PDA

View Full Version : Mac OSX Snow Leopard



jedimasterk
June 9th, 2009, 12:41 AM
The World's Most Advanced Operating System?!
Since 2001, the breakthrough technologies and rock-solid UNIX foundation of Mac OS X have made it not only the world’s most advanced operating system but also extremely secure, compatible, and easy to use. Snow Leopard continues this innovation by incorporating new technologies that offer immediate improvements while also smartly setting it up for the future.

I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?. Is this false advertising or what?. :o

Ozor Mox
June 9th, 2009, 12:46 AM
I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?

There are approximately a gillion factors you could measure how "advanced" an operating system is, so that's rather a pointless statement.

Having said that, one of the things that irritates me most about Apple is how they always call their products the "world's/universe's best/fastest xyz". It would be nice if just occasionally they stopped kissing their own behind.

DeadSuperHero
June 9th, 2009, 01:08 AM
I always enjoy watching the WWDC coverage, but I'm never going to be able to afford any of Apple's products. That said, some of the demonstrations they do makes me believe that the FOSS community has some catching up to do, especially with implementing things such as OpenCL and the like.

Then I look at the KDE project's latest advances, and think to myself "Oh yeah, we're not behind at all!"

Skripka
June 9th, 2009, 01:15 AM
Having said that, one of the things that irritates me most about Apple is how they always call their products the "world's/universe's best/fastest xyz". It would be nice if just occasionally they stopped kissing their own behind.

Yep.

I remember a few days ago-I saw the same description applied to OSX.5 Leopard.


The only thing I see that noteworthy is freeing up 6GB of disk space compared to a Leopard install. Otherwise it gets a rating of 1 "Meh" from me.

super.rad
June 9th, 2009, 01:18 AM
What do you expect them to say, "this is our new operating system, it could be better but oh well" :p

lethalfang
June 9th, 2009, 01:30 AM
The World's Most Advanced Operating System?!
Since 2001, the breakthrough technologies and rock-solid UNIX foundation of Mac OS X have made it not only the world’s most advanced operating system but also extremely secure, compatible, and easy to use. Snow Leopard continues this innovation by incorporating new technologies that offer immediate improvements while also smartly setting it up for the future.

I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?. Is this false advertising or what?. :o

"It is compatible with a whole variety of hardwares, as long as those hardwares are made by us."

dragos240
June 9th, 2009, 01:35 AM
The World's Most Advanced Operating System?!
Since 2001, the breakthrough technologies and rock-solid UNIX foundation of Mac OS X have made it not only the world’s most advanced operating system but also extremely secure, compatible, and easy to use. Snow Leopard continues this innovation by incorporating new technologies that offer immediate improvements while also smartly setting it up for the future.

I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?. Is this false advertising or what?. :o
This is what I have to say about macs:
The cake is a lie.

Ozor Mox
June 9th, 2009, 01:36 AM
What do you expect them to say, "this is our new operating system, it could be better but oh well" :p

Of course they want to promote their product, but have a look at the Ubuntu website. It promotes the OS without that kind of extreme self-ar$e-kissery! :D

Apple website: Giant, in your face black X on a purple background with "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" written in big, glossy, silver lettering, with the tagline "The world's most advanced operating system. Finely tuned." (which, quite frankly, is a dreadful tagline!)

Ubuntu website: About Ubuntu - "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more." Links to learn more and take a tour. Links to desktop edition and server edition, and then the Ubuntu promise.

:KS

dragos240
June 9th, 2009, 01:38 AM
Of course they want to promote their product, but have a look at the Ubuntu website. It promotes the OS without that kind of extreme self-ar$e-kissery! :D

Apple website: Giant, in your face black X on a purple background with "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" written in big, glossy, silver lettering, with the tagline "The world's most advanced operating system. Finely tuned." (which, quite frankly, is a dreadful tagline!)

Ubuntu website: About Ubuntu - "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more." Links to learn more and take a tour. Links to desktop edition and server edition, and then the Ubuntu promise.

:KS

Switch those bold tags around ;)

EDIT: Nevermind.

keplerspeed
June 9th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Thats because we dont need people's money....

Ozor Mox
June 9th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Switch those bold tags around ;)

EDIT: Nevermind.

Yeah thanks, I had a retarded moment!

init1
June 9th, 2009, 01:43 AM
The World's Most Advanced Operating System?!
Since 2001, the breakthrough technologies and rock-solid UNIX foundation of Mac OS X have made it not only the world’s most advanced operating system but also extremely secure, compatible, and easy to use. Snow Leopard continues this innovation by incorporating new technologies that offer immediate improvements while also smartly setting it up for the future.

I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?. Is this false advertising or what?. :o
Advertising is rarely completely true.

Grant A.
June 9th, 2009, 01:51 AM
UNIX-based? I thought that Mac OS X was NeXTSTEP with a printing system stolen from FreeBSD.

Mr. Picklesworth
June 9th, 2009, 02:00 AM
with the tagline "The world's most advanced operating system. Finely tuned." (which, quite frankly, is a dreadful tagline!)

Are you crazy? Their taglines are hilarious. They take full sentences. And make them fragments. Make them fragments. Because fragments rule. It's cool. Captain Kirk cool.

Having said that, they have cool stuff here, but I definitely do not appreciate how they market on hyperboles. It makes it extremely irritating for anyone interested in their operating system from the technical standpoint who does not happen to be an Apple fanatic. Some of their hyperbolic marketing is also pretty hilarious, though, like the "iPhone OS v3 has over 1,000 APIs" thing they continue to trumpet. Someone should really tell them, but I love pointing people to Apple's web site when they complain about desktop Linux having too many APIs.

I'm pleased to see that my vision for the ultimate file manager is still the exact opposite of the competition's newest stuff. Lots of time now... :)

pwnst*r
June 9th, 2009, 02:13 AM
lol, look at the hate train.

coo. choo.

yoasif
June 9th, 2009, 02:28 AM
UNIX-based? I thought that Mac OS X was NeXTSTEP with a printing system stolen from FreeBSD.
os x is unix certified (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html), and cups (http://www.cups.org/) is owned and developed by apple now.

yoasif
June 9th, 2009, 02:32 AM
Some of their hyperbolic marketing is also pretty hilarious, though, like the "iPhone OS v3 has over 1,000 APIs" thing they continue to trumpet. Someone should really tell them, but I love pointing people to Apple's web site when they complain about desktop Linux having too many APIs.to be fair, the complaint about linux having too many APIs are about them being competing APIs. Apple has a fully documented, single set of APIs for the entire iPhone. Kinda like google's android.

KiwiNZ
June 9th, 2009, 02:34 AM
Snow Leopard will have some unique and advanced technologies e.g OpenCL , and a good price , $US29

mamamia88
June 9th, 2009, 03:05 AM
Snow Leopard will have some unique and advanced technologies e.g OpenCL , and a good price , $US29

really at least they aren't charging $200 sounds nice of them

MikeTheC
June 9th, 2009, 03:11 AM
really at least they aren't charging $200 sounds nice of them

Apple doesn't charge $200 for their desktop OS.

This is a very interesting pricing change though, from my perspective.

Of course, you can only (by definition) put it on Intel-based systems that already have Leopard, which therefore means any Intel-based Mac.

I'm looking forward to it, actually.

Oh, and Apple *finally* included a card reader for SD cards.

handy
June 9th, 2009, 03:13 AM
Whenever I stuff up my main iMac distro' (currently Arch), it is always nice to know that I can boot into Leopard & it will do what it always does, which is work reliably, securely & easily.

I have no gripes with OSX, (apart from my eternal gripe regarding the inability to modify the size of the system menu's fonts).

Apple's claims are no more outlandish than most of the distros/BSDs residing on the Distrowatch top 100.

The difference IS, that OSX, really IS easy to use, & you don't have to be a nerd/geek to learn how to do most anything on it.

I always feel relieved that as I get older, & my mind inevitably deteriorates, that there will always be a the very simple to use Apple OS*, which as long as my eyes hold out I should be able to achieve all of my computing goals within a system that has been designed from the outset to be as easy to use as possible.

I think that Apple will always be ahead of the game compared to the distro's in particular, because it is free of the fragmentation that will always be inherent in the FOSS Linux distro's.

Don't get me wrong, I love FOSS, & rarely use anything but FOSS software, I'm just well aware that it has its limitations, just as OSX does.

cprofitt
June 9th, 2009, 03:33 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love FOSS, & rarely use anything but FOSS software, I'm just well aware that it has its limitations, just as OSX does.

Very well said.

All OSes involve trade-offs right now.

OS X and Linux involve limited software -- though most people will not notice
OS X involves limited hardware -- though more people will not notice
Windows involves high prices -- most people notice, most companies do not

Ace1989
June 9th, 2009, 04:45 AM
The World's Most Advanced Operating System?!
Since 2001, the breakthrough technologies and rock-solid UNIX foundation of Mac OS X have made it not only the world’s most advanced operating system but also extremely secure, compatible, and easy to use. Snow Leopard continues this innovation by incorporating new technologies that offer immediate improvements while also smartly setting it up for the future.

I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?. Is this false advertising or what?. :o

Hmm...

Linux is a free operating system with a kernel that mimics Unix. It doesn't have its own graphics standard, and is very rough around the ages.

OS X came from Unix, and ultimately, includes a lot of elements from FreeBSD. OS X, or what it used to be called, NeXtstep OS, has, and will always be more advanced than any other Unix other there. Graphically it has the best technologies, security wise its security model is better than Linux ( closed is better than open, because when open becomes more widely used, it will be easier for exploits to happen - no one exploits it now because no one cares enough to and there is no money in it. ) It is very compatible with a wide range of technologies, and actually works on a lot of PCs.

Did you know more people run OS X on hackintoshes than how many even use linux?

OS X is indeed the world's most advanced OS... it isn't false advertising. They are a business, they have to sell stuff... so lets get off our our FOSS high horse and accept the fact that OS is indeed many times more advanced than Linux. It can even run linux programs, you can add repos, and much much more... check out things like MacPorts...

Skripka
June 9th, 2009, 04:52 AM
security wise its security model is better than Linux ( closed is better than open, because when open becomes more widely used, it will be easier for exploits to happen - no one exploits it now because no one cares enough to and there is no money in it. )

Uh-huh.


Tell me again, how many active security exploits are there for Apache?

There went that argument.

HappyFeet
June 9th, 2009, 04:58 AM
Havn't used OSX Leopard much except for a few minutes here and there at BestBuy. I did learn one thing though, it's not for me. Linux seems so natural to me, I can't imagine using anything else on my computers. I know windows very well, I just don't like it anymore.

Tipped OuT
June 9th, 2009, 05:00 AM
Flame boy below me.

MikeTheC
June 9th, 2009, 05:01 AM
http://www.towntopics.com/jul1305/cinema.jpg

"Flame On!"

Giant Speck
June 9th, 2009, 05:09 AM
I'm becoming more and more interested in trying OS X. The only obstacle is the ungodly prices that Macs have.

Wait. Scratch that. Apple reduced prices on many Mac laptops today. They're not ungodly expensive anymore, just godly expensive.

MikeTheC
June 9th, 2009, 05:16 AM
Linux on a notebook (unless you're careful about the hardware) isn't really all that viable.

I already have a PC that can be set up with Linux, Vista or Seven.

I will be going back to college this fall and want a notebook (not a netbook!)

Right now I am fairly convinced Apple's got a piece of hardware that will be exactly what I'm looking for.

And, given that it's an open standard, how about the Linux community quit complaining and start looking at ways to implement OpenCL?

rookcifer
June 9th, 2009, 05:19 AM
security wise its security model is better than Linux ( closed is better than open, because when open becomes more widely used, it will be easier for exploits to happen - no one exploits it now because no one cares enough to and there is no money in it. )

Wrong. OS X is not better on security than Linux. OS X Leopard doesn't even have complete ASLR (http://www.laconicsecurity.com/aslr-leopard-versus-vista.html), which is something developed by PaX and implemented on OpenBSD first, Linux next, and then copied by Windows Vista. OS X wont have full ASLR until Snow Leopard. Basically, OS X has very little built in memory protections and compiler checks that help stop various buffer overflows, both on the heap and stack. Linux has had these technologies for many years.

Secondly, closed source software is not more secure than FLOSS. Your opinion is based on a flawed assumption known as "security through obscurity" and falls flat on its face when even basic arguments are thrown at it. For instance, Windows is closed source, yet does this stop it from having as many security holes as swiss cheese?

Thirdly, this notion that "no one cares to exploit Linux" is an old canard that has been debunked many times. For instance, look at the Linux market share on servers.

Depressed Man
June 9th, 2009, 05:34 AM
Whenever I stuff up my main iMac distro' (currently Arch), it is always nice to know that I can boot into Leopard & it will do what it always does, which is work reliably, securely & easily.

I have no gripes with OSX, (apart from my eternal gripe regarding the inability to modify the size of the system menu's fonts).

Apple's claims are no more outlandish than most of the distros/BSDs residing on the Distrowatch top 100.

The difference IS, that OSX, really IS easy to use, & you don't have to be a nerd/geek to learn how to do most anything on it.

I always feel relieved that as I get older, & my mind inevitably deteriorates, that there will always be a the very simple to use Apple OS*, which as long as my eyes hold out I should be able to achieve all of my computing goals within a system that has been designed from the outset to be as easy to use as possible.

I think that Apple will always be ahead of the game compared to the distro's in particular, because it is free of the fragmentation that will always be inherent in the FOSS Linux distro's.

Don't get me wrong, I love FOSS, & rarely use anything but FOSS software, I'm just well aware that it has its limitations, just as OSX does.

I disagree with the whole easy to use belief myself. From what I've witnessed in the HCI labs when I ran subjects in the graduate students' experiments, they would often have alot of trouble with Apple's GUI. Accidentally minimizing windows, having trouble switching between windows ,etc..

I also had trouble with it myself occasionally and had to Google the equivilent OSX keyboard commands. But compared to most versions of Linux, it largely is easier to use for most people though.

Ace1989
June 9th, 2009, 06:07 AM
I disagree with the whole easy to use belief myself. From what I've witnessed in the HCI labs when I ran subjects in the graduate students' experiments, they would often have alot of trouble with Apple's GUI. Accidentally minimizing windows, having trouble switching between windows ,etc..

I also had trouble with it myself occasionally and had to Google the equivilent OSX keyboard commands. But compared to most versions of Linux, it largely is easier to use for most people though.

Wait a minute...


I disagree with the whole easy to use belief myself. From what I've witnessed in the HCI labs when I ran subjects in the graduate students' experiments, they would often have alot of trouble with Apple's GUI. Accidentally minimizing windows, having trouble switching between windows ,etc..
.

What?



Accidentally minimizing windows, having trouble switching between windows ,etc..
.

They need to learn to computer.

Sinkingships7
June 9th, 2009, 06:59 AM
Linux is a free operating system with a kernel that mimics Unix. It doesn't have its own graphics standard, and is very rough around the ages.

Fair enough.



Graphically it has the best technologies,

Such as? Don't count OpenCL. It's not there yet.



security wise its security model is better than Linux ( closed is better than open, because when open becomes more widely used, it will be easier for exploits to happen - no one exploits it now because no one cares enough to and there is no money in it.)

Wrong. On two accounts. First, the core of OS X is open source. Your argument would wrap around and apply to OS X as well. Second, and voiding the previous point, open source code will have fewer bugs and vulnerabilities than closed source code. You argue that exploits don't happen because not enough people care to find them. The more people use Linux, the more people depend on it. Instead of waiting for a company to solve the problem, the people would solve the problem. Vulnerabilities would be patched before they could have a mainstream effect because more people will need, use, and care about Linux than people who wish to harm it.

This issue is a theoretical, and so I move that it not be pushed.



It is very compatible with a wide range of technologies,

Agreed to a degree...



and actually works on a lot of PCs.

No. And the few it does work well with are majorly irrelevant, because it's quite illegal.



Did you know more people run OS X on hackintoshes than how many even use linux?

I accuse you of the logical fallacies suppressed evidence and insufficient statistics. Back your claims. I'll be willing to bet my left leg you're wrong.


It's to be noted that I don't have anything against OS X. I simply don't want anyone mislead.

HappyFeet
June 9th, 2009, 07:03 AM
Linux on a notebook (unless you're careful about the hardware) isn't really all that viable.



Are you OK? Ubuntu works great on a myriad of devices.

handy
June 9th, 2009, 07:21 AM
I disagree with the whole easy to use belief myself. From what I've witnessed in the HCI labs when I ran subjects in the graduate students' experiments, they would often have alot of trouble with Apple's GUI. Accidentally minimizing windows, having trouble switching between windows ,etc..

Because a gadget uses a different symbol &/or is in a different place &/or uses a different colour than a system that someone is used to, doesn't qualify in the ranking of ease of use. All that shows is the adaptability of the user, when measuring how long it takes them to click the right thing at the right time.

Really, it is the same for the variety of DE's/WM's available for Linux/BSD.

There are a range of superficial to not superficial differences in the GUI. Which is a part of the problem/freedom of choice (look at it how you will?), that Linux/BSD users have to deal with, that only a tiny percentage of OSX users ever venture into, & if they do make that venture you can be pretty certain that they have existing POSIX experience (with which I mean experience beyond the realm of MS's OS's). :)



I also had trouble with it myself occasionally and had to Google the equivilent OSX keyboard commands. But compared to most versions of Linux, it largely is easier to use for most people though.

Which system would you rather give a grandmother, especially if you are the one offering support? :)

The above statement was not in any way meant to reflect any negative connotations in any way shape or form of the state of being a grandmother. My wife is a grandmother, & I am the one who offers support to her usage of an iMac running Leopard, & I wouldn't have her using anything else, except possibly the new Snow Leopard upgrade; as I don't like it when she has problems that I have to fix. ):P

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 10:23 AM
The World's Most Advanced Operating System?!
Since 2001, the breakthrough technologies and rock-solid UNIX foundation of Mac OS X have made it not only the world’s most advanced operating system but also extremely secure, compatible, and easy to use. Snow Leopard continues this innovation by incorporating new technologies that offer immediate improvements while also smartly setting it up for the future.

I thought Linux and FreeBSD were more advanced!?. Is this false advertising or what?. :o

Advanced for me means, runs applications fast and is stable. OSX, by those criteria, is not advanced.

Apple's definition of advanced is, has loads of pointless bloat and shiny things that distract you from the fact that you have just spent 5 minutes watching a 64 bit app start up on a 2GB system, with the latest intel processor.

KiwiNZ
June 9th, 2009, 10:39 AM
Advanced for me means, runs applications fast and is stable. OSX, by those criteria, is not advanced.

Apple's definition of advanced is, has loads of pointless bloat and shiny things that distract you from the fact that you have just spent 5 minutes watching a 64 bit app start up on a 2GB system, with the latest intel processor.

I have been using OSX on an Imac and a MacBook Pro for over 6 months now and no crash's , none
It has been rock solid stable.

Bloat , haven't found any and as for 5 minutes to open an application I find that some what a stretch to believe.

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 11:00 AM
I have been using OSX on an Imac and a MacBook Pro for over 6 months now and no crash's , none
It has been rock solid stable.

Bloat , haven't found any and as for 5 minutes to open an application I find that some what a stretch to believe.

I was exaggerating for comic effect.

I have timed stuff though. Filemaker DB search tests, with identical copies of the database on an 4 year old dell machine running XP on 512MB of ram versus my second generation Macbook, with 2GB RAM. THe dell machine won hands down every time.

I then did a lightroom batch process test on both machines with the same batch and timed it. The XP machine skinned the macbook again.

Sorry, but that should just not be happening. OSX is bloated, hence snow (slow) leopard, which is a fancy name for "lose weight fast."

jespdj
June 9th, 2009, 11:50 AM
The new MacBook Pros are nice. It becomes even more tempting to get one, but I already have a very nice and good Dell XPS M1530, which runs Ubuntu very well (just a few minor quirks).

Too bad the 15-inch MBPs still only have 1440 x 900 screens. If there was an option for a 1680 x 1050 screen it would become even more tempting...

But I don't like the closed-source nature of OS X (yes, it's based on FreeBSD, but OS X itself is far from open source), and as a Java developer, I don't like that you need to use Apple's version of Java instead of Sun's version. (Apple doesn't seem to care about Java a whole lot, it took a year before Java 6 was available for OS X!).

3rdalbum
June 9th, 2009, 11:52 AM
OS X came from Unix, and ultimately, includes a lot of elements from FreeBSD. OS X, or what it used to be called, NeXtstep OS, has, and will always be more advanced than any other Unix other there.

OMG lolz FaNbOiZ!


security wise its security model is better than Linux

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Its security model is great because it makes it easy for any user to get root access, whenever they want. You can even do remote administration on Macintoshes - just connect to the Mac through its leaky firewall to an instance of Safari, and run some sort of basic Javascript to take over the web browser and run Applescript commands, sending them to a setuid root daemon if you need root access. The best feature is that you can remotely administer Macs that you don't even own!

The other really good thing about OS X is that Apple tests all its security patches so thoroughly compared with Linux distros. For example, with one security flaw that could send passwords in cleartext over the Internet in certain circumstances, all the Linux distributors sent out patches as soon as they were available. But Apple put seven solid months into testing the security patches.

And Apple was careful not to issue any security advisories in that period of time, lest any of the nasty crackers find out about the problem. It also had the great side-effect of letting system administrators sleep easy at night in the belief that their users' passwords were still safe. They weren't safe, but Apple doesn't want to worry its customers. It's all part of the Macintosh Experience.

So, definitely, Mac OS X Leopard beats out Windows 7 for ease of security.

handy
June 9th, 2009, 12:02 PM
I was exaggerating for comic effect.

I wonder if it was only you who was laughing?



I have timed stuff though. Filemaker DB search tests, with identical copies of the database on an 4 year old dell machine running XP on 512MB of ram versus my second generation Macbook, with 2GB RAM. THe dell machine won hands down every time.

I then did a lightroom batch process test on both machines with the same batch and timed it. The XP machine skinned the macbook again.

Sorry, but that should just not be happening. OSX is bloated, hence snow (slow) leopard, which is a fancy name for "lose weight fast."

Notebooks are always slower than desktop machines, as they have different priorities; notebooks have to be compact, cooler, dissipate the heat that they do generate & use less energy.

The mobile processors, both CPU & GPU no matter what the clock speeds are not producing the same output as their desktop cousins running at the same or slower clock speeds.

It would require quite a bit of research, definition & one very large post using multiple testing procedures (such as Tom's Hardware & the like use), to do a definitive comparison.

As far as the Leopard bloat is concerned, I'll admit that there are app's & language packs included that I have no need for, so I delete them. This bloat only takes up disk space, it has no effect on the speed of the machine.

I use Arch mainly on this machine, which is set up to use Openbox/xfce4-panel, no desktop background & really is quite a minimalist install. This Arch setup boots faster & is snappier in day to day use, BUT, there really isn't that much in it, it is noticeable, but really when you consider the extremely light way that my Arch is built & optimized for speed, compared to the way Leopard is built, Leopard is doing a fantastic job.

If Snow Leopard makes Leopard faster, then I expect that it will be faster than my built for speed Arch install, which really is saying something for the work that Apple's dev's have put in.

Really, the way that people get so hung up about brands, labels, & have to pigeon hole everything so they can make a value judgment that makes themselves feel bigger, better, more than someone else & therefore more secure is something that humanity really, really needs to grow out of, as it could be the very thing that finishes us off.

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 12:50 PM
I wonder if it was only you who was laughing?

Probably, I do it alot. Especially when I read forums.



Notebooks are always slower than desktop machines, as they have different priorities; notebooks have to be compact, cooler, dissipate the heat that they do generate & use less energy.

Sorry, need to qualify the test - it was a Dell Inspiron laptop. A real piece of crap. Still managed to hammer the macbook.

OSX is bloated because my experience of it tells me it is. /shrugs. And it looks like Apple have finally acknowledged that too.

PS: I use a macbook for most of my work. And it is slow. Honest. I'm not lying. :)

handy
June 9th, 2009, 01:13 PM
I use a first model alu' 24" iMac, & it is fine speed wise, as previously intimated (at least).

I wasn't calling you a liar, it is just that there are so many variables, to do a thorough comparison test of different machines requires a lot of time & a variety of software.

We have an old G4 15" alu' Powerbook, with some extra RAM, it does all that my wife requires of it as far as being a mobile Sibelius box, amongst a few other music related app's, it's on Leopard these days too.

We found on her 24" iMac, that Time Machine slows things down, I ended up setting her machine up so she could easily just copy across new files manually every now & then to keep them externally backed up, as well as using the DVD for important stuff.

Hopefully Snow Leopard will have improved the efficiency of Time Machine, which is what upgrades are all about in the end. :)

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 01:29 PM
I wasn't calling you a liar, it is just that there are so many variables, to do a thorough comparison test of different machines requires a lot of time & a variety of software.


Don't have time for that. TBH, I only really care about the apps I use on a practical day to day basis. If they are slow, its annoying, for whatever reason. All I know is, the critical apps I need for working run very slowly on a macbook, and tbh, I expected better performance.


Hopefully Snow Leopard will have improved the efficiency of Time Machine, which is what upgrades are all about in the end. :)

Amen to that. I'm hoping it really gives the OS a kick up the butt. I need it to.

Also, I know you weren't calling me a liar, its just that forums are crap for conveying any kind of irony, kidding and tongue-in-cheekness. If there's such a word.

dspari1
June 9th, 2009, 01:33 PM
security wise its security model is better than Linux ( closed is better than open, because when open becomes more widely used, it will be easier for exploits to happen - no one exploits it now because no one cares enough to and there is no money in it. )

The majority of Internet severs use Linux (including Google). Why would companies like Google use Linux if Mac OS X is suppose to be more secured? ):P

pwnst*r
June 9th, 2009, 02:31 PM
...the fact that you have just spent 5 minutes watching a 64 bit app start up on a 2GB system, with the latest intel processor.

is today exaggeration day?

Ozor Mox
June 9th, 2009, 02:36 PM
is today exaggeration day?

Of course it is, how can you not know? It's easily the single most important day of the year.

jaytek13
June 9th, 2009, 02:39 PM
The majority of Internet severs use Linux (including Google). Why would companies like Google use Linux if Mac OS X is suppose to be more secured? ):P

Security isn't everything. Honestly the biggest disadvantage of using, say, Windows in a server environement isn't security vulnerabilities, it's the tendency of it's users not to update, or choose to postpone "restarting". Linux has the advantage in that you can do security updates and not have to bring the server down.

As far as why Mac isn't popular in the server environment... it's just to do with the hardware. People look for the cheapest servers possible. Apple has very expensive hardware requirements that put them out of the game.

At their base, right now, an OS isn't inherently insecure. It's the software that makes them insecure, like IE. I would hope that people who have Windows servers aren't using them to browse the Internet (though, unfortunately, that isn't always the case).

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 03:04 PM
is today exaggeration day?

Somewhere in the universe it is. And that's definitely worth celebrating.

Mistrblank
June 9th, 2009, 03:33 PM
That said, some of the demonstrations they do makes me believe that the FOSS community has some catching up to do, especially with implementing things such as OpenCL and the like.


If I understood some of the reporting on OpenCL they're treating it like their own version of directX. Despite the fact that it will be open sourced, we don't need another graphics library, we need

Then again if Apple can distribute it to Windows machines much in the same way they do Safari, iTunes and the like, the line blurring OSes will start to cross and maybe Apple might actually capture the gaming market and bring it to Apple machines and even Linux. Then again they still don't support iTunes on Linux so as far as that goes I'm still pissed and not very hopeful.

hanzomon4
June 9th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Don't have time for that. TBH, I only really care about the apps I use on a practical day to day basis. If they are slow, its annoying, for whatever reason. All I know is, the critical apps I need for working run very slowly on a macbook, and tbh, I expected better performance.



Amen to that. I'm hoping it really gives the OS a kick up the butt. I need it to.

Also, I know you weren't calling me a liar, its just that forums are crap for conveying any kind of irony, kidding and tongue-in-cheekness. If there's such a word.

Are we talking about universal binaries or ppc only

pwnst*r
June 9th, 2009, 04:34 PM
Somewhere in the universe it is. And that's definitely worth celebrating.

as long as you and your audience is aware, that's cool.

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 04:40 PM
Are we talking about universal binaries or ppc only

Universal binaries.

forrestcupp
June 9th, 2009, 05:44 PM
When is MacOs going to move beyond version 10?

I think the reason it is so cheap is that it is pretty much a service pack.

MikeTheC
June 9th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Are you OK? Ubuntu works great on a myriad of devices.

Right, and there are no power management issues, no suspend/sleep/resume issues, no wireless issues, no limitations in support for trackpads, on-board sensors, and so forth?

I'm not saying Linux cannot be run on a laptop, and I'm not saying there are absolutely no laptops out there which behave 100% perfect with Linux (hardware support). However, we all know not all laptops enjoy that status or can make that claim, and even of those which do, they are not necessarily what everyone is looking for in a laptop.

KiwiNZ
June 9th, 2009, 08:49 PM
@koshatnik

You have either damaged your Mac or badly managed it , or you are not reporting the results honestly.

KiwiNZ
June 9th, 2009, 08:51 PM
When is MacOs going to move beyond version 10?

I think the reason it is so cheap is that it is pretty much a service pack.

Mac do not disguise point upgrades as version changes;)

koshatnik
June 9th, 2009, 08:53 PM
@koshatnik

You have either damaged your Mac or badly managed it , or you are not reporting the results honestly.

Negatory. Other Mac users I know also complain about slowness too, especially when using apps like filemaker and lightroom. Maybe desktop macs are quicker. They certainly couldnt be much slower.

What would I gain from not reporting results honestly? I have no axe to grind. I'm looking forward to september and getting my hands on snow leopard and a faster working experience on OSX. Apple have got rid of the bloat for a reason.

Screwdriver0815
June 9th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Right, and there are no power management issues, no suspend/sleep/resume issues, no wireless issues, no limitations in support for trackpads, on-board sensors, and so forth?

I'm not saying Linux cannot be run on a laptop, and I'm not saying there are absolutely no laptops out there which behave 100% perfect with Linux (hardware support). However, we all know not all laptops enjoy that status or can make that claim, and even of those which do, they are not necessarily what everyone is looking for in a laptop.
show me a Laptop (not Apple!!) which runs perfect with OS X :D

all the issues, Linux has with Laptops also partly exist with Windows. My Job-Laptop (a HP Compaq nc6400) with Windows Xp also has issues with suspend and resume, the fingerprint reader doesn't work...
A colleague has a newer model (not known which one it is, for sure its a HP), which has issues with the graphics driver and the cardreader and the fingerprint reader...

so it is not Linux alone who has issues with hardware. All operating systems have their issues with certain hardware and I find it quite unfair to demand from Linux to be perfect in any possible way, while Windows or Mac certainly isn't.

On the other hand, the Laptop, with which I write this post works perfectly with Linux. EVERYTHING works out of the box. No suspend- no resume issues... no sound issue, no graphics issue
Without installing anything from third parties (the Nvidia driver is only installed because of 3d, technically it would not be necessary).
Try this with windows (NO INSTALL OF THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE!!) and show me which device this would be

MikeTheC
June 9th, 2009, 09:17 PM
show me a Laptop (not Apple!!) which runs perfect with OS X :D
Which is kind of the point, really. Well, that plus the points you raised about even Windows-based laptops having issues.

See, the thing is I find it unacceptable to have bought a piece of hardware from a company only to have even what they provided (that is, some OEM's Windows install) not fully work. Why would you even accept a product like that? I certainly wouldn't. That'd be the fast way for them to get me to return it.

Apple's stuff just simply works. While this tends not to become an issue on desktop systems due to a mix of desktop hardware having a greater percentage of driver support, and the ability to build your own system with hardware you already know will work, for laptops it is an issue.

I would certainly prefer running Mac OS X to Windows. I run Windows on my system chiefly because (the present Seven install notwithstanding) my eMachines unit came with it, and I have had the need to use Word for college (Office 2008 -- especially Word 2008 -- has "issues" which makes running 2007 and it's damnable "ribbon" preferable).

Screwdriver0815
June 9th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Which is kind of the point, really. Well, that plus the points you raised about even Windows-based laptops having issues.

See, the thing is I find it unacceptable to have bought a piece of hardware from a company only to have even what they provided (that is, some OEM's Windows install) not fully work. Why would you even accept a product like that? I certainly wouldn't. That'd be the fast way for them to get me to return it.

Apple's stuff just simply works. While this tends not to become an issue on desktop systems due to a mix of desktop hardware having a greater percentage of driver support, and the ability to build your own system with hardware you already know will work, for laptops it is an issue.

I would certainly prefer running Mac OS X to Windows. I run Windows on my system chiefly because (the present Seven install notwithstanding) my eMachines unit came with it, and I have had the need to use Word for college (Office 2008 -- especially Word 2008 -- has "issues" which makes running 2007 and it's damnable "ribbon" preferable).
yeah, maybe I agree with you, but:

Apple's OS x is installed on exactly the hardware which it is designed for. The Apple-Computers.
So if there would be issues with suspend and resume or graphics or whatever... this would be a shame, wouldn't it? And Apple must be stupid when they don't get their stuff right.

But Windows and Linux is not designed for ONLY ONE type Hardware.
And even if Windows is not designed for only one type of hardware I also would not accept if something would not work. Because the operating system costs too much money to make any concession about not working hardware.
The mentioned HP is only the job-***** and I did not pay it - so what...

So what if Microsoft says: "we only sell our stuff with Asus Notebooks. If you want other hardware, we don't care"? Or Mark Shuttleworth says: "Ubuntu? Buy a Dell, then you'll get it". Or the Red Hat guys: "you can get RHEL on each hardware as long as it is called HP. The same is valid with Fedora". Or the Novell guys: "you can get SLED and OpenSuse only on Lenovo hardware". What would people say? Of course all the systems would work perfectly. But you don't have the choice anymore.
And all the customers which have NOT bought a Mac would scream and shout... and they would be right.

There are so many combinations of hardware out there... surely there can be limitations and issues. This is not the fault of the operating systems or their developers. This is the price, we (as customers) have to pay for choice.
Apple customers are a different kind of customer. They like the Apple hardware - okay, why not.

But to make comparisons like "Linux works bad on an Asus but Mac OS x works perfectly on a Macbook" is as you would compare a cherry with a pumpkin. ;) :D

ghindo
June 9th, 2009, 09:55 PM
Man, there is an incredible amount of FUD in this thread.

schauerlich
June 9th, 2009, 10:13 PM
When is MacOs going to move beyond version 10?

I think the reason it is so cheap is that it is pretty much a service pack.

Mac OS X was a young and rather immature OS (not unlike a few people in this thread...) when it was released in 2001. The first four point releases were substantial steps as Apple tried to get their OS up to what it really should have been from the start (just my opinion). The update to Leopard was less of a step than the others had been, and people have been more reluctant to upgrade. Previously, nearly everyone upgraded to the new point release when it came out, and certainly no one was two point releases behind. Now, there's still a significant amount of people who use 10.4 despite 10.5 being out for nearly two years. Mac OS X development is slowing down and leveling off, and Apple is acknowledging that by giving 10.6 a similar name to its predecessor and lowering the price to upgrade.

aysiu
June 9th, 2009, 10:18 PM
Apple's stuff just simply works. That must be why my wife's Macbook Pro can't hold a WPA connection (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=wpa+drops+macbook&btnG=Google+Search&fp=v7jZ3eZDY3Y) for more than two minutes, and Time Machine just hangs (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=time+machine+hangs&btnG=Google+Search&fp=v7jZ3eZDY3Y) indefinitely.

Because of Apple's stuff "simply work" we've had to switch to a WEP (insecure) wireless connection, and I've had to create an [I]rsync bash script icon on her dock.

There are many things to love about Macs, but they are computers with computer problems. They are not magic. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/macs-are-just-computers-not-magic/)

schauerlich
June 9th, 2009, 10:23 PM
There are many things to love about Macs, but they are computers with computer problems. They are not magic.

Quick, someone get a wand... I think the spell is wearing off! Didn't you watch the WWDC keynote for your semiannual re-hypnosis?

Depressed Man
June 9th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Wait a minute...



What?




They need to learn to computer.

My point was given how people seem to praise OSX's interface, you think they wouldn't have these issues. My point is that no computer interface is perfect. And that one's usability over another is usually subjective. For example, I still find the OSX dock to be a mess even to this day.


Because a gadget uses a different symbol &/or is in a different place &/or uses a different colour than a system that someone is used to, doesn't qualify in the ranking of ease of use. All that shows is the adaptability of the user, when measuring how long it takes them to click the right thing at the right time.

Really, it is the same for the variety of DE's/WM's available for Linux/BSD.


I agree with you. (see point above, in the end its subjective since its dependent on the user)



Which system would you rather give a grandmother, especially if you are the one offering support? :)

The above statement was not in any way meant to reflect any negative connotations in any way shape or form of the state of being a grandmother. My wife is a grandmother, & I am the one who offers support to her usage of an iMac running Leopard, & I wouldn't have her using anything else, except possibly the new Snow Leopard upgrade; as I don't like it when she has problems that I have to fix. ):P

Probably Ubuntu or Windows since I'm most familar with those systems. Though any system I would give to an individual who may not be familar with a computer would require interface tweaks.

IE: Renaming Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, whatever to say INTERNET (or CLICK THIS TO SURF THE WEB).

Probably Ubuntu over Windows since it's easier to FUBAR a Windows install. I don't really see any desktop solution out there as ideal right now. I've seen problems with each interface (KDE, Gnome, OSX, Windows) that could present problems and can't really say one would be better than the other. For example, Windows 7 seems to be adopting the icon approach that Apple has used in their docks for example. Which is great if people actually know what program icons their looking for. But otherwise. Bad idea, you should include a name with its function [IE: Email] (ideal solution to me).

MikeTheC
June 10th, 2009, 12:05 AM
They are not magic. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/macs-are-just-computers-not-magic/)
Well, true, nothing's perfect, but wow... just, wow...

Honestly, I have never seen that happen in person. I personally used to own a PowerBook G4, and I presently own both an iPod Touch and a Mac mini, none of the three of them had that issue. Moreover, I've had friends over with iMacs, MacBooks and MacBook Pros, and none of them have ever had the slightest problem getting onto my WPA wifi network. A friend used to own a MacBook, and he presently owns an iPod Touch (2nd gen) a 24" iMac (his folks who live there own a 20" iMac), and he presently owns a 2nd (or 3rd?) gen MacBook Pro 15". Not a single one of those units has, to my knowledge, had problems using his WPA setup.

FWIW, I run a Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 running DD-WRT and he runs some model of Linksys 802.11g wireless router running native firmware.

Again, I'm not saying there is no problem or that there can't be a problem, but I've certainly never seen it.

As far as Time Machine is concerned, I have played with it a tiny bit on a Mac I used to own, but my stuff is already generally so well-backed-up that Time Machine, while very nice, just isn't necessary for me.

I know that when Apple first released the Time Machine network units (Time Capsule, I think they're called) there were some problems with reliability and stability. The same friend with the Macs mentioned above bought one when they first came out and did have some teething problems with it, but after a couple software updates I gather it works flawlessly for him.

Skripka
June 10th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Well, true, nothing's perfect, but wow... just, wow...

Honestly, I have never seen that happen in person. I personally used to own a PowerBook G4, and I presently own both an iPod Touch and a Mac mini, none of the three of them had that issue. Moreover, I've had friends over with iMacs, MacBooks and MacBook Pros, and none of them have ever had the slightest problem getting onto my WPA wifi network. A friend used to own a MacBook, and he presently owns an iPod Touch (2nd gen) a 24" iMac (his folks who live there own a 20" iMac), and he presently owns a 2nd (or 3rd?) gen MacBook Pro 15". Not a single one of those units has, to my knowledge, had problems using his WPA setup.

FWIW, I run a Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 running DD-WRT and he runs some model of Linksys 802.11g wireless router running native firmware.

Again, I'm not saying there is no problem or that there can't be a problem, but I've certainly never seen it.

As far as Time Machine is concerned, I have played with it a tiny bit on a Mac I used to own, but my stuff is already generally so well-backed-up that Time Machine, while very nice, just isn't necessary for me.

I know that when Apple first released the Time Machine network units (Time Capsule, I think they're called) there were some problems with reliability and stability. The same friend with the Macs mentioned above bought one when they first came out and did have some teething problems with it, but after a couple software updates I gather it works flawlessly for him.

Here's a second former PowerBookG4 user who could never connect to WPA. Both Tiger and Leopard.

I really like how I stumped Apple's help line...Leopard took a full 2:30 to boot (from powerbutton until desktop was shown) on a clean install. The HDD is fine and alive and kicking now a few years later-plugged into my tower.

mips
June 10th, 2009, 12:24 AM
The only thing I see that noteworthy is freeing up 6GB of disk space compared to a Leopard install.

That's probably mostly due to them dropping support for the PPC architecture in Snow Leopard.

PS. I have a confession to make, been using Windows 7 for the last two weeks without hassles and it really is not bad :)

Skripka
June 10th, 2009, 12:27 AM
That's probably mostly due to them dropping support for the PPC architecture in Snow Leopard.

Damn. I was hoping the Mac Mail had been trimmed down--that app alone is nearly 400MB of dead weight, which you cannot delete.

aysiu
June 10th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Well, true, nothing's perfect, but wow... just, wow...

Again, I'm not saying there is no problem or that there can't be a problem, but I've certainly never seen it. My point exactly, though.

It's not magic.

Many people have positive experiences with Macs. In fact, despite the problems my wife has had, I think she would definitely still consider her experiences positive overall. She's certainly bashed Windows enough and said she'd never go back to it.

I'm not saying Macs can't offer you a positive experience. I'm saying they are computers. And computers can have problems. Macs have problems. Windows computers have problems. Linux computers also have problems.

If someone comes on here and says "I had X, Y, and Z problem with Linux," I guess I could say "I've never experienced those problems," but that doesn't mean those problems can't happen. I never present Linux as trouble-free computing or magic.

And I'm annoyed when any Mac user tries to present Macs as magical or beyond having problems.

Cam42
June 10th, 2009, 12:35 AM
Snow Leopard will have some unique and advanced technologies e.g OpenCL , and a good price , $US29

Good price if you already have apple hardware priced $1k+

I'll stick with my $50 ubuntu machine, thanks.;)

schauerlich
June 10th, 2009, 12:35 AM
Damn. I was hoping the Mac Mail had been trimmed down--that app alone is nearly 400MB of dead weight, which you cannot delete.

It has. Most apps have gotten significant trims. That might just be because of dropped PPC support. Most apps are a "Universal Binary," which basically means that a PPC and Intel binary sit in the same package, and whatever needs to be used, is. Since 10.6 won't have PPC support, they just include the Intel binary.

pwnst*r
June 10th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Good price if you already have apple hardware priced $1k+

I'll stick with my $50 ubuntu machine, thanks.;)

not everyone is cheap.

Skripka
June 10th, 2009, 12:40 AM
It has. Most apps have gotten significant trims. That might just be because of dropped PPC support. Most apps are a "Universal Binary," which basically means that a PPC and Intel binary sit in the same package, and whatever needs to be used, is. Since 10.6 won't have PPC support, they just include the Intel binary.

Yea, I remember running an app on my G4 PowerBook that stripped universal binaries of their Intel half...that freed up on the order of 10GB of disc space IIRC--except Adobe CS3 wouldn't run after doing it. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

handy
June 10th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Why, oh why, do people think that there is some chance of there being a winner here in this semblance of a discussion?

All I see is worthless, immature & mediocre chauvinistic bulllshitt.

billgoldberg
June 10th, 2009, 03:05 PM
Right now I am fairly convinced Apple's got a piece of hardware that will be exactly what I'm looking for.



I bought a new laptop yesterday in Fnac, they also sell mac computers.

The price difference is mind boggling.

I was in the store for about an hour and saw 6 people buying a computer, none from Apple.

Why? It's really simple.

The machine I bought (Toshiba) has the about same specs (a slighty less powerfull gpu) as the 15inch macbook, and costed me €550 ($770). The macbook costs €1650($2312).

That's an extra €1100 for a similar machine.

And they wonder why they can't seem to get any decent marketshare in the EU.

koshatnik
June 10th, 2009, 03:13 PM
Why, oh why, do people think that there is some chance of there being a winner here in this semblance of a discussion?

All I see is worthless, immature & mediocre chauvinistic bulllshitt.

Welcome to the internet.

3rdalbum
June 10th, 2009, 03:30 PM
I thought Mac OS X was supposed to be "advanced" and have all sorts of spectacular technologies.

I just installed the VDPAU-enabled version of Mplayer on Linux. Why is there no video-decoding-on-gpu for Mac OS X? Don't all Macs ship with Nvidia GPUs now? What's the hold-up?

I find it quite funny: OpenCL will allow Mac programs to run some of their code on the video card, but you can't actually decode videos on the video card unless you install Linux!

schauerlich
June 10th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Welcome to the internet.

+1

I lol'd.

handy
June 11th, 2009, 02:34 AM
Welcome to the internet.

I know. ](*,)

I've been watching this site being continually degraded by immature chauvinism.

The overall deterioration seems to be growing as the number of UF's user base grows, which is understandable, but a bit sad really. :-({|=

MikeTheC
June 11th, 2009, 03:42 AM
I know. ](*,)

I've been watching this site being continually degraded by immature chauvinism.

The overall deterioration seems to be growing as the number of UF's user base grows, which is understandable, but a bit sad really. :-({|=

Don't feel too singled-out as a UF member, though. The same thing has happened at every board I've been a member of long enough to observe, except for perhaps DD-WRT.

There's an expression I heard years ago: I.Q. is a constant, it's the population that's increasing.

PurposeOfReason
June 11th, 2009, 04:27 AM
Man, there is an incredible amount of FUD in this thread.
QFT. I stayed away from UF for a while, and started somewhat posting again recently. Now I remember why I left. Apple really has put some thought into what they're doing and for the apple users, that is great. For the rest of us, it is great as innovation and moving forward always are. Some of you need to grow up, take off your fanboy hats, and just use your computer. Use it like you want, with what you want, and how you want.

KiwiNZ
June 11th, 2009, 04:33 AM
QFT. I stayed away from UF for a while, and started somewhat posting again recently. Now I remember why I left. Apple really has put some thought into what they're doing and for the apple users, that is great. For the rest of us, it is great as innovation and moving forward always are. Some of you need to grow up, take off your fanboy hats, and just use your computer. Use it like you want, with what you want, and how you want.

-1 on the delivery
+1 on the sentiment

conundrumx
June 11th, 2009, 05:27 AM
If I understood some of the reporting on OpenCL they're treating it like their own version of directX. Despite the fact that it will be open sourced, we don't need another graphics library, we need

Then again if Apple can distribute it to Windows machines much in the same way they do Safari, iTunes and the like, the line blurring OSes will start to cross and maybe Apple might actually capture the gaming market and bring it to Apple machines and even Linux. Then again they still don't support iTunes on Linux so as far as that goes I'm still pissed and not very hopeful.

I think you're confusing OpenCL with OpenGL. The names are tragically similar, but the projects are vastly different. OpenGL is basically FOSS DirectX, Linux and OSX both use it. OpenCL is for running non graphics based instructions on graphics cards.

OpenGL = Graphics rendering
OpenCL = Turning your GPU into a CPU.

majamba
June 11th, 2009, 05:29 AM
my suggestion is stay away from it

i might have worked on it last year but it still not ready

getting motherboad killed is not something that i want to experince again

MikeTheC
June 11th, 2009, 06:32 AM
my suggestion is stay away from it

i might have worked on it last year but it still not ready

getting motherboad killed is not something that i want to experince again

Huh? That post didn't make any sense at all.

schauerlich
June 11th, 2009, 06:37 AM
my suggestion is stay away from it

i might have worked on it last year but it still not ready

getting motherboad killed is not something that i want to experince again


huh? That post didn't make any sense at all.

+1

Giant Speck
June 11th, 2009, 06:41 AM
my suggestion is stay away from it

i might have worked on it last year but it still not ready

getting motherboad killed is not something that i want to experince again

lolwut?

AlphaMack
June 11th, 2009, 08:44 AM
So Snow Leopard is dropping PPC support not too long after Apple continued to sell high-end G5s at full price during their transition to Intel...

- Cutting out PPC code wouldn't have made a significant difference in HDD space savings.

- Pricing SL at $29 for Leopard users is an acknowledgement that they dropped the ball with Leopard. To leave PPC users in the dark with these improvements is a royal slap in the face to those who shelled out for Leopard only to get a half-baked OS. Now before you rush to judgment and say that Apple is basically acting in good will with this discounted price, remember that the last time they offered a $20-something upgrade was with 10.1 Puma because 10.0 Cheetah was an epic failure.

But this isn't the worst of it.

More often than not, developers only support the latest version of OS X, leaving users of previous OS X versions out in the cold when it comes to staying up to date. OS-Specific 'features' aside, how many times have you seen a third party app requiring OS X 10.5 (Leopard) when it could run well in 10.4 (Tiger)? It's usually because the ISV doesn't want to maintain multi-OS support. Contrast this with the software ecosystem in the Windows world, where many titles that run in 2000, XP, and Vista will run in W7.

By making SL an Intel-only release, ISVs will no longer have an incentive to create universal binaries and can effectively force everyone over to SL. So if you want your bug and security fixes, you'll have to upgrade which will also require a hardware upgrade as well. Say bye-bye to PPC.

Linux on PPC isn't a viable option either.

starcannon
June 11th, 2009, 08:49 AM
UNIX-based? I thought that Mac OS X was NeXTSTEP with a printing system stolen from FreeBSD.

+1, until that was no longer convenient I guess.

koshatnik
June 11th, 2009, 09:22 AM
I know. ](*,)

I've been watching this site being continually degraded by immature chauvinism.

The overall deterioration seems to be growing as the number of UF's user base grows, which is understandable, but a bit sad really. :-({|=

I view forums as a bit like spending the time sat at the bar, listening to a load of blowhards talking crap about stuff they know nothing about. Pick a bar, you'll find them. Same with forums.

I don't visit any trade forums, or participate in any online discussions with other pro's or share work or thoughts on work, online. Why? Because I prefer to do it, not talk about it. I don't care about some idiots opinion on work related issues. I only care about mine.

I hang out here because it amuses me and I happen to run ubuntu on my home box. Just don't take it too seriously.

Just remember that for the vast majority of posters, including myself, its a great source of technical advice regarding linux.

KiwiNZ
June 11th, 2009, 09:56 AM
UNIX-based? I thought that Mac OS X was NeXTSTEP with a printing system stolen from FreeBSD.

A print system Purchased from its developer in 2007

handy
June 11th, 2009, 10:12 AM
I view forums as a bit like spending the time sat at the bar, listening to a load of blowhards talking crap about stuff they know nothing about. Pick a bar, you'll find them. Same with forums.

I don't visit any trade forums, or participate in any online discussions with other pro's or share work or thoughts on work, online. Why? Because I prefer to do it, not talk about it. I don't care about some idiots opinion on work related issues. I only care about mine.

I hang out here because it amuses me and I happen to run ubuntu on my home box. Just don't take it too seriously.

Just remember that for the vast majority of posters, including myself, its a great source of technical advice regarding linux.

Yes, I have picked up roughly how it all works over the last couple of days...

handy
June 11th, 2009, 10:16 AM
A print system Purchased from its developer in 2007

That was when Apple bought CUPS eh.

KiwiNZ
June 11th, 2009, 10:16 AM
Yes, I have picked up roughly how it all works over the last couple of days...

Explore the rest of UF , you may find its different . Don't accept one cynical few point.

koshatnik
June 11th, 2009, 10:51 AM
Explore the rest of UF , you may find its different . Don't accept one cynical few point.

Moi? Cynical? Not really, just realistic. I think these forums are equally entertaining and informative, I wouldnt post here otherwise, but you do have to take alot of stuff with a pinch of salt. And there is alot of immaturity on forums, but thats par for the course.

pookiebear
June 11th, 2009, 01:48 PM
Moi? Cynical? Not really, just realistic. I think these forums are equally entertaining and informative, I wouldnt post here otherwise, but you do have to take alot of stuff with a pinch of salt. And there is alot of immaturity on forums, but thats par for the course.


ditto. entertainment is why I go to forums. For me it is the new TV. I would rather read the forums than watch anything on VH1 for sure.

handy
June 11th, 2009, 02:25 PM
Explore the rest of UF , you may find its different . Don't accept one cynical few point.

Sorry KiwiNZ, I was actually being sarcastic in that response, after a 1000 or more internet hours I may have picked up a clue or two... That was what I was saying.

schauerlich
June 11th, 2009, 07:46 PM
- Cutting out PPC code wouldn't have made a significant difference in HDD space savings.

It actually does. Check out Xslimmer, which slims universal binaries (and takes out language packs). Depending on the application, it can reduce the size from 30-70%.



- Pricing SL at $29 for Leopard users is an acknowledgement that they dropped the ball with Leopard. To leave PPC users in the dark with these improvements is a royal slap in the face to those who shelled out for Leopard only to get a half-baked OS.

What was wrong with Leopard? I've had no problems with it, and the general internet consensus seems to say the same.



Now before you rush to judgment

I think you're the one rushing to judgment


and say that Apple is basically acting in good will with this discounted price, remember that the last time they offered a $20-something upgrade was with 10.1 Puma because 10.0 Cheetah was an epic failure.

They're giving it a discounted price because the changes between Leopard and Snow Leopard are not nearly as grand and the changes between previous versions. Most of the changes are under the hood (read: the end user doesn't care about them), so in order to motivate someone to upgrade, they lowered the price. I was in ##apple on irc.freenode.net during the WWDC and had this exchange (the other nick changed for privacy):


10:47 | anotherPerson > I don't know...
10:47 | anotherPerson > I might have skipped snow leopard all together
10:47 | anotherPerson > but at $29, I'll buy it for sure
10:48 | EDavidBurg > anotherPerson: that's exactly what they want you to say :)
10:48 | anotherPerson > EDavidBurg: heh, indeed!


More often than not, developers only support the latest version of OS X, leaving users of previous OS X versions out in the cold when it comes to staying up to date. OS-Specific 'features' aside, how many times have you seen a third party app requiring OS X 10.5 (Leopard) when it could run well in 10.4 (Tiger)? It's usually because the ISV doesn't want to maintain multi-OS support.

Snow Leopard and Leopard are meant to be compatible. I can't tell you for sure (no one can but Apple), but I believe 10.6 and 10.5 will run the same version of apps, just like Vista and Win7 can.


By making SL an Intel-only release, ISVs will no longer have an incentive to create universal binaries and can effectively force everyone over to SL. So if you want your bug and security fixes, you'll have to upgrade which will also require a hardware upgrade as well. Say bye-bye to PPC.

It's about time. Gotta cut the cord at some point. Nearly all of the PPC line is on Apple's Vintage and Obsolete Products List (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752), and those that aren't will be in a year or so.


Linux on PPC isn't a viable option either.

There are PPC distros out there, why not spin a debian distro? Or use the Ubuntu PPC distro.

pookiebear
June 11th, 2009, 07:51 PM
doesn't slack have a PPC version? Fedora does? do they run too slow?

schauerlich
June 11th, 2009, 07:52 PM
doesn't slack have a PPC version? Fedora does? do they run too slow?

http://penguinppc.org/

aysiu
June 11th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Ubuntu has a PPC version still. It's just not official. It's community-supported.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCDownloads

stmiller
June 12th, 2009, 03:08 AM
Ubuntu PowerPC is very official. :P

Same packages, security updates, etc as x86 and x86_64. The only difference is that you cannot pay canonical for commercial support. You have to come here (the forum).

MikeTheC
June 12th, 2009, 03:10 AM
And frankly, excepting any of the G5 systems Apple sold, likely as not the hardware you're thinking about is really way below spec by today's standards.

OTOH, I have a Debian Lenny G4 Mac Mini server set up, and it runs flawlessly. Couldn't want for a nicer unit.

mips
June 13th, 2009, 12:13 AM
Ubuntu PowerPC is very official. :P


No, it is NOT. It used to be but now it is a community driven project. End of story.

handy
June 13th, 2009, 01:22 PM
It looks like the Arch PPC crew are still on the job too...

http://www.archlinuxppc.org/