Very simply put, from what i gather from the article, is that in certain very key areas, OS X cripples the fine abilities of the G5 Power cpu.

In light of the news that Apple might very well move to x86 (which I presume means AMD and Intel 64-bit technology), the whole game might change drastically.

We'll find out about Apple's future on Monday, apparently.

Either way, there is LOTS of potential there. If I wanted to buy a mac, however, I won't even go near an Apple store until this whole Apple-moving-to-x86 phenomenon is sorted out. I don't want to invest in Mac hardware today . . . and find out tomorrow that there was no point.

[poofyhairguy]

I bought an iBook about a month ago, and was barely using my PC at all until this week when Gnome drew me back in to play. I am posting this from my iBook, though.


So thats where you have been.

[jdonnell]

Well, the G5 is very competitve, from what the article says. But it aint no AMD . . .yet.

Have you seen a benchmark that compares the g5 to the amd's when both are running the same linux kernel or are you basing this statement on an article which says that amd is faster because OS X, not the g5, is slower? I'm not trying to argue, I really want to know if there is a benchmark that compares oranges to oranges because I want to see which is really faster and at which tasks.

[GTKpower]

Well, there are two ways to compare things here:

1.) The actual processor architecture of the Power cpu vs. AMD 64-bit (Opteron, etc.)

2.) The Power cpu running an app on OS X, vs. the AMD 64-bit cpu running that same app on Linux.

[jdonnell]

2.) The Power cpu running an app on OS X, vs. the AMD 64-bit cpu running that same app on Linux.

Huh? That's not comparing the cpu's. That is comparing the cpu's and the differences in OS X and Linux. Did the article say that OS X has some serious issues with performance with respect to multithreading. This means that the G5 could easily be faster than the AMD, but Mac OS X is slowing it down. We need to see some benchmarks of linux on a G5 compared to linux on an AMD before we can say which chip is faster.

[GTKpower]

Huh? That's not comparing the cpu's. That is comparing the cpu's and the differences in OS X and Linux. Did the article say that OS X has some serious issues with performance with respect to multithreading. This means that the G5 could easily be faster than the AMD, but Mac OS X is slowing it down. We need to see some benchmarks of linux on a G5 compared to linux on an AMD before we can say which chip is faster.

OS X is slowing down the Power cpu in certain key areas.

As to actual CPU capabilities, check out the Anandtech article here. It's one of the best I've seen:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

Draw your own conclusions.

[tiiim]

Hello

Im an OS X Tiger users. OS X is a great OS, Tiger is superb.

A few comments:

Sure finder can be annoying. But since spotlight will become the new finder... thats going out the window. Once you master they keyboard shortcuts for spotlight you'll never user finder again.


windows: As for the person who complained about what windows are open. As someone mentioned Expose is a great app. Notice many mac users dont minimize because Expose does all the job for you... come on only windows users minimize.


I like my powerbook because not only is the hardware very slick and great but OS X Tiger is superb OS.

I been using windows (98-2003), linux(too many to remember... but Ubuntu is the best), freebsd (gave it a little dabble) for years and years. And in my experience and IMHO i think Apple's OS is great.

no i wont go or zealot and say why... its all about wot u like.

Most of the critism about OS X here have been answered and useally made by ppl who never actually learnt the OS. Sure there's prob but hey every OS has them. But it gets better everytime. Spotlight is great the indexing is superb... beats the annoying msn toolbar anyway... i mean who stops there work in order for it to index anyway???

Thats my ideas anyways... i used a lot of OSes in the past and so far in my travels i am more than happy with OS x.

sure you can do the "its not free" argument, fair enough thats your philosophy.

[TopDog]

When I've used it a week or two, I'll give my feedback to what I think of it.
Sorry about the late feedback, but I've been moving, and had some issues with my ISP... the result was that I this week changed ISP.

Anyway, I simply love my iBook. OS X is soooo sweet, as Apple said once: It just works!

Sure, you are more free to do what you want, change looks and behaviour in Linux, but as an everyday home-system to do your stuff... nothing beats OS X.

Don't misunderstand, I still love Ubuntu and will always promote Linux as an alternative to Windows and commersial SW, but as a personal system without any fuzz, OS X is the leader without doubt.

Here is my setup:

http://mac1.no/images/thumbs/thumb_b6feeedbc511f2032c28ef136dfd820f-1736.jpg (http://mac1.no/node/1736)

[SolidAndShade]

I've used OSX extensively since all the computers at my office run it, and I've never had a more frustrating user experience. Granted, there aren't any hardware compatability problems, but the UI seems like it's designed to slow down your work as much as possible.

There's no taskbar and no easy way to find all the applications on the system, so if you're looking for a program that's not in the Dock you have to dive into the murky depths of the OSX filesystem to find it. I recall one occasion when I wanted to open a console and there wasn't a console icon in the Dock... I searched for almost 10 minutes before finding a way to do it.

Then there's the everpresent problem of window clutter. With Linux's multiple desktops, I often keep up to 40 windows open at a time and never have any trouble finding a specific app. OSX starts to become unusable after you get 10 windows open. Expose is kind of helpful when you have a small number of windows, but it requires that you reach all the way over to the F9-F11 keys to activate it, and its usefulness decreases when you have large numbers of windows that all get shrunken to tiny sizes. In situations when you have to frequently switch between windows, there's no substitute for a taskbar.

It seems like in some respects, the system is designed to be sluggish. The mouse cursor in OSX never seems to move as smoothly or quickly as the mouse under Linux or Windows, and this problem has persisted for me despite repeated fumbling with the mouse sampling controls. And the way mouse wheels are handled just blows. The first few "clicks" on the wheel scroll the screen a tiny bit, and the next few clicks scroll the screen a huge distance, so it's never easy to scroll the screen to the place you want it to be.

And then there's Apple's dismal performance in the most basic realm of user interface design: ergonomics. I don't know a single Mac user who voluntarily uses the mouse or keyboard that ship with the computer. Enough said.

[crashtest]

There's no taskbar and no easy way to find all the applications on the system, so if you're looking for a program that's not in the Dock you have to dive into the murky depths of the OSX filesystem to find it. I recall one occasion when I wanted to open a console and there wasn't a console icon in the Dock... I searched for almost 10 minutes before finding a way to do it.The first thing I did was put a terminal on my dock - didn't take anything like 10 minutes. To see all apps on the system, click and hold down the mouse button on the applications folder. After 2 seconds the folder opens up on screen in a scrollable list - this gives more or less the same function as the Start button in Windows or 'K' button in KDE.
Expose is kind of helpful when you have a small number of windows, but it requires that you reach all the way over to the F9-F11 keys to activate it, and its usefulness decreases when you have large numbers of windows that all get shrunken to tiny sizes. Agreed, Expose isn't great if you have a ton of windows open - after 15 or 20 windows, the thumbnails get too small. You do NOT have to use F9-F11 however. The screen corners can be set to be activated by the mouse. Out of habit, I find myself trying to use Expose all the time when I'm on Windows or Linux. It a real shame this is only available on Mac so far. There are also both commercial, and free desktop pagers. I installed a free pager on day one, but find I never use it anymore because Expose works well enough. If I have more than 15 or 20 windows open, I just minimize some. Expose also works better on a large screen than a small one. I use a 19" LCD monitor at 1280x1024. At resolutions higher than this, Expose would be perfect.
It seems like in some respects, the system is designed to be sluggish. The mouse cursor in OSX never seems to move as smoothly or quickly as the mouse under Linux or Windows, and this problem has persisted for me despite repeated fumbling with the mouse sampling controls. And the way mouse wheels are handled just blows. The first few "clicks" on the wheel scroll the screen a tiny bit, and the next few clicks scroll the screen a huge distance, so it's never easy to scroll the screen to the place you want it to be. I haven't seen anything like this...
And then there's Apple's dismal performance in the most basic realm of user interface design: ergonomics. I don't know a single Mac user who voluntarily uses the mouse or keyboard that ship with the computer. Enough said.You're joking right? I LOVE my Mac keyboard. The one button mouse I'll give you. Overall, I think Mac OS X is great, but I still prefer Linux.

[Wolki]

Out of habit, I find myself trying to use Expose all the time when I'm on Windows or Linux. It a real shame this is only available on Mac so far.

If you're not a gnome purist you can try kompose. I found it to work reasonably well. Too bad there' no gnome solution yet.

Skippy is ok too, but kompose has more features and works better.

[Crusty]

I've been using the Mac for over a decade. While I agree that the Finder and Dock need help in a big way, I can't live without its column view. I get frustrated working with Windoze or Linux file managers because they don't have this feature.

The one app I use ALL the time on my Mac is Quicksilver. It's free and it rocks my world. I use it mainly to quickly launch apps, search for and open files, bookmarks, email addresses, control iTunes playback, etc. All without ever using the mouse. I use it much more than Spotlight.

Quicksilver alone makes the Mac the best OS in my opinion. But OS X is also rock solid. In the five years I've used OS X, it's locked up on me once, and that's because I was tweaking with the OS itself through the terminal without really knowing what I was doing.

Another reason I use the Mac is because of the quality of much of the software. Look at iTunes. Look at Final Cut Pro. iPhoto. Quicksilver. Voodoopad. I could list a ton of apps that are not only very useful and stable, but look awesome and are actually fun to use. I'm willing to pay a little for apps like that.

The Mac has the best of all worlds for me: business/professional level software, free open-source software and great looks to boot!

That said, I think Linux is making good in-roads into these areas. When I first tried Linux (about 6 years ago), I hated it. It was ugly, confusing and too geeky for me and just about everyone I knew. Now I have a PC that can dual boot into XP and Ubuntu besides my Mac. Both KDE and Gnome have come a long way (especially KDE) and both look to be making the right decisions as to what's important to have in a good OS.

[wellery]

Originally Posted by Crusty
The one app I use ALL the time on my Mac is Quicksilver. It's free and it rocks my world. I use it mainly to quickly launch apps, search for and open files, bookmarks, email addresses, control iTunes playback, etc. All without ever using the mouse. I use it much more than Spotlight.

There is gnome launch-box:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=18740&highlight=gnome-launch-box

[Crusty]

There is gnome launch-box:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=18740&highlight=gnome-launch-box
While gnome-launch-box is extremely rough, it's already a handy app launcher. It wouldn't let me choose an app to open a selected document though. It also has no way of manipulating or appending/prepending text to files. It's missing quite a lot of features, but I'm sure they'll be added in the future. They say it's heavily influenced by Quicksilver, so hopefully a lot of its features get implemented by gnome-launch-box too.

Is this going to be a part of official Gnome releases in the future? When it's polished up, it should be. It will make Gnome that much more attractive and useful.

[Sushi]

The mini's big problem is its default slow hard disk and a really weak video card.

the videocard on the Mini is a lot more powerful than vid-card on $500 PC would be.

I bought a Mini few months ago, because I LOVED the hardware (it's so small, cool-looking and silent!) and because I wanted to give OS X a shot. Here's my mini-review:

OS X sure has lots of eye-candy! No question about it. But still, I prefer Linux, and I'm planning to put Ubuntu on the Mini in the near future.

I do love the idea of universal menubar. it really makes the system feel more integrated, and it saves screen-space. Also, accessing the menu's is a lot faster than they are on KDE/Gnome/Windows, since they are in the screen-border.

the Dock sucks. Having all those icons on the desktop makes the UI look busy. and it tries to be a place to launch apps, and display running apps. And it ends up looking confusing.

I hate windowmanagement. the mimimise/maxmimise/close-buttons are too small, and they contain no icons by default that would explain their purpose. They rely on color-coding, which is a big "f*ck you!" to color-blind. I'm not color-blind, but I can imagine the problems they face with it. And on OS X, clicking on the "close window"-buttons doesn't REALLY close the app, the app keep on running, it just closes the app-window. I have yet to figure out what benefit that behavior gives the user. And I hate the maximise-button. If I click "maximise", I want the app to be maximised. I do NOT want ti to be re-adjusted to some pre-decided size, I want it to fill the entire screen! I mean, that is what "maximise" means, right?

Compared to Konqueror, Finder is downright primitive. And I dislike the tab-management on Safari. Each tab has a close-button, which means that if you want to close lots of tabs, you have to move the mouse around, instead of keeping it in one place and click away, like you can do on Konqueror/Firefox.

I can see why some people love OS X. And while it's clearly better than Windows, I wasn't really blown away by it. Add to that the fact that it's closed-source, and I will be moving to different OS shortly.

[Sushi]

dude, i have just had about enough of this x86 bashing, x86 is dead there is no such this as an x86 cpu, my athlon64 is an ALPHA, (amd bought alpha) at least at its core

No it's not.

(ever wonder why an athlon64 at 2.2ghz is so much faster the an AXP at 2.2ghz, now you know, don't believe it when people say it is the same chip with 64ibt extension)

A64 is faster than A XP because of

- More cache-bandwidth
- Lower-latency cache
- More bandwidth to the northbridge
- More L2-cache (on some models)
- Integrated memory-controller (this is the big one).
- Miscellaneous architectural improvements
- More registers in 64bit mode

the instruction-translation you mention was already there in Athlon XP. AFAIK, it was there in the oroginal Athlon as well. It might have been there in K6 as well.

intels chips are pretty amazing as well (and also not really x86),

they are very much x86. The CPU might decode those x86-instructions to something else, but as far as users are concerned, they are x86-CPU's.

[geokker]

As far as polish is concerned (as in furniture not sausage), the OSX gui does indeed blow *any* linux gui away. I am sorely tempted by the Mac Mini. It would be adequate for my modest needs + would allow me to edit and burn CD's, DVD's with ease.

But

I use Ubuntu on a fairly old (1GHz) Dell. I thoroughly enjoy using Gnome and knowing everything installed is open source. I couldn't live without 'always on top' and 'snap' window behaviours which XP's Luna and OSX' Aqua amazingly lack. I appreciate the Linux community forums especially this one for their sense of enthusiasm. So, I'll stick with Ubuntu until my computer blows up, then I'll have to consider going Mac, and getting on the annual 'should I/shouldn't I/can I' £100 OS upgrade tax.

[j-rock]

To go back to earlier parts of this thread. OS X is opensourced.

See Darwin (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/)

From the FAQ
Q. What is Darwin?

A. Darwin is a version of the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file systems. It was originally released in March 1999. Darwin currently runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers, and is being ported to Intel processor-based computers and compatible systems by the Darwin community.

Q. How does Darwin relate to Mac OS X?

A. Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. All software built for Darwin should be able to run unmodified on Mac OS X. However, because Darwin by itself does not encompass all of the features of Mac OS X, software that depends on higher-level features of Mac OS X (such as the Cocoa and Carbon toolkits) will not run on a stand-alone Darwin system.

Somewhat old info since darwin ran on x86 a while ago. Interestingly on boot it said something like "osx" or "macos" on the prompt, i cant remember exactly though.

But getting back to my post, The OS IS opensourced. Whats not opensourced is the GUI, and some special apple utilities.

Oh, and i'm not that big a fan of osX. If linux/unix were legos, osX would be duplos (http://shop.store.yahoo.com/jryzerman/legoduplos.html) , like legos, but made for 2 year olds.

Doesn't mean I don't think it looks nice, or doesn't work. It's just not for me.

[Sushi]

To go back to earlier parts of this thread. OS X is opensourced.

No it isn't. OS X is a combination of the kernel, userland-tools, userland-apps and the GUI. Of those two, the kernel and tools are OS, GUI and apps are not. And the GUI and the apps are what makes OS X what is it.

[geokker]

I agree. Installing Darwin will not give you the 'Mac' experience. Only buying one will. For users, the GUI and compatibility are the what make Apple pleasurable.

[j-rock]

No it isn't. OS X is a combination of the kernel, userland-tools, userland-apps and the GUI. Of those two, the kernel and tools are OS, GUI and apps are not. And the GUI and the apps are what makes OS X what is it.

(GUI + apps) != operating system, like you said. I don't see how the GUI and apps can make the OS what it is then.

[deadlands]

(GUI + apps) != operating system, like you said. I don't see how the GUI and apps can make the OS what it is then.

OS X is not just the operating system. Like mentioned before OS X is the Darwin OS, the userland-tools and apps. The Darwin OS is open-source, but OS X is not. To reiterate the OS is Darwin. OS X is the OS plus GUI (which is not Open source).

[Sushi]

(GUI + apps) != operating system, like you said. I don't see how the GUI and apps can make the OS what it is then.

Aqua (the GUI of OS X) is what 99% of OS X-users consider to be the "OS". In reality, it's more than that, but the GUI is a central part of it.

If you have an app that requires Panther or later version of OS X, it would NOT work on OpenDarwin. Reason is that part of the OS is not there. Therefore OpenDarwin is NOT OS X. It is a part of it, but it is not OS X.

If you have BMW M5's steering-wheel, you do not have BMW M5, you have a part of M5. If you have OpenDarwin, you do not have OS X, you have a part of OS X. All the really interesting stuff in OS X is not in OpenDarwin.

[Stormy Eyes]

I do love the idea of universal menubar. it really makes the system feel more integrated, and it saves screen-space. Also, accessing the menu's is a lot faster than they are on KDE/Gnome/Windows, since they are in the screen-border.

You can configure KDE to emulate the Mac's universal menubar. Poke around in the options.

[Sushi]

You can configure KDE to emulate the Mac's universal menubar. Poke around in the options.

I know. I'm actually advocating switching to Universal Menubar inside the KDE-community ;)

[pizzach]

Very true, azz.

I wasn't impressed with the fact that for some reason (obvious ones, if you think about it), a person can't swap out one Apple processor and replace it with another one, like with an AMD Athlon, for example. This limits the life of the hardware, although in fairness, one can easily add RAM to an Apple mobo, as well as a new videocard, etc.




I know what you're saying here, but I can also say I wasn't impressed with PC's because I couldn't swap the Pentium III with a G4. That is a very odd argument.

[pizzach]

Meh, I don't buy spatial. I can't live without a tree-view sidebar :razz:

Spatial kicks butt! And I have NEVER seen a OS do spatial as well as Mac OS. In fact, I can't take how gnome does spatial and turned it all off for the terminal. Windows you can't really turn it off so I just cry.

Here is my take on Mac OS X. It is only good when you use it correctly. (I'm sure that was helpful) With windows and Linux a lot of navigation is done through either the keyboard or the mouse. To use a Mac well you have to use BOTH at the SAME time.

Try these tips out for a while and tell me if Mac OS X becomes more useable for most advanced users:

Step 1:
First set the finder preferences to open a new window when an item is opened. Then, whenever you see a brower window pop up click teh upper right hand pill to change it to spacial style. It wastes SOOOOO much space and in reality, when you know what you're doing, the bar on the left is next to useless.

Step 2:
Learn how the mouse and keyboard work together. Here are some basics:

a. option+clicking focus into another program/dock bar icon = hide the previous program. works GREAT for keeping a clean desktop

b. option+close = close all windows of one program

c. option + double click a folder or item = open the item and close the previous window

d. command and clicking the window title name = browse up the hierchy above the folder/item

e. control + click = right mouse button. I only use contextual items when I'm in something like a webbrowser though so contextual menus are usually useless on mac os.

Hint: Leverage the finder because it is just another PROGRAM. Believe or not, this is a good thing. Why? Well, try looking at the menus. Notice how all of the keyboard shortcuts are listed? It's a great reference! It works a lot better than right clicking for a contexual menu and never learning a better way. Also, being a program step 2a also applies! ALso, you can hide it like any other applicaiton. So all of the windows don't clutter so bad.


tip: Don't maximize windows so often in Mac OS. That is a bad bad windows/linux habit. Especially when you're browsing the harddrive is spacial mode, you don't want maximized windows.


Step 3: keyboard shortcuts:

command-shift-A = open applications folder
command-o = open folder/document/program
command-option-o = open the item and close the containing window
command-w close window
command-option-w close all windows of program
command-q quit
command-shift-q logout
command-shift-option-q logout without warning dialog
command-space = spotlight/change keyboard layout depending on OS version
command-shift-u = utilities folder
command-shift-h = home folder!
command-shift-c = mounted computer discs window
return = rename item in the Finder (hate the delay they introduces on 10.4)
command-option-h = hide program
command-option-shift-h = hide all other programs
command-control-escape = force quit
command-k = connect to server
command-tab = cycle programs (I usually click the dock instead of using this)
command-shift-tab = cycle backwards in programs.
command-~ = cycle windows of the same program (This combined with command tab is powerful.)
command-. = Cancel an operation WARNING: Seems to be depreciated for esc nowadays

Take note of how the option key tends to modify action in similar ways. Shift is usually similar too. Between programs shortcuts tend to be undully similar with is mac os style.

tip: When to minimize windows on Mac OS X. NEVER!!!!! Now that we got that out of the way, only minimize a window when you want that special window to be out of the way of everything in it's own little corner and you don't intend to touch it for a while and you don't want it playing with anyone else. Got it? Good. Notice how minimized windows disappear when you hide a application. Ooo pretty.
command-m = Minimize a window
command-option-m = Minimize all windows of an application


So the BEST (trust me on this) way to open applications in Mac OS X would be:
1 command-shift-a
2 type a few letters until it is highlighted
3 command-option-o to open the program and close the enclosing window
Which then leads to the dock being not nearly as useful for app launching and great for app managing. (You can also option click apps in the dock to hide them. MAN I LOVE HOW CONSISTANT MAC OS X IS)

Getting to an inserted cd is similar:
1 command-shift-c
2 arrow to it or type a few letters
3 command-option-o to open and close the previous window

Throw something in the trash and empty it
1 click something to highlight it
2 command-backspace/delete
3 command-shift-backspace/delete
4 enter/return


The finder does have some really anoying quirks, but I still like it. But I've grown up with it and use it really really well from build up experience. One of the biggest things I've never been able to work around in gnome or windows is that in the spacial view, there appears to be no way to close the previous window apon opening the next one like in Mac OS X. And other things like in Windows and Linux, control-a in not very consistant in where it works which then forces me to right click (agh.) Another point, I have a tendency not to use the pretty features like expose or minimizing to the dock unless in a special case. Why? I get the feeling a lot of features are made for windows converts/new users. Examples would be the browser view of the finder, minimizing applications to the dock, the dock in general expose.

Feel free to kick me in the butt now for writting a long tutorial in the middle of a ubuntu forum website. I hope I helped some people though. :D

[xequence]

I would LOVE to see an exact replica of the OSX bottom dock/bar thingy. What would be better is a whole new DE that replicates it perfectly and fast. Id download it in an instant. There are so many people these days trying to make Gnome and KDE look like OSX, but not doing very well.

[poofyhairguy]

There are so many people these days trying to make Gnome and KDE look like OSX, but not doing very well.

I don't know about that. KDE + menu bar at top option + kompose + Engage (works good in KDE) + Nvidia card + Kompmgr effects turned on + Acqua theme + OSK wallpaper - kicker. They make a pretty good copy.

( I know OSX people are laughing at me right now....I deserve it).

EDIT: I did this for a friend. I do not like this myself. OSX is great, but I like it more for the fact that you can move windows without them falling to pieces rather than its dock or windows theme (expose is awesome though).

[TroutMaskReplica]

pizzach has the right idea. you guys are trying to use mac os x as though it were linux, and you are getting frustrated because its counterproductive.

just to add to pizzach's tutorial - first rule is you never minimize windows. it's silly to do so in os x. this a linux/windows habit. you switch to the app that owns the window using command tab, clicking on app in the dock (slowest method, inmo), clicking anywhere on the window you want if you can see it, or hitting F9 to invoke exposé (i tell os x to treat a mousewheel click as F9).

to use the example figure of 15-20 windows that was used earlier in this thread, it should be one fluid motion in expose to select the window you want, no matter how many are open. much more productive than trying to sort through 20 little (non visual) minimized window tabs at the bottom of the screen. minimizing windows destroys exposé's functionality, since minimized windows are not exposed, however they are graphically represented with a thumbnail in the dock.

[poofyhairguy]

pizzach has the right idea. you guys are trying to use mac os x as though it were linux, and you are getting frustrated because its counterproductive.

just to add to pizzach's tutorial - first rule is you never minimize windows. it's silly to do so in os x. this a linux/windows habit. you switch to the app that owns the window using command tab, clicking on app in the dock (slowest method, inmo), clicking anywhere on the window you want if you can see it, or hitting F9 to invoke exposé (i tell os x to treat a mousewheel click as F9).

to use the example figure of 15-20 windows that was used earlier in this thread, it should be one fluid motion in expose to select the window you want, no matter how many are open. much more productive than trying to sort through 20 little (non visual) minimized window tabs at the bottom of the screen. minimizing windows destroys exposé's functionality, since minimized windows are not exposed, however they are graphically represented with a thumbnail in the dock.

Awwwww.....but the genie effect is so cool for the first week!

[geokker]

I agree that the best thing about the Aqua GUI is the graphical integrity. The frame buffer prevents windows falling apart making the common (mini mac) 'beach ball' delays seem more tolerable. I never minimize anything and could not use a Mac without exposé.

There are quite a few questionable design elements and inconsistencies e.g. not including minimized apps in exposé. Hoary/Gnome is certainly not far behind - just need that frame buffer. Performance-wise, I've taken a significant hit moving from a 3 year old Ubuntu'd Dell to a 'super' mac mini - ram is seeemingly more important in Mac-land.

[lgoss007]

Have you seen Enlightenment? Yeah, OSX is pretty nice, but I think Enlightenment is better (or will be when it's done). Right now it's on the right track, it could just use a few more developers. It scales from high end machines all the way down to PDA's and smart phones link here (http://enlightenment.org/Enlightenment/DR17/index.html)

I like Gnome and KDE, but Enlightenment (the new E17 (http://www.rasterman.com/index.php?page=E17) ) has a far better design (and graphics).

[pizzach]

pizzach has the right idea. you guys are trying to use mac os x as though it were linux, and you are getting frustrated because its counterproductive.

just to add to pizzach's tutorial - first rule is you never minimize windows. it's silly to do so in os x. this a linux/windows habit. you switch to the app that owns the window using command tab, clicking on app in the dock (slowest method, inmo), clicking anywhere on the window you want if you can see it, or hitting F9 to invoke exposé (i tell os x to treat a mousewheel click as F9).

to use the example figure of 15-20 windows that was used earlier in this thread, it should be one fluid motion in expose to select the window you want, no matter how many are open. much more productive than trying to sort through 20 little (non visual) minimized window tabs at the bottom of the screen. minimizing windows destroys exposé's functionality, since minimized windows are not exposed, however they are graphically represented with a thumbnail in the dock.

[another long speech]
We all work a little differently. But that is the way of computers. Expose just doesn't work well with how I use a Mac. I use option to hide so many applications (not sure if it works in expose...i would have to check) and am rarely looking for a specific window. I'm usually looking for a set of windows. Like, "where is the IM program", not "where is that message." Or "where is firefox so I can get to my tabs." I miss having all windows popup like in Photoshop Mac sometimes. I click the app and get all of the windows. With GIMP on Ubuntu i have to bring each up one at a time.

With how I work, there are rarely 15-20 windows open at once overlapping (because all of the others applications are hidden). But because of the lack of this option application hiding on Linux, I find I need things like the multiple desktops.

I suppose I discriminate agaist Expose to because it is the new kid on the block respectively and I am not into aim clicking very much. Which is actually a huge reason why I dislike Windows. I like keybindings and clicking "large areas" way too much. That is also why I hated when apple introduced the (ubiquidous on linux and windows) being able to click elements of windows in the background. Aiming takes time, and with Expose you have to view a random set of windows AND aim.

Most of my techniques still work in older Mac OS's at least down to 7 way before Expose. I really don't think I use Macs how MOST people do. But I like to think of my style as being compaired to learning how to use VIM. Start slow, get it, and be blazing fast and can use it where ever you go.

Um...so yeah. Everybody else use Expose. \\:D/ You gotta use what works for you.
[/another long speech]

[pizzach]

Thinking back, I probably could use Expose for when a bazillion photoshops open up and it is actually a pain organizing them. But to really be mindlessly useful would require setting it to a mous button. Mmmm...Apple Mighty Mouse.

[oomu]

hi

I mostly use mac os X (on a powermac and powerbook) for my job and hobby and also ubuntu dapper/gnome.

I still prefer os x (so polished, so elegant, so nicely designed developper framework (cocoa) and the dock) but Dapper and gnome are more and more beautiful (thanks human and tangerine, at last a vibrand COLOR and design IDENTITY) and useful.

I love both in facts.

the hardware is sometimes more costly (did you see the lastest sony vaio ? is it a _deluxe_ very expensive computer, more than the latest macbook pro 17 but more features) but you also get a computer with nicer design and features , better battery for macbook pro, thinner and lighter than a cheap dell or acer

but in the same time, when you look after a _great_ sony or dell mobile computer is it expensive too

the same with imac (a totally compact desktop computer with many features)
or with the "powermac" (the powermac quad is Four core in two cpus, with 2 1gb/s ethernet slot and everything, not the typical gaming pc )
if you find a _similar_ computer, is it the same price, sometimes more, sometimes less.



in facts, apple simply do not want to sell a commodized computers with small price. they will not be able to stand for the "luxuous" quality of a macintosh.
the best they can do to be "cheap" is the mac mini or the future macbook (to replace old "ibook") without too much broking the "high level" experience of "macintosh".

if you only want a box which can launch software : of course a cheap acer will be less expensive than even dell and of course the highly designed overengineered computers apple want to sell to rich famillies or professionnal.
and of course the cheap computer will do the same job than other computer.

is it true for years and years. People already told me that when I got an "oric telestra" :)


you can now change cpu for an other intel or amd ones (if they are compatible).
many did that with the mac mini intel for example.
sure, the new "powermac intel" apple will show in some months will be like your typical _workstation_ computer : you will be able to remove the whole colding-stuff and change the cpu.

[blue_chili]

I've recently installed Ubuntu on my iBook and I'm extremely impressed with Gnome.

I'm really big on customizing everything and that is very limited in Tiger. I love being able to change window borders, login windows etc.. as well as the being able to use multiple workspaces. Not to mention you have much more control over just about everything else. I really like getting right inside the OS and getting my hands dirty!

In Tiger/OS X, I really hate not being able to maximise a window to just fill the whole screen, and I hate the dock. It takes up so much room and some icons are really ugly. Yes you can get rid of the dock, but not properly, and then you have no way of (easily) tracking your open programs.

Gnome to me seems much more cooler somehow, a little bit more rough around the edges without so much bling or something but still looks much nicer than XP.

I for one sincerly hope that Gnome does not go the same way as Tiger... otherwise I might as well use Tiger...

[akshaysrinivasan]

We don't see much of OSX here.But i firmly believe if steve jobs had made OS-X86 commercial version available to everyone(Not just mac owners) OSX would have certainly made a dent in Microsoft's Monopoly!

[Sushi]

I already posted my thoughts on the matter on another thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=256534), but I'll chip in here as well :).

OS X is a very easy OS to like. It's shiny, things usually just work (partly due to limited range of hardware it runs on, and due to the fact that Apple controls both the hardware and software), things are well integrated and (like I said) it sure looks shiny. I really wish that hoards of people would use OS X instead of the craptastic thingy called Windows.

And we, the Linux-community, benefit from OS X as well. They are using open standards and open source extensively. They contribute to the open source community a lot, not just code they modified, but code they created (like launchd and Bonjour). All in all, it would be A LOT easier for Linux to co-exist with OS X, than it is for Linux to co-exists with Windows. And if more people ran OS X, we would have less spam-zombies, virus-problems and the like. No, OS X is not invulnerable, no OS is. But at least it's not fundamentally broken like Windows is.

That said, if people were really smart, they would use Linux instead of OS X. The choice between OS X and Linux really boils down to one question: "Do I sacrifice long-term security for short-term comfort?". Well, do you? While Apple and OS X might be nice and open, fact remains that it's still a proprietary OS, which is 100% under Apple's control. And while it might give you all kinds of bells and whistles, you are still giving Apple control over your system. Linux might not YET offer all that candy and integration, but it's getting there. And with Linux, you can always be sure that YOU are in control.

I could recommend OS X to new users. Hell, anything would be better than Windows! But I would also suggest Linux. I feel that in the end, Linux is the right path. It is, after all, the OS of the Righteous :).

[PenguinMan]

OS X is a very easy OS to like. It's shiny, things usually just work (partly due to limited range of hardware it runs on, and due to the fact that Apple controls both the hardware and software), things are well integrated and (like I said) it sure looks shiny. I really wish that hoards of people would use OS X instead of the craptastic thingy called Windows.

And we, the Linux-community, benefit from OS X as well. They are using open standards and open source extensively. They contribute to the open source community a lot, not just code they modified, but code they created (like launchd and Bonjour). All in all, it would be A LOT easier for Linux to co-exist with OS X, than it is for Linux to co-exists with Windows. And if more people ran OS X, we would have less spam-zombies, virus-problems and the like. No, OS X is not invulnerable, no OS is. But at least it's not fundamentally broken like Windows is.

That said, if people were really smart, they would use Linux instead of OS X. The choice between OS X and Linux really boils down to one question: "Do I sacrifice long-term security for short-term comfort?". Well, do you? While Apple and OS X might be nice and open, fact remains that it's still a proprietary OS, which is 100% under Apple's control. And while it might give you all kinds of bells and whistles, you are still giving Apple control over your system. Linux might not YET offer all that candy and integration, but it's getting there. And with Linux, you can always be sure that YOU are in control.

I could recommend OS X to new users. Hell, anything would be better than Windows! But I would also suggest Linux. I feel that in the end, Linux is the right path. It is, after all, the OS of the Righteous :).
More and more Windows users are defecting to the Macintosh camp every day. Apple recently had its most successful quarter ever, with respect to the amount of Macs it sold. 1.3 million in one quarter! IMHO and with the latest product introductions, Apple is on a huge roll. I think they are really going to hurt Microsoft and its vapourware called "Vista." Just watch... =D>

Mac OS X may be under Apple's control, but I kind of like that. The whole solution just works for me, and I know that at the end of the day I have accomplished a lot under Mac OS X. I cannot say that about Windows XP and Microsoft... ](*,) I only use Windows XP for gaming, otherwise I use Mac OS X and Linux for everything else. With Linux, I use PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu only.

Apple is really impressing me very much lately, especially with its new hardware. The new iPod nano (for my wife) and iPod 8OGB model (for me) are on my "to buy" list. hehehe Last week, I sold my Power Mac G4 on eBay so I can get a new Mac soon. Macs retain their value pretty well, even after 2.5 years. :)

[Sushi]

Mac OS X may be under Apple's control, but I kind of like that.

I don't. I wouldn't want to be under anyone's control, and that includes my computer.

The whole solution just works for me, and I know that at the end of the day I have accomplished a lot under Mac OS X.

Yes, you can do a lot of "stuff" with OS X. Many professionals use it extensively. And I'm not disputing the benefits of OS X for many tasks. But this (again) boils down to control and security. with any proprietary system, you are not in control. With any proprietary system, you can never be sure that the company won't change the terms of the license. Take iTunes for example. I do believe that Apple has tightened the usage-rights of iTunes over the years. The number of times you are allowed to burn playlists have been reduced (or something like that). And there's nothing stopping Apple from doing stuff like that.

If you want control and security, Free Software is your only choice. There is no going around that fact. Windows, OS X.... They are all designed to give their creators the maximum benefits. Linux is designed to give it's users the maximum benefits.

Apple is really impressing me very much lately, especially with its new hardware. The new iPod nano (for my wife) and iPod 8OGB model (for me) are on my "to buy" list. hehehe Last week, I sold my Power Mac G4 on eBay so I can get a new Mac soon. Macs retain their value pretty well, even after 2.5 years. :)

I do love Apple-hardware, and I will propably buy more of it. Many of the other companies (Dell, Lenovo etc. etc.) all recommend Windows to their customers, and they give MS bucketloads of money. Apple does not do that.

However, I'm not so sure about Macs retaining their value anymore. Why did Macs retain their value? Because they weren't updated that often, and when they were, the updates were usually quite small. So even that two year old computer was still very current in many ways. But now that they moved to Intel. product-updates are more frequent, and they result in bigger jumps.

[GazaM]

They contribute to the open source community a lot, not just code they modified, but code they created (like launchd and Bonjour).

This is just plain wrong. Releasing Launchd and Bonjour under Apache License 2.0 does not count as a 'lot' of contributions to the Open Source community.

They, like Microsoft, get their customers and try to lock them in to using their products and their software. Do some reading and you'll quickly find out that Apple aren't quite the friendly company many people here seem to think they are. Look at their DRM policies, the fact that every update to the ipod breaks compatibility by changing bits and pieces, such as the database format or methods of storing information on the model / capabilities etc. Just look at how they took the KHTML code for use in their Safari browser, claimed to be supporting Open Source by giving back code and yet all they did do was throw huge chunks of largely unusable and OSX specific code at the KHTML developers.

I'm not against proprietary software, I understand people need to make money. I do, however, have a real distaste for the marketing strategies companies like Apple and Microsoft use to lock in their paying 'customers'. They are as bad as each other, the only difference being Apple actually have some good designers on it's payroll.

[Sushi]

This is just plain wrong. Releasing Launchd and Bonjour under Apache License 2.0 does not count as a 'lot' of contributions to the Open Source community.

They were not under any obligation to release that software as open source. But still, they did. And I used those two as just an example. And besides those, they contribute A LOT to GCC, KHTML, Samba, Apache and others. They COULD do what MS does, and badmouth Linux and open source. But they don't. Not only do they USE open source software (which is great in itself), they actually do contribute back. Why do we cream our pants when IBM contributes something to open source, but when Apple does the same, we start moaning?

They, like Microsoft, get their customers and try to lock them in to using their products and their software. Do some reading and you'll quickly find out that Apple aren't quite the friendly company many people here seem to think they are. Look at their DRM policies

Read my latter post, where I specificly talk about these things ("Security and control"). I think that you would agree with me.

Just look at how they took the KHTML code for use in their Safari browser, claimed to be supporting Open Source by giving back code and yet all they did do was throw huge chunks of largely unusable and OSX specific code at the KHTML developers.

Well, they had to take the code the way they did, because they wanted to make a big splash with Safari. Had they done it differently, people would have known months in advance that they are working on it, or they wouldn't have had a product available aftern their initial announcement. And yes, they could have handled the backports a bit better. But they actually listened to KHTML-developers, and changed their ways. And fact remains, that KHTML HAS benefitted trendemously from Apple's contrinutions.

Like it or not, Apple has brought huge amount of positive attention to Open Source software. They built their OS on open source, and they really use open source. That gives huge amounts of credibility to open source. And Apple is actually adhering to the licenses of the software that they use and distribute. What is the problem here?

I'm NOT saying here that "OS X is the future!". I actually believe that Linux is the One True Way forward. I prefer Linux for the exact same reasons you mentioned: security and control.

[3rdalbum]

I get the impression that Launchd was open-sourced so the community could improve it for Apple. And I get the impression that Bonjour was open-sourced so Mac users would be able to interoperate with Windows users.

From what I hear, Apple haven't been throwing anything back to KHTML for a fair while.

Just because Apple uses a limited amount of open-source, and opposes Microsoft, it doesn't mean we should start loving them. Microsoft uses open-source in Windows too, and like Apple, doesn't contribute much back. China uses open-source, and lots of people here seem to love the commies for that, but China is a more restrictive regime than Microsoft could ever be.

[Sushi]

I get the impression that Launchd was open-sourced so the community could improve it for Apple.

I heard that Linux kernel was open sourced so that the community could improve it for Linus.

And I get the impression that Bonjour was open-sourced so Mac users would be able to interoperate with Windows users.

If Apple wanted to do just that, there was no need for them to open source it. IIRC, I believe Bonjour gets installed on Windows alongside iTunes, so on that respect, there is no need to open source it.

From what I hear, Apple haven't been throwing anything back to KHTML for a fair while.

The code is right here (http://webkit.org/building/checkout.html). Help yourself.

Just because Apple uses a limited amount of open-source, and opposes Microsoft, it doesn't mean we should start loving them. Microsoft uses open-source in Windows too, and like Apple, doesn't contribute much back.

How much should Apple contribute in order for you to be happy? They contributed their own code to the community, somehting theyu did NOT have to do. They also contribute quite a bit back to GCC, KHTML, Samba and others. What more do you want?

And what is this "limited amount" you speak of? The foundation of their OS is open source. Their server-tools are open source. Their compiler is open source. Their HTML-library is open source.

Microsoft? Microsoft contributes nothing.

I'm NOT saying that we should "love" Apple. I disagree with quite a few things that they do. But that does NOT mean that I should disregard their contributions to the community. Nor does it mean that I should disregard the PR-boost they are giving to open source as we speak. Why is it that we love IBM for their contributions, but at the same time we scold Apple? Fact of the matter is that we, the open source community, are better off today, than we would be if Apple had NOT been using open source, and contributing back to it.

Besides, Linus uses G5 PowerMac as his main machine, so it can't be that bad ;).

[hizaguchi]

If I wanted a computer solely for the purpose of checking email, surfing the internet, and doing basic appliance-type stuff like that, I'd use OSX without thinking twice. It is easy to use, it has a great feel, and it generally "just works". It is perfect for a non-technical user.

But my computer is more than an appliance to me. It's where I do all of my work, manage my pictures/movies/music, and keep things that I may not always want to share with the world. I also do quite a bit of tinkering, to a level that OSX doesn't mesh well with. Linux fits these goals perfectly.

Besides, I can mimic the look of OSX so convincingly that people ask me how I got it to run on my Acer, but I still get the XGL goodness.