PDA

View Full Version : Minor Mac OS X Update Available


MacRumors
Jul 23, 2001, 08:49 PM
A Web Sharing Update has become available via the Mac OS X Software Update control panel. It apparently updates Apache and SSH. According to xlr8yourmac.com (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com), it does not update the Build # in the About box but is listed as Build 4Q59.

Of note, the new G4's seem to ship with Mac OS X 10.0.4 Build 5R14.

MrMacMan
Jul 23, 2001, 09:02 PM
Great!

000111one111000
Jul 23, 2001, 09:53 PM
I believe the build number in the new G4 is 4R14

if it was 5R14, then it would be OS X 10.1

enoch

arn
Jul 24, 2001, 12:45 AM
...and corrected.

thanks,
arn

Xistor
Jul 24, 2001, 03:59 AM
That's great, but I wish they would tackle something a bit more important to the traditional Mac Internet users....

JAVA.. Their implementation sucks. Java 2 or not..it isn't even fully compatible with Java 1.1. It has two serious bugs (missing code) and tons of websites don't work under any browser because of them on both 9 and 10.. I sincerely hope 10.1 has major Java updates..

Just try to run the email application at www.Hushmail.com !

Looks like we're gonna have to keep Connectix VPC around a little while longer still until that stuff is worked out.

blakespot
Jul 24, 2001, 08:45 AM
I'm quite pleased about the 20% increase in OpenGL performance under 10.1 spoken of on Apple's page, as well as the tighter integration/feature support of the GeForce 3. Should be pretty fine!


blakespot

blakespot
Jul 24, 2001, 08:46 AM
...in fact, if there really is about a 20% (or even 15%) increase in general OpenGL performance, that should take care of any instances where an OpenGL game is faster under OS 9 than OS X. (Well...if you've got enough RAM in your OS X box.)



blakespot

MrMacMan
Jul 24, 2001, 09:02 AM
takes up less memory. The thing uses it all.

blakespot
Jul 24, 2001, 10:45 AM
You will be waiting a long time. OS X, sporting its extremely robust memory management system handled by the Mach microkernel, will always use almost all of the system memory, as it should. It's a foreign concept given that there are only lesser schemes to compare it to. Performance overall is improved this way. This is a carryover from the NeXT days.

Interesting story that nostalgically came into my mind... I recall when I ran NeXTSTEP for Intel v3.2 on my 486-66 back in '94. I had an ISA-based SCSI board (particularly high performance, back then, the DPT-2021), and you did better performance-wise to go ahead and toggle one bit flag in a settings file, turning on basic compression of the swapfile. It was a simple 2:1 compression. But it took less time for the CPU to take that compressed chunk of swapfile and decompress it (had a 486-66, as I said) than for the SCSI board to move twice the amount of data across the 8MHz, 8-bit ISA bus to memory, uncompressed. Great stuff, details like that. Ahhh...



blakespot

Guest
Jul 27, 2001, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
takes up less memory. The thing uses it all.

Go to http://www.coastmemory.com/ and get 256 megs for $27. It's even sold under the label "Apple/Mac Memory". Really...at this stage in the game, it's a little silly to be complaining about RAM.

Originally posted by blakespot
But it took less time for the CPU to take that compressed chunk of swapfile and decompress it (had a 486-66, as I said) than for the SCSI board to move twice the amount of data across the 8MHz, 8-bit ISA bus to memory, uncompressed.

Quite interesting. I remember my roomate's NeXT pizza box...amazingly fluid UI for a 68040 with, what, a whole 16 MB of RAM? Can't wait for Apple to get OSX optimized to that level.

MrMacMan
Jul 28, 2001, 09:34 AM
I use a imac 233 and me poor so I can't afford the whole $27! :) I joking. It was a joke u get it. I know how effiect OS X is. Trust me I know.