Mac OS X 10.4: Tiger

[whooleytoo]

Here is the first indication of what the Tiger logo will look like. I received an invitation from Steve to attend WWDC. My acceptance is to see him from my local Apple Store!

Will not allow me to upload even though it's a jpg.

It's ok, I know what you're talking about! Just received the same thing.

 

[bousozoku]

It was more of a movie than a band (the movie is a cult favourite and I think Rob Reiner's first), actually a mock rock documentary about the 'mock' band Spinal Tap (which actually did tour after the movie I think, though they purposely stunk) . One of the most famous jokes from the movie is from a scene where the interviewer asks the guitar player why his guitar amp went up to 11 instead of just making 10 louder. His answer: "This one goes up to 11."

That was bizarre. I remember seeing the previews and the behind-the-scenes business on various t.v. shows at the time.

I find it difficult to believe that wdlove doesn't remember that. Had it happened in the 1960s, I could believe it. "If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there." 1984 wasn't that long ago, was it?

By the way, Thunderbird thought that my Tiger-laced invitation to WWDC was junk. I think it was right.

 

[mattmack]

1984 wasn't that long ago, was it?

Well it was a little while ago, but also Spinal Tap being hilariously funny was not much more than a cult film

 

[macsrus]

So far most of the OSX updates have been under the hood at the command line..

I hope Tiger keeps up that trend....
The goodies im looking for most would be ....
64 bit kernel.... I have programs that need to address more than 4 gig per thread

support for the following command line tools
useradd, userdel, grpadd,grpdel

Complete retirement of Netinfo

would be a dream come true...

 

[vkumario]

If that's your attitude, it explains why Apple doesn't sell computers under $999 - and why the ones under $1400 (dual G4) are so uncompetitive. They've got a great loyal user base with far more money than they need, why would they want to sell to the rest of the world? The Mercedes comparison works...corporate arrogance and high price tags...except that Mercedes loses money (when they aren't sucking it out of aquisitions such as Chrysler, Freightliner, Detroit Diesel, and presumably Fokker and then pretending that those companies were losing money before the buy).

This way lies oblivion. At some point if market share doesn't rise, Apple's gonna be in big doggy-doo -- Linux is getting better every year, and Apple will have to show that it has an advantage that merits paying twice as much, other than being able to run Office (which Linux will be able to do eventually).

Thats simply not true. The high price tag comes with both the operating system and the hardware. Ofcourse you are going to have a higher price tag, however, but you are going to save a heck of lot of time, getting the OS X which works better. Its kinda like getting a picture, would rather get a jigsaw puzzle and put it together yourself, or would you like to get the master piece and frame it. To each his own.

The first on is a little bit more fun, and lets you experiment, the later works better.

Hey its your 2 cents

 

[allpar]

Fortunately Apple's kinda proven me right with the Mini at $499.

Yes, the OS could be considered part of the price...except that if I started with a WinXP computer 3 years ago, I'd have paid, um, nothing for upgrades. If I had started with OS X 3 years ago, I'd have paid $220 and would pay another $120 for 10.4. So software is handled by upgrade fees.

I do wish Apple would provide a machine between "entry level, power doesn't matter" and "competes with dual-Xenons."

 

[kenaustus]

Fortunately Apple's kinda proven me right with the Mini at $499.

Yes, the OS could be considered part of the price...except that if I started with a WinXP computer 3 years ago, I'd have paid, um, nothing for upgrades. If I had started with OS X 3 years ago, I'd have paid $220 and would pay another $120 for 10.4. So software is handled by upgrade fees.

I do wish Apple would provide a machine between "entry level, power doesn't matter" and "competes with dual-Xenons."

If you had bought a Mac 3 years ago you would have been able to decide to buy or not to buy Panther - just as you have the option to buy Tiger. You would have saved money with XP because MS can't get Longhorn out the door - even after stripping out some of the great new features.

One significant difference is that Tiger will work very well with a 3 year old Mac and Longhorn has some significant demands that will need hardware upgrades for many PC users.

As for mid range Macs, there are two very good ones. The iBook is a great notebook (my wife loves hers more than our 20" G5 iMac) and handles most users needs very well. The eMac is also a very good computer for the price, has a beautiful display and the same power levels as a lot of fairly new PowerBooks. Move up a little higher and the entry level G5 iMac is a beautiful computer at a very good price.

As for me, I'm going to buy the Family Pack when Tiger comes out as there are 5 Macs in the family. That comes to less than $50 per computer for a full OS - not an upgrade, Let's see what MS hits their users with when Longhorn finally arrives.

 

[allpar]

The ibook and emac are both the same speed as the Mini and neither are a midrange computer; they are, in terms of speed, entry-level. The iBook is very good compared wtih other notebooks but not desktops.

The point is that Apple makes money off software quite separately from the hardware. I would be somewhat surprised if the system software development is funded more than a little from hardware.

That $50 is theoretically a whole new OS but you and I both know it's effectively an upgrade charge, because you can't buy a Mac without a system...just like you can't (as far as I know) buy a Dell without Windows.

Split hairs if you must, but the reason Apple didn't make a sub-$1,000 machine until now had more to do with preserving steep margins than with any software costs. I'd still prefer a Mini that was an inch bigger on each dimension but had a full sized hard drive...! And I'd like an iMac G5 - WITHOUT the screen. I HAVE a computer screen now. I want a G5 powered box that doesn't cost over $1,400...!

 

[toti]

Fortunately Apple's kinda proven me right with the Mini at $499.

Yes, the OS could be considered part of the price...except that if I started with a WinXP computer 3 years ago, I'd have paid, um, nothing for upgrades. If I had started with OS X 3 years ago, I'd have paid $220 and would pay another $120 for 10.4. So software is handled by upgrade fees.

I do wish Apple would provide a machine between "entry level, power doesn't matter" and "competes with dual-Xenons."

They do. It's called the PowerMac G5 1.8GHz SINGLE CPU.

And then there's the iMac..

 

[allpar]

Perhaps we need to define "midrange." I (and most computer users) consider $1,500 to be "premium."

 

[kenaustus]

I read a while back that the average selling price for a Dell was around the $1,500 mark. You start at a low price and then "enhance" it, like moving away from shared memory. Before I moved to Macs the office Dells were all in the $1,500 to $1,800 range.

If you want a G5 your options are the iMac or a PowerMac. The pricing on the PM isn't that bad when you consider the engineering that went into designing it, and the quality of the build.

Does Apple make money off of software? Sure, otherwise there would be no R&D in the software area. The issue is the value of a new OS like Tiger for you - do you want it or are you satisfied with Panther? Same with iLife - happy with what came with your computer or do you want want the newest version?

For me it is money well spent. Apple keeps adding features to their software while MS keeps pulling features out of Longhorn. I'll pay the price because after using PCs since the days of DOS I'm actually enjoying using a computer again. That's worth the price for me.

 

[powerbook911]

Perhaps we need to define "midrange." I (and most computer users) consider $1,500 to be "premium."

Before I was a mac freak, I considered $1500 preminium, but I don't now.

 

[allpar]

"Does Apple make money off of software? Sure, otherwise there would be no R&D in the software area." This is an answer to a question nobody asked. A previous poster said there could be no sub-$1,000 Macs because of Apple's massive software investment. I was saying software cost is not the issue since Apple charges more for its software - assuming you stay current - which I suspect most people do, since newer apps tend to stop supporting older OS versions.

$1,500 will buy this kind of Dell:
- 3.2 GHz, 800 MHz FSB
- 1 GB RAM (dual channel)
- Mouse, WordPerfect, keyboard
- 80 GB SATA 7200 rpm hard drive
- DVD+RW writer and regular CD-RW
- Firewire card, USB2
- Fax-modem

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...kc=6W300&l=en&oc=dim84rs3&s=bsd#bottom_anchor

That's for a "business" machine which is probably higher quality than the standard consumer machines.

Does that $1,500 average include monitors and printers?

Let's not make any mistake here - I'm not buying a freakin' Dell. HOWEVER, I am also not buying a relatively slow Mac that's in the same price range. I think for $700 to $1,500 you get a lot more computer from Dell than from Apple, assuming you don't need a built in monitor. In the dual G5 range, you do better with Apple; in the $500-700 range, you do better with Apple.

In the long run, regardless of hardware...yup, Macs are a better deal. But that's another question. I buy computers from Apple far less often because of their pricing and, at the moment, the speed of their low-end machines.

Anyone remember the Quadra 605 / LC 475? (68040 machine in a pizza-box). It was very similar to the Mini...but faster (relative to the mainstream machines) and a bit more expensive (just a little compared to the average prices of computers then and now).

Currently I have the last of the dual G4s. Got it just as the G5s were coming out - for $400 less than a single 1.6 G5. Made sense at the time but I suspect as software gets G5 optimized...then again I expected the 3 GHz G5s to be out by now which would drive down the prices of the others, and I figured I'd be buying a new machine about now.

 

[Montserrat]

A question

Somewhat off topic, but at the same time relevant.

As someone who has only actually owned a Mac - having only used other people's PCs before I invested in something myself - I have followed the evolution of Mac OS X much more closely than Windows. Now, with every iteration of the Mac OS there seems to be the usual 'under-the-bonnet' changes making the system faster/more powerful/more compliant with current peripherals etc. but Apple also bring in a swathe of features that are genuinely cool for the user. I wasn't a Mac user pre-Jaguar, but Panther brought in Exposé and iChat AV - as well as a host of other changes that made using the OS much more pleasurable. Now the 2 biggest things with Tiger seem to be Spotlight and Dashboard (although I'm sure there'll be many more cool things I'm sure once I get to try it...) Both of which look like really useful tools - particularly as Dashboard brings with it a host of mini-apps (or widgets if you like) that are genuinely useful (sure similar shareware versions are available now, but have you seen the rendering on the weather widget ) - so it's kind-of 10+ new cool things to play with/use.

My experience with windows is that functions like that are not added - It just seems to be a bit of Window-dressing (in garish-blue) and trying to make things work as they should have done originally (as well as increasing the system demands). Can someone tell me what "cool" features were added between, say Windows 2000 and Windows XP? Any new Software - or just updates?

I'm not being rude to Microsoft, but I just haven't seen the improvements. At the end of the day, I'm not a programmer - though I'd like to know how - so I'm more interested in how the OS feels and what it can do for me, without me having to fish out various bits of shareware etc. off the web/shop shelves. Mac OS X has always impressed in this regard.

 

[zakatov]

This thread is almost a year old, let it RIP ppl

 

[allpar]

Well, yes. Much as I hate to defend Microsoft, here are some changes.

1) Windows 2000 -> XP. Huge number of built-in device drivers added, ease of use changes (especially if you use "Classic" windows and start menu, otherwise they have "difficulty of use" changes), better PROGRAM stability (as opposed to OS stability), more robust networking. Drawbacks: slower, requires more resources, HORRIBLE default user interface.

2) XP - XP-SP2, a free upgrade. Massive amount of security improvements which, yes, should have been there to begin with. Then again, 10.3, 10.2, and 10.1 contained mostly improvements that should have been there to begin with - and we're still, IMHO, not up to the ease of use of system 9.

I have been a Mac owner since 1988. The first Mac I used was the 128. I am loyal. I also own a lightweight Sony Vaio laptop and a generic PC box I built myself.

 

[Montserrat]

1) Windows 2000 -> XP. Huge number of built-in device drivers added, ease of use changes (especially if you use "Classic" windows and start menu, otherwise they have "difficulty of use" changes), better PROGRAM stability (as opposed to OS stability), more robust networking. Drawbacks: slower, requires more resources, HORRIBLE default user interface.

2) XP - XP-SP2, a free upgrade. Massive amount of security improvements which, yes, should have been there to begin with..

Fair enough, but what I was trying to get at was new 'features' of the OS - like we have exposé, now Dashboard and Spotlight (OK that's just searching, but with smart folders etc - it is quite a breakthrough).

Device drivers (granted Mac OS X is not innocent on this, but in my experience pretty good - and peripheral providers have to take some of the stick in some cases) and Program stability is kinda what I expect from an OS. Mac OS X just gives me new ways to do things that is just so much cooler, faster and more intuitive.

 

[kd0tc0m]

Tiger & Tiger

Talk about a hell of a week...

Tiger will win the Masters.
Tiger will be debuted.

Maybe that April Fool's Day headline wasn't a fool. Maybe it'd be the best marketing plan for Apple... ever.

 

[jcooper42]

Fair enough, but what I was trying to get at was new 'features' of the OS - like we have exposé, now Dashboard and Spotlight (OK that's just searching, but with smart folders etc - it is quite a breakthrough).

Device drivers (granted Mac OS X is not innocent on this, but in my experience pretty good - and peripheral providers have to take some of the stick in some cases) and Program stability is kinda what I expect from an OS. Mac OS X just gives me new ways to do things that is just so much cooler, faster and more intuitive.

Windows XP for the consumer was a huge release, the biggest since '95. Windows XP Home brought the consumer a stable OS built on NT - which contrary to some idiotic posts I've seen here has nothing to do with MS-DOS. NT was re-written from the ground up, mostly by some engineers lured away from DEC.

THe NT kernel was built by people who understood everything about UNIX (DEC's alpha business & digital unix were the focus of the engineers who left to MS) and had the resources to start over. The UI was abstracted with the same win32 api being used to ease the migration from MS-DOS/Win16 shell. Starting over sounds better than it really is. UNIX was a good thing, if not perfect. Its continued to improve as well.

So anyway, what did people get with XP. Well, multi-user computing for one thing. My wife and I can both stay logged into the same machine all the time, and switch back and forth between contexts. I can also terminal service into my machine and resume my console session remotely - and if you have never used it terminal services is virtually indistinguishable from "being there" - it simply smokes VNC, XWindows and all that other crap. Destop assistance is built on the same technology but plugs into MSN Messenger so you can chat with your mother online and then help her fix something.

The UI is smarter. Frequently used programs appear right in the Start Menu. After I install something new its highlighted in the programs menu. Boot time is much faster than Win2K. Lots of little things. Media player minimizes to the task bar so you can see the song/artist when titles change, or pause/skip without expanding the program. Too many of these minor improvements to mention.

Now I've used it so long I can't remember half the things I thought were "cool" when I first started - but I know its painful to use a 2K box. So this isn't really that much different from the evolution OS X has seen.

As a windows user about to switch, I really don't understand all the defensive antagonism I see from Mac users against Windows. Windows is a good system. Maybe you like Mac better, fine. But if you can't articulate the reasons why without distorting the truth then probably you aren't really informed enough to comment.

 

[Doctor Q]

Windows XP for the consumer was a huge release, the biggest since '95. Windows XP Home brought the consumer a stable OS built on NT - which contrary to some idiotic posts I've seen here has nothing to do with MS-DOS. NT was re-written from the ground up, mostly by some engineers lured away from DEC.

THe NT kernel was built by people who understood everything about UNIX (DEC's alpha business & digital unix were the focus of the engineers who left to MS) and had the resources to start over. The UI was abstracted with the same win32 api being used to ease the migration from MS-DOS/Win16 shell. Starting over sounds better than it really is. UNIX was a good thing, if not perfect. Its continued to improve as well.

In case any of you think jcooper42 is blowing smoke, I second his comments about the fine pedigree of Windows NT. When it first arrived on the scene, I read extensively about it and was impressed with the design and principles. I wasn't as happy with the implementation of the user interface on top of it, but I found much sense in the core ideas that evolved from the experience of DEC's engineers.

 

[BWhaler]

As a windows user about to switch, I really don't understand all the defensive antagonism I see from Mac users against Windows. Windows is a good system. Maybe you like Mac better, fine. But if you can't articulate the reasons why without distorting the truth then probably you aren't really informed enough to comment.

Welcome and congratulations on your switch.

Don't worry about the Mac folks who seem a little defensive. It's mostly in good humor and you also have to appreciate the community gets a lot of attacks so they tend to keep their guard up. Go check out www.internet-nexus.com for an example. Thurrott is an interesting guy because he attacks Apple not because he hates the company or the products--he loves both--but he attacks them because he hates Apple people. He is pretty public in his opinion of this, and it is an example of what people here have faced for a long time.

I'm not trying to forgive the behavior, just giving some context. Apple is much more mainstream nowadays, so it may seem odd. But it comes from a good place.

Plus, as you point out, XP works for you. I think you will find in all non-MS communities, it's not the technology, it's the company people hate. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, one that has lost or settled many cases involving stealing of IP which bankrupt small innovative companies over the decades. Lots of people lost their jobs due to these unlawful activities, so the company doesn't have a good reputation from those trying to be innovative in the business. And I think that fact over any other gets people to bash the company and everything they do.

Once again, welcome.

 

[BWhaler]

What will that mean that your computer is going eleven? I think that will se 10.4 & 10.5 much sooner.

You must go rent Spinal Tap immediately. It's like never seeing Caddy Shack or Old School.