Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS X 10.3 Panther Details

Re: Translation

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.
Click to expand...

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!

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).
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Re: What we need is...

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

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
 
Re: Re: Translation

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).
Click to expand...

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

64bit support.
Efficient use of multithreading.
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
Re: Two things

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]
Click to expand...

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 :( ).
 
Re: Re: Two things

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 :( ).
Click to expand...

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.
 
reader beware

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
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"
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Originally posted by RandomMacGuy
How could this not completely break compatability with unix programs?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Re: Translation

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).
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: Re: Translation

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mac OSXI, OSXII, OSXIII, OSXIV, ...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Mac OSXI, OSXII, OSXIII, OSXIV, ...

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.
Click to expand...

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 ... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back