PDA

View Full Version : OS X Shipping... When?


MacRumors
Jul 29, 2001, 02:21 AM
Not even quite a rumor - but perhaps "overheard", this article (http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/mac26.htm) (seen on AppleTurns (http://www.appleturns.com)) writes:

Apple's new OS X operating system is available now, but Apple tells us not to expect the company to sell computers that boot directly into OS X until around April 2002.

Hmmm... well, if true, that would be unwelcome news... but it's still not clear where this information was obtained... and it's accuracy is certainly in question. In Jan, Jobs had stated that OS X would ship with all macs this Summer. With the coming of OS X 10.1... people have assumed that would be when OS X would ship as the default boot... but Jobs made no mention of this.

mymemory
Jul 29, 2001, 10:16 AM
Why do I want OS X if there are not applications for it? Besides, I'll have to buy more ram. It is a long developing process (even I do not see the sense of the OS X). I think this operative system is way too advanced for some things. I would not rush in having it yet. May be is a diversion to cover some lacks of production like the LCD iMac or the slow evolution of the G4 chip. But that is my opinion.

I would like Apple to develop a better sound system for the computers, the actual D/A & A/D converters are too poor. When you use it I can tell the lack of brightness. OS X it is a big jump to I do not know where just because. IÕve seen people disabling half of the features to make it run fine, just like OS 9. ButÉ that is my opinion.

Djk515
Jul 29, 2001, 10:35 AM
At MWNY Steve showed a 12 hour clock and said he expected it to take one full year for the full transition to OS X. Each hour represented one month. The person at AppleTurns who wrote this article is confused.

Anonymous
Jul 29, 2001, 11:17 AM
If you actually read the thing, you would know that the author who wrote that was a Windows Biggot who knows absolutely nothing and made up that date.

Jim McCullough
Jul 29, 2001, 11:31 AM
I think OS X will become the default bootup OS once the code is optimized to run at least as fast as OS 9. Whether there are Carbon-compliant or Cocoa apps ready is no bearing. They will follow when it becomes the default.

mortigitempo
Jul 29, 2001, 11:34 AM
its not the guy at as the apple turns who's wrong- as the apple turns was quoting an article in the San Jose Mercury news.

blakespot
Jul 29, 2001, 11:46 AM
mymemory,

The reason Apple went OS X is becuase the kernel of MacOS 9 is inferior to that of Windows 95. There is no preemptive mutltiasking in OS 9, no protected memory, no (real) threading, amazingly inept virtual memory, etc. But then if you were familiar with tehcnical concepts of OS's, youd've not made that post--so in short, it is amazing that people are using an OS as weak as OS 9 in 2001. Apple is lucky that people have kept using it. (I am not speaking at all of GUI--OS 9 is super friendly, etc. it's just a very unstable and non-robust platform.)

The most stable and robust OS I'd ever seen is NeXTSTEP, and this is what OS X is based on, directly. It is as solid and efficient a platform as one could possibly hope for. I am extremely excited about OS X and where it will take Apple.


blakespot

Next!
Jul 29, 2001, 12:55 PM
GAH!!!

Damn blakey - you make valid points then RUIN it all by wittering on about Nextstep as the be all and end all of OSes!

Say what you like, but I suspect your merely biased in your claim about it being "the most robust' etc etc... If it were, surely we ALL be using it now? as it stands, we arent. :P Damn -I was a fan of os2, but Im quite willing to admit its now old hat and, although it had some nice features, we've moved on. Your next box may command high geek point ( ;) ) but just stop using it to win arguements! ;)

actually, I thought that Apples implementation of virtual memory - certainly from os8 onwards, was actually pretty fine. The rest, is, yep, old hat and time for a much needed change . Apple could do with improving the sound though - are soundblaster cards a BTO option? I've not looked...

Norm1985
Jul 29, 2001, 01:41 PM
ANY version of Windows based off of the 9x kernal or earlier (Windows 95, 98, 98 Second Edition, Me) does NOT have ANY modern OS features except for Dynamic Memory Allocation. Windows 9x/Me has cooperative multitasking, shared memory, no (real) threading, etc. I work with both Windows 2000 and Mac OS machines and I can honestly tell you in MOST cases Mac OS 9 is even MORE stable than Windows 2000 Professional. I mean, the entire OS goes down if there is a problem in outlook. Although, I somewhat agree with you about choosing the platform OS X is based on as a good idea. Objective C is a great set of APIs, the BSD underpinnings and Mach kernal are amazingly stable, the NeXTStep applications ported over for the most part are nice, and Column view/one window view is nice too. ;-) But we must not forget the Mac OS elements to the OS, Carbon, Quicktime, much of the Aqua interface, running on Apple machine, and many parts of the OS originate from Mac OS. Out of all the operating systems before OS X came out, any version of PowerPC Mac OS based off of the 8.1 kernal or higher I'd rather run as my main OS than any other OS.

mymemory
Jul 29, 2001, 02:20 PM
Even that you may be right, my point of view is a bit different. I'm more concern about the amount of objects bouncing around the desktop and some other things tha seem use less to me or others I'll miss.

I'm into a more "KISS" philosophy. Why the have to change the look so much? Why every single developer have to "re invent" their software again? There are a few steps forward and other back.

Apple is selling me fancy folders. There is gonna be a gap where you are no going to be able to use PhotoShop and Flash at same time because one is for OS X and another for OS 9. Apple changed too many things at same time and most of them without and specific reason I think.

LetÕs see what happened, we are on the same ship with different captain.

mortigitempo
Jul 29, 2001, 02:53 PM
thats crap. Having worked with os9 on my own iMac, and in magzine design, and used windows 2000 on my father's computer, there is no way that any mac running os9 is more stable than a properly sorted machine running win2000. There are still numerous things that I hate about it (the interface, when it goes wrong its difficult to fix, things randomly don't work etc) but to say os9 is more stable is simply not true. Mac OSX, on the other hand is excellent- have had it installed for 3 months, and still not had a whole system crash.

Xistor
Jul 29, 2001, 04:25 PM
Yes, Windows 2000 is more stable than Mac OS 9.. one of many reasons Apple moved to OS X. Let's get a few things straight here..


Virtual memory was indeed completely barbaric on OS 9.. Computers are supposed to be simple.. Try explaining to my mother that an application needs to have more memory devoted to it when the computer already has .5 GB RAM.. "What do you mean I have to allocate more memory to the program?".. that's just garbage to say that VM was fine on OS 9.. it wasn't. Hence my mother runs OS X, and because all she wants to do is surf the net, and email her friends, not run PhotoShop, it's fine even on the current version. For someone who isn't a computer geek, there are elements of OS X that are simpler than OS 9. My mom was the best test case.. she told me she doesn't want the old system back.

And I do not believe there is something "too advanced" as long as the interface is kept simple. And no, your icons don't have to bounce, and your windows don't have to Genie.. those are all things you can turn off. Don't like the Dock? You don't have to use it.. just set it to hide and put all your icons strewn all over your desktop or in drawers like you did before.. It really isn't so different in interface, it's mostly just the underpinning and the options that have changed.

I appreciate very much the fact that under OS X when unstable programs such as Internet Explorer puke, I don't also lose my html project, my instant message conversation, the email I had pending, the FTP download that was 1/2 done, and everything else I was working on.. Under OS 9, usually when one app goes, the whole system locks down.. under X, usually the bad application is ejected and everything else goes properly about its business like nothing happened. Hence, I find X to be amazingly more stable, and for what I do, more productive with less downtime and hassels, something businesses, tech geeks, and old ladies, can all appreciate.

Now for a flame about being resistant to change: There are those who are not happy at even the most positive of changes for any aspect of their life. Some people get to a point where they'd like to freeze time and nothing ever changes hence forth.. For them, they can stick with their ancient OS/2, OS 9, and Windows 3.1 .. but they shouldn't complain later that their old bag of an OS isn't supported by this or that upgraded version of their favorite application or the latest flashy game.

From the tone of the critics, it's easy to tell that many of them are just replaying gossip about it including the remarks of Mac OS Anything ignorant PC users, and have never actually given it a serious test run on their Mac. I have been running OS X since the 10.0.0 launch early this year. Sure there have been some quirks, and some apps haven't been the best, but many quirks have been worked out, many premature applications which were hastily Carbonized and not so stable have been upgraded and are now highly stable and in fact much better featurewise and layout wise that their OS 9 counterparts. My point for the nay-sayers is this: Give it a chance before you stick your foot in your mouth.

Granted, a 233 MHz G3 isn't going to be quite as happy on it, but do you still see PC users running 486s? No, there is a realistic point at which hardware has to be upgraded because software outmodes it. In this case, it's not an attractive game but it's the OS that demands more out of the computer, but at the same time, it gives more back to the user in terms of reliability and features as a reward.. and much of the processor intensive stuff that lower frequency users bemoan like Genie, all-font anti-aliasing etc can be switched off in the current release, or by OS 10.1 in September.

And finally, the one point that I never see brought up in these gossip sites is how great the future of Mac is BECAUSE of OS X.. People are too busy moaning that they don't have a native version of this or that Mac program yet (when the native versions are clearly on their way for every major app by early 2002 with many to release before that).. but they fail to see that there is a whole new world of Unix applications that is opening up to Mac.. and that means a large jump in availability of business and professional software, scientific apps, and even stuff coming over from the steadily growing Linux side of the PC world.. What it means is that the devisions between computers are lessening, and that's good for the Mac.. What used to be PC, Mac, Unix .. is now reduced to PC or Unix (whereas the Mac is running a version of Unix, and it's not difficult to speedily port apps over to the Darwin/Aqua flavor.).. The ease of the new development tools, the newfound stability of the OS, and the inherent *nix base of it all makes it more attractive for developers to develop on the Mac, and what's more, pretty much all existing Unix apps can be sucked right into Mac with very little development time. Apple did the right thing making Mac a member of the Unix family... they just bought their way into a much larger world of applications and programming talent, and it will pay off.. Be patient and don't base your do or die decision about the OS solely on the release date of an upgraded Adobe program.. it's coming, be patient ! :)

Oh, and another nifty reason for developers to develop for Mac OS X.. porting from native OS X to Linux is certainly a lot easier than porting from Windows to Linux or Mac OS 9 to Linux, so the bonus works both ways, it's pretty symbiotic, and goes quite a ways towards making Windows less attractive as the sole development platform for some companies that previously had that posture.. They can get new customers on the Linux PC, the Unix workstations, and the OS X Mac all at the same time with not so much development effort. It saves them time, and money, and it helps to save the Mac!

blakespot
Jul 29, 2001, 05:16 PM
You are naive and foolish if you think that just becuase something is better, excellent, etc. that it will be used and accepted by the majority. Yes, NeXTSTEP is more robust from a kernel and development platform perspective (and I'd say GUI perspective as well) than Linux, Windows NT/2000, MacOS 8/9. No, we it's hardly used at all anymore (aside from its technologies existing at the core of OS X).

And as for VM in OS 8/9 -- it is quite terrible. It is laughable. For one, you get to choose whether to turn it on or not. "Oh yea--want some VM, click this box." Christ. It should be integrated as a core part of the OS, and stability of it should not be a factor, not should it slow the system as significantly as OS 8/9's VM does. It is a joke.

I qualify my takes on these issues in havign collected and run many, many OS's (DOS, AmigaDOS, OS/2, TOS, BeOS, QNX, NeXTSTEP, Linux, Win95, Win98, WinNT, GS/OS, etc.) and spent a number of college semesters studying operating systems. Do you know which OS, by chance, was used as the textbook mode of the ideal OS in one of those OS texts? NeXTSTEP + Mach.


blakespot

blakespot
Jul 29, 2001, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Norm1985
ANY version of Windows based off of the 9x kernal or earlier (Windows 95, 98, 98 Second Edition, Me) does NOT have ANY modern OS features except for Dynamic Memory Allocation. Windows 9x/Me has cooperative multitasking, shared memory, no (real) threading, etc. I work with both Windows 2000 and Mac OS machines and I can honestly tell you in MOST cases Mac OS 9 is even MORE stable than Windows 2000 Professional. I mean, the entire OS goes down if there is a problem in outlook. Although, I somewhat agree with you about choosing the platform OS X is based on as a good idea. Objective C is a great set of APIs, the BSD underpinnings and Mach kernal are amazingly stable, the NeXTStep applications ported over for the most part are nice, and Column view/one window view is nice too. ;-) But we must not forget the Mac OS elements to the OS, Carbon, Quicktime, much of the Aqua interface, running on Apple machine, and many parts of the OS originate from Mac OS. Out of all the operating systems before OS X came out, any version of PowerPC Mac OS based off of the 8.1 kernal or higher I'd rather run as my main OS than any other OS.

However stably implemented, all OS's of the Win9x kernel (including Win95 and even pre-release betas of that OS (which I was running 9 months out before the 95 release)) have, for the most part, modern kernel features in place. Yes, 95, and to a lesser degree 98 were slowed down a bit by some legacy 16-bit code needed to run old Win3.1 apps, but the kernel itself was rather 32-bit in nature.

You obviously know little about OS design and theory.

Not even Windows 95 used cooperative multitasking--it uses a fairly well implemented multi-threaded, preemptive multitasking system for task scheduling. It has protected memory--but it's not rock solid, true (NT's is rock solid). Multithreading was added on to the MacOS as an afterthought a few years back--and not added as part of a major kernel rewrite, as was the case w/ Win95. You are simply wrong on all of these points.

All of the "Mac OS elemets" that are part of OS X (Carbon, QT, etc.) sit above the Mach + BSD layers. As a result, thankfully, they are out of the way of the kernel structure and thus do not contribute to any instability in OS X. I am glad that you enjoy OS 8/9 and that it works for you. That's great. But it is a asd operating system from a technical standpoint, and that's why it doesn't ideally work for me.

Oh - and Windows 2000 is just about rock solid. It is a stable OS that has evolved well from the stable NT 4 kernel. There is no comparison between OS 8/9 and Windows 2000 from a kernel / stability perspective. Do I want to run Windows---EVER? No. But I respect 2000's stability. Much as I respect Linux's stability as a server OS, even though it does not meet mey needs as a desktop OS. I work with both Linux (Cobalt RAQ's) and WinNT/2K boxes daily as a developer.


blakespot

HughJardon
Jul 29, 2001, 11:26 PM
I....so far...can't find a reason to move from 9.1 to OSX.

I'm a tech for a highend graphics software company. I have had customers call me and tell me that they are moving their entire production over to OSX.
I sit there and scratch my head. WHY? Why would you put your hard earned time and money in the hands of a system that has not proven itself yet?

So, I say GOOD...WAIT...DON'T RUSH IT.....It will be worth it in the end.

Kela
Jul 30, 2001, 03:09 AM
Look at all of you!!! Arguing about kernels and cooperative multitasking!! LOOK. I have OSX. When Im in the mood for some futuristic web surfing and a nice interface, I just statup with OSX. WHen Im in the mood for 3d modelling, web desing, i startup with 9.1!! What is the hassle??. Just install 256MB ram and enjoy the transtition!! Its not like you gotta dump OS 9.1 enitrely!!. AND PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE WINDOWS TO MAC OS ok??. THose sick grey windows, yellow folders and pixelated icons...puullleasseee. Macintoshes are a different league asthetically speaking. I mean, OS 9 is good! Who the hell needs cooperative multitasking and thread coolness and stuff? Its an added asset so if you got OSX play OSX!! For awesome state of the art desktop publishing the MAC OS 9 is very nice indeed. AND FREAKSSS,, helooo??, what is your problem with Virtual Memory on OS 9.1?? DONT COMPLAIN, go to the shop and buy RAM!! OK?? 256mb is enough.

more Next
Jul 30, 2001, 08:14 AM
You are naive and foolish if you think that just becuase something is better, excellent, etc. that it will be used and accepted by the majority.
I realised this long ago. I have have a basket load of Apples. Dont preach to the converted.

[/quote] Yes, NeXTSTEP is more robust from a kernel and development platform perspective (and I'd say GUI perspective as well) than Linux, Windows NT/2000, MacOS 8/9. No, we it's hardly used at all anymore (aside from its technologies existing at the core of OS X).[/quote] really? I thought Darwin has a free BSD based kernel?


And as for VM in OS 8/9 -- it is quite terrible. It is laughable. For one, you get to choose whether to turn it on or not. "Oh yea--want some VM, click this box." Christ. It should be integrated as a core part of the OS, and stability of it should not be a factor, not should it slow the system as significantly as OS 8/9's VM does. It is a joke.
oh now you ARE talking utter tosh! :) oh - before I go any urther - tell Xisor or whatever that dynamic memory allocating ISNT the same as virtual memory. We all know memory allocation sucks proverbial plums under mac classic. But Apples implementation of vm is actually pretty good - hence the demise of 3rd party probrams like RAM doubler. And yes, it is 99% of the time quicker to leave it on, rather than have some option to turn on and off .

I qualify my takes on these issues in havign collected and run many, many OS's (DOS, AmigaDOS, OS/2, TOS, BeOS, QNX, NeXTSTEP, Linux, Win95, Win98, WinNT, GS/OS, etc.) and spent a number of college semesters studying operating systems. Im gald for you Do you know which OS, by chance, was used as the textbook mode of the ideal OS in one of those OS texts? do tell me - I know you cant wait! NeXTSTEP + Mach. I dont neceassirly agree/disagree or care - I just wish youd stop using it as a paragon of the future when quite clearly it aint.

jeez- first law of Bulletin Board posting here folks. Win arguements by professing greater knowledge than everyone else.

blakespot
Jul 30, 2001, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Kela
Look at all of you!!! Arguing about kernels and cooperative multitasking!! LOOK. I have OSX. When Im in the mood for some futuristic web surfing and a nice interface, I just statup with OSX. WHen Im in the mood for 3d modelling, web desing, i startup with 9.1!! What is the hassle??. Just install 256MB ram and enjoy the transtition!! Its not like you gotta dump OS 9.1 enitrely!!. AND PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE WINDOWS TO MAC OS ok??. THose sick grey windows, yellow folders and pixelated icons...puullleasseee. Macintoshes are a different league asthetically speaking. I mean, OS 9 is good! Who the hell needs cooperative multitasking and thread coolness and stuff? Its an added asset so if you got OSX play OSX!! For awesome state of the art desktop publishing the MAC OS 9 is very nice indeed. AND FREAKSSS,, helooo??, what is your problem with Virtual Memory on OS 9.1?? DONT COMPLAIN, go to the shop and buy RAM!! OK?? 256mb is enough.


If Apple is going to survive, Apple and developers will have to succeed in forcing you to give up OS 9. OS 9 is so less stable and powerful from an OS perspecive than what MS is currently peddling to professionals that OS X is crucial to Apple's survival. They are, in effect, betting the farm on OS X. The quicker everyone gets there, the quicker the perception of Mac's stability will increase in the public and professional eye, and the quicker Apple will reap the rewards.

You're talking about pictures again, icons, etc. Don't trouble me with those. They are interface elements. The users interface to the machine, yes, but we're talking about what's underneath the pretty facade, which in OS 9's case is not much at all.

Who needs cooperative multitasking? NO one!! But I think you misspoke and meant preemptive multitasking. The Windows world left cooperative behind when Win3.11 went away, replace by Windows 95. The Unix world has never felt the foul presence of coop mtasking. The Amiga has never been anything but preemptive. Maya is ported to OS X. Programs on that scale cannot efficiently be run on a cooperative mtasking system with inefficient use of threading, etc. And as for getting any benefit from dual processing...do you think OS 9, as an OS is dual-CPU enabled? No. That's becuase it would be silly to try and implement that in a bloated, coop system.

As for VM...you don't throw memory at a machine in order to hide poorly implemented VM. I had 512MB in my OS X box, and VM was paging--as it should, being a well-designed VM implementation. I am not going to go into VM theory here, but adding memory and hoping to hide VM is not a sound manner of reasoning.

We all have our preferences. I am just trying to explain some of these issues as you seem out of touch with the point and role of OS X.


blakespot

blakespot
Jul 30, 2001, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by more Next
I thought Darwin has a free BSD based kernel?

It does, the same BSD + Mach setup that OS X has. (Also, Linux != BSD)


And as for VM in OS 8/9 -- it is quite terrible. It is laughable. For one, you get to choose whether to turn it on or not. "Oh yea--want some VM, click this box." Christ. It should be integrated as a core part of the OS, and stability of it should not be a factor, not should it slow the system as significantly as OS 8/9's VM does. It is a joke.
oh now you ARE talking utter tosh! :) oh - before I go any urther - tell Xisor or whatever that dynamic memory allocating ISNT the same as virtual memory. We all know memory allocation sucks proverbial plums under mac classic. But Apples implementation of vm is actually pretty good - hence the demise of 3rd party probrams like RAM doubler. And yes, it is 99% of the time quicker to leave it on, rather than have some option to turn on and off .


It is not a matter of opinion whether or not OS 9's VM is poor. It is poor. Anyone with any understanding of VM systems can example Apple's OS 8/9 VM implementation and there is no other possible conclusion that can be drawn.

I don't know what else to say on this.



blakespot

serpicolugnut
Jul 30, 2001, 10:56 AM
Why would someone move their entire operations over to a system that "has not proven itself yet"?

Because it HAS proven itself already to be infinitely more stable than OS 9. Are there other issues with it? Right now, yes. They are getting worked out very quickly though. Also, in an integrated environement with PCs, OS X is a much better network citizen, and with the free tools like Samba (soon to be in 10.1), can co-exist very easily on a PC network.

I do Mac consulting, and right now, I'll tell any client, that as long as the applications they use run fine in Classic, a switch to OS X is a no-brainer, as long as they have a G4 and ample RAM. If they are still on a G3, my advice is to wait for 10.1.

I'd rather run Photoshop in Classic. At least when the Classic environement crashes, I can still surf and get email while it restarts.

http://www.macosxcentric.com

gandalf55
Jul 30, 2001, 12:12 PM
Why should Apple default hardware into OSX until it's as fast or faster than OS9.1? Wait until OSX is shaped into a speedy, usable OS.

That's probably why the wait... and also a ton of apps should have shipped by then. i have no probs with this thinking if it's accurate.

Norm1985
Jul 30, 2001, 12:22 PM
I'm sorry, but your beloved 9x kernal Windows OS is not a modern OS! It DOES have COOPERATIVE multitasking, the memory IS shared, etc. I mean, the only "modern" feature it has really is Dynamic Memory Allocation. I admit, the Virtual Memory system in 9x is superior... As for your beloved Windows 2000, as I said before, the ENTIRE system went down in Outlook. When I use Outlook, or Entourage for Mac OS 9 that does NOT happen. And I maintain systems pretty well. I really think you're some sort of Wintel zealot to just patronize Mac people here. Mac OS X Client and Server I agree are EXCELLANT moves for Apple. Although, I have to bring up some points. Many features of the OS are missing, both for professionals and consumers ALIKE. The OS does NOT have finished API sets, it does NOT have a finalized task manager, etc. The OS is slow even on a DP500 with a gig of RAM in some respects! And because such things as APIs not being finished, etc. devlopers have become UNHAPPY with OS X for the most part. Has Adobe FULLY ported somehting BESIDES Acrobat Reader to OS X? NO! They DID port Photoshop 5 to OS X when Carbon first came out, but now it's junk. Hopefully this will change with 10.1. If 10.1 is what Apple claims it is, than this will be the best move for Apple. But why do you think Microsoft is trying to move consumers to Windows XP? Because of a modern OS foundation. According to you, who knows nothing about OSes, 9x has a modern foundation. It does not! It only has A FEW modern features. Please everyone, stop talking out of their ass.

Norm1985
Jul 30, 2001, 12:26 PM
I disagree with you for recomending graphic designers, desktop publishers, etc. because of there not being native applications. I am NOT happy with how Photoshop, GoLive, etc. runs under Classic from personal experince. The cursor disapears, the entire Classic enviroment can shut down and many of my applications are still Classic apps, it's still not as fast as running 9.1 nativly, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love being able to have a Telnet client and such built into OS X, built in SMP, etc... I don't like it when most of my apps can't take advantage of these features and has to be slowed down. You my friend have likely decresed productivity for the companies you recomend the move to OS X for unless they ONLY run a few apps that HAVE been ported like Freehand and BBEdit.

serpicolugnut
Jul 30, 2001, 01:06 PM
Hey, I've run benchmark tests of Photoshop running under OS X in Classic, and the results are just about equal to that of OS 9. Some tests were 1 or 2 seconds faster, others were 1 or 2 slower. The tally of total time between them was the just about the same.

Granted, I'm running on a G4/400/896MB of RAM and a TiBook 500/384MB of RAM. I wouldn't recommend using Classic on anything less than a G4 with 384MB of RAM. From what I've heard the G3 doesn't handle it quite as well. The early reports of 10.1 and 9.2 on G3's are very promising and might finally relegate OS 9 to the dustbin for many users who want to make the move.

Now not all OS 9 apps run great in Classic though. Flash is a perfect example. As is Director. Previewing animations in Classic does take a speed hit, so much that it's not worth it. If you use either of these apps, stay in OS 9, at least for now. OS 9.2 and 10.1 might improve that situation though.

But 2D apps like Xpress, InDesign, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Freehand, Office 2001, run as good and in some cases better under Classic than OS 9 on my machines. And again, if an app crashes, it's only taking down the Classic environment, not the entire machine.

Norm1985
Jul 30, 2001, 01:09 PM
I don't know why, but for some reason Photoshop 6 acts a little slower in OS X under Classic than OS 9... But I know for a fact GoLive and Flash ARE slower and HAVE problems.

serpicolugnut
Jul 30, 2001, 01:35 PM
Barefeats did a speed test of OS X v. OS 9 when it first was released. The Photoshop in 9 v. OS X (Classic) had OS 9 win by about 10 seconds. That was with OS X 10.0.0. Under 10.0.4, it's a wash Photoshop averages out to be just as fast on OS X running on my G4's.

Other applications that have Carbon equivelants run much faster for me in X than in 9. iTunes imports much faster, and Quake III, with the Radeon AGP card smokes the OS 9 version.

I'll be doing some more benchmarking over at my site when my dual 800 arrives (hopefully with 10.1 on it) in the next month...

http://www.macosxcentric.com

Cheers,

http://www.barefeats.com/osx.html

blakespot
Jul 30, 2001, 01:47 PM
Norm1985: You are incorrect--Windows 95 uses multithreaded, preemptive multitasking. This is not an opinion, it's an easily researchable fact. Windows 3.11 was the last version of Windows to use cooperative multitasking. In being a beta tester for Win95 months out from release, I received a many-hundred-page techincal manual along with the OS and it goes into extreme detail about the kernel structure, etc. You can keep saying that it uses cooperative multitasking--but that will not make it true.

I do find it odd that Outlook brought down your entire 2000 OS instance. But then, I've had a few kernel panics under OS X (10.0, really), so... Windows 2000 and the coming XP is, as you say, a modern OS foundation, and moreso than Win95/98/ME, true. Certainly true--they are not particularly stable OS's. Nor did I ever say they were. What I did say, and I said it becuase it is fact, is that most components of Win95/98/ME are modern OS components, while the system as a whole is not rock solid.

Windows 95/98/ME has more modern OS components than MacOS 9 does. That is also fact.

Yes, there's speed issues, even on DP 533's for OS 10.0.4, but that will be addressed under OS 10.1. These are issues w/ the GUI layers--the core of the OS, the kernel, is solid and very, very fast. Look at Darwin--OS X sans the interface layers. Fast, fast.

Me a Windows zealot? Now I have to laugh. I was dissatisfied with the speed of OS X on my B&W G3 400 so I sold it and almost built a 1.4GHz Athlon + GeForce 3 for $1,400. Fast system. But in the end I just could not bring myself to leave OS X and to run Windows as my OS. I do not want to run Windows day to day. So I ended up shelling out $3,300 on a dual-800 G4 that is on it's way soon (I hope). Not the act of a Windows zealot. And I'm married--making it a whole other world of difficulty in more than doubling the cost of my new system.




blakespot

[Edited by Macrumors on 07-30-2001 at 03:01 PM]

serpicolugnut
Jul 30, 2001, 02:43 PM
blakespot -

ha! you got your dual 800 for $3300. I'm guessing you probably configured it the same as I did, with the min. amount of RAM and HD from Apple, and going for the GF3 card instead of the GF2.

Let me know when you get yours...

I'm ANXIOUSLY awaiting mine!

Cheers,
http://www.macosxcentric.com

blakespot
Jul 30, 2001, 07:10 PM
serpicolugnut:

Yea, I snagged the dual-800, 128MB, 40GB, Combo DVD/CD-RW, but did opt for the Zip 250 as it's via Zip disk that I get files from the my Mac to my Amiga. (Of course, the Amiga has a CD-ROM, so if I'd actually thought about it I could've just done a CD-RW burn from the Mac, leaving the Zip out of it...but alas...). I've got a Rage 128 PCI, a 512MB CL2 DIMM, and a IBM Deskstar 60GXP 60GB 7,200 RPM drive waiting to add to the unit when it arrives.

I hope Apple's shipping CL2 (2-2-2) DIMM's in the G4's...otherwise I'd discard the 128MB CL3 DIMM in there upon arrival, as I'd not want that slowing memory down 7% or so. 640MB's not that much better than 512MB anyway...

I orderde it moments after the Apple Store went on-line updated, so I should be getting it early in the queue. (Sprung for the FedEx as well.)

Will be glad to get off this i-opener (Win98 hacked) for net access. Well, I do have OmniWeb v2 on my NeXTstation...but I must say...it's a touch slow. :-)


blakespot

Will
Jul 30, 2001, 10:15 PM
I think OSX is fantastic. I can not wait until I do not have to go into OS9 or load up the OS9 system in OSX. For me, comming from a wintel background, I would rather just use OSX and forget that OS9 existed. Kind of like back in the Win 3.1 to Win 95 days.

guest
Jul 31, 2001, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by blakespot

I hope Apple's shipping CL2 (2-2-2) DIMM's in the G4's...otherwise I'd discard the 128MB CL3 DIMM in there upon arrival, as I'd not want that slowing memory down 7% or so. 640MB's not that much better than 512MB anyway...


How do you tell if the RAM is CL3 or CL2? Does it say on the chip, or do you use a hardware profiling utility?

arn
Jul 31, 2001, 06:04 AM
The Apple System Profiler will tell you if it's CL2 or CL3 ram... however, there's been some recent debate over whether or not that is 100% accurate.

arn

blakespot
Jul 31, 2001, 08:32 AM
I've heard doubt cast at Apple System Profiler's ability to tell, as well, though I don't know how well-founded that is. If there is ny CL3 memory in there, the memory bus handling hardware will set the overall system timing to 3-2-2 (or in the worst case 3-2-3 if you've gotten hold of the rare, slowest type of memory--I'm not sure it even exists in PC133 form)--so there should be some way to read that setting. My guess is it works fine (ASP).

Arn and I were both in the Apple Store @ Tysons and saw that under OS 9 (ASP under OS X had no idea what was going on with the hardware...obviously it's not been tuned to the QS machines) there were reported two 128MB DIMM's, and a speed of CL2.

Also of note, I did some digging in Apple's TIL library and found a TIL where Apple encourages the user to use 2-2-2 memory rather than 3-2-2 or 3-2-3 in the interest of speed. While I know Apple used to ship 3-2-2 in their systems, I can't imagine they're currently doing that while laying down TIL's like that.

In digging (can't find the article I'm talking about), I did find this:

The RAM expansion slots accept 168-pin SDRAM DIMMs that are 3.3 V, unbuffered, 8-byte, nonparity, and PC-133 compliant. The DIMMs can be implemented with either SDRAM or ESDRAM devices. ESDRAM devices provide higher performance for random read and write operations, but SDRAM devices are generally available in larger sizes.

ESDRAM? That's a new one to me... ??


blakespot

MrMacMan
Jul 31, 2001, 08:40 AM
What kind of ram is that? Did they make a mistake? Or are thet right and it is a comp specific Ram? Anybody know?

jefhatfield
Jul 31, 2001, 12:34 PM
i see this difficult transition happening with many Mac users primarily because the major apps are not out yet on osx but when they are out for awhile, people will eventually forget the old days of OS 9.1

the windows world made the change to windows me and my pc repair clients didn't scream that much since my pc clients are more used to change and tolerate it better...maybe they don't think microsoft will listen anyways and just seem to accept whatever microsoft pushes their way...as a general rule, my pc clients have not expected anything exceptional from their computers...there isn't the personal connection happening

my mac repair clients are very into their machines (in an almost cult like way) and the thought of apple going to os x without the full support of the apps running os x first makes them nervous...some see os x as the first betrayal steve jobs brought upon apple, as if the operating system was some sort of failure or some sort of way to bring the operating system into the realm of the pc dominated world of unix or something...do you know who owns the language the classic mac os' were written on...hint, he owns more than 13 languages at last count and he lives in washington state...yikes!!!)

os x and windows xp will be closer in code than dos was to the classic mac os' of the past...that, in my opinion doesn't make apple sound like they are selling out...if anything, it will might open up more pc users to the mac...visually, windows xp will be more mac like than ever thus making windows users more friendly to the aqua interface (that microsoft seems to have borrowed from apple, some say)

in the near future, it may not be comparing apples to oranges, but the microsoft and mac machines will be on the same page and people will be able to judge better what will work for them...os x is the gamble of apple's entire future, but it will prove favorable in the end even though steve jobs' has lost the respect of many a mac user...hey, i would rather have many mac users mad at steve jobs for pushing os x more than hardware development than lose potential converts to mac...i know in the short run apple seems to be abandoning their users by ditching OS 9.x and going to os 10.x but doing that is not the betrayal that so many have complained about, it is apple being a business like it should be

remember, your mac computer is just a machine and not a member of your family...as a mac user myself for 20 years, let us get over the fear of os x and compete against windows on the same aqua page...apple is a business and needs to grow to survive in silicon valley and only constant forward change will give apple that chance

guest
Jul 31, 2001, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by blakespot
Also of note, I did some digging in Apple's TIL library and found a TIL where Apple encourages the user to use 2-2-2 memory rather than 3-2-2 or 3-2-3 in the interest of speed. While I know Apple used to ship 3-2-2 in their systems, I can't imagine they're currently doing that while laying down TIL's like that.

True, but Apple sometimes moves in mysterious ways. I think I am going to spend the ten bucks and test a 64 MB CL3 module, and see what ASP says.

guest
Aug 3, 2001, 10:28 AM
I know this is kind of the wrong thread, but just to bring some closure to the RAM discussion...

I called coastmemory.com (they happened to be one listed at the top at pricewatch.com), and talked to one of their tech guys, who sounded confident and seemed to know what he was about. He said all PC133 Mac memory they sell is definitely CL2. The advantage of this place is that they are cheap ($60 for 512MB), but despite that it is placed in a separate section called "Mac memory". So you can still make a statement about the platform you own/support/adore/buy-things-for. :) I'm going to buy some soon and give it a try, will report back on whether the CL2 claim is true or not AFAICT through ASP. If this thread is still around...

blakespot
Aug 3, 2001, 10:49 AM
It's covered in xlr8yourmac's forum thread:

http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001068.html

...that it seems there is _no_ 512MB PC133 2-2-2 memory out there. And all PC133 memory is definitely not 2-2-2 --- look what Apple is shipping in their 867's (quote from thread above):


• Memory :
? RAM Size = 402,653,184 Bytes (384.0 MB)
[size,type,cur CAS,min CAS,max CAS,dimm refresh,volts,
pins,width,mfg,part#,mfg date,ser#]

+ Module 1 = 128MB, PC133-333-520 SDRAM, CAS-3
@133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-3 @133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-3
@133MHz|7.5ns, 15.625us, 3.3v, 168, 128, Samsung,
M3 66S1723CTS-C75 , 0/28, -1937047297

+ Module 2 = 256MB, PC133-222-520 SDRAM, CAS-3
@133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-2 @133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-3
@143MHz|7.0ns, 15.625us, 3.3v, 168, 128, ?,
PRINCETON, 15/FF, -256
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My brand new G4 867 shipped with 3-3-3 memory in it. How sad.

...that's from TattleTech, an app that does a better job at identifying true memory speed. (Apple System Profiler does a botch job of reporting the truth...) The boldfaced module is the one from Apple...



blakespot

guest
Aug 3, 2001, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by blakespot
It's covered in xlr8yourmac's forum thread:

http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001068.html

...that it seems there is _no_ 512MB PC133 2-2-2 memory out there. And all PC133 memory is definitely not 2-2-2 --- look what Apple is shipping in their 867's (quote from thread above):


Hmm, I read that thread. Pretty discouraging. :( OTOH, I gave the coast memory guys another call. It turns out the $60 stuff (512 MB) advertised on the website is claimed as 233, which is still technically CL2 I guess. But they also said they sell a $70 512MB PC133 dimm (which is not on the website) which they claim is 222. I asked him about the other comments like "no manufacturers of 222 512's" etc, but he said he has it in stock and it is real. We will see. I just ordered the $70 222 512MB, and as soon as the 867 arrives I'll check ASP/TattleTech/DIMMcheck and hopefully get the real scoop. Even if it's not 222, I guess it isn't that big a deal. $70 is still a good price.