OS X Shipping... When?

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Jul 29, 2001.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    Not even quite a rumor - but perhaps "overheard", this article (seen on AppleTurns) writes:

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

    Hmmm... well, if true, that would be unwelcome news... but it's still not clear where this information was obtained... and it's accuracy is certainly in question. In Jan, Jobs had stated that OS X would ship with all macs this Summer. With the coming of OS X 10.1... people have assumed that would be when OS X would ship as the default boot... but Jobs made no mention of this.
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #2
    OS X for what?

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

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

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    #3
    1 Year

    At MWNY Steve showed a 12 hour clock and said he expected it to take one full year for the full transition to OS X. Each hour represented one month. The person at AppleTurns who wrote this article is confused.
     
  4. Guest

    #4
    If you actually read the thing, you would know that the author who wrote that was a Windows Biggot who knows absolutely nothing and made up that date.
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Location:
    Zanesville
    #5
    OS X as the default

    I think OS X will become the default bootup OS once the code is optimized to run at least as fast as OS 9. Whether there are Carbon-compliant or Cocoa apps ready is no bearing. They will follow when it becomes the default.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    as the apple turns

    its not the guy at as the apple turns who's wrong- as the apple turns was quoting an article in the San Jose Mercury news.
     
  7. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #7
    re: OS X for What

    mymemory,

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

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


    blakespot
     
  8. Guest

    #8
    GAH!!!

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

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

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

    #9
    Actually...

    ANY version of Windows based off of the 9x kernal or earlier (Windows 95, 98, 98 Second Edition, Me) does NOT have ANY modern OS features except for Dynamic Memory Allocation. Windows 9x/Me has cooperative multitasking, shared memory, no (real) threading, etc. I work with both Windows 2000 and Mac OS machines and I can honestly tell you in MOST cases Mac OS 9 is even MORE stable than Windows 2000 Professional. I mean, the entire OS goes down if there is a problem in outlook. Although, I somewhat agree with you about choosing the platform OS X is based on as a good idea. Objective C is a great set of APIs, the BSD underpinnings and Mach kernal are amazingly stable, the NeXTStep applications ported over for the most part are nice, and Column view/one window view is nice too. ;-) But we must not forget the Mac OS elements to the OS, Carbon, Quicktime, much of the Aqua interface, running on Apple machine, and many parts of the OS originate from Mac OS. Out of all the operating systems before OS X came out, any version of PowerPC Mac OS based off of the 8.1 kernal or higher I'd rather run as my main OS than any other OS.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #10
    blakespot

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

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

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

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

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    windows 2000 more stable than os9

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

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Location:
    California
    #12
    OS 9 VS OS X VS Win 2K

    Yes, Windows 2000 is more stable than Mac OS 9.. one of many reasons Apple moved to OS X. Let's get a few things straight here..


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
  13. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #13
    re: Next!

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

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

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


    blakespot
     
  14. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #14
    Re: Actually...

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

    You obviously know little about OS design and theory.

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

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

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


    blakespot
     
  15. Guest

    #15
    I....so far...can't find a reason to move from 9.1 to OSX.

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

    So, I say GOOD...WAIT...DON'T RUSH IT.....It will be worth it in the end.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #16
    All Freaks!

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

    #17
    I realised this long ago. I have have a basket load of Apples. Dont preach to the converted.

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


    oh now you ARE talking utter tosh! :) oh - before I go any urther - tell Xisor or whatever that dynamic memory allocating ISNT the same as virtual memory. We all know memory allocation sucks proverbial plums under mac classic. But Apples implementation of vm is actually pretty good - hence the demise of 3rd party probrams like RAM doubler. And yes, it is 99% of the time quicker to leave it on, rather than have some option to turn on and off .
    Im gald for you
    do tell me - I know you cant wait!
    I dont neceassirly agree/disagree or care - I just wish youd stop using it as a paragon of the future when quite clearly it aint.

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

     
  18. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #18
    Re: All Freaks!


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

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

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

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

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


    blakespot

     
  19. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #19
    It does, the same BSD + Mach setup that OS X has. (Also, Linux != BSD)

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

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



    blakespot
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    Why would someone move their entire operations over to a system that "has not proven itself yet"?

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

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

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

    http://www.macosxcentric.com
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2001
    Location:
    boston
    #21
    Why should Apple default hardware into OSX until it's as fast or faster than OS9.1? Wait until OSX is shaped into a speedy, usable OS.

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

    #22
    Ahem...

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

    #23
    One more thing....

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

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2001
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #24
    Hey, I've run benchmark tests of Photoshop running under OS X in Classic, and the results are just about equal to that of OS 9. Some tests were 1 or 2 seconds faster, others were 1 or 2 slower. The tally of total time between them was the just about the same.

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

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

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

    #25
    I don't know why...

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

Share This Page