Scot has raised some interesting points here. Do you think that some of the reluctance to adopt Mac OS X comes from a reluctance to change itself?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.

Showing messages 1 through 15 of 15.

• Extensions, Extensions, Extensions
  2001-05-03 22:49:32  grtmagnet [Reply | View]
  
  
  Gimme a break. I'm tired of hearing people say that there are no Extensions. What on earth do you think lives in the /System/Library/Extensions folder? They are extensions, and can hose your system without a problem -- try dereferencing a null pointer in a KEXT and you'll crash the kernel without fail. Mac OS X DOES HAVE EXTENSIONS, they are just in a different form, and possibly arguably, more dangerous than ever before!

• My list would have <atleast> one more item...
  2001-04-29 00:53:00  sjv [Reply | View]
  
  
  Scot didn't mention that Mac OS X doesn't limit file names to 31 characters. This is a non-trivial problem when networking the Mac OS with NT and Unix variants.
  
  -sjv

• Web Design
  2001-04-23 11:06:32  elliot4334 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The Mac has always had its following among the creative crowed, that is why I came to it. Creativity and the content we create is continually going toward the web. Mac OS 9 can't access some sites. OS 9 limits Mac users working with Web Servers. Look at both Deamweaver UltraDev and GoLive 5 and read the limitation on with OS 9 and ASP or JSP. You have to be connected to a remote server.
  
  To me this is the most important issue with the Mac. If we can't work seamlessly with the web, we are dead. With OS X and the personal web server being apache we can develop data driven web sites right on our desktop without having to test them on remote servers. OS X can talk natively to most of the worlds web servers. If OS X makes working with the Web as easy as the original Mac OS made working with the computer itself, Apple wins. There is no greater issue than this. The average user has to have access to the power of the web server even if he doesn't understand it or now he is doing it and that is the way it should be.

• User Interface
  2001-04-20 13:01:41  jlewin [Reply | View]
  
  
  There can't be any real debate over the underlying kernel and subsystems that make up Mac OS X. They blow away earlier Mac operating systems with their capabilities.
  
  Their are two real criticisms that you can make, though. First, OS X does not retain the best elements of OS 9. It breaks many of the conventions that Mac users have grown used to over the last 10 or more years, and does not replace many of them with a better alternative. Most Mac users do not know Unix, but they have intimate experience with the Mac user interface, and love it.
  
  A great discussion of the interface problems with OS X can be found at Ars Technica:
  http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-1.html
  
  The other valid criticism is that OS X does not offer the business/enterprise features that other operating systems do, and that there is no real business support. Out of the box, most Unix/Linux distributions support a slew of Enterprise services. Likewise, Windows 2000 supports all every business service you might want. Microsoft has excellent business support, and there are many companies supporting Unix/Linux for business (ie., IBM). Business support for Mac OS's has never been there, with the result that only businesses without complex requirements have ever taken Mac seriously.
  
  This doesn't mean that Mac OS X can't do these things. Any good Unix guru should be able to get the important Unix software packages to compile and run on it. Most admins' time is too valuable, though, to be experimenting.
  
  OS X should mature to be an interesting new client operating system. It is good enough to eliminate the likelihood of Linux ever being a significant desktop presence. On the other hand, it won't offer any significant alternative for enterprise servers.
• User Interface
  2001-05-08 13:45:41  uwiz [Reply | View]
  
  
  I personally don't see Apple entering into the "Busneiss Enterprise" Sector. Apple should remain in the desktop side of busneiss to remain on the cutting edge. Look at Microsoft, how cutting edge or gee wiz is their software?
• User Interface
  2001-04-20 23:39:46  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think you make many good points in your post, and I'm especially interested in the "business services" challenge you mentioned.
  
  I'm curious to see if the open source community is able to fill business services void that Apple has never been able to do. I think this is particularly interesting at this time when Linux-related technologies are trying to expand their presence behind the firewall.
  
  It's not clear to me yet if Linux developers will be able to convince IT managers to accept Linux beyond Web-related services. We'll see. But if open source folks can punch a hole in that firewall, then wouldn't it be ironic that of all companies, Apple might benefit from the break through?

• Rebuttal to "What I like about OS X"
  2001-04-20 09:55:40  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I received this very thoughtful note from Dr Timothy Priest responding to what he considers an overly optimistic list of Mac OS X strengths ... at least from the consumer standpoint. Here's what he has to say: -- DS
  
  While I think it is good to be upbeat about a new OS and Apple in general,
  we should not accept second best or inferior quality in doing so; otherwise
  we could use Windows. What Apple has released (and I paid Aus$230.00 for) is
  without a doubt inferior to OS 9 in all the areas that matter to an average
  CONSUMER.
  
  Real consumers could care less whether an OS has preemption, protected
  Memory, "REAL" VM etc. Likewise they could care less that their OS has
  Apache Webserver, Perl, Python, TCL or whatever. They just want to do their
  work seamlessly and without fuss. MAC OS 9 is still by far the easiest way
  to do this, not OS X; YET!
  
  As a colleague of mine said the other day, after persevering with OS X for
  two weeks solid: "Going back to 9 was like getting out of a swimming pool full of Treacle and
  legging it to the change rooms!"
  
  Anyway, to the specific points mentioned. There are many flaws in the
  arguments and several double-ups. After going through them I came up with
  TWO real OS X advantages. They are noted in the individual points.
  
  Don't get me wrong. I am a Mac man. I still have my Discovering Copland CD
  from 1995. I have lived through, Pink, Taligent, Copland, Rhapsody, OS X
  Server and now OS X. I am simply angry that Apple is neglecting its core
  People, and core benefits over Windows, in its race for a so-called Modern
  and Advanced OS.
  
  1) No extensions -- no more playing "Where's Waldo" with the Extension Manager trying to find the extension that is crashing your Mac.
  
  --- No! Fine, but wait until you want someone to add system-wide functionality
  that Apple hasn't included or doesn't want to add. Just remember how many of
  the things in OS 9 we take for granted came from extension hacks. Something
  that is very much harder in OS X. Whether this is good or bad will come to
  light over the course of next year.
  
  2) All of the applications I use every day are faster in OS X than in OS9.1 on my system.
  
  --- This one is a straight out LIE. I challenge you or Scott to name these
  applications. Let me name two that are definitely slower. Finder and IE!
  
  3) No more out of memory messages.
  
  --- Here I agree, though OS X's mach VM is not as good (yet) as I would like to
  see. Under slight-moderate loads, OS 9's VM is superior to OS X's. As an
  example, OS X pages out on me even when I have over 200M of inactive memory,
  slowing the whole machine as it does so. OS 9 performs much better at low
  loading, contrary to the bull we hear daily.
  
  4) I never have to select "Hide Others".
  
  --- Funny, this is one of the things I find I do MORE under X than I do under 9.
  I know a lot of others who agree with me here (and Apple has even bound a
  hot-key to it-Command-H). One of the reasons I find myself using it more is
  the poor contrast between active/inactive windows in X. This makes me want
  to hide windows more so I don't get mixed up.
  
  5) I never have to manually allocate memory to my applications.
  
  --- This one is a definite boon. No argument there. Score one for OS X.
  
  6) I never have wasted RAM because I allocated more memory than my application needs.
  
  --- As above, though the VM on X makes me wonder at the moment. Apple has some
  work to do here.
  
  7) I don't have stuttering or stopping while I type in this message
  window while I am downloading a file and listening to an MP3 at the same time.
  
  --- This is just bollocks. I have never had a problem with having mp3's etc
  going at the same time os downloading etc in 9. In fact a little education
  can be found using top on X and peek-a-boo on OS 9. Itunes under OS 9 uses
  less than 2% of my processor (G3 266) under OS 9. Under OS X it uses 20-25%.
  Likewise with IE saturating the processor. Now which one is likely to skip
  more? In fact, I have had exactly ONE skip in running iTunes on OS 9; ever.
  Under ten I can often make it skip under heavy load. The writer should check
  the facts here instead of spouting the usual pre-emptive bull!
  
  8) When I click on the menu bar or hold down the mouse button my computer doesn't stop working.
  
  --- True, but resizing a window on OS 9 doesn't max out the CPU and update at 2 frame per second either. And running the cursor around the screen fast doesn't cause the CPU to use 10-15% of its cycles.
  
  9) I don't have to go to the Chooser to switch between my ink jet printer and my laser printer.
  
  --- No, you have to go to the print-center! And how exactly do I change location settings under X? They call changing a network setting a location manager?
  
  10) I don't have to go to the Chooser to mount a computer on the network.
  
  --- Fine, you have to go to the goto menu! What are the real semantic differences here?
  
  11) I don't have to purchase Dave or PCMacLan to network to my PC.
  
  --- True! Two for X.
  
  12) When an application freezes or fails, I don't lose all of my unsaved work in my other running applications.
  
  --- True. But then I have had my OS 9 machine up for 23 days straight as I type
  this. My OS X box has had TWO kernel panics in that time. Both with regards
  to AFP networking. So much for memory protection! You can't protect the
  system from itself!
  
  13) When an application freezes or fails, I don't have to restart my downloading of a large file.
  
  --- Now you are grabbing at straws. This is related to the above post. Again see my comment.
  
  14) I don't have to wait for my favorite applications to be written for dual processors.
  
  --- No? Well you might find that many of Carbon apps out are not properly threaded (at the moment) and they make diddly use of any other processor. The finder for instance is not faster on a multi-processor machine. It is still like treacle. And try connecting to an iDisk on the finder. It blocks completely!
  
  15) I like the Dock. I can easily launch my applications and switch between them from anywhere with a single click. I like how it displays information like how many unread emails I have.
  
  --- So do I. But I also dislike the Dock for trying to do TOO much for me and not having enough dynamics or feedback that counts. How do I distinguish between my Favourites folder and Downloads Folder in the Dock without mousing over them? And try updating a folder icon on the machine after the link is in the Dock. The Dock Icon will never update!
  
  16) Applications are bundled with their system files into a single file. I have never had to install an application in OS X and I never have to search for files to delete when I want to get rid of an application.
  
  --- Ha, Ha. Wait till MS hits its stride. Or try installing Apache or SSH! Now tell me how bad OS 9 is! The idea of a single bundle is great, but don't blame OS 9 for others screwing it. The same will come with X, just you wait.
  
  17) I love the open/save dialog boxes in OS X which show me customized favorites and recent places I've been.
  
  --- Yeah, except there is no real logic to the pop-up menu. And the three-pane miller browser in the open/save is just confusing. I hate it! Default Folder on OS 9 has been doing this FAR better for FAR longer.
  
  18) The Unix underpinnings bring new talent to the Macintosh developer community and a better chance at enterprise adoption.
  
  --- Maybe. We live in hope. But Apple is ignoring the people who made it chasing these wannabees. Look at the problems in the new Finder to see this. Read John Siracusa's articles on OS X. Where is something as simple, yet informative as Icon Masking in OS X.
  
  19) I love the new Finder with the toolbar. I instantly jump between all of the folders I go to - Applications, Utilities, Documents, Downloads, Music, etc. I can drag applications from the Downloads folder to the Applications icon on the toolbar and it gets moved there without the proliferation of windows.
  
  --- I am beginning to suspect a user familiar and comfortable with Windows here. The toolbar is useful but it is half-assed! It needs to be more like the NeXT dock if that's its function. It is too limited as it is now. For instance, the toolbar is the same for ALL windows. What if I want different ones in different folders?
  
  20) No 128 font suitcase limit.
  
  --- Score another for X. Pretty lame, but score it anyway.
  
  21) Global spell checker.
  
  --- Yes, but ironically they have screwed the Services feature of NeXT, since Carbon Apps can't use them (at least not yet). And they are far more powerful (and encompass global spell checking anyway).
  
  22) I love the PDF display. OmniWeb is the best looking Web browser I have ever used because of this technology.
  
  --- Fine! Maybe even true. Score four for OS X.
  
  23) I don't have to buy Adobe Acrobat to save anything to a PDF.
  
  --- No, but you can't do all that Acrobat can do, since Apple's PDF does not incorporate all of Adobe's PDF.
  
  24) I love being able to see which QuickTime movie is which just by clicking on it in the Finder without opening it.
  
  --- Oh yes, but ONLY in column view. How incongrous is that. And what about the fact that I can only view file attributes for ONE thing at a time in X as opposed to OS 9's almost limitless potential.
  
  25) I love being able to hear which music file is which just by clicking on it in the Finder.
  
  --- Straw grabbing again! See comments above.
  
  26) I love how my external FireWire drive works without having to install software.
  
  --- I would love it for my CD burner, but it doesn't work! Meanwhile OS 9 picked it up fine without any software install. OS 9 has far better support for USB and Firewire than OS X. This one's plain wrong. And again I detect a Window's user's voice here.
  
  By Dr Timothy Priest
  E-mail: tpriest@mac.com
  
  

• Good List
  2001-04-18 21:25:42  bearboat [Reply | View]
  
  
  What is not to like for the experienced Mac user?
  
  Look forward to almost everything mentioned. But I still need a few more Carbon apps

• Network to my PC ... How's That?
  2001-04-18 13:27:18  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  

  Here's a note I received via e-mail --DS:

  
  
  

  In reference to #11: "I don't have to purchase Dave or PCMacLan to network to my PC."
  How's that? By FTP? Because Mac OS X doesn't support MS SMB file system,
  does it? What did I miss?

  
  
  

  -- Steven B. Wolff

  
  
  
• Network to my PC ... How's That?
  2001-04-19 00:42:05  oreillynet20000 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well, you have two options...
  
  (i) Download the open-source Samba and compile it yourself and use the command-line tools to mount and unmount SMB/CIFS disks from PC hosts
  
  (ii) Download and test the commercial OS X app Sharity (search versiontracker.com for info), a CIFS client with GUI that plugs into the Network part of the Finder.
  
  Either options are satisfactory.
  
  Ian
• Network to my PC ... How's That?
  2001-04-19 19:41:44  pyrrho [Reply | View]
  
  
  But I believe the gist of the original point was that a user doesn't have to install a 3rd party solution in order to connect to a Windows machine. Or maybe it was just that a user doesn't have to resort to a commercial 3rd party solution (as both items that you listed were shareware or open source).
• Network to my PC ... How's That?
  2001-06-12 05:16:18  chrisridd [Reply | View]
  
  
  Samba comes pre-installed on X Server, but not X. Perhaps the author is confusing the two.

• Remember the PowerPC Resistance?
  2001-04-17 13:50:04  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  

  In what seems like billions of computer cycles ago, I remember how many dedicated Mac users thought that the PowerPC evolution would lead to the destruction of the platform.

  
  

  As Yogi Berra would say, "Seems like deja vu all over again."

• Remember the PowerPC Resistance?
  2001-04-18 12:20:48  Michael Beam | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Ah, that was before my time (i've only been on the Mac for about 4 years), but its going to fun to see what people say about OS X in 5 years (heck, next year!).
  
  To add on to Scott's list:
  
  Command-M to minimize (shame on Adobe for not doing this in acrobat though). Whenever i'm in OS 9 i'm saddened to see that Command-M won't work. Same with Command-H to hide.
• Amen brother!
  2001-04-17 17:20:09  Alan Graham | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I made this point on another forum...I remember VERY clearly how Apple had to force folks to leave the old Motorola chips for the new PPC ones...and even though they gave us the emulator to get us through until native apps were available...people cried "the sky is falling" because they had to buy a new copy of Photoshop. The pundits never thought people would switch over. And here we are...