Panther: Multiple Graphical Logins?

[MacRumors]

MacOSRumors reports (http://www.macosrumors.com/) that the next major revision of Mac OS X may supply a frequently requested feature:

Panther, the new version of OS X that will be previewed at WWDC in June, may well be the first version of Apple's modern operating system that allows multiple simultaneous graphical user logins.


Presently, only one user may be logged into Mac OS X under a graphical user interface. This feature could be used in rumored "thin clients" such as the rumored Tablet Mac -- providing remote login and use.

[chibianh]

i hope it's true.. this is one of the very few features that XP had that i liked.

[maxterpiece]

The way I understand it, macosrumors isn't exactly the most trustworthy site. They seem to assume that a tablet is coming for sure though.
max

[Chef Ramen]

interesting, indeed

would such a thing put a big dent in performance though?

[jelloshotsrule]

sorry to be dumb. but what exactly does this allow someone to do? how would it be used? etc....

thanks

[Nermal]

I never used this feature in XP, and I always used to disable it. Now that I've switched, I definitely don't miss it, but a lot of friends have asked how they can log in without logging me out, so I suppose there is some demand for it.

[Nermal]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
sorry to be dumb. but what exactly does this allow someone to do? how would it be used? etc....

thanks

It lets multiple users all be logged into OS X at the same time, so person A can be using the system then leave to go do something, then person B comes along and logs in, runs their programs etc, then when they've finished they can log back out, and when person A comes back, everything will still be running as it was, like person B had never been there. Not a very good description but hopefully you can follow it!

[G4scott]

I would definately like it. It would keep my dad or brother from logging me out, and wiping out my work when I'm not using the computer. It'll also be much more safer if my roommate in college ever has to use my computer (which I'm hoping he never will have to...)

[Hepper]

The last line of the MacOSRumors article reads. "Panther is shaping up to be well worth the upgrade price."

What ever happened to one free, one pay.... I wonder if this is idle speculation or fact.

Adam

[Catfish_Man]

w00t! If this is true I can check one item off my top requests list.

[simX]

Originally posted by Hepper
The last line of the MacOSRumors article reads. "Panther is shaping up to be well worth the upgrade price."

What ever happened to one free, one pay.... I wonder if this is idle speculation or fact.

Adam

Whoever said that Apple would adopt a one free, one pay pricing scheme? 10.1 was only free because 10.0 was admittedly a beta quality product. 10.1 was a perfectly acceptable "1.0" product, which is why Jaguar was a pay-for upgrade, and why Panther will likely also be a paid upgrade.

[MacManiac1224]

I think it is a great idea, and it might get more business to adopt OS X.

[rainman::|:|]

I'm picturing Apple making cheaper thin machines stripped of a HD and most features... Could be a simple little unit. Have them be powered by an xserve... *drools*

if it was cross-platform, i could hook into the system at work! :)

pnw

[bousozoku]

This simply sounds like a XWindows feature where one machine serves graphical information back to the client as well as doing the majority of the computing. Remote terminals aren't all that unusual in the world of big machines. When you're using a computer at a bank or a hospital, it generally isn't doing the processing. It's only a terminal device, graphical or green screen.

[daytona63]

I think this would be a great idea for the Mac OS, I just hope that it doesn't suck away too many resources, like memory and such. If they can make it totally transparent, that would be awesome. However...

I'm by no means a troll, but...why don't I hear anything like "Apple's stealing that idea from Microsoft," like with other topics like piles? Granted, for all I know Microsoft didn't invent it, but I'm just saying...

I do think that Apple will make it better though, so while they may not have "invented" it, they'll innovate.

[DreaminDirector]

I guess this feature is pretty useless if I'm the only user. Sounds like a good idea though.

[daytona63]

Yeah bousozoku, that's what I thought it meant too at first.

[G4scott]

Whether or not panther is free or not, some of these features, I'd be willing to pay for.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by DreaminDirector
I guess this feature is pretty useless if I'm the only user. Sounds like a good idea though.

I agree, but I'll end up buying it anyway. :cool:

[wheezl]

From the sysadmin's point of view (that's me). This doesn't sound like something for average folks running session without someone else logging out. (though I bet you'll be able to use it that way) You take the addition of the rumored tablet and it sounds like a nifty way to run thin clients off of a few Xserve boxes. So rather than buy everyone in the customer service a $2000 PowerMac (or whatever) you get "low cost" station for each user. It's also generally a nicer quiet work environment (no fans) and easier to administer large groups of users in such situations. Apple would sure sell a hell of a lot more of those than a silly tablet you are supposed to use on your couch.

I *sure* hope it works out that way anyway :)

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by bousozoku
This simply sounds like a XWindows feature where one machine serves graphical information back to the client as well as doing the majority of the computing. Remote terminals aren't all that unusual in the world of big machines. When you're using a computer at a bank or a hospital, it generally isn't doing the processing. It's only a terminal device, graphical or green screen.

Of course it's the same thing, OS X is built on the UNIX standards for remote terminals. The majority of us just use it as a normal computer. Macs also support remote booting, and this is like a hybrid of the two. it would just be really nice if we could access the GUI as multiple users at once, just like the terminal... as people have mentioned above, it could also be used just like fat/thin clients...

pnw

[bwawn]

Originally posted by daytona63
I'm by no means a troll, but...why don't I hear anything like "Apple's stealing that idea from Microsoft," like with other topics like piles? Granted, for all I know Microsoft didn't invent it, but I'm just saying...

I do think that Apple will make it better though, so while they may not have "invented" it, they'll innovate.

Apple isn't stealing anything from Microsoft... that's why no one's saying it. This feature I'm sure has been implented elsewhere long ago, but I know for sure that is has been a feature of X-Windows (the "standard" graphical interface for UNIXes) since something like 1986 or 1987, well before Microsoft had a solidly-functioning GUI.

I know you meant your post as only an example, and Apple, you could say, is "stealing" the idea. This feature, though, is extremely handy and almost expected in modern OS's.

[timbloom]

One thing that I have always wished for was for me to be able to have dual sessions (even under the same account if willed) on two different screens on a dual-headed card, running independantly from one another. This way I would be able to make modifications as root on one screen and be a regular administrator on the other, or basically have 2 different machines if somebody else wanted to surf the web or type up something, while I was working on a project.

It may not be useful to everyone in that aspect, but it would to some users, and others could surely find their own ways to use it.

Of course, the OS would have to determine what mouse and keyboard goes to what session....

[wheezl]

Of course it's the same thing, OS X is built on the UNIX standards for remote terminals. The majority of us just use it as a normal computer. Macs also support remote booting, and this is like a hybrid of the two. it would just be really nice if we could access the GUI as multiple users at once, just like the terminal... as people have mentioned above, it could also be used just like fat/thin clients...



Well not *really* the same thing. And not actually related to remote booting in any way. And Aqua != X11 even though Apple's X11 integrates very nicely.

My guess is that this will be an Aqua Specific ARD based thing rather than any UNIX Standard or anything related to X11.

You are, in spirit, correct however.

[vniow]

This is cool, one of the features of XP I actually like, useful when doing remote desktop from my Mac and such..

Oh, and this is from MacOSrumors?

I haven't seen something from them on the front page since Page 2 was created, this must have some credibility behind it!http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=251718

[macktheknife]

This is a very useful feature if you share your computer with more than one person and would like to switch user profiles and access frequently without restarting. This is one of the features I liked on Windows XP.

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Of course it's the same thing, OS X is built on the UNIX standards for remote terminals. The majority of us just use it as a normal computer. Macs also support remote booting, and this is like a hybrid of the two. it would just be really nice if we could access the GUI as multiple users at once, just like the terminal... as people have mentioned above, it could also be used just like fat/thin clients...

pnw

Actually, I think, this rumor is somewhat misleading because MOSR makes some incorrect assumptions about remoting. I believe that this is more like the multiple *local* graphical logins per machine feature the XP has. This is implemented at the window-manager level, rather than as a client/server system, a la X. Multiple users can be logged on on a single keyboard/monitor unit (terminal) at the same time, so when you go watch some TV, you can "background" all your processes, let your roommate log in to check email, then come back later, log in, and have everything right where you left it, and it all has been sitting in memory the whole time. Also, you could leave complex calculations running in the background.

OSX can already act as a remote X server (or client, in the bizare X terminology) with apples X package or XonX. Apple may add remoting to the native OSX window manager as well, but I suspect this rumor isn't about that functionality. (And the industry trend seems to be remoting an entire desktop, rather than just individual windows. Besides, apple already has remote desktop, right? Why muddle the waters more?)

To be honest, I think that multiple local logins would be more useful to the larger market. Remoting isn't used much in practice outside the hardcore *nix world (or which I like to think I'm a part), and X already does that reasonable well.

At least, that's how *I* understand it. Could be wrong.

Cheers,
prat

[maxterpiece]

28 positives, zero negatives.... I'm tempted to do a negative just to be the first one... NAH, I won't.
This whole idea of little wireless stations all logged in at a main terminal simultaneously sounds nice, but realistically how well are these little tablets (or whatever they are) going to run? One of the major complaints i've heard about those MS tablets that get their info wirelessly from a base is that the display info bogs down coming through the wireless connection... it isn't fast enough to day anything remotely high FPS... video, is choppy and games that use serious 3d graphics are impossible. Games would not be necessary for these wireless tablets to be useful, but the ability to play some music, while at the same time type something and keep up a couple of other apps in the background would be necessary. I don't know if even Airport extreme is up to that.
BTW, does airport extreme's networking speed change at all depending on the number of users that connect and are sharing info with a base -- I mean like is the total bandwidth shared, or will all sharers get the total bandwidth no matter what ?

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by vniow
This is cool, one of the features of XP I actually like, useful when doing remote desktop from my Mac and such..

Oh, and this is from MacOSrumors?

I haven't seen something from them on the front page since Page 2 was created, this must have some credibility behind it!http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=251718

Crap, you're right. I hadn't noticed the source. Oh well, scratch that feature :( (unless, of course, mosr actually guessed right for once...)

[phrantic]

Originally posted by timbloom
One thing that I have always wished for was for me to be able to have dual sessions (even under the same account if willed) on two different screens on a dual-headed card, running independantly from one another. This way I would be able to make modifications as root on one screen and be a regular administrator on the other, or basically have 2 different machines if somebody else wanted to surf the web or type up something, while I was working on a project.

It may not be useful to everyone in that aspect, but it would to some users, and others could surely find their own ways to use it.

Of course, the OS would have to determine what mouse and keyboard goes to what session....

for this you ought to check out
http://www.userful.com

[shadowfax]

seems like a solid, easy guess. apple's certainly been criticized for not offering this yet; it would be a shame for them to go another release without incorporating the feature.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by wheezl
Well not *really* the same thing. And not actually related to remote booting in any way. And Aqua != X11 even though Apple's X11 integrates very nicely.

My guess is that this will be an Aqua Specific ARD based thing rather than any UNIX Standard or anything related to X11.

all true, i just meant that OS X uses the same text-based interface at it's most basic that UNIX does, and that you can give people access to your computer just like a UNIX computer or server... give people accounts and let them use your services. From there it's not a big jump to individual GUI interfaces... and from there it's another jump to giving remote individual GUI access... which would be especially handy in the case of completely dumb terminals, which would be great in the corporate world... which is kind of like remote booting :) see, isn't that simple?

i should go to bed... hehe...

pnw

[idkew]

Originally posted by chibianh
i hope it's true.. this is one of the very few features that XP had that i liked.

exactly

[inish]

Dear Macs and Macettes

This Is my first offical post as inish. Soon as i get the hang of this more replys will be made!

[iJon]

Originally posted by inish
Dear Macs and Macettes

This Is my first offical post as inish. Soon as i get the hang of this more replys will be made!
congrats nish, you need to get that powerbook so you can join us from a real computer,lol.

iJon

[porovaara]

DisplayPostscript, which OPENSTEP was, allowed for remote displaying of Apps via the -NXHost parameter to any GUI app (well asside from those that did direct video manipulation). Perhaps because of the way Quartz was written in the past it didn't make sense to do the same with DisplayPDF? Maybe now that there was a pretty major rewrite of some of the GUI routines internally, for ExtReeeeeeeMEEEEEeeee, the other code to enable such a thing was fixed. (I say fixed because it should have been there from the start)

Enabling multiple users to share the GUI would mean that all those programs left open would still need to be able to update a virtual framebuffer somewhere, so thats going to cost ram on something. On the plus side there would be no good reason why you couldn't easily have multiple virtual desktops at arbitrary resolutions.

My only concern is that they figure out a way or at least establish a standard for stupid programs that always launch themselves upon every user's login to the machine. This can be quite annoying on XP boxes with print manager software when they cheerfully tell you via a series of popups that 1293182983 print programs are already running.

[Brandon Sharitt]

With Apple trying to move into the corporate market this makes sense. Really big companies don't always put a desktop computer on every workers desk, just a thin client connected to a server. Althoughfor something like this Apple may need a quad proccessor Xserve with 970s.

[aafuss1]

I like the idea of XP's fast user switching-wonders how Apple's version will work-maybe you may need sbiut 266mb to use it or thre loginpsnel could be larger-list vieww for more than the users the windowcan hold.

[deejemon]

*

[soosy]

ooooh, i like this. Wouldn't have to logout/in for my wife to check mail.

I'd also love a tablet to do casual surfing on the couch w/o spending the price of a full blown laptop.

[3G4N]

One thing I would like more than multi-gui-logins
is multiple desktops. This is the one thing I loved
from YD linux. I can even do it on winXP with the sw
provided with my Quadro4 card.

Multiple desktops matched with this feature would
REALLY rock. We have a video station at work that gets
a lot of use. It would be nice to be able to run processes
running in the bg (compression) while another user is editing video in the foreground (taking priority of system resources
over any bg processes).

[slvrfrg]

Wouldn't it make sense that this features takes advantage of the proposed file journaling that 10.3 will be inheriting from BeOS? From what I've read, you could be working on your computer, have 20 apps open (or more/less) and pull the plug. Booting back up, you are exactly where you left off, all data intact, windows in the same place, etc. If it can work for that, wouldn't it be simple to implement in a multiple-user setting? Seemingly, since it would be using file-journaling, it wouldn't suck processor, either. Does this make a whole lot of sense to anyone else, or is it just me?

[nakavori]

Imagine this ad:

Buy one computer, let the whole family surf/work/IM/email/internet telephone/and yes: work too.

This would end up allowing families to justify buying the larger PM's rather than just iMacs or iBooks.

So, buy multiple windows machines and the software, or one large mac and some tablets? Now who's more expensive?

[bdkennedy1]

This is definitely a feature where you need to double or tripple your RAM

[Kamu-San]

Well, if this is the same concurrent sessions features from XP, then I'd be really happy. My gf is always checking her email under my account, but I'm afraid she'll clutter up my Address Book :(

It's the only feature from XP that I actually like and given the fact that it would be even easier to implement under Unix (XWindows) than in Windows, I'm amazed that nobody else thought of it earlier.

But then again, Unix has always concentrated on remote users and Windows on local users.

[dstorey]

Although I see the uses for business in this as already highlighted, this excites me more for home use, incorperated into the 'digital hub'. I think we will have to wait for the 970 however for it to be full realised as it could be a resource hog...I'd like ultimatly to see a powerful xServe used as a home server, stored in a cupboard just like most people have a central heating boiler these days. For the recent future though a PowerMac 970 will have to do. What I see is a main server and maybe a few other regular computers in the house hold, depending on a familys needs (gamers and people that do editing or intesive work will need a regular computer in their room/study for example). Then the rest of the computers in the house that are just used for light work could be thin client tablets or desktops. So if say little sister or the wife/girl friend whatever just web surf's and chats with friends then they could tap into the main computer(s) by remote graphical log in and using it's resources, with limited ram/hard disc and embedded processor for caching data etc. This means that the thin client desktops can take up less room and thus look nicer in the home and you can move around the home with a tablet version. So if you are busy at work in the home office and then the match comes on, you can just pick up the tablet and watch the footbal on the sofa while continuing where you left off cause the tablet can access all the study computers resources and what was on it's screen aty the tme (your work), meanwhile of course someone in the other room is accessing the same computer but logged in as another user and doing their own thing.

Whats even more intresting is thats just a basic idea of the concept that possible with WiFi technology, what happens if you add Apple inovation...there are many other possiblities.....co-operative working between different people n the same data, usefull fror team meetings and people that work together (ok thats more of a business one), mobile phones with an apple thin client that when come into range of the host computer(s) via rendezvous and bluetooth or WiFi can access the broadband connection and resources of the server and also change to a landline phone (well an internet landline phone), and acts like a cordless phone or something. Then there are other appliences that could use this and rendezvous, like the hifi that can log into the host and use the person logged in's play lists or be logged in as its own user so it can run whatever tasks it may need such as getting cd information, info about radio shows etc from the web. Then Tv's in the living room could act as a thin client so that you can surf the web, work on documents etc from the tv using the servers power (no need for an ugly dell/HP media edition box next to the tv - the thin client could be built into say new sony and philips tv's or as a hifi seperates shaped box that sits in your stack and also acts as a tivo). I'm sure there are many other possibilites. Guess I'm dreaming a bit much though.

[Kamu-San]

I like the concept of having a 'house server', but I have one problem with it. When I'm not at home, I don't want to have any electronic equipment running. Aside from being a potential fire hazard (sp?) I think it's just a waste of electricity. :D

The great thing about my iMac is it's near instant-on power save mode. That makes it much more useable than first having to boot a computer. So that's why I'd like the concurrent session feature.
iMac sleeping, press mouse, log into your own account and voila!

So having a house server wouldn't speed up that process, unless we have a really fast booting dumb terminal.

[senjaz]

Originally posted by simX
Whoever said that Apple would adopt a one free, one pay pricing scheme? 10.1 was only free because 10.0 was admittedly a beta quality product. 10.1 was a perfectly acceptable "1.0" product, which is why Jaguar was a pay-for upgrade, and why Panther will likely also be a paid upgrade.

Although they have never said that this is the case there has been a history of it:

Mac OS 8 - paid
Mac OS 8.1 - free
Mac OS 8.5 - paid
Mac OS 8.6 - free
Mac OS 9 - paid
Mac OS 9.x - free
Mac OS X Public Beta - paid (but essentially free since you got your money back from the discount on the full version)
Mac OS X 10 - paid
Mac OS X 10.1 - free
Mac OS X 10.2 - paid

Ignoring the version number hint which all changed with X it has tended to be that we pay for major upgrades whilst the minor ones are free.

The exceptions to this are 8.1 and 10.1. Both included major new features and were free. For those that can't remember 8.1 introduced a whole new file system HFS+.

The reasons that these two remained free is open to interpretation and debate. But there is a pattern, one paid, one free, that has spanned over 5 years.

That said the OS update model has changed, now we get a lot more incremental updates, mainly bug fixes for free that might mean that we pay for every big cat upgrade.

Senjaz

[dstorey]

Originally posted by Kamu-San
I like the concept of having a 'house server', but I have one problem with it. When I'm not at home, I don't want to have any electronic equipment running. Aside from being a potential fire hazard (sp?) I think it's just a waste of electricity. :D

The great thing about my iMac is it's near instant-on power save mode. That makes it much more useable than first having to boot a computer. So that's why I'd like the concurrent session feature.
iMac sleeping, press mouse, log into your own account and voila!

So having a house server wouldn't speed up that process, unless we have a really fast booting dumb terminal.

They are good points, I usually switch everything off too, except for my computer now as its running folding@home. An idea would be to have a schedule in iCal for things like maintenance that the system can use so that between certain hours the computer goes into a deep sleep mode or switches it's self off and then on, or a system where the server switches it's self on\wakes up when a thin clien or another computer connects to it and when all users are logged out it shuts down. Yeah to work the thin clients would need fast booting times. My old Psion PDA (i think these were the first or one of the first pda's) switches on instantly just like mobile phones, and I guess modern pda's are the same so they would have to have the same instant on capabilities (via system data being held in some form of memory or however you do it).

[Kamu-San]

Actually, that would be a good idea. Using a Tungsten or something which connects to your house server through Wifi (sorry, Airport :D ) or Bluetooth.

A 12"PB would do too :p

The most important things for an 'always on' server for me would be:
- No fire hazard
- Absolutely silent

I used to use my old PC running Linux as firewall/router/server, but the thing is so noisy, that I really don't want to run it all the time. Now I have this small box, which is a firewall/router and it is completely silent. No moving parts at all.

So this house server should have/do the following:
- be completely silent
- no fire hazard
- firewall/router
- Airport base station
- Central email cache?
- Scheduled downloads

Then when you get home, you could connect with your Palm/P800/PB12/dumb terminal and instantly check your mail etc.

Not really useful I'm afraid, but nicely geeky :D

[Kamu-San]

By the way, here is a review of a M$ Tablet PC (saw it announced at /.):
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/review/2/2/3760.html

[dstorey]

Originally posted by Kamu-San


So this house server should have/do the following:
- be completely silent
- no fire hazard
- firewall/router
- Airport base station
- Central email cache?
- Scheduled downloads

Then when you get home, you could connect with your Palm/P800/PB12/dumb terminal and instantly check your mail etc.

Not really useful I'm afraid, but nicely geeky :D

In the nicely geeky mode you fogot to add serving your own web/.mac style server so you can access you data from work or when you out and about and show the world photo's of you dog growing up ;) It would be nice for it to be an mp3/4 server as well so you can have a central store for them instead of on each computer, although with multiple log ins to the server this is a given anyway... The noise issue should hopefully not be too much of a problem as it would be tucked away in a cubboard/rack like your central heating boiler, maybe have a sound proof cupboard made out of egg boxes or something ;) just dont store it in the same cupboard as the boiler or things could get messy if it leaked....

p.s has anyones else internet gone down? I can only get like BBC, MacRumors and yahoo to work, everything else near enough including apple is down for me?

[Kamu-San]

Wonderfully geeky :D :D :D

But since I live in an appartment I don't have a boiler room :(
I do have a storage closet, though. But it's warm in there even without a house server... Good idea though. It's going to be a problem to get the cable cables (:rolleyes: ) over there.
And I'm still dependent on the dumb terminals, because of boot time.

Hmmmm. Now wait.... I *could* buy a cheap PC with lots of RAM and lots of storage, install Linux on it, install a Wifi card, put it in the closet and run a webserver, .mac-server with calendar sharing, MP3/4 server (in-house only of course ;) ) and use my instantly booting iMac as a dumb server :D

Anyway, this brings me back to the topic: A house server is a solution which only throws more money and hardware at the problem.

Concurrent sessions and iCal calendar sharing between multiple users at the same computer would be a better solution.
Then again, the last problem is also solved if I'd put the calendars on my webserver, which also solves the problem of how to sync calendars when I buy a 970 :D

So, to recap, I'll make my iMac a house server, it's silent, it's in sleep mode when nobody is home, I can use it to share calendars and MP3/s between multiple users and if we get concurrent sessions, then the last problem will be solved as well :D


There goes my weekend ;)

[dstorey]

Again good points......well except buying a cheap wintel box....do you want your whole system to be broken into and have millions of virus's, unless its BSD or linux you put on it then i'll let you off....but then how do you do the multiple graphical log in's into it?

Yeah the iMac/PowerMac idea is probably better for homes that have no where to put a server, or are small enough that an iMac would do fine. If a household used quite a few connections though or had a couple of more power users then probably the iMac would buckle under the load...In the future I guess new homes could be built to be networked, with highspeed cables through the home, and a special place to store the home server....or am i getting to blade runner or something...IT administrators would become like the gas man then where you get called into peoples homes when the duck up the server.....

[Kamu-San]

PC running Linux of course :D

I'm trying to make my house Certified Microsoft Free Zone (KSCMFZ) :cool:

I think a separate machine would be overkill. The iMac would be quite sufficient.

For good ideas, see this nice article:
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003/02/04/homemade_dot_mac.html

[centauratlas]

Originally posted by DreaminDirector
I guess this feature is pretty useless if I'm the only user. Sounds like a good idea though.

Not necessarily. The point of using it with a tablet would be this:

suppose I have my dual 800 or 1.2 or whatever machine upstairs. But I want access to my email, browser etc in the kitchen or the bedroom or living room. I can leave my machine running upstairs, then let the tablet (or another Mac) downstairs access it.

I therefore have access to my mail, iTunes, iPhoto etc. The beauty of it is that everything is on one machine, you therefore don't have to worry about backing up multiple machines, synchronizing files (e.g. did I edit that document on the table or the desktop etc).

This is a great feature, and something similar was available in NeXT, but NOT transparent like this seems to be - e.g. it required more configuration to get it working correctly.

[GPTurismo]

Multiple user sessions would be great! It would help administration of machines here in the office A LOT.

Also, 10.1 was not final product quality. It was to slow and to many issues, and because of it's fallshorts I had to fight of vicious MS goons from replacing all the macs with win2k. I am still upset they charged for 10.2 and I will be very upset if they have no upgrade path for 10.2 > 10.3

[Windowlicker]

This is a feature I most want to be included in Panther!! :-D I really wish it would be.. it would make things so much easier. it sucks if I'm processing a video clip with cleaner and then someone has to check his/her mail............
Copying or not ? this is a feature not to be left out..

[JoeMacDaddy]

:o This is way kewl from the old school. Multi-user to a single machine is as old as UNIX and twice as dusty. It is good to see Apple exploiting the core features of UNIX and giving the ability to single users, families and businesses the ability to leverage a central machine as a shared or dedicated server. This will bring the $$$ per user cost down while not reducing the functionality for each user. True multi-user, multi-tasking.

This also explains the desire for AirPort Extreme at 54Mbps, tighter integration with X11 and GigE on the Power line of products. They will have successfully totally integrated/Apple-ized UNIX for the masses. Also all of the XFree86 software base with X11 integrated will be easier than the FINK installations and gives them a huge base of applications and the entire Open Source community coding for Apple platforms.

All they have to do now is finalize their port/integration of OpenOffice/AppleWorks and they have an overwhelming story for businesses to move to Apple because the ROI will be greater than a Micro$oft solution (even with cheap hardware).

[eric_n_dfw]

If this was the only thing Panther gave us, I'd be willing to pay for it!

My wife uses the machine all day for her business and always has a bunch of windows up when I go to do my stuff.

Plus, if I'm rendering something in Final Cut Pro, she could still check her email or whatever - it would just slow down the render.

I really hope MOSR got this one right.

[eric_n_dfw]

Why in the world have you 7 people out there voted negative on this? If you don't think it's useful then you don't use it - but I'd really like to know what the negative is to it!

[kenohki]

Hopefully this is more than just switching a user session context to the primary display. I'm hoping it's something along the lines of Windows Terminal Services or XDM remote login. I used to use remote login in college because I had a crappy SPARCstation 5 with an 80 MHz TurboSPARC but my user account was on a Sun E4000 with 8 400 MHz UltraSPARC IIs. So obviously, my applications ran much faster if I ran them remotely on the E4000 and just displayed them on my machine.

The only problems I can see with this are some issues with graphics intensive applications. Updating a framebuffer over a network connection can be really ssslllooooowwwww. But for regular user/productivity type apps, it should be a boon. And hopefully, vendors will not complicate licensing because of this.

Wi-Fi, of course, is an obvious complement to this technology. Maybe this can breath new life into some otherwise "unusable" Macs that people may have lying around.

[joelc]

This feature is an excellent idea

Apple has been losing market share in schools. This would help. Think, 3 Xserves running an entire library's computer lab. Wouldn't that be more or less possible? Talk about cost effective. Maybe more than 3 Xserves.

As has been mentioned, businesses would find that attractive, too

[LinuxGigolo]

Originally posted by praetorian_x
[-snip-]

To be honest, I think that multiple local logins would be more useful to the larger market. Remoting isn't used much in practice outside the hardcore *nix world (or which I like to think I'm a part), and X already does that reasonable well.

At least, that's how *I* understand it. Could be wrong.

Cheers,
prat

I know quite a few people who use XP's remote desktop feature and/or VNC. And I know that just because *I* specifically know people that it does not mean that everybody in the world would have a use for this feature, but it works rather nicely in combination with VPN (so it could be useful in businesses) and it works great without it (so ... say... on a college campus if you're in a computer lab or floating around on a wireless network, you can have complete control of your computer back in your dorm).

I've also heard people mentioning multiple remote desktop sessions and how that's a feature that XP has and OS X does not.... that is, unless I'm hallucinating. As far as I know, XP does not allow multiple remote desktop connections. The implmentation of Windows' Terminal Services in XP Pro allows for a single-remote logon.. and it disables the console when a remote user is connected. This is basically a limited version of the full-blown Terminal Services that 2000/2003 Server offers.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 3G4N
One thing I would like more than multi-gui-logins
is multiple desktops. This is the one thing I loved
from YD linux. I can even do it on winXP with the sw
provided with my Quadro4 card.

Multiple desktops matched with this feature would
REALLY rock. We have a video station at work that gets
a lot of use. It would be nice to be able to run processes
running in the bg (compression) while another user is editing video in the foreground (taking priority of system resources
over any bg processes).

But you can get multiple desktops under MacOS X. I have two running right now. Of course, you need to use an additional piece of software, but, that's not that big a deal, is it?

Check this out:

http://www.codetek.com/php/virtual.php

[Dephex Twin]

Originally posted by senjaz
Although they have never said that this is the case there has been a history of it:

Mac OS 8 - paid
Mac OS 8.1 - free
Mac OS 8.5 - paid
Mac OS 8.6 - free
Mac OS 9 - paid
Mac OS 9.x - free
Mac OS X Public Beta - paid (but essentially free since you got your money back from the discount on the full version)
Mac OS X 10 - paid
Mac OS X 10.1 - free
Mac OS X 10.2 - paid

That's a little bit of kludging to fit a pattern, I'd say.

Mac OS 8 - paid
Mac OS 8.1 - free
Mac OS 8.5 - paid
Mac OS 8.5.1 - free
Mac OS 8.6 - free
Mac OS 9 - paid
Mac OS 9.0.1-4 - free
Mac OS 9.1 - free
Mac OS 9.2.0-2 - free
Mac OS X Beta - paid
Mac OS X 10.0 - paid
Mac OS X 10.0.1-4 - free
Mac OS X 10.1 - free
Mac OS X 10.1.1-5 - free
Mac OS X 10.2 - paid
Mac OS X 10.2.1-5 - free

All I'm trying to show here is that if you want to see a pattern in anything, you will. I doubt Apple intended for there to be a pattern, and there doesn't seem to be any logic to it.

The jump from 10.0 to 10.1 was major, as well as from 10.1 to 10.2. Way bigger than most of the pre-X updates. And 10.3 will probably be the same.

I am sure if they charge it will be worth it to me.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
sorry to be dumb. but what exactly does this allow someone to do? how would it be used? etc....

thanks

Here's my WAG (guess).

It is a bluetooth or airport extreme device that consists of a larger than normal screen for a PDA and navigation features, either trackpad, trackball, pen, IBM keyboard knob, or some combo. Maybe even a blueberry style keyboard.

It is a "window" for a browser, a remote control for your A/V server, could in principal be a phone, and generally be an inside the home or inside the office (bluetooth or airport extreme) access point.

The value is that multiple "users" can be doing limited things from a single main CPU (Apple computer), such as watching TV, talking on the phone, listening to music, browsing the internet, checking email, whatever.

In one sense it is "crippleware" because it is not a full Powerbook. In another sense it is a "limited purpose terminal" or thin client on steroids since it will have "lifestyle uses" not mere "Terminal access".

Just a guess not based on any insider or outsider knowledge or hints other than this mac rumours posting and some personal intuition.

Lifestyle benefit: you and the kids can all be on the internet all at once.

Rocketman

[AllenPSU]

I am glad that Apple is finally thinking about adding that feature. Having multiple graphical logins will definitely reduce the cycle time for my computer.

[kreiggers]

Hopefully now my girlfriend can log on and check her email etc while itunes plays on un-interuppted.

[zach]

I am happily awaiting this feature. I am the only person who uses my iBook (Mine, all mine, Hahahahaahaha) but I often am modifying resources that i have to be logged into root to change. Then, i have to go log back into my account to see if it works. This would let me cut the endless logging on and off which really pisses me off.

[elmimmo]

The way I see it implementing it sees fairly simple. In fact it is somehow already in there. You can launch CLI apps as whatever user you want whatever the "aqua user" is.% sudo -u user2 CLI_appThe only problem is that if you try to launch an aqua app as another user, then that another user will not have permissions to use the first one's windows server. So apple just needs a GUI to shut down the first user's windows server without shutting his/her running apps and let the 2nd user launch his to later on shut it down and let the first user launch his/her again.

I do not know if it was anything close to clear.

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by zap23
I often am modifying resources that i have to be logged into root to change. Then, i have to go log back into my account to see if it works.BTW, that is the only exception when a second user is allowed to use the first one's windows server, because root can basically use whatever he wants.

So, do you want for instance launch TextEdit to create or edit a text file owned by root? Just typesudo /Applications/TextEdit/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit &To launch System Preferences as root, for example, typesudo /Applications/System\ Preferences.app/Contents/MacOS/System\ Preferences &You can check out this thread at macosxhints (http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9872) for more info.