PDA

View Full Version : cnet on jaguar 8/10


mac15
Aug 22, 2002, 07:19 PM
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806340-1204-20284873.html a good thing for the mac community

G5orbust
Aug 22, 2002, 07:59 PM
An 8!!!???

thats an excellent score, but this man has obviously never used 10.1 and 10.2. I've used both and i can thoughly say that jaguar is a vast improvement. an 8 is the lowest possible score jaguar could have recieved in my opinion

King Cobra
Aug 22, 2002, 09:39 PM
I would say that Cnet is usually accurate with their grading system. They gave the iPod a solid 9, but not the 10, as it lacked a main volume control (we're talking the 5GB original iPod now) and was pricey. Sure, OS X is great and is a huge improvement, but
A: Some companies are just too lazy to get off their you know whats and develop OS X drivers for their hardware,
B: OS X 10.2 doesn't seem to support some upgrade cards on certain computers (well, apparently one person worried his brains out about a beta not working with a ZIF Encore or something),
C: OS X 10.2 may enhance speed improvements over 10.1, but for older computers w/ or w/o the upgrade cards OS X will NEVER run on them,
D: OS X is, plain and simple, a complete memory hog. If you have an older iBook/iMac you can only feed it so little RAM (256MB, 320MB) until the OS will not recognize it, or until you run out of slots, and
E: Jaguar requires 16MB of video memory for optimization of the software. Computers, such as iMacs from 1998-2000, or iBooks from 2001 backward have 8MB or less. So Jaguar will not run as fast as predicted.

If there was a solution to all this I think Cnet would up their rating by a point.

G5orbust
Aug 22, 2002, 09:59 PM
i guess ur right. But i still stand by my saying taht an 8 is the bare minimum that could be given.

Taft
Aug 22, 2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by King Cobra

...
D: OS X is, plain and simple, a complete memory hog. If you have an older iBook/iMac you can only feed it so little RAM (256MB, 320MB) until the OS will not recognize it, or until you run out of slots, and
E: Jaguar requires 16MB of video memory for optimization of the software. Computers, such as iMacs from 1998-2000, or iBooks from 2001 backward have 8MB or less. So Jaguar will not run as fast as predicted.
...


Every OS I've EVER used likes RAM. If you feed Wintel machines a ton of RAM, you'll see a dramatic performance gain. If you fed Classic Mac OS more RAM (and them upped all of your apps memory usage), you'd see a big performance leap. Same with Linux, Free BSD, etc. I don't observe that OS X is any more RAM hungry than any other Unix out there. And only marginally more than Wintel machines, if at all. The difference is in the areas where swapping is saved by more RAM on the different systems. The interface for OS X (and XP for that matter) have a lot of eye candy that takes up memory. Which leads me to my next point...

Quartz extreme requires a base level of graphics card, but that doesn't mean we won't see graphics improvement on Jaguar overall. From all reports I've seen, Jaguar is a large improvement in graphics speed even for those machines falling under the minimum requirements. I think they were able to unload a lot of the graphics computations onto the graphic card and probably have more efficient algorithms for drawing, positioning, etc.

With a large improvement in graphics speed, you'll see less of Mac OS X's apparent "RAM hungriness." I think as time goes on and OS X gets better and better, the graphics subsystem and OS X's apparent need for RAM will fall right in line with other OS's out there. With Jaguar, they might have already.

Taft

firewire2001
Aug 22, 2002, 11:19 PM
the new york times also had a really great article about jaguar (you need an account there, but its free..) that was printed today..

its @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/technology/circuits/22STAT.html ..

heres the text of it if yer too azy to get an account.. :p ..:

"Mac OS 10.2 Reviewed
By DAVID POGUE


HEN Apple unveiled its Mac OS X operating system a couple of years ago, the company's chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, explained that it offered two important benefits. First, Mac OS X (pronounced "ten") rests on a superstable, industrial-strength foundation called Unix. Second, Mac OS X is so beautiful, "you just want to lick it."

Many Mac fans weren't so sure they even wanted to touch it. Yes, Mac OS X is virtually crashproof. (In fact, one command tells you, in months, days and hours, how long your Mac has gone without having to be restarted a statistic that early adopters eagerly compared online.) But there was a price for this stability: a long list of beloved Mac OS 9 features had been moved around, stripped down or eliminated in Mac OS X, and the new system wasn't nearly as fast as Mac OS 9.

By way of reassurance, Apple kept repeating that Mac OS X was a clean slate, a thrilling new canvas for software artists. Just wait, went the refrain, the best is yet to come.

This Saturday, Apple will release a new version that emphatically proves its point: Mac OS X version 10.2, nicknamed Jaguar. (The price is $129, or free with new computers. If you bought Mac OS X after July 17, the upgrade is $20.) Don't be fooled by the small increase in the version number. This is a polished, innovative and if such a term can be applied to something as nerdy as an operating system exciting upgrade.

Apple says that Jaguar has more than 150 new features, including a few returning favorites from Mac OS 9. But especially for people with older Macs, speed is the only one they really care about, and Mac OS X has it in spades. It's generally as fast as Mac OS 9 was, and often faster.

Among the 149 remaining features, Sherlock 3 is one of the most useful. It's a minibrowser designed to summon specific kinds of useful Web information, like local movie times, stock prices, businesses (that is, a national Yellow Pages), language translations, airline schedules. Each set of search results comes dressed up with multimedia goodies: the trailers of the movies you look up, maps and driving directions for the businesses, flight-progress maps.

Of course, anyone with a little patience can turn up this kind of information using an ordinary Web browser. But Sherlock's highly targeted approach eliminates the hunting around, the waiting and, by the way, the ads.

Apple also endowed 10.2 with some impressive Windows compatibility features. For example, Macs and Windows PC's on the same network now "see" each other's icons automatically. It's an unexpected breeze to copy files back and forth, open documents on each other's machines, and so on no technical prowess required.

This kind of interspecies computer communication used to require $150 worth of add-on software. Having it built right in represents a giant step toward the end of the Mac-Windows cold war. (At least it does from a technological standpoint. The cocktail party clashes of Mac and Windows devotees will probably go on forever.)

Plenty of other big-ticket features appear in 10.2: iChat, an instant-messaging program that's compatible with AOL Instant Messenger; a surprisingly effective junk-mail filter in Apple's Mail program; a new "clean install" option that lets you reinstall Mac OS X without having to erase the hard drive; a convenient Search bar at the top of every window; desktop backdrop photos that can change at regular intervals, smoothly fading from one to the next; a calculator that offers not only scientific functions but also unit conversions and even up-to-the-minute currency conversions. Version 10.2 also introduces Rendezvous, a behind-the-scenes networking technology that will someday permit computers, printers, palmtops and other gizmos to find and communicate with one another instantly, with no setup or configuring whatsoever.

But if you're the kind of person who gets satisfaction from, say, the hushed thump of a Lexus car door closing, it's the little things in Jaguar, the grace notes, that may mean the most in everyday work. For example, you not only get keyboard shortcuts for every important folder on your machine, but they're all consistent and easy to remember: it's always Shift-Command plus A for the Applications folder, F for Favorites, H for your Home folder, and so on.

Mac OS 9's "spring loaded" folder feature is back, too. It lets you move any icon into a folder inside a folder inside a folder, all with a single dragging motion. As long as you keep the mouse button pressed, folder icons spring open as your cursor touches them. Finally, when you release the mouse, they all close neatly shut behind you. You can't help wishing that FedEx packages, dresser drawers and attic boxes worked the same way.

Apple, long a victim of idea theft by Microsoft, saw no reason not to borrow (and improve on) a few good ideas from Windows XP, too. Text in every program exhibits the fine, smooth edges of magazine type, rather than appearing composed of individual tiny pixels. You can now view file names to the right of their icons, rather than underneath, in effect creating multiple columns of files in each window. Beneath each icon name, 10.2 can add a bonus information line of blue text that shows you the dimensions of a picture, the duration of a movie or sound, or how many files are inside a folder. This sweet engineering gesture saves you the trouble of opening the file or folder to find out what's inside.

So what's the bottom line? If you're among the 23 million Mac fans who have been watching the skies for a sign that it's safe to upgrade to X, version 10.2 is it. Most of the big-name programs are now available in OS X versions (Microsoft Office, America Online, Photoshop, Quicken), most of the kinks have been worked out, and there's no longer a speed penalty.

If you're a Windows person the target of Apple's switch campaign you may not be so easily seduced. Yes, Mac OS X is fast, fluid and light-years better working with pictures, movies and music. But PC's are still cheaper than Macs (at least in desktop models), and software titles are more plentiful. In hard economic times, some people are sure to find those points more persuasive than elegance, beauty and logical design.

On the other hand, Apple could afford to point out a few larger issues that rarely come up in the Mac-Windows debate. For example, while viruses are an expensive, exasperating fact of life in Windows, not a single one yet affects Mac OS X (knock on silicon).

Furthermore, Apple is not Microsoft that's the understatement of the year and isn't nearly so Big Brotherish. There's no 25-digit serial number to type into a new Mac before you can use it, as on a new PC. Mac OS X imposes no copy protection, no Windows XP-style activation process and no risk of being locked out of your own PC if you upgrade too many of its components. Nor does Mac OS X ever interrupt you with little balloons that nag you to sign up for Passport, .NET or some other Microsoft database. Mac people rarely feel like they're living in the persistent, lurking shadow of a software company.

Jaguar isn't perfect. The online help is abysmal, a few minor bugs remain, and Mac loyalists who already paid $129 for Mac OS X 10.0 or 10.1 may resent having to pay another $129 to stay current. Even so, Mac OS X 10.2 is the best-looking, least-intrusive and most thoughtfully designed operating system walking the earth today. No, you don't want to lick it. But you're delighted that you installed it and for a hunk of software in this day and age, even that's quite an achievement."

-f

King Cobra
Aug 23, 2002, 07:58 AM
It's not that I'm lazy to get an account, but I don't feel it's right to send in personal information about yourself just to read a few news reports. :rolleyes:

Taft, I made the comment on OS X using lots of RAM based on other's personal experiences on the forums, and also comparing OS 8.5 to 10.1. I could have 5 or 6 applications open (sometimes more) with OS 8.5 and 128MB of memory (some virtual). But you do make a point. I'm just saying that for OS X to run at its fastest you need quite a lot of RAM.

As for graphics on OS X, I only based 16MB on where I have seen listed on rumors, specs, etc. on Jaguar, saying that 16MB of video memory is required. I am not saying you wouldn't be able to run Jaguar with such machines, but you would not get the most out of Jaguar when dealing with graphics, etc.

topicolo
Aug 23, 2002, 08:13 AM
I've never used 10.2 before, but according to Pogue Jaguar is "...generally as fast as Mac OS 9 was, and often faster"

Is that true? is it actually as fast, or faster than 9?

alex_ant
Aug 23, 2002, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
I've never used 10.2 before, but according to Pogue Jaguar is "...generally as fast as Mac OS 9 was, and often faster"

Is that true? is it actually as fast, or faster than 9?
If you're a Mac zealot: Yes.
If you're not a Mac zealot: No way in Hell.

:)

G5orbust
Aug 23, 2002, 05:09 PM
im sorry, but waht is a mac zealot?

Capt. Obvious
Aug 23, 2002, 07:57 PM
1) a Mac user with a generally positive attitude toward Apple Inc & its products;

2) a Mac user who relies on information and experience as a guide to future developments, rather than resorting to conspiracy theories & hyperventilation;

3) a Mac user for whom Apple provides computing hardware & software, and who does not expect Apple to provide personal wish fulfillment services, or to fulfill pseudo-parental responsibilities.

4) a pejorative term applied by certain Mac users (ie, Mac Whiners (or Doomsayers) to certain other Mac users who do not typically take part in the tantrum of the hour, and who are foolish enough to argue with those Mac users (ie, "Mac Whiners" (or Doomsayers) who typically insist that Apple, Inc. is doomed because of one (real or imagined) shortcoming or another.

Chief characteristics: experience w/ several computing platforms; lack of emotional attachment to Apple and/or the Mac; willingness to acknowledge facts when arriving at conclusions; and a preference for reason over desire as the basis for argument

Contrast with "Mac Whiner": a pejorative term applied by certain Mac users (ie, "Mac Zealots" (or most people) to certain other Mac users who typically indulge in berating and bashing Apple for everything from the economic downturn and the failure of Betamax to global warming and the 2000 election. In the process, they inevitably get around to berating and bashing those who disagree with them (ie, calling them 'zealots').

Chief characteristics: willingness to lose touch w/ reality; feelings confused with facts; a preference for desire over reason as the basis for argument; a tendency to make puffed-up / outraged / scornful pronouncements / denouncements / announcements based on conclusions previously leapt-to; blindness to logical fallacies.

:D :D :D

bousozoku
Aug 23, 2002, 11:34 PM
From what I saw early on, it was very fast, but I could say that about 10.1 as well. The GM version became slower.

The difference between 10.1 and 10.2 is remarkable, in any case.

You'll have to try it to see how "shockingly" fast it is for you. :)

G5orbust
Aug 24, 2002, 11:47 AM
thanks for the definition.

alex_ant
Aug 24, 2002, 12:45 PM
I've always thought of a zealot as one who is devoted to something under any and all circumstances, who notices only the good in this something and is oblivious to the bad, who chooses to ignore or undermine this something's shortcomings but will go out of his/her way to defend this something against attack, who cannot be argued against with logic or reason because the attachment to this something is purely emotional. And stuff.

topicolo
Aug 24, 2002, 02:38 PM
So far, all I'm getting is that 10.2 is much faster than 10.1.x, but how fast is it compared to 9.2.1?

Capt. Obvious
Aug 24, 2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
I've always thought of a zealot as one who is devoted to something under any and all circumstances, who chooses to ignore or undermine this something's shortcomings but will go out of his/her way to defend this something..., who cannot be argued against with logic or reason because the attachment to this something is purely emotional. And stuff.

And "stuff", indeed! :D

Basic stuff, really: we all look at things the way we do, and we do so for reasons that seem good to us. As a result, few of us will give up our own ways of looking at things without reason - shortcomings in how we're viewing things, stronger arguments for other ways off looking at things.

That's how it should be - no one gains if our views get blown about like leaves in the wind. However, there are tactics...tactics that make up for weak arguments by casting blame, appealing to emotions, attacking the arguer instead of dealing w/ the argument. One such tactic is LABELLING.

Labelling's real popular, especially among politicians (is it just me, or do the US. Democratic Party currently hold the title?). Labelling is just a way of bullying others without having to physically intimidate them, and calling names is one of the simplest & most effective ways of doing it.

Like labelling as 'zealots' anyone unmoved by your closely-reasoned argument that "Apple is DOOMED unless they ship quad-multicore-watercooled-G7s w/ 2TB of FuzzyDiceRAM NOW!!!"

I mean, re-examining one's positions is for losers, right? :rolleyes: Much easier to imply that the bad reception we're getting is the result of rigid extremism, not the fault of our shallow "arguments".

I MEAN, you're pretty much right about zealots - but calling someone a 'zealot' doesn't MAKE them a zealot for real....

alex_ant
Aug 24, 2002, 06:33 PM
Hmm. I agree. Good thing I didn't call anyone a zealot then, or I'd be quite the hypocrite. :)

Capt. Obvious
Aug 24, 2002, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Hmm. I agree. Good thing I didn't call anyone a zealot then, or I'd be quite the hypocrite. :)

Err...just for the record, none of that was directed AT YOU, ok? ;) Despite the slightly haphazard use of pronouns!

Choppaface
Aug 25, 2002, 12:46 AM
from what I've seen so far 8 is fair..i might've given it a 7. it's NOT worth the price, at least for me.....so far it's a few nice additions with a ton of iApps and other crap that I'll never use. at least they finally seperated the file finding app from all that crap they've loaded into sherlock....the movie finder looks nice, but i think sherlock's had one too many jelly doughnuts :D

Originally posted by alex_ant
Hmm. I agree. Good thing I didn't call anyone a zealot then, or I'd be quite the hypocrite. :)

ah yes hypocracy....perhaps the worst social crime there is....quite hypocritical considering we claim to be an evolving society, eh? :)