Mac OS X 10.3 Panther Details

[MacRumors]

MacBidouille (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-03-26#5095) reports that the next version of Mac OS X (10.3 aka Panther) will feature a new file system format akin to BeOS's file system.

Previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/03/20020330130615.shtml), it was reported that Dominic Giampaolo, a BeOS engineer was employed by Apple approximately one year ago, and it is presumed that his experience with BeOS's journaled file-system was applied towards Apple's current implementation of Journaling in Mac OS X. If this rumor is true, more BeOS file-system feature may find their way into Mac OS X.

This 2001 article (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=421&page=1) by Scot Hacker entitled "Tales of a BeOS Refugee", gives one experienced BeOS user's perspective on the advantages of the BeOS file system (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=421&page=13).

MacBidouille also claims that Mac OS X 10.3 will feature significant performance boosts over 10.2.

[sparkleytone]

basically just educated guessing. that website is such a mystery sometimes. they go from nearly outlandish things to just hohum predictions.

[RandomMacGuy]

I thought journaling was already in OS X...

I think there is some sort of option to enable it...

It slows down the system a very little bit, iirc.

[Edit: OK, I'm an idiot... but what other features are we talking about?]

[Edit2: Disregard this post. I need to RTF Article]

[zkmusa]

I think it's great that Apple is competing so well in the operating system market with Windows. The next version of Windows (codenamed Windows Longhorn due out in the end of 2004, I think) will also have this journaled filesystem, capability, if I'm not mistaken.

Does anyone know the similarities of the journaled file system between Mac OS X and Windows Longhorn? I'm curious. Thanks!

[nuckinfutz]

OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is

64bit support.
Efficient use of multithreading.

extensive Metadata. This is like adding a liteweight Database to the system. Searching for files would become much easier for applications as they'd just query from a list of attributes that follow that chunk of data.

I guess an easy way of explaining it would be. You know how when you're searching for songs in iTunes you just keep feeding data into the search field and the more data you input the smaller your "results" list becomes. Now imagine that and more in the FS itself.

Anything that resides on the HD can be ordered up in a list and shown in different views and lists. It doesn't sound powerful but in reality features like that will save you time as HD keep getting bigger and bigger.

I'd assume that iApps would become faster as they could just poll the FS for the files and metadata they need eliminating one layer of complexity.

[chewbaccapits]

So///let's say this is true....Would this be worth 129 dollars?

[Hawthorne]

1. I wouldn't be surprised to see this as a low-cost ($20 or so, free at Apple Stores) upgrade similar to 10.1 after all the fuss about Jaguar, which was worth every penny, IMO, but opinions vary.

2. Is it just me, or do OS X upgrades bring better performance to existing machines, while upgrades to Windows mean upgrading your machine to wade through the resulting bloatware? Think different, indeed... :)

[irmongoose]

I loved the BeOS file search system... truly instantaneous. The only comparable search system is simple database searching.. but that's such a pain because you have to update the database each time you want to make a search. No more of that :D



irmongoose

[Flynnstone]

I am somewhat familiar with journaling under Linux.
I use journaling on my filesystems with my embedded Linux projects. I read an article once (from Redhat) about journaling and it can be faster than non-journaled. My main reason is for faster boots. Booting is usually not an issue. I have never had a kernel panic or crash. Strange behaviour yes. I've thought I've crashed Linux, but it was really me pulling the rug out from under it. I removed it's filesystem. It didn't crash. It recovered when I gave it it's filesystem back. Cool :cool:
But I have tasks that write to a log file and the pwoer to the board could be lost, so journaling is wise!
I don't know how windows journalling would compare to OS X ( or Linux), but my NT 4 and Win 2K machines are not nearly as stable as my Linux or OS X machines.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
So///let's say this is true....Would this be worth 129 dollars?

The only question i have is..how much time? I believe you just can't toss in a new FS and expect everything to run without a hitch. Each FS enables new features but I don't believe it's as transparent to 3rd parties as we'd like. I'll be curious to see if any more light is shed on this. I don't think the FS alone would be worthy of $129 but it's forward thinking for the future. I think it might entail a gradual change over the next few years rather than an abrubt change.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
So///let's say this is true....Would this be worth 129 dollars?
Hmm I don't know if you are going to feel it's money well spent, but there is a good chance it is going to be WORTH $129.

NicoMan

[ultrafiel]

Maybe, but I'm sure it will be worth $79. I'm glad I'm a student, well, at least for the Apple discount anyway.

Oh and if a new file system is implemented I hope disk repair utilities catch up to it quick. I remember waiting to go HFS+ because Norton wouldn't have been able to fix it when it came out and something went wrong. I'm not too keen on Norton anyway now, but maybe Apple will make repairs easier somehow.

[richie]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is
...

extensive Metadata. This is like adding a liteweight Database to the system. Searching for files would become much easier for applications as they'd just query from a list of attributes that follow that chunk of data.
...


Uhh, mate, RTFA. This is exactly what Be's FS does. To quote:

"Any file or file type on a BFS volume can have arrays of metadata associated with it, in the form of "attributes." There is no limit to the amount, size, or type of attributes, and attributes can be displayed and edited, sifted, sorted, and queried for directly in the Tracker (Be's equivalent of the Finder). Because most attributes are indexed, search results are nearly instantaneous, regardless the size of the volume or the number of files being searched through"

Kudos to you for thinking of the idea independently of the article, but don't just dismiss what's being suggested without even reading it :) Sorry if that came off harsh..

Oh, and I would pay $79 for a new FS like this. Throw in a few more pretty glittery things and I'm sold on the full price :D

[ParadisePete]

OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is ...extensive Metadata. This is like adding a liteweight Database to the system.

Be's file system is a database, so you may get your wish.

[reyesmac]

If they can pull serious performance increases on the G3 and G4, it will be worth the price they sell it at. If they are only saying it will be much faster on the G5 and quartz extreme machines, then that would stink. Hope they start making black machines now that they will be running Panther.

[Choppaface]

for me, jag wasn't worth it, not even if it was half of what is was, but this would be. now the next step is an option to just turn anti-aliasing and transparency off... he he

go apple, yay! :D

[MacsRgr8]

Is it, or is it not 64 bits?
I can't find any confirmation anywhere. If it isn't then 10.3 wouldn't be such a HUGE deal. I really want to know if it's running on a 970!
Jaguar is lovely as it is, and I'm sure that even if 10.3 is only 32 bits, I'd buy it anyway. But Apple is really building a hype again. 3 months in advance. :confused:

[Flynnstone]

$129 is not that expensive comapred to Windoze. I can't remember what an upgrade costs, but you need to factor in at least $100 per year for Norton and the like for the duct tape to hold it together.:p

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8

I can't find any confirmation anywhere.

Well usually you don't get any real confirmation until Steve announces it at a Macworld... unless he decides to leak the info beforehand like he did for WWDC.



irmongoose

[nuckinfutz]

Richie-
No disrespect to BeFS. I was just stating the obvious. I've read Scott Hackers articles on this before and Scott laid it out pretty well so I boosted heheheh


Be's file system is a database, so you may get your wish.

I didn't really expect Apple to have this until 10.4 but I'd be glad to see them introduce this in Panther. Great news



Anyone care to guess how long moving to a FS will take the majority of 3rd party developers? I remember HFS+ taking a bit of time to transition.

[Foocha]

I wonder whether a new file system will simplify or complicate. We already have plenty of metadata going around in OS X - file type, creator code, resource fork, file extension... Trouble is that whilst Apple whats to drop some, like the resource fork, application developers are unwilling to give it up.

A new file system may represent a next generation alternative to the old-Mac conventions like resource forks and creator codes which will finally encourage developers to give the old standards up, however, for a long time we'll just have even more confusion!

I wonder if they'll be able to get Classic to run on the new FS?!

[RandomMacGuy]

How could this not completely break compatability with unix programs?

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacBidouille also claims that Mac OS X 10.3 will feature significant performance boosts over 10.2.

Come on Arn, admit it, you meant to say "snappier" didn't you!?

Can't wait!

[Nermal]

I know somebody's going to ask for it, so here's a (not very good :() translation:

It will add support for a new filesystem format, very similar to BeOS' BFS. This format is supposed to eventually replace HFS+. In particular, it allows journalisation to be much simpler. Apple is still progressing in the optimisation of their OS. The performance improvement between 10.2 and 10.3 is likely to be as significant as what separated 10.1 and 10.2. They would finally have finally optimised most of the code from NeXT. In any event, there will have to be a lot of innovations to the OS in order to encourage customers to buy it.

Send your praise to the Google translator :)

[faisal]

Originally posted by zkmusa
The next version of Windows (codenamed Windows Longhorn due out in the end of 2004, I think) will also have this journaled filesystem, capability, if I'm not mistaken.

Windows NT (2000, XP, etc.) has always had journaling via the NTFS file system. I used it in 1995. Longhorn allegedly adds database functionality to the FS.

[faisal]

Originally posted by Nermal
The performance improvement between 10.2 and 10.3 is likely to be as significant as what separated 10.1 and 10.2.

How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway. I can't wait! Except I'll have to wait, just like I do today. Wait for apps to load. Wait for anything to run. Wait for Avi to read the white book. At least OS X finally feels faster than NeXTStEP [sic] on a 25 Mhz '040 with 8 megs of RAM mounting virtually everything over AFS (once we got it working, feh).

[Longey Nowze]

Originally posted by faisal
How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway. I can't wait! Except I'll have to wait, just like I do today. Wait for apps to load. Wait for anything to run. Wait for Avi to read the white book. At least OS X finally feels faster than NeXTStEP [sic] on a 25 Mhz '040 with 8 megs of RAM mounting virtually everything over AFS (once we got it working, feh).

weird... so you didn't notice any difference? what system are you using?? 10.2 is a lot faster than 10.1 on my 400MHz pismo! I'm sorry to hear that e verything is so slow on your system... I'm not saying that thing are lighting fast on my pismo, but what do you expect? it's an old computer! built before the time of X, when we had 9, sometime I miss OS 9, but I don't even have it installed, I have no use for it....

I'm really excited about panther! I think this is the first hint about what new features to expect, the things before were just saying 64bit, but this seems that it has much more to offer! go APPLE! i'm saving up to buy a new Power Mac 970! lool

THANK YOU
MaT

[mac15]

people can say this is educated guessing but I'd say this is damn near true.

the thing I like is the speed imrovments, the more the better

[pev]

Originally posted by ParadisePete
Be's file system is a database, so you may get your wish.

I think you'll find that this isnt actually true. It stores the metadata associated with files in an RDBMS but the FS itself isnt. If you read early reviews in Byte from around '94 IIRC it says that the fs *is* a database, but this was only very early experimental versions.

~Pev

[Nermal]

Originally posted by faisal
How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway. I can't wait! Except I'll have to wait, just like I do today. Wait for apps to load. Wait for anything to run. Wait for Avi to read the white book. At least OS X finally feels faster than NeXTStEP [sic] on a 25 Mhz '040 with 8 megs of RAM mounting virtually everything over AFS (once we got it working, feh).

Let's hope it's a good improvement. In all honesty, I've got NO idea what the difference between 10.1 and 10.2 is, as I jumped straight from 8.1 on an 040 to 10.2 on a G3, and 10.2's running faster than 8.1 ever did.

[buseman]

I'm sure 10.3 gives us features no one even thinks about beforehand, just like Jaguar. Who foresaw features like Rendezvous, Ink, Quartz Extreme etc.? No one! Everyone was just jabbing about spring loaded folders for gods sake! If they are to charge, say $129, for Panther it WILL be special indeed..

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is

64bit support.
Efficient use of multithreading.


File system bit-ness is a rather confusing topic =). I don't know the technical details of BFS, but I do have them for HFS+ (heck, it's on Apple's devsite). The logical file size is stored with 64-bits, the physical size is stored in terms of allocation blocks with 32-bits. This means that today a standard HFS+ disk could store a file as large as 16 terrabytes. This value goes up as the allocation block size increases to a maximum of 8 exabytes (although with allocation block sizes of 2 GB - not pretty :D). Files at these extremes would also completely consume the drive that it is on. Thus as far as files are concered, HFS+ is 64-bit, even though it uses 32-bits in a few places.

As for Meta Data, there are already hooks into the HFS+ file system that allow for extensible Meta Data as well as additional file forks, neither of which is currently exposed in MacOS X. This rumor, if true, is more likely to be the implementation of these traits.

As for the multithreading traits of HFS+, I am not certain if that really is an issue of the file format, although it does influence the ease of which multi threading is possible.

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Is it, or is it not 64 bits?
I can't find any confirmation anywhere. If it isn't then 10.3 wouldn't be such a HUGE deal. I really want to know if it's running on a 970!
Jaguar is lovely as it is, and I'm sure that even if 10.3 is only 32 bits, I'd buy it anyway. But Apple is really building a hype again. 3 months in advance. :confused:

1. MacOS 10.3 doesn't have to be 64-bit to run on a 970
2. MacOS 10.3 probably won't be 64-bit :).
3. You won't see confirmation of this until at least WWDC, and those who are in the know will be under NDA so they won't be able to tell you anyway.

MacOS X 10.3 will be a big deal regardless of 64-bit-ness, don't buy into the 64-bit crazyness. all you get from a 64-bit processor is a larger memory space and a larger fast integer!

[MacsRgr8]

I understand the 64 vs 32bits issues (features, whatever), but what I wanted to say is that if we were sure the OS is 64 bits >>>>> we would be sure the 970 is very, very near indeed!!!!
That's the biggest deal, in my opinion.

[geerlingguy]

Originally posted by Hawthorne
2. Is it just me, or do OS X upgrades bring better performance to existing machines, while upgrades to Windows mean upgrading your machine to wade through the resulting bloatware? Think different, indeed... :) [/B]

Exactly. I've had 2 PCs and 1 Mac in the past few years. While I've been upgrading my Wintels' hardware every OS upgrade (with no real speed gains), my Mac has gotten faster after every upgrade (except 9.1 to OS 10.0 - that was pretty slow :( ).

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by RandomMacGuy
How could this not completely break compatability with unix programs?

OSX doesn't have any problem with running unix programs with the HFS+ file system.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by geerlingguy
Exactly. I've had 2 PCs and 1 Mac in the past few years. While I've been upgrading my Wintels' hardware every OS upgrade (with no real speed gains), my Mac has gotten faster after every upgrade (except 9.1 to OS 10.0 - that was pretty slow :( ).

10.0 was far from a mature OS, Apple knew it. If they didn't get out when they did, OSX may never have been released. Two years later, OSX has features that you would never dream of seeing in OS9. I agree about Windows. Microsoft's updates sometimes even make things worse. Longhorn (Windows spyware edition) is going to be a nightmare.

[yzedf]

Please be warned: OS News was formed by BeOS zeealots. Anything they ever write about is usally something along the lines of "product X is ok, but BeOS is better because..."

Not that BeOS is bad, because it isn't. Just that OS News is not a neutral source of information.

[backdraft]

Originally posted by irmongoose
I loved the BeOS file search system... truly instantaneous. The only comparable search system is simple database searching.. but that's such a pain because you have to update the database each time you want to make a search. No more of that :D


Hopefully it will be a huge improvement. Though, doesn't Unix have a database?

Just go to the terminal and type 'man locate', last time I checked the locate command uses a database to search for files, I wonder if the find command uses the located database.

As for journaling, (correct me if I'm wrong) its not a database. All journaling does is sort of like autosave but for the entire hard drive, that's why its slower the files contents(or last actions taken) are continually being written into a log file, so in case of a power outage the OS reads the log file and repeats the last actions/processes.

I really like how Apple is combining the best of both worlds Unix and Beos. OS X is going to be one hell of an OS. The only thing that it needs is work on the GUI here's some ideas: http://www.geocities.com/juan_m007

[encro]

Based on earlier posts and other things I will guess OS X 10.3 will have the following:

1.BeOS style filesystem
2.Optimised NeXT Code
3.Rescalable UI Elements (similar to dock)
4.Themes (as a subset of 3.)
5.64-bit kernel extentions for PPC970
6.iTunes 4.x/iChat 1.5/Safari 1.0
7.Labels
8.About This Mac in Myriad Typeface.
9.System font size change enabled.

any other ideas?

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by richie
"Any file or file type on a BFS volume can have arrays of metadata associated with it, in the form of "attributes." There is no limit to the amount, size, or type of attributes, and attributes can be displayed and edited, sifted, sorted, and queried for directly in the Tracker (Be's equivalent of the Finder). Because most attributes are indexed, search results are nearly instantaneous, regardless the size of the volume or the number of files being searched through"


Oy. What are the odds that Norton will be able to fix a "major problem" when 10.3 comes out...

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by backdraft
The only thing that it needs is work on the GUI here's some ideas: http://www.geocities.com/juan_m007

Those are great UI additions. Some are more "power-user" than others... but all are worthy of consideration by Apple, IMHO. I do UI design, also, and think you're on the right track. In particular, I think your ideas for the Apple menu are spot-on.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by RandomMacGuy
How could this not completely break compatability with unix programs?

What do you mean? Why would an advanced file system break Unix file access?

I would strongly suspect that such a file system would retain the "old-style" file access, although of course "old style" file accesses won't use any new features of the FS.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by faisal
How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway. I can't wait! Except I'll have to wait, just like I do today. Wait for apps to load. Wait for anything to run. Wait for Avi to read the white book. At least OS X finally feels faster than NeXTStEP [sic] on a 25 Mhz '040 with 8 megs of RAM mounting virtually everything over AFS (once we got it working, feh).

Well, for development purposes I have identical (533MHz G4) machines running 10.1 and 10.2 side by side (and one running 10.0, which I don't think even you would claim is just as fast as 10.2, right?).

There is a definite and dramatic speed difference between the two, which extends from Finder usage to even my own developed software (has to be compiled under 10.2, but runs significantly faster on 10.2 than 10.1). Which of course makes sense as there is a whole new kernel underneath, so every application benefits.

I take it your comments are just mindless and unsupported FUD?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Oy. What are the odds that Norton will be able to fix a "major problem" when 10.3 comes out...


-100%. Seeing how Norton makes more problems then it fixes currently with 10.x.x.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by faisal
How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway. I can't wait! Except I'll have to wait, just like I do today. Wait for apps to load. Wait for anything to run. Wait for Avi to read the white book. At least OS X finally feels faster than NeXTStEP [sic] on a 25 Mhz '040 with 8 megs of RAM mounting virtually everything over AFS (once we got it working, feh).

Wow, really? You didn't see any performance difference?

My B/W G3 400 without the Quartz Extreme hack went from the speed of a lurching bumbling drunk to that of slow walk. It was a very noticeable 2fold or greater increase in overall system responsiveness and application load times.

[Vroem]

If apple would have called OS 11 instead of OS 10.1, and OS 12 instead of OS 10.2, would more people be happy to buy an new copy? :confused:

I hear that RedHat will be coming with its version 9 and pro users will probably have to pay for the update, while new features are practically zero.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by backdraft
Hopefully it will be a huge improvement. Though, doesn't Unix have a database?

Just go to the terminal and type 'man locate', last time I checked the locate command uses a database to search for files, I wonder if the find command uses the located database.


The 'locate' database is not realtime. The database is typically updated weekly (or perhaps nightly) via a cron job, but any updates you do to the file system during the day will not show up in the database until the next refresh.

'find' does not use the locate database. 'find' physically scours the file system, applying your criteria to each file/directory.


As for journaling, (correct me if I'm wrong) its not a database.


Correct. I'm somewhat mystified by the claim that adding database-stored metadata will make journalling wimpler/faster too.


I really like how Apple is combining the best of both worlds Unix and Beos. OS X is going to be one hell of an OS. The only thing that it needs is work on the GUI here's some ideas: http://www.geocities.com/juan_m007

An interesting site with soem good ideas and a lot f bad ones IMHO. I especially like their claim as an aside that the Netscape "<Blink>" tag is "standard" (it is not!) IMHO, OS X is nice and simple, and any enhancements to the overall UI should be made with an eye to retaining that simplicity wherever possible. As an example, the idea of displaying a window's size in pixels as you resize it is just plain silly (despite being somewhat standard in the X-Windows managers): when I resize a window that is the least important information to me, and in the 1% of scenarios where it is actually useful the application should be telling me or indicating the size of it's content pane, not the overall window size!

[backdraft]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Those are great UI additions. Some are more "power-user" than others... but all are worthy of consideration by Apple, IMHO. I do UI design, also, and think you're on the right track. In particular, I think your ideas for the Apple menu are spot-on.

Glad to here it! :)

Please send feedback to apple and include the link to the website, that way they can at least consider it. Oh, if you have any free time do you mind picking the ideas apart to see what works and what doesn't? I'm a perfectionist and I want the ideas to be the best possible. I am also going to upload some dock enhancements today.

New ideas? Send to macguyx@spymac.com

Thanks:D

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by zkmusa
I think it's great that Apple is competing so well in the operating system market with Windows. The next version of Windows (codenamed Windows Longhorn due out in the end of 2004, I think) will also have this journaled filesystem, capability, if I'm not mistaken.

Does anyone know the similarities of the journaled file system between Mac OS X and Windows Longhorn? I'm curious. Thanks!

1) Windows has had a journaling file system for years (since NTFS came out ... 1992?)

2) Longhorn (or the subsequent Windows version ... reports from MS contradict each other and I don't think they've decided on it yet) will add a database-based file system. Early descriptions of the "New File System" sound a lot more revolutionary than MacB's claims of a BeOS-like file system, but I wouldn't be surprised if Longhorn comes out and what Windows has is essentially just a meta-data database with standard decades-old file/folder access for the files themselves.

So, don't get on the "we're so far ahead of Microsoft!" band wagon. We're not ahead of them in the file system arena.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Vroem
I hear that RedHat will be coming with its version 9 and pro users will probably have to pay for the update, while new features are practically zero.

Just to avoid spreading FUD: Paying subscriber's to Redhat's "Redhat Network" get the Redhat 9 ISO's a week earlier than us freeloaders. As for updates, i haven't looked at the specifics, but quite a bit has happened in Linux land since RH8, and RH8 had some issues that I hope they are addressing (although I do believe 8-9 is version number inflation ... this is more like 8.1 than 9.0 unless RH is doing a lot more than I see). On the other hand, it's hrd for Redhat to stay at "8" when others have already called their latest (Fall 2002) releases "9" ... Of course, we're at "ten" already, so we all know which is better ... :)

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by reyesmac
If they are only saying it will be much faster on the G5 and quartz extreme machines, then that would stink.

Just so you know, the 'G5' processor is a theory right now; a logical next step in the processor progression, but there's noting saying that Apple's next processor will be a G5, or even produced by Motorola.

One thing I've been wondering - Has Apple thought of reducing the dock down to a single icon on the desktop? One Click and it would open? Just a thought, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
One thing I've been wondering - Has Apple thought of reducing the dock down to a single icon on the desktop? One Click and it would open? Just a thought, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.


Why? Just turn on hiding and you have no icon and no click to open it.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by backdraft
I really like how Apple is combining the best of both worlds Unix and Beos. OS X is going to be one hell of an OS. The only thing that it needs is work on the GUI here's some ideas: http://www.geocities.com/juan_m007

just a heads up... you have exceeded bandwidth allocation.... i got shot down trying to view your page

:)

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Longey Nowze
weird... so you didn't notice any difference? what system are you using?? 10.2 is a lot faster than 10.1 on my 400MHz pismo!


You know, I didn't notice a difference either. I installed it on my 800 MHz TiBook, and didn't notice any difference at all until I upped my RAM from 512 MB to 1 GB.

[nighthawk]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
1. MacOS 10.3 doesn't have to be 64-bit to run on a 970
2. MacOS 10.3 probably won't be 64-bit :).
3. You won't see confirmation of this until at least WWDC, and those who are in the know will be under NDA so they won't be able to tell you anyway.

MacOS X 10.3 will be a big deal regardless of 64-bit-ness, don't buy into the 64-bit crazyness. all you get from a 64-bit processor is a larger memory space and a larger fast integer!

OSX 10.3 doesn't need to be 64bit, but it should be 64bit aware -- so that it could (if running on a 970) have extended memory and natively work with 64bit INTEGERS.

But there are more important issues that Apple will be dealing with to be able to get the 970 to work well... including updating the gcc/PB suite to be able to support the new and faster features of the 970. I am not just talking about the 64bitness either, but instead, taking care of those 3 vector instructions that are missing (are they redundant?) and allowing the compiler to take advantage of the 8-way superscaler design. This leads to the question of whether or not we are going to need "FAT/UNIVERSAL" code again like between the 680x0 and PowerPC -- if so, it shouldn't bloat the code TOO much... maybe only 10% like the AMD 64bit chip.

Like most people have posted in other threads, the need for 64bit applications is not that high yet (chicken and egg theory), but who knows... maybe Apple is waiting to release their FinalCut4 Pro software until the 970 is released because of the 64bit advantages?

Sherlock (and "Find" in 10.2), both use a databasing system... that is what makes it so much faster than the PC to find files. I know that the metadata that is being discussed here is an OS/FS feature and not an application feature like Sherlock, but my point is that part of the work is already there... if Find/Sherlock was integrated into the core OS kernel, than it should be available to all applications.

As far as additional features I would like to see in 10.3...

1. More preferences over system-wide key commands. Like the Option-Apple-D for the dock (I hate that!) and Apple-Spacebar for switching the keyboard language. Being a graphic designer, both of those key commands interfer with Adobe/Quark.

2. Smart-Threading... some sort of "automatic" sharing of tasks between the processors and support for the 8-way superscaler design of the 970. Some sort of quasi-threading that is NOT code specific, but would have SOME increase in performance for Dual-processor systems. This would be important for the XGrid - shared computing as well.

3. iLife included -- not that great of a feature, but it would be nice... including the new Safari (although that is a given, right?)

4. Better IP tools, for tracking what your computer is sending/receiving. Possiblely Apple supported integrated virus scan software and better utilities for HFS+ repairs... let Apple take that over instead of Norton.

5. RAD for Java -- SOHO version of WebObjects integrated in Developer Tools.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
You know, I didn't notice a difference either. I installed it on my 800 MHz TiBook, and didn't notice any difference at all until I upped my RAM from 512 MB to 1 GB.

Did you do a fresh install of 10.2 or an update?

[serpicolugnut]

MacBidouille? I'd love to know how a french based Mac rumors site get's it's info...

The answer is easy. Speculation....

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out some of the basics that will be added to 10.3. Look at these speculations...

1-New journaling filesystem. Of course! They already partially implemented it. It will be fully implemented in the next release.

2-New Mail build... It's already been seen outside Apple...

3-New iChat build. Rumored to have videoconferencing capabilities.

4-New builds of Address Book and iCal with further integration.

5-Finder improvements.

6-New iTunes with Apple Music Service integration.

7-Speed enhancements throughout

I would say that all of these are fairly certain...

[beatle888]

Originally posted by faisal
How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway.


WHAT:eek: oh man. you should try to add statements like "in my opinion" to posts like that. its absolutely false. unless you dont care about being factual.

have you ever used photoshop? screen redraw in photoshop is increased DRAMATICALY with quartz extreme. before when you bought a 3D graphics card, it woudnt even help photoshop at all (from my experience). but now with quartz extreme...i can scroll around large photoshop files with ease.

jeeesh....apple software developers must cringe when/if they read posts like that.

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
So///let's say this is true....Would this be worth 129 dollars? Didn't Apple claim that Jaguar (er, excuse me, "Jagwire") had 129 features for its $129 cost? I'll gladly pay a dollar for a new filesystem, so the question is whether they want a dollar each for 128 other features, and which of those features are important to each of us.

[Wonder Boy]

i have no complaints with 10.2 except when i tap into the network places, the whole thing closes after i pick a computer. i hope 10.3 adresses this by allowing the network (eek) neighborhood to stay open just like in OS 9.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by nighthawk
OSX 10.3 doesn't need to be 64bit, but it should be 64bit aware -- so that it could (if running on a 970) have extended memory and natively work with 64bit INTEGERS.

This is essentially the requirements of being 64-bit, being 64-bit aware. Basically, if the OS doesn't startup with the processor running in 64-bit mode, then you won't be able to safely use extended memory space and native 64-bit integers.

But there are more important issues that Apple will be dealing with to be able to get the 970 to work well... including updating the gcc/PB suite to be able to support the new and faster features of the 970. I am not just talking about the 64bitness either, but instead, taking care of those 3 vector instructions that are missing (are they redundant?) and allowing the compiler to take advantage of the 8-way superscaler design. This leads to the question of whether or not we are going to need "FAT/UNIVERSAL" code again like between the 680x0 and PowerPC -- if so, it shouldn't bloat the code TOO much... maybe only 10% like the AMD 64bit chip.

Assuming that 10.3 is a 32-bit operating system they don't absoutely need to update gcc/PB to handle the 970. And I don't know what 3 vector instructions you are talking about, the 970 implements all 162 Altivec instructions that the G4/74xx does. Taking advantage of the 8-way superscaler design is an optimization, that while nice, might also slow down code on older (and thus slower) processors. And finally, MacOS X already has the architecture in place to allow for code that wants to run in a 64-bit environment to be identified. The PowerPC 970 is not so different from other PowerPC chips that we would need any kind of 'bridge' to run 32-bit applications on it, but only a flag to the OS that the application wants to run in a 64-bit environment. And finally, the PowerPC instruction set was defined with 64-bit processing in mind from the beginning, and thus there will be zero code bloat :).

As far as additional features I would like to see in 10.3...

1. More preferences over system-wide key commands. Like the Option-Apple-D for the dock (I hate that!) and Apple-Spacebar for switching the keyboard language. Being a graphic designer, both of those key commands interfer with Adobe/Quark.

I can understand about the Cmd-Opt-D and other Apple menu short cuts, but if one of your programs is using the Cmd-Space shortcut, it is in error. Apple has had that shortcut reserved since at least Mac OS 7.5, and I think since System 7. Many people in the internaltional community using Macs depend on it.

2. Smart-Threading... some sort of "automatic" sharing of tasks between the processors and support for the 8-way superscaler design of the 970. Some sort of quasi-threading that is NOT code specific, but would have SOME increase in performance for Dual-processor systems. This would be important for the XGrid - shared computing as well.

Unfortunately it is impossible to thread an operation that isn't explictly threaded. The moment you allow code that ran on one processor to run on two you discover that there are many odd interactions that you never imagined would occur. Thus if you want to take advantage of dual processors, you must thread your application.

That said, the point is almost moot. For one, MacOS X automatically assigns processors to threads, thus if you have a dual processor system you can literally run two programs at the same time (if you only have one processor it just looks like they do). As such, you automaticallly get a performance increase on a DP system vs a SP system, by nature of the program that is doing brute work can run that work entirely on one processor (more or less) while the rest of the OS and running apps take the other processor. What is unfortunate is that this situation doesn't typically lead to dramatic performance increases :(.

I could go on for quite a while about the threading system of MacOS X, but that would probably bore most of you to death =).

3. iLife included -- not that great of a feature, but it would be nice... including the new Safari (although that is a given, right?)

Apple has traditionally included the iApps with OS updates, and will likely do so again with 10.3. The only reason that iLife costs $49 at the store is because iDVD takes up an entire CD in itself. And anyway, you can already download the rest of the iApps from Apple's website =).

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by Foocha
I wonder whether a new file system will simplify or complicate. We already have plenty of metadata going around in OS X - file type, creator code, resource fork, file extension... Trouble is that whilst Apple whats to drop some, like the resource fork, application developers are unwilling to give it up.

A new file system may represent a next generation alternative to the old-Mac conventions like resource forks and creator codes which will finally encourage developers to give the old standards up, however, for a long time we'll just have even more confusion!

I wonder if they'll be able to get Classic to run on the new FS?!

With the lack of Mac OS 9.x, there's no reason to hang on to resource forks. Everything can be stored in Nibs instead. If XFS follows BFS, everything will be available that a Mac OS X Carbon, Cocoa, Java, or scripting application could want.

A Virtual File System should allow applications to see what they want to see by allowing them to access child file systems through a standardised Application Programming Interface.

I'm sure that HFS+ will be there for the next couple of years to keep the Classic environment alive but don't expect that to live forever. Perhaps, the Mac-on-Linux application can be ported to serve until Quark can finish XPress. :D

[wescbrown]

Originally posted by faisal
How exciting! Let's see, the performance boost between 10.1 and 10.2 was... hrm... nothing I could discern. Unless you cound Quartz Extreme, which entailed buying new hardware and isn't particularly useful anyway. I can't wait! Except I'll have to wait, just like I do today. Wait for apps to load. Wait for anything to run. Wait for Avi to read the white book. At least OS X finally feels faster than NeXTStEP [sic] on a 25 Mhz '040 with 8 megs of RAM mounting virtually everything over AFS (once we got it working, feh).

when I upgraded to 10.2 from 10.1 i found my system slowed down tremendously. I figured I'd do a clean install and get rid of classic, as i don't use it. the clean install of 10.2 was tremendously faster than the upgrade and faster than 10.1 - may be something to consider trying

[boobers]

Originally posted by wescbrown
when I upgraded to 10.2 from 10.1 i found my system slowed down tremendously. I figured I'd do a clean install and get rid of classic, as i don't use it. the clean install of 10.2 was tremendously faster than the upgrade and faster than 10.1 - may be something to consider trying
Yup same here.

All the smartypants come out to post on these 32bit-64bit threads, boobers shuts up and reads...

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by reyesmac
If they can pull serious performance increases on the G3 and G4, it will be worth the price they sell it at. If they are only saying it will be much faster on the G5 and quartz extreme machines, then that would stink. Hope they start making black machines now that they will be running Panther.

WWDC 03. Steve Jobs makes appearance with a "black box" minitower. Reminiscent of many PC's. Inside is QUAD 970's and internal RAID. It has dual Ethernet 10k and dual FW 800 and dual FO. It is $5999 enterprise retail.

It is 64 bit. Steve is wearing a WHITE turtleneck. He introduces the CTO of IBM to chat about the new chips. He introduces the CTO of Oracle to query and sort a 1 billion record database.

It then uploads (using rondevoux and all channels simeltaneously) the Digital Theatrical release of Monsters, Inc to a RAID.

Rocketman

Earth to Steve, come in please . . .

[GPTurismo]

I would love to have a PPC970 machine with BFS and a 64 bit version of Mac OS X.

I possibly think it would be one cd, and when you install it, it determined how to compile it, either for the 64 bit PPC970 or the 32 Bit G3 and G4, making it either 64 bit and 32 bit.

:D

My only worry is how classic will run under BFS :S Since so many apps rely on HFS/HFS+

[yumpin yiminy]

other than speedier more efficient search capabilities, for the user and for various apps, and the embedded metadata are there other benefits from Journalling FS which allow for advancing software for an OS? Or will this just allow for existing software to be improved?
I'm thinking what killer apps could result from this, in general, of course?
And I ask cuz what the mac always needs is more great software

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
My only worry is how classic will run under BFS :S Since so many apps rely on HFS/HFS+I expect Apple would have to support the HFS/HFS+ API under classic even if they have to emulate it. Is there any other reasonable choice?

If I'm right, classic apps won't know anything has changed. So your only worry would be whether Apple's implementation/emulation turns out to be foolproof or buggy.

[modyouup]

Scot Hacker, cool name. :)

[rDLr]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Wow, really? You didn't see any performance difference?

My B/W G3 400 without the Quartz Extreme hack went from the speed of a lurching bumbling drunk to that of slow walk. It was a very noticeable 2fold or greater increase in overall system responsiveness and application load times.


There is a Quartz Extreme hack? Are you saying that this hack will enable Quartz Extreme on an unqualified system? I would love to try that out. Do you have any more info?

[Pale Fire]

1. MacOS 10.3 doesn't have to be 64-bit to run on a 970
2. MacOS 10.3 probably won't be 64-bit :).
3. You won't see confirmation of this until at least WWDC, and those who are in the know will be under NDA so they won't be able to tell you anyway.

I see this a lot, people stating that the 970 could work without a 64-bit OS. However, I believe that is wrong. I remember reading and interview when the 970 was announced that 32-bit instructions were supported by setting a top bit. It was further said that "this way only the operating system needs to be rewritten".

In other words. The 970 needs a 64-bit OS (and drivers?) but it will be able to run both 32 and 64 bit apps.

That's what I read anyway.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by yumpin yiminy
other than speedier more efficient search capabilities, for the user and for various apps, and the embedded metadata are there other benefits from Journalling FS which allow for advancing software for an OS? Or will this just allow for existing software to be improved?
I'm thinking what killer apps could result from this, in general, of course?
And I ask cuz what the mac always needs is more great software

A true journaling system would allow rollbacks. You've heard of the software Rewind? It allows you to capture an image of your system and then you may proceed to mess with your system and later, restore it from the image you saved. In a true journaling system, it would do this on the fly. Of course, this takes space and time to keep track of all the changes. You wouldn't want to keep track of anything but user data files and perhaps, preference files.

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by bousozoku
A true journaling system would allow rollbacks. You've heard of the software Rewind? It allows you to capture an image of your system and then you may proceed to mess with your system and later, restore it from the image you saved. In a true journaling system, it would do this on the fly. Of course, this takes space and time to keep track of all the changes. You wouldn't want to keep track of anything but user data files and perhaps, preference files.

Acually journaling systems have nothing to do with system rollbacks. They are a way of keeping changes that haven't been applied to the correct position in the hard disk in a seperate area until there is time or resources to apply it.
Say you have some big server and you start making changes to stuff, those changes aren't written back to their original location. Instead the changes are put into a log which the system keeps until it can update the originals. When an update is completed, the changes are written to the disk and the entry is removed from the journal log.
This allows for fast reboots in the case of a system crash. All that is done is that the log is replayed and any changes that haven't been comitted yet are and the disk is back to working order. Keeping a record of every change that happens is not a journaling file system and would require vast amount of space to keep track of all those changes. You can't go "back" in a journaling file system because there is nothing to go back to, when the change is commited, thats it, the entry in the log is removed and thats it. Even if the entry was kept in the log, it would not tell you the old information for rollbacks, only what the new changes were.

[nagromme]

Does this mean we will finally get Labels back in OS X? Sometimes they're vital, and they're always useful. When I hear metadata, I think labels.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Pale Fire
I see this a lot, people stating that the 970 could work without a 64-bit OS. However, I believe that is wrong.

In other words. The 970 needs a 64-bit OS (and drivers?) but it will be able to run both 32 and 64 bit apps.


The exact quote is this:
In addition to its support of new 64-bit solutions, the 970 retains full native support for 32-bit applications. This not only protects 32-bit software investments, but provides these 32-bit applications with the same high-performance levels that it extends to 64-bit uses. This native, nonemulated, 32-bit support is not limited to application code, which runs unmodified. 32-bit operating systems with minor updates can also take advantage of the PowerPC 970's outstanding performance.
From here: http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

In addition:
IBM made its way around this problem by adding a 32-bit native mode to the processor that essentially changes the PowerPC 970's instruction registers, allowing it to run as a 32-bit processor. Sandon stressed that this was not any sort of emulation.

"All 32-bit applications can run as is on the 970," Sandon said. "Changes are needed to make a 32-bit OS run on the 970, but the list of changes is small."

Sandon said that IBM has a 64-bit version and a 32-bit version of Linux running on the PowerPC 970 in the lab.
From here:http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php

There is also the presentation that IBM shows the world when they unvieled the PowerPC 970. You can download it here: http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/download.php/23/IBM_PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

All this and more points to the fact that Apple doesn't have to build MacOS X as a 64-bit platform to use the PowerPC 970. And as such, it tells me that Apple will probably not release 64-bit enhancements for MacOS X until PowerPC 970 based Macintoshes are available to the public. And even if Apple does release 970 based PowerMacs this summer, that is too late for an OS that is supposed to ship by the end of September.

Now, if Apple releases 970 hardware at WWDC and announced that 10.3 won't be available until December, then we might have a different picture, but I find that highly unlikely.

[GeneR]

I just don't know much about Be's OS. Is the addition of Be's system a good thing? I don't know.

:D

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by rDLr
There is a Quartz Extreme hack? Are you saying that this hack will enable Quartz Extreme on an unqualified system? I would love to try that out. Do you have any more info?

You have to have a ATI Radeon graphics card or better. At least that was the last specs I remember.

Here is the link to a GUI for the hack PCI Exteme (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16006).

[faisal]

Originally posted by beatle888
WHAT:eek: oh man. you should try to add statements like "in my opinion" to posts like that. its absolutely false. unless you dont care about being factual.

have you ever used photoshop? screen redraw in photoshop is increased DRAMATICALY with quartz extreme. before when you bought a 3D graphics card, it woudnt even help photoshop at all (from my experience). but now with quartz extreme...i can scroll around large photoshop files with ease.


Photoshop, iMovie, and a bunch of other things. QE helps in a number of specific cases but doesn't help in the general case. Even on the specific cases I found more benefit from going to a faster processor than from going to QE.

As to the "in my opinion" that would be the "that I could discern". I had a 400 Mhz G4 desktop and a 500 Mhz iBook. 896 and 640 MB of RAM, respectively. The iBook felt no faster, the G4 maybe a little faster. The only thing I definitely noticed was fewer SBODs ("spinning beachball of doom" - the 30 second sit-and-wait cycles you'd see on 10.1 fairly frequently). I have since upgraded the G4 to 800 Mhz, and its video to a GeForce 4 MX.

Don't get me wrong - I like Jaguar, I prefer it to 10.1, but I didn't find speed to be one of its benefits. OS X needs at least another leap on the level of 10.0 -> 10.1 to get in the range of 9.x speed. My 550 Mhz Pentium at work is generally more responsive than the 1 Ghz G4s I've played with.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by faisal
My 550 Mhz Pentium at work is generally more responsive than the 1 Ghz G4s I've played with.

This statement is unfounded to say the least. i have a GHz Tibook, and it SCREAMS by comparison to my 933 MHz P3 running XP, even with most of the eye candy turned off (on the P3). what are you running on your P3? windows 95? that's not a valid comparison, unless you turn off the eye candy in OS X till it's dumbed down to the level of an 8 (or 5 if you have 98) year old OS, which you would have to do with haxies. OS X will probably never be as fast as OS 9 on the same machine. why? it does more, graphically! that's one reason i really like it. if you don't approve of that, OS X is not the OS for you, and i don't know why you'd be a mac user at all :p, as they tend to care about such things.

i think one thing that makes QE worth it, though, is that it alleviates your CPU--it's not really suppposed to speed things up per se, but it is most definitely intended to alleviate CPU cycles so they can do "real" work. i notice a huge difference when i turn quartz extreme on and off on my mac--not so much in interface speed (except when i start like an itunes visualization, then you REALLY see a difference), but in CPU usage while dragging/resizing a window or what have you. it's still "in your opinion," methinks.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by Hawthorne

2. Is it just me, or do OS X upgrades bring better performance to existing machines, while upgrades to Windows mean upgrading your machine to wade through the resulting bloatware? Think different, indeed... :)

Hmmm....good point. I've noticed some improvement from 10.0 to 10.1 and a slight speed increase with 10.2, but I won't hear anyone say: "Well, OS 9 has been running a little slow on my 604, so I'm going to upgrade to OS X." The OS X point releases have been speed improvements, but it still seems sluggish in comparison to OS 9, probably because of the graphics.

[jmonteiro]

Originally posted by jettredmont
1) Windows has had a journaling file system for years (since NTFS came out ... 1992?)



Are you on crack? NTFS is not a journaling file system.

[ColdZero]

The new FS in longhorn is also not Journaling, its a databased system. It was supposed to be in XP but because of the complexity of coding it, it was pushed into longhorn.

[locovaca]

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/J/journaled_file_system.html

A file system in which the hard disk maintains data integrity in the event of a system crash or if the system is otherwise halted abnormally. The journaled file system (JFS) maintains a log, or journal, of what activity has taken place in the main data areas of the disk; if a crash occurs, any lost data can be recreated because updates to the metadata in directories and bit maps have been written to a serial log. The JFS not only returns the data to the pre-crash configuration but also recovers unsaved data and stores it in the location it would have been stored in if the system had not been unexpectedly interrupted.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/N/NTFS.html

Short for NT File System, one of the file system for the Windows NT operating system (Windows NT also supports the FAT file system). NTFS has features to improve reliability, such as transaction logs to help recover from disk failures. To control access to files, you can set permissions for directories and/or individual files. NTFS files are not accessible from other operating systems such as DOS.

[bigizzy]

Hope you have forwarded your suggestions to apple. I went through your site and the suggestions look very good.

Originally posted by backdraft
Hopefully it will be a huge improvement. Though, doesn't Unix have a database?

Just go to the terminal and type 'man locate', last time I checked the locate command uses a database to search for files, I wonder if the find command uses the located database.

As for journaling, (correct me if I'm wrong) its not a database. All journaling does is sort of like autosave but for the entire hard drive, that's why its slower the files contents(or last actions taken) are continually being written into a log file, so in case of a power outage the OS reads the log file and repeats the last actions/processes.

I really like how Apple is combining the best of both worlds Unix and Beos. OS X is going to be one hell of an OS. The only thing that it needs is work on the GUI here's some ideas: http://www.geocities.com/juan_m007

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by jmonteiro
Are you on crack? NTFS is not a journaling file system.

Depends on which definition of "journaling" you take. NTFS journals file table modifications, which is, last I heard, as much as HFS+/Journaling does. Correct, it does not journal specific file content modifications, but I believe HFS+ doesn't do this either (someone with a bit more specific knowledge on Jaguar's joournaling can correct me her).

In other words, if NTFS is not a journaling file system by your standards, then it is likely that HFS+ has no journalling option by the same standards. "ext3" is a more pure although not in the strictest sense "fully journaling" file system. Note of course that a proper academic will always find a way that a real world implementation doesn't fit some arbitrary academic definition, and so the fact that none of the available JFS's is "perfect" is really inconsequential.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.asp

Discussion of NTFS JFS problems (vs ext3):
http://www.zepa.net/hypermail/elug/2001/01/0136.html

Description of journaling and consumer implementations of JFS:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_filesystem

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Depends on which definition of "journaling" you take. NTFS journals file table modifications, which is, last I heard, as much as HFS+/Journaling does. Correct, it does not journal specific file content modifications, but I believe HFS+ doesn't do this either (someone with a bit more specific knowledge on Jaguar's joournaling can correct me her).

In other words, if NTFS is not a journaling file system by your standards, then it is likely that HFS+ has no journalling option by the same standards. "ext3" is a more pure although not in the strictest sense "fully journaling" file system. Note of course that a proper academic will always find a way that a real world implementation doesn't fit some arbitrary academic definition, and so the fact that none of the available JFS's is "perfect" is really inconsequential.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.asp

Discussion of NTFS JFS problems (vs ext3):
http://www.zepa.net/hypermail/elug/2001/01/0136.html

Description of journaling and consumer implementations of JFS:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_filesystem

The HFS+ journaling add-on only logs changes to the directory structure. It does not track file changes.

NTFS, which is merely IBM's HPFS, has very light journaling available/enabled, but often requires a disk-checking utility to fix things. It is restricted by what IBM deemed performance problems, though Microsoft has gone further to "enhance" performance.

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by GeneR
I just don't know much about Be's OS. Is the addition of Be's system a good thing? I don't know.

:D

Oh yes yes yes. Be is such a good thing.

I really would love to know how Be runs so well. I have an old Dell Celeron 500 in my office runing BeOS 4.5 on it.

I can't describe how fluidly and beautifully the box runs digital media. Videos flow like water. They are fluid and smooth. When you watch a video clip, and begin to drag the clip around on the screen, it is unlike any other OS I have ever used. There is no break between the video and the window as it moves. There is no stutter in the video as it moves. It is a solid object of flowing video sliding smoothly across a background. This is with a 4MB STB video card built onto the motherboard. Quartz Extreme produces a result something like this, but not as smooth. Sad huh? There are things wrong in Mac OS X. Very low level things that make powerful processors (compared to the Celeron 500 in the Dell anyway) drag and choke. The more of Be Apple recycles the better.

If you get a shot, go use a machine running BeOS. Buy a copy of the intel version (4.5) on eBay so you can get even more angry at the total waste Microsoft has made of the intel hardware platform. Intel CPUs are really nice to work with if the right OS is in charge.

I have NeXTStep 3.3 for Intel on the same box, and I can flat out say that NeXTStep didn't and doesn't multi-task as well as BeOS. I haven't used it, but I am guessing that OPENSTEP 4 didn't match Be either. Mac OS X doesn't even come close. Windows has never been fluid or smooth in any incarnation.

[bousozoku]

BeOS v.4.5 on Macintosh hardware was even more appealing. It showed how 15 years of piling it on to get to Mac OS 8.x worked against the latest machines of that time.

What's more, it was like seeing the Commodore Amiga for the very first time--astonishing! :)

[jmonteiro]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Depends on which definition of "journaling" you take. NTFS journals file table modifications, which is, last I heard, as much as HFS+/Journaling does. Correct, it does not journal specific file content modifications, but I believe HFS+ doesn't do this either (someone with a bit more specific knowledge on Jaguar's joournaling can correct me her).

In other words, if NTFS is not a journaling file system by your standards, then it is likely that HFS+ has no journalling option by the same standards. "ext3" is a more pure although not in the strictest sense "fully journaling" file system. Note of course that a proper academic will always find a way that a real world implementation doesn't fit some arbitrary academic definition, and so the fact that none of the available JFS's is "perfect" is really inconsequential.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.asp

Discussion of NTFS JFS problems (vs ext3):
http://www.zepa.net/hypermail/elug/2001/01/0136.html

Description of journaling and consumer implementations of JFS:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_filesystem

NTFS is not full-flegde journaling as you said but HFS+/Journaling is. But I guess you are right... NTFS can be considered a journaling FS. The problem is that it never works. I've had my NT partitions go broke a few times and I think is because NTFS tries to rollback the uncommited transactions instead of forward play to a consistent state...

Here is an article where HFS+ is presented as being better (more features) than NTFS
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,634711,00.asp

[abdul]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
MacBidouille? I'd love to know how a french based Mac rumors site get's it's info...

The answer is easy. Speculation....


mate, ur on a rumour site, this is all speculation......duh!! doesnt matter if they are french or rednecks!!

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by abdul
mate, ur on a rumour site, this is all speculation......duh!! doesnt matter if they are french or rednecks!!

Hey they were the ones who had the pre-release photos of the DDR Powermacs that everyone said was fake or would never go into production.

[Wry Cooter]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy


One thing I've been wondering - Has Apple thought of reducing the dock down to a single icon on the desktop? One Click and it would open? Just a thought, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.

I sure wouldn't want it. For instance, it would make a drag and drop operation one of blooming nested folders. That is so OS 9.

I like the dock. It stays hidden until I need it, and I no longer have to keep the desktop littered with aliases of frequently used applications.

If only they could make the default for window placement be offset so that the dock (I wear mine on the left side) would not pop up when reaching for the candy buttons.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I sure wouldn't want it. For instance, it would make a drag and drop operation one of blooming nested folders. That is so OS 9.

I like the dock. It stays hidden until I need it, and I no longer have to keep the desktop littered with aliases of frequently used applications.

If only they could make the default for window placement be offset so that the dock (I wear mine on the left side) would not pop up when reaching for the candy buttons.

Just be sure your windows are aways offset a couple pixels. That's what I do. Your windows will always reopen where you put them last.

[john123]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
OS X will probably never be as fast as OS 9 on the same machine. why? it does more, graphically! that's one reason i really like it. if you don't approve of that, OS X is not the OS for you, and i don't know why you'd be a mac user at all :p, as they tend to care about such things.


This is bull. I have been an Apple user for a decade and a half, and I can't stand OS X. I do *NOT* approve of crippling the OS for eye candy that really makes things HARDER to read, like smoothed fonts. It's a pity that Apple won't even include the option to turn things off, especially when they entail a performance hit on machines that, processor-wise, are already quite slow to begin with.

[nuckinfutz]

john123-

Actually I think OSX will eventually be as fast if not faster with Gui functions but it will probably a year or two. Every OS has a Window Server and OSX's Server throughputs an ungodly amount of data compared to OS9 and even Windows.

I agree with this approach because eventually the Hardware will catch up and Apple's approach leads to stable window drawing because each window is buffered.

Anti Aliasing. It does seem to be a preference. I'd like to see Apple make it optional as well.

OSX has alot of components of the architecture that will consistently get better. I look forward to it.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by john123
This is bull. I have been an Apple user for a decade and a half, and I can't stand OS X. I do *NOT* approve of crippling the OS for eye candy that really makes things HARDER to read, like smoothed fonts. It's a pity that Apple won't even include the option to turn things off, especially when they entail a performance hit on machines that, processor-wise, are already quite slow to begin with.

It's not bull. i don't think it matters what you approve of, apple didn't write OS X for 200 MHz G3s. it's designed to make people NEED to upgrade. i'm sorry they don't let you turn off the eye candy like MICROSOFT does, but they don't have the market share not to make you feel like you need to upgrade. i'll say there's a 99% chance that's why they don't.

if you want to blow the eye candy, it's not hard for a resourceful person to do. you just need shadowkiller, or another 3rd party app that kills shadows and antialiasing and so on. check out versiontracker.com

[john123]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
It's not bull. i don't think it matters what you approve of, apple didn't write OS X for 200 MHz G3s. it's designed to make people NEED to upgrade. i'm sorry they don't let you turn off the eye candy like MICROSOFT does, but they don't have the market share not to make you feel like you need to upgrade. i'll say there's a 99% chance that's why they don't.

if you want to blow the eye candy, it's not hard for a resourceful person to do. you just need shadowkiller, or another 3rd party app that kills shadows and antialiasing and so on. check out versiontracker.com

First of all, I have a 1Ghz PowerBook G4.

I've tried the third-party hacks -- like Silk and so forth. They all have pretty fundamental compatibility issues precisely because they are system add-ons as opposed to system integrated. I am so much more productive in OS 9 -- and so much happier with the expanded real estate -- and I don't see that changing until PowerBooks become much faster or the OS becomes significantly more optimized -- or both.

[Flynnstone]

This thread is getting off topic!

I thought this thread was about what's in 10.3 Panther:confused:

So ... what is in Panther ?

[john123]

Originally posted by Flynnstone
This thread is getting off topic!

I thought this thread was about what's in 10.3 Panther:confused:

So ... what is in Panther ?

Let's hope it has a little Preference Pane called Appearance that includes a checkbox for "OS 9 Mode" -- that makes the OS look exactly like it did in OS 9!

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by john123
Let's hope it has a little Preference Pane called Appearance that includes a checkbox for "OS 9 Mode" -- that makes the OS look exactly like it did in OS 9!

Ugh! Perish the thought! Although I will let you have your built in Shadow Killer and 'Turn off all useless animation' checkboxes, although I know I'll never use them :D

[MacBandit]

While the system GUI may be slower I find that many underlying applications tasks are faster in OSX thanks to better memory handling, better threading, etc, etc..

[john123]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Ugh! Perish the thought! Although I will let you have your built in Shadow Killer and 'Turn off all useless animation' checkboxes, although I know I'll never use them :D

Give me a "turn off all antialiasing" as well and you've got a deal. :D

[MacBandit]

Hmm, I love AntiAliasing though I am using a CRT still. Imagine that.

[john123]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Hmm, I love AntiAliasing though I am using a CRT still. Imagine that.

It's better on a CRT than it is on an LCD - particularly low-resolution LCDs like the PowerBooks. On a CRT, there will always be some natural "blur" to the fonts, no matter how low the resolution is set, because that is inherent to the technology. With LCDs, you get some funny looking pixels when you have antialiasing on. For example, take a look at the lowercase "L" in the words in the menubar on a PowerBook. On the right side of the letter, you'll notice a band of reddish pixels. If the resolution on the displays were higher, this wouldn't be a problem as the overall proportion of "weird colored" pixels (such as grays) to black pixels would be dramatically reduced.

[mum]

But still, ever since OS X and all that anti-aliasing going on (CRT or LCD), I stopped having headaches after long days (I work in print graphics and design & make music in the nights, so sometimes it's 16 hours in front of the screen.)

I believe this is because the word shapes in anti-aliased text more closely resemble those of printed text, and when reading, the word shapes really are what matter.

[Flynnstone]

Anti-Aliasing
I not sure how to be objective on this, I suppose there is a metric somewhere.
But subjectively, I have a Linux box beside my Power Mac. The Linux box doesn't have anti-aliasing fonts. If I bring up the same pdf file on both machines, they look different.
Quite frankly viewing on the Linux box sucks (considerably) compared to the Mac ! I think the Mac viewing of the pdf is better than on a PC as well.
OS X has a more real (?) look.

By the way what new feature/improvements are rumored for Panther ?

[john123]

Originally posted by mum
But still, ever since OS X and all that anti-aliasing going on (CRT or LCD), I stopped having headaches after long days (I work in print graphics and design & make music in the nights, so sometimes it's 16 hours in front of the screen.)

I believe this is because the word shapes in anti-aliased text more closely resemble those of printed text, and when reading, the word shapes really are what matter.

Hmm, I'm exactly the opposite. I spend that kind of time in front of my screen too unfortunately it works the other way for me!

[eric_n_dfw]

Quartz Hyper-Extreme:
All screen elements get OpenGL hardware acceleration - not just the window compositing. Each letter, icon and widget becomes an OpenGL native "thing". Then text anti-aliasing can be done by the GPU, further off-loading the CPU's duties. Window scrolling and resizing becomes smooth as silk too.

Whaddya think? Possible? Probable?

[JJTiger1]

Okay, let's summarize:
Panther is supposed to be 64 bit.
-
Panther is supposed to be as fast as OS 9.2.2 on the same machine, rather than sluggish like Jaguar and it's predecessors.
-
Panther will run only on the QuickSilvers and newer because of a bus speed requirement.
-
The new IBM chip IS the G5.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by JJTiger1
Panther is supposed to be as fast as OS 9.2.2 on the same machine, rather than sluggish like Jaguar and it's predecessors.
-
Panther will run only on the QuickSilvers and newer because of a bus speed requirement.


Where did you come up with these rumors? I have'nt heard these before.

I've heard it's suppose to be faster then 10.2 on a factor of the smae amount as 10.2 was to 10.1.

Bus speed requierment? That doesn't make any since Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot.

[bellybutton]

Originally posted by john123
It's better on a CRT than it is on an LCD - particularly low-resolution LCDs like the PowerBooks. On a CRT, there will always be some natural "blur" to the fonts, no matter how low the resolution is set, because that is inherent to the technology. With LCDs, you get some funny looking pixels when you have antialiasing on. For example, take a look at the lowercase "L" in the words in the menubar on a PowerBook. On the right side of the letter, you'll notice a band of reddish pixels.

The red pixels you talk about, are the result of something called "sub pixel antialiasing" which uses not only complete pixels for "blurring" the fonts but it uses even the red, green and blue sub-pixels of a LCD monitor. With this some diagonal lines would look a little bit smoother but you also could see some colored pixels around a black font. As some others, i don't like this feature. To prevent this coloured pixels, you should go to the system preferences, then choos the general settings an there you could set the type of antialiasing (standard, low, normal (LCD) and high) (the names may vary, because i'm from germany and i don't know the exact english names). If you set the antialiasinig to standard (CRT) the text would be surrounded only by grey pixels and it would look as nice as on a tube monitor. This is my default setting an i like it. I think also, that it would look MUCH better than the non antialiased text in OS 9, but this is only my opinion.

bellybutton:)

[beatle888]

bellybutton?:)

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Quartz Hyper-Extreme:
All screen elements get OpenGL hardware acceleration - not just the window compositing. Each letter, icon and widget becomes an OpenGL native "thing". Then text anti-aliasing can be done by the GPU, further off-loading the CPU's duties. Window scrolling and resizing becomes smooth as silk too.

Whaddya think? Possible? Probable?

Other than the part about Window scrolling and resizing, it's unlikely.

Letters, icons, and widgets are 2 dimensional and would have too much overhead to efficiently use them in OpenGL. QE works because the windows are actually layered on top of each other.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by bousozoku
Other than the part about Window scrolling and resizing, it's unlikely.

Letters, icons, and widgets are 2 dimensional and would have too much overhead to efficiently use them in OpenGL. QE works because the windows are actually layered on top of each other.

but if they did it inefficiently, it would still save proc. time, don't you think, as more would now be on the GPU?

it's possible, methinks--maybe not all of it, but some. they wouldn't call it that though, it should be Quartz überExtreme, lol. then it's like QÜE!

[Windowlicker]

The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..

But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool :)

[Windowlicker]

The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..

But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool :)

[cc bcc]

Apple should hire ID software and let John Carmack build a bad ass Quartz Beyond Extreme!

:D

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by Windowlicker
The thing I need most is to be able to have multiple users on simultaneously. This is available in XP (correct me if I'm wrong), why not X? I find it quite disturbing to stop every process just when someone wants to check his/her email..

But then of course speed improvement and all the stuff Apple's used to come up with would ?and will? be cool :)

Yes it is. It's one of the few features I actually like about XP. You have to have plenty of RAM though.

[Windowlicker]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Yes it is. It's one of the few features I actually like about XP. You have to have plenty of RAM though.

I guess 640MB would do fine??

[Fukui]

Other than the part about Window scrolling and resizing, it's unlikely.

Letters, icons, and widgets are 2 dimensional and would have too much overhead to efficiently use them in OpenGL. QE works because the windows are actually layered on top of each other
True, but maybe not if its being rendered using the 3-D pipeline...with everything being rendered as a texture mapped to a polygon like on standard 3-d games, it could be really fast, but I still dont know about text though...some pages have thousands of characters, when resizing a window it might be just as slow.

But maybe on a ATI 9700 w/128 MB or 9800 who knows...I'm stuck on a low-end 2MX.

[d46799]

Journaling Schmournaling. What we need is more bits. Why stop at 64 bits? Why not 65 or 66? I want a 68 bit operating system...I'll even pay $132 for it.

[Phazer80s]

Originally posted by cc bcc
Apple should hire ID software and let John Carmack build a bad ass Quartz Beyond Extreme!

:D

Darn right! Why does it seem that game programmers (esp. talented people like Carmack) know how to crank out stunning effects and speed from a computer when those who write the operating system settle for less than (apparently) optimal performance.

Yeah, yeah, Apple has many other priorities to address beneath OS X's surface than with the GUI. What I'm wondering though, is if games connect with the hardware on a lower level than say, the Finder. Would this allow games to shine despite the graphical shortcomings of the OS?

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by d46799
Why stop at 64 bits? Why not 65 or 66? I want a 68 bit operating system.Computers didn't always have word sizes that were powers of two, but you don't find those models around much anymore.

Anyway, why limit yourselves to integers? If a 64-bit computer wouldn't be powerful enough and a 65-bit computer would cost a little too much, simply buy a 64.5-bit computer. ;)

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Phazer80s
Darn right! Why does it seem that game programmers (esp. talented people like Carmack) know how to crank out stunning effects and speed from a computer when those who write the operating system settle for less than (apparently) optimal performance.

Yeah, yeah, Apple has many other priorities to address beneath OS X's surface than with the GUI. What I'm wondering though, is if games connect with the hardware on a lower level than say, the Finder. Would this allow games to shine despite the graphical shortcomings of the OS?

Your comparing Apples to Oranges. When your playing Quake the developer isn't trying to conserve CPU cycles - they will burn every cycle they have to create those images. If the Finder burned 100% of the system to give you incredible graphics effects you'd be yelling at Apple left right and center because the rest of your system has slowed to a crawl.

And technically, games do typically connect with the graphics system at a lower level, but this is generally because their graphics needs are "simpler" than that of the Finder (or any other application that interacts with the user via the standard GUI). I say the needs of a game are simpler because they generally have only a two requirements: 1) The ability to specify graphics and 2) the ability to draw graphics. Your typical GUI app also has to be concerned with looking like the other apps on your system, and thus need much higher level graphics operations.

[nagromme]

I think the OS is dealing with much higher resolution images than games, too. Compare a complete OS X window to a 256x256 texture tile.

And games cut corners to look "pretty good" while running at top speed. An OS has to look perfect. Games are full of artifacts, while the OS X GUI is not. Examples: pieces of things getting blurred or jagged, passing through each other, flickering, getting an odd texture, etc. Things you wouldn't care about if they happen from time to time in some minor visual details of a game--but which would be intolerable anywhere in a UI.

Also: regarding coloration along text when antialiased on LCD: just choose Best for CRT and that goes away. It's subpixel AA, and looks great on most LCDs, but if it doesn't on yours, Best for CRT does NOT have that effect. All the other smoothing settings do. But they also provide triple the resolution--each pixel divided into three subpixels--which is the trade-off. This makes diagonals much sharper than normal AA.

Try this: turn on Best for Flat Panel and switch your display back and forth between Millions and Thousands. Look at the V in the View menu to see the difference: subpixel AA only appears in Millions. And you can't test just by changing the smoothing settings--they only FULLY take effect if you log out and back in.

There's another kind of AA, too: the kind in OS 9 where vertical and horizontal strokes "snapped" to the nearest pixel and would bever blur--but curves and diagonals were still smoothed. This distorts the details of a typeface a bit, bit it's VERY nice on the eyes: smooth AND sharp. Compare text in SimpleText to text in TextEdit and see for yourself. I with OS X still had this "snapped" AA, at least for the UI itself.

[JJTiger1]

Whatever has happened to the Panther Details Rumors?:confused:
-
Is there supposed to be a substantial difference with the new OS's display drivers, as compared to 10.2.4?
-
... or has this discussion gone where no thread has gone before?:rolleyes:

[Phazer80s]

Thanks for the replies Rincewind42 and nagromme.

While I yearn for an OS 9-style snap to OS X's interface (my single biggest complaint with OS X) I do realize there's a lot of business going on just to produce its AA text, alpha blending, scaling effects, etc. Perhaps it's time for a new megabucks Mac. Or somehting else...

I'm typing this in OS 9 for a change (had to use Photoshop 7, and can't stand the UI delays in OS X.) The speed is great, but the OS sure lacks some of the modern niceties of OS X.

So here's another question: can we reasonably expect Apple to optimize Panther to squeeze out better OS X performance on current hardware?

This system (a G4 733 with a GForceMX2 and a gig of RAM) is all Quartz Extreme-compliant and full of RAM and still misses mouse clicks, stutters with scrolling and resizing, etc. in Jaguar. I'm sure the next gen. processor, 970 or whatever, will handle OS X just fine, but will current G4 users be left in the ditch like G3 owners seem to be with OS X?:

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Phazer80s
Thanks for the replies Rincewind42 and nagromme.

While I yearn for an OS 9-style snap to OS X's interface (my single biggest complaint with OS X) I do realize there's a lot of business going on just to produce its AA text, alpha blending, scaling effects, etc. Perhaps it's time for a new megabucks Mac. Or somehting else...

I'm typing this in OS 9 for a change (had to use Photoshop 7, and can't stand the UI delays in OS X.) The speed is great, but the OS sure lacks some of the modern niceties of OS X.

So here's another question: can we reasonably expect Apple to optimize Panther to squeeze out better OS X performance on current hardware?

This system (a G4 733 with a GForceMX2 and a gig of RAM) is all Quartz Extreme-compliant and full of RAM and still misses mouse clicks, stutters with scrolling and resizing, etc. in Jaguar. I'm sure the next gen. processor, 970 or whatever, will handle OS X just fine, but will current G4 users be left in the ditch like G3 owners seem to be with OS X?:


Upgrade your graphics card and you will see a huge boost.

[blueflame]

i want apple toget rid of classic, i am sick of having 9 lagging around, why dont they just get rid of it entirely and completely have people focus on X.x 9 is outdated as far as OSs go anyway, stop tyring to keep the dead dog alive

[Phazer80s]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Upgrade your graphics card and you will see a huge boost.

That's reassuring. Any suggestions for those of us in the same single-processor boat? Will a 64-meg card be enough to noticably bring back the snap?

And to blueflame, I second your emotion. :)

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Phazer80s
That's reassuring. Any suggestions for those of us in the same single-processor boat? Will a 64-meg card be enough to noticably bring back the snap?

And to blueflame, I second your emotion. :)

If you just want snap get a Radeon 9000. If you want to ensure that you're video card isn't the bottleneck then get an Nvidia Geforce 4Ti.

[huzur]

Mind if I ask about some details on journaling, never herd of it.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by huzur
Mind if I ask about some details on journaling, never herd of it.

check this (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2002111200220086) out.

[huzur]

thanx

[john123]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Upgrade your graphics card and you will see a huge boost.


I have a Mobility Radeon 9000....still can't stand the slowness of OS X compared to OS 9....9 was faster on my old PowerBook 550 than X is on my PowerBook 1Ghz...

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by john123
I have a Mobility Radeon 9000....still can't stand the slowness of OS X compared to OS 9....9 was faster on my old PowerBook 550 than X is on my PowerBook 1Ghz...

The GUI is slower but the system is faster. This will continue to be the case until they cut more of the fat. From what I have read there is a lot of fat cutting still to be done. Maybe a year or more left in developement just to get things optimized and down to fighting weight.