OS News’ review of Mac OS X last week certainly stirred up controversy, partially because some die hard Mac fans perceived that it was improper for an outsider (someone who is not an everyday Mac user) to me making broad criticisms after only a superficial introduction to the New operating system. Well, folks, that’s why they call it a review. We thought that Apple’s major new OS also deserved a road test, and there were two very important events in Mac OS X history just a few days ago that toppled the last major obstacle to making it ready for millions of Mac users to start using it as their everyday OS: the 10.1 release and the release of Microsoft Office X. Last week, I made the switch and started using Mac OS X as my everyday OS. Here’s how it went:
I have been using a Macintosh since 1993. When the first Macs came out in the 80’s, I wanted one so badly, but my parents thought it was too expensive. We did not get a personal computer at all until about 1987, and it was a cheap PC clone. I had been involved in a pilot writing program at my high school in 1985 where we had learned how to compose our writing on the computer (Apple ][) rather than write it longhand then type it in, as was common in those days. I have rarely set pen to paper ever since. I moved from Bank Street Writer to Wordstar on DOS, and I became a word processing power user. It was in college that a roommate introduced me to the Mac SE/30 and Microsoft Word 5.1. It was love at first sight. Right after that, System 7 came out. It was a dream.
The purchase of my first Mac coincided with my introduction to the internet. I’d dial up to my school’s VAX and keep my gopher site updated. It was also my first exposure to a real server operating system, and I still have a soft spot in my heart for VMS. I quickly became a Mac fanatic. I followed the goings-on in Cupertino with bated breath. I lusted for Copeland (Apple’s ill-fated replacement to the Mac OS). I watched Be with anxious anticipation and hoped it might form the basis for a new Mac operating system. You see, I recognized, even in 1994, that the Mac OS had its problems. Call me naive, but I don’t think that even one computer crash is acceptable. By the time Mac OS 8.6 had come out, it had reached a level of utility and stability that was really remarkable considering its humble heritage, but we all knew it was time for something new.
When Apple brought Steve back in 1996 with the NeXT OS in tow, I was shocked and hopeful. I had always admired NeXT from afar, and with my work on the internet, I had become quite familiar with UNIX, developing server-based software for BSD OS and, soon thereafter, Linux. The powerful underpinnings of Unix with the refinement and usability of the Mac OS seemed like the logical combination. I started OS News in 1997 primarily because of the excitement that I felt for Rhapsody, the code name for the OS X project. I have installed and used virtually every single release (public or otherwise) of Rhapsody, Mac OS X Server, and Mac OS X since that day. I’ve been using the new OS for this and that, on and off, for over a year. It wasn’t until last week, though, that it was ready for me to use as my everyday OS. Now that it is, here’s my experience.
Stability and performance
The primary “modern OS” feature that I was looking forward to was added stability. System wide crashes are unacceptable, and having one app bring the whole system down fills me with rage. On this front, Mac OS X delivers. I have found that Microsoft Entourage is not very stable. It’s prone to crash while it’s in the background, but since it doesn’t bring the system down with it, I don’t really care. I just start it up again. I like the bouncy icon anyway.
There has been a lot of griping about the speed of Mac OS X, but it’s not a big problem for me. Compared to my first Mac and most of my early Windows machines, it’s blazing fast. I remember slow computers, and this is no slow computer. Version 10.0 was too slow. This version is okay, and I hope we see some more speed improvements and that Apple doesn’t just depend on Moore’s Law to make the problem go away. I’m road testing the new OS on a Powerbook G3 500 and a G4 Cube, each with plenty of RAM.
Protected memory, true multitasking, multi-processor support, and advanced file systems are all great, but nowadays they’re not special, they’re merely required to compete on an equal footing with every other OS.
Interface
The change in the familiar interface was a mixed blessing for me. I have always considered the Mac OS interface to be the best of the available OSes, but still lacking in both utility for power users and in intuitiveness for newcomers. I depended on hacks like TaskMenuBar, Program Switcher, and multi-button mouse enablers to keep me operating most efficiently. I don’t like to have to click all over the place to open apps, switch between apps, hide apps, and move files around, but I appreciated the fact that the Mac OS gave me the option of customizing things, and in a really elegant way sometimes. Building a customized Apple Menu is a smart solution to a difficult problem. Though Mac OS X’s interface has improved since the first version (remember the decorative Apple logo in the top center?) in some ways it’s still inferior to the old Mac’s. Again, the 3rd party hacks are starting to come to the rescue.
One thing that has improved in Mac OS X is file management. The old finder was always great, but it didn’t scale up to the larger drives and corresponding huge numbers of files that people have now. The new customizable finder, that lets you switch views easily and make shortcuts to frequently used folders is a move in the right direction. It balances between the familiar and the new quite elegantly, I think.
The Airport, display, sound, and battery widgets in the menu bar are a handy feature, but there’s not that much room up there, so it’s no cure-all. I always used the control strip in the old Mac OS, but I never really liked it. I also used to use Hoverbar, which was similar to the Dock in some ways, but, like the control strip, could be hidden with a keystroke. I used function keys to hide and show tools like the control strip and hoverbar, and also to hide and show applications. It was handy. The inability to hide the dock with a keystroke is my number one complaint about Mac OS X. Please, please someone make a utility that lets me hide the dock with a keystroke.
The dock. So close and yet so far. In its default configuration the dock is a travesty, and it’s difficult to make it much better my fiddling with available settings. I have successfully pinned it to the lower right hand corner, which gets it out of the way, but it’s still bothersome. The Windows-esque pop-up function is just annoying because it always ends up popping up when I don’t want it to, and most of the other customization options are basically pointless. The jumping icons and sucking apps are fun to watch, but don’t make my life easier. Magnification isn’t interesting, and I want the dock to be as small as possible so it will be less intrusive, so most of the otherwise-useful in-dock tools like calendars and clocks are uselessly illegible. The worst thing about the dock is that most apps disregard it and will happily pop up underneath it if given the chance. I hate to say this, but the dock should behave more like Windows in that respect. If the dock is showing, it should represent the edge of the screen and windows should line up with it. I am hopeful, though, because the changes that the dock needs to be a really great tool are quite minor, and I’m sure that even if Apple doesn’t smarten up, someone will figure out how to make it perform better.
I’m glad Apple moved the Apple menu back to its traditional spot, but it’s a shadow of its former self. It can’t be customized. The System Preferences link doesn’t cascade to the actual preferences. It has a useful link to “get Mac OS X Software” but I can’t trash the link once I’m done with it. Keep the Apple Menu the way it is, but let me customize it.
Aesthetic Concerns
Mac OS X is pretty. Anti aliasing, shadows, transparency, high resolution icons, translucent lollipop colors. The Quartz interface seems to work pretty nicely. The candy colors are taken a little too far in the case of Microsoft Office, but I think that it’s the inevitable result of the combined influences of Windows XP and Mac OS X. I’ve always liked clean, bright interfaces, so I’m pretty happy with this one, and I know that there is plenty of opportunity to customize it: increasing or decreasing transparency, changing colors, removing shadows, etc.
Unix
One thing that I’ve always loved about the Mac OS is that it was pretty easy to figure out how things worked under the hood. If you opened up the system folder, you could add or remove elements there and you’d have a pretty good idea what would happen. Apple Menu Items, Extensions, Control Panels, and Fonts can be enabled and disabled by moving them around. Mac OS was like my old 1980 Yamaha motorcycle. It would stop running sometimes, but I just had to get off and jiggle something and it would start up again. All the parts were laid out for you to see and touch, and you had a pretty good idea of what everything did. Mac OS X reminds me more of my 1999 Audi A4. The engine is literally covered in a plastic case. Even though you can easily take the case off, underneath is a labyrinth of tubes and wires that are incomprehensible to an armchair mechanic like myself.
I know my way around a command line quite well. I’ve been using Unix and Linux for years on the server side, and I use Linux on the desktop frequently. One of the first things I did in OS X was drag Terminal.app to the dock. There’s not much need for it day to day, just as Apple intended. I know, though, that under the veneer of the Mac OS X UI, there are thousands of hidden files that are making everything happen. It’s an unknowable, mysterious jumble to the common user, if they’re aware of this at all. I realize that there are many benefits to this approach, and if given the choice between user-servicability and reliability, I’ll choose reliability. Nevertheless, I’ll mourn the loss of simplicity.
For me, though, it’s very liberating to be able to use the vast library of Unix software that’s available. It makes Mac OS X a very interesting server operating system, at least. And kinship with the Linux and FreeBSD movements should prove to be a big boost for Mac OS X. I haven’t made much use of the Unix functionality in Mac OS X yet because I will probably continue to use Linux to power my servers. I want Mac OS so I can run apps like Word, Powerpoint, Entourage, BBedit, Instant messaging, and web browsers. I like the Unix underpinnings as a security blanket. It makes me feel like I’m in good company.
Being an early adopter
The hardest thing about using Mac OS X every day have been common early adopter problems. There are numerous little apps and hacks that I have grown to depend on that are not yet ported. The Control Panels that gave the Mac OS full support for the Microsoft Natural Keyboard and Intellimouse Explorer have left me somewhat crippled. I haven’t tried hotsyncing my Palm yet, and when I do, Avantgo probably won’t work. I still have to pop into Classic from time to time, but it works pretty well. Photoshop still isn’t native, of course. All these things will come with time.
Conclusion
I am pleased with OS X. I don’t think I could have used the old Mac OS for much longer. The little details that bother me about the new OS are similar to the little details that bothered me about the old Mac OS. The most serious problems with the old OS (stability) are now finally fixed. I’m no lover of Microsoft, but to exist in the business world today, it’s hard if you don’t have Office. Office on Unix is a great combination, and Mac OS X is the only game in town. OS X allows me to co-exist in my Linux and Windows-using office quite nicely, and exchange files with people whatever platform they’re using.
There are some serious interface problems with the new OS, most notably with the dock, but they will probably be addressed in time. You should only make the switch right now if you’re willing to deal with a few growing pains, but Mac OS X is entirely usable now, and it’s a lot of fun. It’s a great time to be a Mac fan.
You can’t say anything about Macs without the zealots foaming and screaming. Apple is irrelevant. Some users care about style- it’s nice to have a pretty interface. But really, so what? That’s not the point when you have real work to do, like writing a book, designing a Web site, analyzing financial data, programming, setting up a server, or any of the other zillion and one things real people with real work have to do.
OS X is merely a pretty face on a weird hybrid of Mach and BSD. Taking a freely available UNIX, putting a GUI on it, and calling it a breakthrough. What nonsense. You’re still stuck with overpriced, inferior hardware, and a lack of native apps. And what’s really shitty is Apple gives no credit to the BSD or Mach teams, but trumpets the damn thing as their own creation.
Apple should have died years ago. It has no reason to live.
good review. OSX isn’t compelling enough for me to switch to a hardware monopolist though. Not for my money, anway. I enjoy the competition and low prices on the PC hardware side too much.
“Please, please someone make a utility that lets me hide the dock with a keystroke.”
It’s not exactly what you asked for, but you can turn on/off the Dock’s autohiding with a keystroke (Command-Option-D, IIRC). Not perfect but still handy.
You sound hurt brother. Sounds like you’re the one getting all worked up. Let it out brother! Did a bad Mac hurt you, when you were just a child? Get help it’s out there.
Mac OSX, the OS for people who like what the do and enjoy doing.
Apple is hardly irrelevant. It still owns the desktop publishing and digital art markets. And we’re not the ones who recently had to merge to keep from getting sucked under like HP and Compaq. On a Mac you can still write a book (Microsoft Word), design a website (Adobe GoLive, Adobe PageMill, or even the reprehensible Microsoft FrontPage), set up a server with OSX Server and a good G4, and program to your hearts content. I don’t appreciate the implication that Mac users aren’t real people; minorities matter, and if you don’t believe me ask a Holocaust survivor or someone who fought for civil rights in the South.
Now, your point about slapping a GUI ontop of BSD is well taken, but to say that Apple doesn’t give credit is blatantly false. Apple’s website does an excellent job of showing how BSD lies underneath MacOS X, albeit a flavor of BSD modified by Apple and dubbed “Darwin.” The breakthrough is that this is the first time Linux has been brought to the masses by an established and time tested computer company rather than some startup that doesn’t exist a year later. You know you’ll be able to get support for it down the road, so Linux has now become a more accessible alternative to Windows. As for Apple hardware, it does tend to cost more, but to call it inferior is just uninformed. The PowerPC G4 chip at 867 Mhz beat a Pentium 4 at 1.7 Ghz in benchmark speed tests (http://www.apple.com/g4/myth). The PowerBook G4, while only an inch think, has a 15 inch flat screen and slot-loading DVD drive. The iBook has the option of a combination DVD/CD-RW drive. The PowerMac G4 has the option for the so-called “SuperDrive” which plays and burns both CD’s and DVD’s, not to mention the option of dual 800 Mhz processors. Apple also recently won an Emmy of all things for pioneering the FireWire standard. Hardly the marks of an inferior hardware company.
If Apple should have died years ago, it would have. Instead, it has beat all the analysts predictions of doom to remain one of the most innovative and stable computer companies in the world.
The breakthrough is that this is the first time Linux has been brought to the masses by an established and time tested computer company rather than some startup that doesn’t exist a year later. You know you’ll be able to get support for it down the road, so Linux has now become a more accessible alternative to Windows.
Of course MacOS X is not Linux.
Infact Apple was (for a while) a significant supporter of mkLinux, so they’re actually less linux friendly now than they once were.
Apple=Cult
Jim Jones=Steve Jobs
Apple users have always been more than willing to go back for Koolaid seconds….Apple, NeXT, Be…..
1. Go into Sherlock and do a search for a file. It takes almost a minute on a stock MacOSX intallation. With BeOS database type filesystem and sub 2 second searches, this is truly unacceptable (and linux and freebsd have similar problems).
2. It seems as if the OS is starved for memory. I know that with todays RAM prices this isn’t a problem, but come’on people, 128Mb should be enough (thats the default amount for all iMacs/iBooks. This is what the average user can afford). My iMac thrashes the hard disk like mad (due to paging).
3. The dock is a great innovation, but why in gods name does Apple oppose the widespread use of context menus. They exist in OSX but they’re limited. A great implementation of contextual menus is present in BeOS – it absolutely rocks. And what happened to springy folders from the MacOS8x series?
4. ObjC? C’mon people, its the 21st century, C++ has become the defacto language of choice by the whole friggin developer community. The hack that was ObjC should have disappeared in the early 90’s. I’ve read the 250 page PDF introduction to ObjC (from Apples web site, no less) and it has no advantages to C++ (it has a few flaws, actually). Stay with the times, people. And no, Java cannot compete with C++.
5. Finally, Apple hardware is just too damn expensive. I bought an iMac 3 years ago and do not wish to buy Apple hardware again.
The PowerPC G4 chip at 867 Mhz beat a Pentium 4 at 1.7 Ghz in benchmark speed tests (http://www.apple.com/g4/myth).
Bull. Apple has always designed their tests to make their processor “faster” than the latest Intel (Intel does this as well). While certainly the latest G4 keeps up with the latest Pentium … it is NOT “twice as fast” or even 25% faster. If you look at the URL you gave me, there’s a little note that says “Based on a suite of performance tests using Adobe Photoshop 6.0”. First of all, that’s ONE application. You can’t benchmark based on a single application and then place a nicely layed out webpage claiming “percentage faster than a pentium system”. It should be changed to say “percentage faster than a P4 on a series of Photoshop filters we decided would be good to use”.
And Apple gets to choose which filters, how convenient. It’s been proven that certain Photoshop filters run faster on Macs while others run faster on x86. It’s just what takes advantage of Altivec the most and what doesn’t. That Altivec is truely amazing … and so is the G4 overall. And I respect Apple for trying to clear the “MHz Myth” as they call it .. because most certainly Intel has been using the consumer’s idea of what a fast system is to its advantage. From early benchmarks an AMD XP @ 1.5GHz outdoes a 2GHz P4 in 90% of most every bechmark run … that’s a 500MHz difference, folks.
Now, the problem is that while Apple may be trying to make you think they’re “clearing the MHz myth” … they’re using Intel’s marketing to their advantage. The more Intel pushes its MHz to the limits, the more Apple can say “hey … we’re faster than a processor that’s X MHz more than us!” The larger that gap gets, the more Mac people can say to themselves “Apple is great!” Marketing departments at Intel and Apple should be tarred and feathered. It’s all bad mojo for us enthusiasts.
Sorry if none of the above made sense, it’s 3AM
some speedtest from c’t magazine issue 16 (german mag. aug 2001)
first number G4 867MHz, second number P4 1.7GHz
3d rendering cinema 4D (larger is faster..)
shading C4D 7,46 / 13.55
shading OpenGl 9.88 / 21.00
raytracing 10.74 / 16.51
unreal tournament [fps] min med max
powermac G4/876 18.5 28.5 48.4
P4/1.7 22.6 46.2 80.5
Quake III [fps]
G4 / P4 47.8 / 59.1
So it’s not a slow machine, but not faster then a P4 at 1.7GHz like
Apple claimed..
in my opinion apple acts more or less the same way as microsoft and therefor I don’t like them.
do you remember the days of the cloning mac’s ? soon after it started you could by mac’s which are cheaper AND faster than the original. what have apple done, shutting down cloning and bying one of them. so in fact apple was not able to compete with hardware they invented and they produce for a longer time, then the new startups which had also to pay a license fee !!! for me that implies that apple is not able to produce fast hardware which you can pay, like other could do.
the second reason is when a OS company wanted to produce an alternative OS for the mac-hardware they didn’t give them the specs. i mean they would still sell the hardware at the same price, they lost only the software upgrade for the OS. for me only political reason, because why don’t want a company to sell their product ?
the 3rd reason they try the same way as microsoft to bind users with proprietary software like quicktime. I woudn’t say anything if they give out the specs to write plugins for other OS’s or they would provide players for other OS, of course they have players for windows. but there exists other OS’s which you know.
so, it’s only my opinion of course but for me I don’t like apple anymore and of course I wan’t ever by one.
Yours
Thomas
A couple of months ago there was a roundtable discussion on the “Does Apple Matter?” issue.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/roundtable/
Perhaps of interest is the guest list which includes Gil Amelio, Jean-Louis Gassee and Jeff Raskin.
It might be of interest to some people to read JLG’s comments which were made around the time Palm announced it was to purchase the technological assets of Be Inc. Although he was speaking about Apple, it offers a glimpse of the thinking behind Be’s focus shift from a desktop OS that was gaining traction and generating increasing revenue, to a gamble on IA’s in a market that had yet to materialize.
(Hint: look for the bit where he describes the shift from Apple ][‘s to Mac’s.)
But back to Apple, after praising the risky move from Apple 2’s to Mac’s, Apple is criticised for playing it safe ever since… I’ll let y’all read it yourself… it ties in with the Microsoft Office focus of the OSNews article.
Now that was more like a review and very thorough at that. I think alot of Mac users will agree with the both the good and the bad on this!!!
Well Done 🙂
If I was reading those numbers right, you just put your foot in your mouth… D’OH!!! Doesn’t really matter, I read the same benchmark tests as well from different websites and such and I always see different numbers, it’s all just a propaganda trip anyway!!!
Well lets say the mac is fast enough if they optimize the software a bit more.
Same for the pc, older machines (~300MHz) run fine with win98 for everyday stuff (if you put enough memory in them) but are to slow for Win2k.
I run an Athlon at 1GHz at the moment and have no wishes to upgrade
the hardware yet and it costed about 1/3 of an G4 🙂
Man I hear all of you say that mac hardware is more expensive, well you get what you pay for and even those in the pc world know that. When you buy a cheap motherboard for a pc you get crap. I have a 1ghz Athlon and a powerbook G4 500mhz. You know which one I like better, the powerbook. I have Windows Xp loaded and Mac Os X 10.1 and I get tired of looking at XP. I can desing Java on both platforms but it runs better on Mac OS X. I can play games on both platforms, but I always have to worry about on the pc for drivers or direct x issues. Sure Windows XP can run anything in a compatabilitiy mode, but what in the hell do you think Classic is for OS X? The interface is so much better on OS X, I have been a Mac and PC user since 1988 and still have my 512k Mac around, none of my older pc are around though. I have been following OS X since I first hear of Raphsody. I am a Unix, Linux, and QNX user and say that Os X is the best thing to come to the computing world. I can use unix apps with Mac apps and also if I want install a version of X86 so you can run X windows environments…
Well, we can see if the flamers come out of the woodwork for THIS article, too. Long ago–from the time when System 5 was current through the time you ran “MultiFinder” instead of Finder for task switching, up through the release of System 7–I was quite the Mac fan, using them at college and then later at work as a desktop publisher. When it came time to replace the TRS-80 Model 4 I’d been pushing along for years at home, though–after I’d left Kinko’s!–I made the decision to follow the PC path.
This wasn’t because I particularly liked PC hardware. It was partially because the PC hardware was cheap, and partially because the fanaticism of Mac users utterly turned me off. You could NOT say anything remotely critical of the Mac without being flamed as an utterly ignorant fool. Macs were perfect. If a Mac couldn’t do it, it was obviously because nobody needed to do it.
Erich Ringewald, the author of MultiFinder, made the observation a few years back that the bumper stickers he’d seen (current at the time) saying “Windows 95 = Mac 89” were perfectly true, but the real problem was that Mac 95 = Mac 89, too. That’s been true for years. I rejoined the Mac fold just over a year ago with an iBook running MacOS 9.0.4 and was, over time, alarmed at how little things had changed under the hood. Spare me the litany of “the vast differences” between System 7 and MacOS 9 other than the name change, fans–when push comes to shove, it still stops with mysteriously-numbered error messages, still handles memory management about as well as that TRS-80 Model 4 did, and when applications crash they still have a good chance of taking the operating system with them. My iBook freezes regularly, and I’m not doing anything particularly fancy with it.
And spare me the Fitts’ Law argument about the Single Holy Menubar, too. I understand it and, from that point of view, one menubar is better. The problem is that new users who aren’t computer-literate don’t understand about that single menubar switching contexts. My mother has an iBook and I have watched her countless times be fumbling in an application, accidentally click on the desktop background and wonder where some of the menu commands went. With all due respect to Jef Raskin, visually linking an application’s functions with the application’s data seems to be more useful to new users than giving them larger “target areas” for the mouse. Spatial organization trumps mathematical modeling.
I may break down and put 10.1 on my iBook at some point, simply because MacOS 9.0.4’s instability drives me nuts. And I don’t agree with some of Eugenia’s points–but I don’t disagree with a lot of them. The most revolutionary thing about OS X (to my DTP/web designer biased eye) is Quartz. Quartz will always be a performance pig. That’s not a problem in and of itself. But just because you have it doesn’t mean you need to use it everywhere. Nobody is made more productive by alpha-blended translucent menus and bouncing application icons.
As for a lot of the cruelty directed at Eugenia on her earlier piece, English is her second language, and that frequently shows. Deal with it, folks. I’ve always found her ‘reviews’ to be entertaining largely because of what I consider her pretty odd perspective on things–she obviously doesn’t look at things the way I do, and oftentimes I’m left going ‘Eh?’ But the less-thoughtful reactions to her say more about the authors of those reactions than they do about her writing. She must be an idiot because she don’t talk pretty. And, most tellingly, she must be a biased Windows-lovin’ troll because she had something bad to say about Macs. (Those of us who used to follow BeNews know she’s a biased BeOS-lovin’ troll. Just kidding! Don’t hit me.)
P.S.: Some of the comments were just odd, like the person who said BeOS was an attempt to clone NextStep. Sir, what color is the sky in the little world you live in? They have virtually nothing in common. Anyone watching Gil Amelio’s strategy for Apple would have realized he was trying to move them toward competing as an “enterprise solution” computer company–and that’s why he bought Next, with its cult following as a development environment, rather than Be, unaware that it would lead to his ousting–and ironically to the abandonment of enterprise customers entirely.
I just wanted to present a few contrasting points of view to your statements above.
RAM Prices: What’s the big deal? I can buy a 128MB chip for $13.00, a 256MB chip for around $27.00 and a 512MB chip for under $50.00. I think the average user can afford any one of these.
C++ a programming standard: No it isn’t. Most places I’ve worked use Delphi, Java, (heaven forbid) VB, C++, and so on for applications, but almost always C for system programming, which is what OSX would fall under.
Who cares what it’s written in anyway as long as it works. I doubt wholeheartedly that moving from ObjectiveC to C++ would really buy them anything in the performance or end user areas.
Java can’t compete with C++: Actually, when run through the VM, 1.4 comes pretty close to DLL performance. However, as I’ve said in this forum before, there isn’t anything keeping you from compiling your Java code into native machine code, in which case both perform pretty much the same.
Java also has other advantages such as being able to do Servlets, which are superior to CGI.
Ja,
Well I will keep this short and sweet… I own an old Mac SE-30 with System 7 and of course I am running Mac OS 9/X on my iMac now, the one thing that most OSes have been a victim of is when you add more to them the more buggy they get and I don’t care what is under the hood DOS and/or UNIX! The one thing that made me feel secure when crashes occurred was that I pretty much knew the Mac OS was going to boot up without a glitch, but as for Windows I got to the point where I was praying that Windows would reboot without error… that is pretty scary if you ask me. But either way, nothing runs better than your industrial strength OSes like Sun’s Solaris and/or any flavor VMS in which when companies need something reliable… the latter 2 are probably at the helm guarranteed!!!
I don’t get mad at reviews as long as they are within the reach of reality, but Eugenia’s review was something that I would have saw on your average Oprah Winfrey show… pretty much one sided and bashing the other side, that is not a review… that is bashing!!! I have the upmost respect for Eugenia, I am also a BeOS user and have followed her columns and reviews from BeNews in the past, so I was not surprised of her latest review of Mac OS… she is biased when it comes to the Mac side of things. I am a refugee from the Windows world that escaped to the Mac world, so I know what goes on on both planets and I am satisfied where I am now, but I don’t expect everyone else to have the same feelings!!!
If you’ve switched to 10.1 recently and are missing the apple menu, there are alternatives which are arguably better than our beloved menu. I’ve started using http://www.obdev.at>LaunchBar.<p>To LaunchBar is so obvious once you’ve seen it, you’ll be surprised it doesn’t exist on every platform. Give it a try and you won’t miss the apple menu any longer.
My needs are complex… If I had my way I’d run Linux and that would be the end of it. Cheap PC hardware and a great OS and choice of desktop environment.
However, WINE support for kids’ games is – let’s face it – terrible.
With Mac OSx I envision my kids playing “Reader Rabbit” and the like and me doing geek stuff.
The only thing is… it is hard to fork over the extra cash for proprietary hardware. It just kinda rankles. But the alternative – staying with Microsoft – rankles more.
I hope that kids’ games will be ported to the new OSx soon!
>The only thing is… it is hard to fork over the extra cash for proprietary
hardware. It just kinda rankles. But the alternative – staying with Microsoft rankles more.
The same goes for proprietary software in which we all know smells of Microsoft!!!
Well I now have 10.1 installed and I have to say I’m loving it. Both reviews made valid criticisms of the operating system, which still has some flaws that need to get worked out. Overall though, I find it very slick. In terms of Objective C versus C++, I really don’t see that much of a big deal with Objective C. I’ve found building applications relatively easy under OS X using the Interface Builder and Objective C. I’ve also found that plugging in the Java-based Cocoa code instead of Objective C is relatively seamless.
I have some applications I can’t wait to develop. Originally I was going to choose Cocoa, but the more I look at it, the more I think I’m going to go as far as I can with Java, and leave the heavy duty processing engine to a straight C code base.
Whoever said C++ is the defacto standard is either an idiot or a liar. Are you sure you’re a programmer, or are you confusing C with C++?
This review was more balanced. That’s why they’re called reviews, Eugenia…
To the poster who said context-switching within a centralized menu confuses users…
You must be insane!
That may confuse Windows users who have been deluded into thinking that it is the better or more logical way, but to a person who has little to no experience in using computers at all, it works against them.
And I think I’m more qualified to say this is the case since I’ve taught computer science for years.
I hate it when people say “fast enough,” because they undoubtedly have slow reaction times. For me, there are only two OSs that are fast enough. Windows 2000, whose speed breaks down whenever the disk gets accessed, and BeOS, which I could pound on with impunity and still have respond better than Linux ever does. Its also disgusting that any modern OS, on modern hardware, should be comparable to “older Windows machines” in speed! OS X really doesn’t have any features that warrent the speed hit. Linux is faster, has more features, and is completely free. Aside from Quartz (which will soon be made irrelevant with things like E17, which promise *fast* yet complex imaging models for Linux), and the killer XML config system, what does OS X really have to offer?
I hate the dock. it sucks. they need to do some serious work on it. in the meantime, what I did (which works EXCELLENTLY) is I replaced it with an app that does so much more and does it with such little effort. it’s called DragThing. I’ve been using dragthing as long as I’ve had a mac (only 4 years, but who’s counting?) because I thought the launcher and app switcher were annoying as hell. dragthing creates launcher docks and process docks (as meny or few as you like, you don’t even have to have one of each) that you can customize in size, color, function, and position on your screen (they don’t even have to be attached to an edge of the screen). the process doc shows all current running processes (there are even options to show hidden processes, trash, and disks in the process dock). you can get info on an item in a dock, you can hide, show, and quit a process or empty the trash strait from the process dock. the launcher dock is really sweet, too. it works on a tab system and you basically store shortcuts in slots and launch the items (folders, files, or programs) with a single click and catagorize them however you like by naming, coloring, and styling your tabs (I had a launcher dock for X docs & apps and one for classic docs & apps). it has options to hide any process with a keystroke (I use whatever key is to the far right of my function keys to hide the current app because I never use that key for anything else). DEFINATELY worth the contribution to dragthing’s makers and DEFINATELY one of those apps that will make you wonder what the hell you were doing before!!
PS-I DO NOT work for the dragthing guys, I’m just a fan =)
-vo (sticky.waferbaby.com)
“Windows 2000, whose speed breaks down whenever the disk gets accessed…”
I guess the disk always gets accessed. HAHAHA. Surely you don’t want me to believe that Windows 2000 is a fast OS? If anyone calls Mac OS X.1 slow and calls Windows 2000/XP fast, you must be on crack. Hierarchical menus draw very slowly in Windows for the little information (comparatively) that it’s processing to actually draw it to screen. Nothing fancy at all, but it’s still slow. I’m not saying the UI in OS X is zippy, but when the Windows UI is compared to any pre-Mac OS X Apple operating system, Windows feels downright poky. This is why most Mac fans complain about OS X. For them it “feels” like a step down. What’s Microsoft’s excuse? They had 7 years!
“To the poster who said context-switching within a centralized menu confuses users…
You must be insane!”
I didn’t say it originally, but I’ll certainly agree with it. In my few years tutoring school teachers, time and time again this scenario presented itself: A teacher is writing something up in ClarisWorks and wants to shut down the computer. Being told many, many times to use the “Shut Down” command, the teacher closes the ClarisWorks window using the close box and then can’t understand where the “Special” menu is. New users expect things to always be in the same place, and when they’re not, they get confused. If they don’t see the ClarisWorks window, they have trouble realizing that ClarisWorks is still the frontmost application and thus controls the menu bar.
Clearly, this particular case isn’t valid in OS X since the “Shut Down” command is always in the same place and does not depend on the Finder being in the foreground, but the principle still holds.
“And I think I’m more qualified to say this is the case since I’ve taught computer science for years.”
Given that your 2nd and 3rd to last statements contradict each other and that your tone is reactionary and impolite, I think it’s pretty likely you’re a 14 year old kid rather than a CS professor (or, at least, a CS professor at any school I would consider adequate). Nevertheless, it has been my experience since starting college that CS professors often seem to have the least accurate views of what the average user wants in a computer.
“Surely you don’t want me to believe that Windows 2000 is a fast OS?”
This statement pretty much proves that you’ve never used Windows 2000. At least, not on any remotely decent hardware. My two-year-old-now-worth-about-$500 Pentium2 400mHz system ran Windows 2000 very nicely. Menus drew instantaneous (unless it had to load program icons, which were well-cached after loading once), windows dragged quickly, and pretty much everything ran very nicely.
“If anyone calls Mac OS X.1 slow and calls Windows 2000/XP fast, you must be on crack.”
I will happily say this. (Somehow, it seems weird that a “CS professor” would say something this immature, but that’s a different topic) I run a G4 400 with 384 megs of RAM right next to a Celeron 566 overclocked to 850 and my PC runs much, much faster with respect to interface (I haven’t tested Seti@Home or pure processor tests; just using the system for day-to-day things). Have you never scrolled in 10.1? Never resized windows? These are basic things that are still very slow. Load the Windows calculator and it pops up instantly. Load the OS X one; it takes a few seconds. Terminal vs. Command Prompt? How about dragging icons and playing movies?
Yes, I know all about why OS X’s interface runs slowly, and I think in the long run Quartz will be a good thing. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still much slower today. You very clearly haven’t ever used Windows 2000/XP.
“Hierarchical menus draw very slowly in Windows for the little information”
They draw absolutely instantly here, except once in a blue moon when the icons have to be re-read.
“when the Windows UI is compared to any pre-Mac OS X Apple operating system, Windows feels downright poky”
I would strongly disagree with this statement, but the two systems are about equivalent in terms of speed. Of course, in terms of your hierarchical menu example, Windows shows icons for each level of hierarchy, while the Mac OS only shows them for the root level of the Apple menu. This clearly gives the Mac the edge in terms of speed, because the icons don’t have to be read. Of course, Windows still draws it instantaneously for me, and my hardware certainly isn’t even close to top-of-the-line.
“What’s Microsoft’s excuse? They had 7 years!”
Windows’ UI has been rather snappy for quite a few years, now. I’m presuming, since you “teach computer science,” that you’ve used Windows and are thus just exaggerating/lying about your experience with it.
Now that is funny…
I suppose the possibility of having non-existant user menus a better alternative…as is the case in Windows? Tear off the menu in Word…close the menu.. and see how many users out of 100 can figure out how to restore it?
Also, nothing I’ve ever said about menuing is contradictory…read carefully.
As far as classic Mac OS applications are concerned, even the lowliest Mac OS provided a visual cue as to which application was the active application. It’s that pictorial icon to the upper right hand corner next to the time.
And for your information, I’m quite happy teaching…
I also work in the industry at an R&D lab as a project manager…so please spare me your feeble quips, little man.
Its pretty ugly underneath. They use C, C++ and Objective C. So you need compatibility code. Then they use the Mach microkernel. Only Win NT, 2000, XP and GNU/Hurd use that these days. None are fast or very scalable(compared to Solaris, Linux) Objective C is fine, but not common, so programmers have to learn it. Many more people know C/C++ and java. And from what I’ve heard, Java is becoming the standard for apps and replacing C++.
<p> But OS X has a great GUI foundation. With a little polishing, it will be excellent.
cause I have been trying all day and i get an error message everytime, but others seam to be able to post. what gives.
Its shorter than other post on here so its not a length thing, so i don’t knwo what is wrong and the message of “sorry we can’t tell you anything more” is not helping.
“suppose the possibility of having non-existant user menus a better alternative…as is the case in Windows?”
I agree that this “feature” is bad, but note that it’s an office feature and not a general one of Windows. It is also irrelevant when discussing the merits of application-specific menubars and a global menubar system.
“Also, nothing I’ve ever said about menuing is contradictory…read carefully”
Sure you did. Here’s what you said:
“That may confuse Windows users who have been deluded into thinking that it is the better or more logical way, but to a person who has little to no experience in using computers at all, it works against them.”
The “that” beginning the sentence is pointing to the concept of a global menubar, and the “it” at the end is pointing to the same concept. Thus you inadvertantly said the opposite of what you meant.
“It’s that pictorial icon to the upper right hand corner next to the time.”
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. The Apple menu doesn’t display icons for any submenus, whereas Windows’ Start menu displays icons at each level. Thus the Start menu is naturally going to be slower, since it has to read in and render the icons. However, even with this fact, I find the Start menu to be extremely fast except in rare occasions.
“I also work in the industry at an R&D lab as a project manager…so please spare me your feeble quips, little man.”
Your use of language and your poor attitude highly suggest otherwise. So either you’re a young kid pretending to be something he/she’s not, or you’re a grown man who one would assume is a little kid after reading his/her writing. Frankly, I’m not sure which is worse…
test
Professor, get a hold of yourself! Will you?
Most major commercial applications and major parts of operating systems today are written in C/C++. C++ is a superset of C.
I don’t think this review was more balanced. It took the point of view of a Unix fan and a long time Mac fan. A balanced review would have been un-biased and would have done hard core comparisons with other major operating systems in terms of features, ease of use, scalability, implementation etc…
In a multi tasking operating system, context switching with a centralized menu *IS* confusing and outright annoying! (IMHO) In a cooperative environment line MacOS 8/9, it’s more resonable because you can only do one darn thing at a time anyway.
You’re more qualified? Will all due respect, give me a freaking break will you?
You sir or madame, are an Apple Macintosh Fanatic, period!
ciao
yc
> And I think I’m more qualified to say this is the case
> since I’ve taught computer science for years.
I can remember several of my computer science teachers I don’t consider as *qualified*.
Sorry, give arguments, not “I’m qualified, believe me!”.
For example, could you argument why oh why a “review” is one only if he’s balanced!?
The breakthrough is that this is the first time Linux has been brought to the masses by an established and time tested computer company rather than some startup that doesn’t exist a year later.
Hey Captain Sensable… I am wondering if you have ever heard of a little company, oh what’s their name….. I know it has 3 letters… Hmm… Oh yeah! IBM.
Yeah I know they’ll probably be out of business by the time they finish investing a BILLION dollars into Linux this year… So they are hardly relevant, right?
-Jason
Yeah it is pretty neat to see that IBM is taking such an interest into Linux and further developing it into a mainstream OS!
I wouldn’t consider Apple’s contribution to the UNIX revolution a bold statement to the Linux foundation. Though I know that Apple would like to see a few Linux refugees cross over to help push Mac and it’s new wonderful OS into the hall of fame!!!
Apple is now delivering the revolution that consumers have been chanting about for a longtime coming!!!
Quote (Eugenia):
…I’m no lover of Microsoft, but to exist in the business world today, it’s hard if you don’t have Office. Office on Unix is a great combination, and Mac OS X is the only game in town.
—-
Humm. Do you need M$ Office ? definitely NOT !
Our customers are pleased by our solutions we present them with StarOffice (a powerful alternative which is remarkable expensiv ;-), combined With a powerful Domino Server (Linux) as a workflow / webserver / database solution.
So if you’re not stuck on Billie Boy’s software pieces, there are several alternatives there and guess which alternative will be more affordable to a company ;-)…
Picking up Zenja’s writing – Sherlock queries, booah what a lousy filesystem is working there. Jobs made a big mistake in here. This Filesystem is really out of time.
Second big bummer, Zenja : the latencies on OS X.1 are still so baaad that I still got no idea how all this Multimedia software developpers are still on Mac. Look at QNX RTOS. Look at BeOS. These real-time OS’ses are the basement for a solid multimedia work. Mac isn’t.
3rd : Quality of sound libs : well these point gets a — ,too, for OSX. It can’t compete with ALSA, OSS, nor Be’s Media Kit, no Sir.
I work on Mandrake 8.0 (8.1 now), and BeOS 5.03 Pro at home.
No pain in the ass at home, please.
At work we use W2YK Pro, some are stuck on their Macs in the office.
Right now, a stress test for our PC’s that we’re going to deliver is going on (50 Office Workhorses running Duron 900’s on 256MP, W2YK, ASUS Board, CD, 100MBit DLink NIC, ATI graphics (32 MB) with StarOffice & Lotus Notes completely for very expensive 500 US$/unit hardware/software costs ;-). It’s a VB-Skript, which starts about 50 Windows (DOS,Editor, WordPad, Calculator, Backup, Paint, etc – including StarOffice & Notes) at once, closes it afterwards, reopens it again & so on.
All of the 50 PC’s are still up & running. No error messages. Nothing. For 24 hours now.
Guys I don’t like Microsoft W2000 – but when it’s pretty configured – it’s a damned workhorse.
TO the OO objectives & OS X here is a nice Excerpt from a Apple Coding Guru (name cut off):
<P>
Note: this letter was received as a response to the recent comparison of BeOS and OS X
at Byte.com
<P>
I have been writing software professionally for 10 years.
I started at home on my 1984
Macintosh in PASCAL. Over the years my work has guided me thru C, C++, Smalltalk,
Java and Objective C.
I have reaped the benefit of Object Oriented technologies for
years now.
I have developed for Windows, Macintosh, Linux and recently picked up BeOS.
So with all that I would like to point out my discoveries of developing in Mac OS X and Be OS.
For several years now I have been searching for a true Object Oriented operating
system, where developers would write applications using system services based on
objects.
BeOS API is written in an easy C++ class library. It avoids complex and non
standard extensions to the language (operator over loaders and templates).
When I want to use file system services I create instances of objects provided by the operating system.
This is extremely convenient for the developer not to have to steep low into 3rd generation C code and memory management.
Threading is promoted in your applications from the first instantiation of a window.
If I want to pass data from one object to another, there is no problem, the API created a set of objects to handle primitive types and collections.
So extensions to the API share these types, again very convenient.
<P>
OS X is implemented in several different technologies, which are written in different languages and sometimes vastly different styles and data types.
BSD layer is written in a old K&R style C, the system framework is written in C based on similar style to the Mac Toolbox (massive attempts to hide pointers).
And finally the User Interface developed in Objective C with its own types and syntax.
In a simple experiment to use XML (which many applications in OS X use) I had to combine C code from the System framework using C memory allocation with my Objective C code, it was very frustrating.
The majority of Mac services (media, voice, fonts, file system) are written in the System framework, NOT Objective C.
I wonder how they handled sockets in OpenStep (BSD calls I suspect).
<P>
This left a sour feeling about developing for OS X, its going to be the same sloppy stuff as in Windows and Mac OS.
OO based class libraries will take years to catch up.
This is the same problem with Linux. There are thousands of great utilities for developers to use for implementing in their code, but 99% are written in C.
Many of them include C++ wrappers but they are usually behind in implementing all of the features of the C version and are not updated frequently.
Look at GNOME/GTK, written entirely in C, but with a very Obj Oriented approach.
I have to wonder what they were thinking.
The UNIX development community is mostly C.
Windows – well MFC is just a bad wrapper to the C Win32 API.
And Microsoft has implemented a static Message Mapping technology for binding UI events to code.
Its just ridiculous to implement custom events in custom objects.
And forget about sub classing UI elements, just too cumbersome.
Then there is the issue of all of the extensions MS has added to their Visual C++ compiler, the cross platform issue….
It goes on forever.
My point is that Object Oriented programming has been around for about 10 years in our industry, and we only have 1 commercial OS to show the benefits of it: BeOS.
Yet BRAND NEW commercial operating systems are appearing at our feet, and they do not take advantage of OO technology to its fullest.
Now I know the advantage of kernel level stuff written in C.
But user interface API’s are prime for OO tech.
What was Apple thinking when the used the OpenStep class library but completely neglected it porting the Toolbox, and changed the language???
<P>
XXXX
A Very Frustrated Apple Developer, XXX, Inc.
>Quote (Eugenia)
Actually, this is David writting the article, not me.
>Quote (Eugenia)
Actually, this is David writting the article, not me.
(sorry for the duplication, wrong keystroke…)
Ohhh – Sorry !
David Adams – hmm, I thought it was Eugenias attempt to satisfy the Mac Zealots a bit 😉
Jumped to fast thru the articles 😉
1) Windows NT/2K/XP don’t use the MACH microkernel, they use a custom MS one. Besides, these days, Windows NT isn’t really a microkernel anymore.
2) Win2K doesn’t draw menus slowly. There is a delay by default so the transparency animation can be shown long enough for the user to notice. Turn of menu animation, and they pop right up.
I said my mother had problems with her iBook due to the context-switching. I said she was a computer-phobe. She is. That’s why I recommended a Mac in the first place. She has trouble keeping in mind what the difference between a hard drive and RAM is.
The problem is NOT that she is a “Windows user.” The problem is that she is not a computer user, period. Having one menubar whose menus and functions shift based on context changes is no more intuitive to a technophobe than the Windows-ism of putting “Shut down…” in a menu that pops out when you press a button labelled “Start.” Both violate the principle of least surprise.
Get over yourself. If you’re a CS instructor, great! I’m a software engineer whose job involves user interface design. I’m not going to claim that makes me more qualified to criticize user interfaces, but I’m going to claim it doesn’t make me any less qualified. The good folks at the Nielsen Norman Group might not agree with all of my views (and vice-versa), but it’s worth noting that most of them have criticized OS X’s UI as being at the least uninnovative and at the worst a step backward from MacOS 9.
(And if you’ve never heard of NN/g, then I *am* more qualified to criticize user interfaces than you are.)
I don’t see what’s the big issue about languages. You don’t have to know Objective-C unless you want to develop Cocoa applications. If you want to use C++ you can use MacApp, MacZoop, or PowerPlant which are all Carbon-based and work very well.
Objective-C is very easy to pick up. It only takes a non-retard a day to learn.
All this whining is ridiculous. The only case where you have to know a language other than C is if you’re developing drivers, in which case you need to know C++.
As for OS X, you want it pay for the hardware and breathe easy. You buy it, it works, you get your work done. The time I save using macs more than pays for the difference in hardware prices. If OS X came out for Intel hardware you whiners would complain about the price so Apple shoudln’t bother!
Thanks for th review. Although I feel that the editor seems do not want confrontations from the Mac fans. I would call this review a start, adn would to hear more on it.
I like my OS X experience very much. I don’t understand some people say X’ is slow. It’s very fast. Especially Mr. Rayiner Hashem, which he keep saying Win2K is fast while he excuse it’s slow draw of icons and the menu speed (yes, after you turn off the animation it’s faster). Why the GUI is slow in OS X? I mean, when I work in column view, the representation of the document, ques and even big quicktime movie show up “instantly” which Windows always delay. the menu are snappy as it should, and it also have transparancy and fade in and out effects, it just not able to turn off… but even with that, it’s snappy. Window resizing was a problem but it’s fine now.
I see the OS could go much further.
But I really hate the dock. This is the single thing that annoys me. It always gets in the way, and no matter you’re in the state of showing it or in the state of hiding it. e.g. If I show the dock, sometimes application windows go beneath the dack and I can’t access it. While I hide the dck, I have no idea where t find my suck down window and need to hunt for it. this thing really need to fix. A always expected loction for aaplication launch will be much better. And also I like to see the multiple desktop from Linux (KDE) being implement into OS X, that’s a great feature should make the system more useful.
sorry… for the typos, but still hope you understand my comments.
I had a comment on your opinion about the global menubar.
I think I disagree the global menubar is not good compare to the menubar placement of Windows, and various *nix system.
I don’t want to went through interface design theory, but the context change menubar is just something you get used to, and when you remember or know that’s the way it works, you could not mistaken again.
(In fact, it’s extremely easy for a Mac to put the shutdown command under the always accessible Apple menu.)
You may argue in a pure sense that when you have to remember some behavour of a system work, that means it’s not intuitive or “bad”.
But I just wonder how much better the system without a global menu bar. That’s true that you don’t have that context change bar at the top to make confuse you where to command goes. But while you have multiple windows openof a app nd several different apps also open, yuou have indeed multiple menubars that is the duplicate of the others or just different from the other but you have no idea what it is, the confusion is not only stop there when you add the adjustment of where the window place and where to access the app without using the switcher command. It’s a huge chaos if you run apps like you do in Mac. I think Mac handle these very well.
I don’t think your example of your mother get confuse by the menubar is a good example to demonstrate your point. Because I’m sure she will be even more confuse by the multiple menubar. And either way of the interface design couldn’t solve your mother’s problem if she don’t know she just click on the desktop and no command is activated for her to use.
>>Erich Ringewald, the author of MultiFinder, made the observation a few years back that the bumper stickers he’d seen (current at the time) saying “Windows 95 = Mac 89” were perfectly true, but the real problem was that Mac 95 = Mac 89, too.<<
I’m not clear about what’s your point here, are you talking about the interface design or the artichtecture of the Mac OS? Seems to me you’re talking double. I think the observation Erich made was directly about the interface design. And in that respect, Mac 95 =Mac 89 is a good thing. although it’s been improve again, I would rather think Apple got lucky while they have the interface nail just right at the first time.
And if you talk about the underneath architectural design, then you’re right. The system didn’t change much and that’s not good. The changes they made only make it more and more complicated and the problems still due to the much fragile base of the MacOS.
So I think Mac OS X is a very good thing. Especially they retain the simplicity as much as they can and run it on a more solid foundation. This is going to be a real opportunity for the mass lay their hand on a unix system.
I also want to say something about the comment about the behavior of some Mac users since that was one of your point make in your post. I think it’s true that many Mac usrs are “zealots”.But that’s very much the same with other system’ users. To called Mac users names doesn’t make the person who call names any better. Mac users is tends to over-react, but their over reaction is not just towards people crticize Mac in a aunfair manner, their reaction is also toward Apple the company make the Mac itself ! What that scenario tell you?
One reasons I know is that Mac is being treated unfairly for over a decade in all aspects of computer related domains. And the war between Mac and Windos started because that day Bill Gates took the GUI and make Windows. (You might want to argue history) But there’s enough people around to prove what Bill Gates did. And also the hyprocrisy the PC world also add into the complex of Mac users, while the world PC world using DOS and they laugh about the mouse and GUI is not business like and a toy, when the day Windows become more popular (sure, it’s popular is because of GUI), they change tune right away. Yet, they don’t admit they’re wrong about it. Even more so, they defend their position by beating Mac up even more to cover their ass.
I think it’s even more ridulous today while Mac only hold a mere 5 percent of market share, and those own 95 percent of the market come down hard on Mac, what are they trying to do? I guess one of the reason is what Apple’s doing have a lot of relevency to the computer world. They’re not welcome to the most because they’re not doing everybody’s doing.
Am I trying to defend the over reaction of the Mac users? No, the reaction itself is “or-react” , but I do understand why it happened.
And about they article last time, I’m one of those criticize it. And I stand stand by it, it was bad written (I’m not talking about English, I’m not a English speaker myself). But I think you come from a understanding point of view and forgive her article, that doesn’t neccessary for everybody should do what you do, especially the article fundamentally have nothing to defend itself as a balance and informed article.
I hope I don’t come across as another Mac fanatic to you and took what I said negatively, otherwise the message got lost and it only get worse.
Thanks.
why? its the only os out there that can actually run top class software from adobe, macromedia, etc, and also run unix/linux stuff (albeit with a recompile). if i ran pure linux, i’d have to dualboot to run windows apps (no win4lin and wine are not the best solution, just a way out of rebooting sometimes). if i ran pure windows, then no stability (and no win2k isn’t that stable and winxp i’ve been able to crash several times now). what do i use now? winme and linux. i want to merge everything into one os. i see mac osx.1 as the solution. sure hardware is more expensive… but it’s worth the money to never see another bsod, another app crashing the entire system, and have a good looking, stanard-thru-most-apps gui as well. i’m sure some of you would complain, linux has a nice gui. but then i’d have to use apps that use gtk and qt libs and that looks too weird (kde window with gtk buttons, and vice versa). can anyone lend me a few thousand dollars? i wanna buy sometime after christmas.
To Zenja:
So you read the introduction to Objective-C and from that you concluded that
Obj-C has not advantages over C++, well then you clearly didn’t understand what you read.
1.In Obj-C objects are dynamically types as opposed to staticly typed in C++. This is a great benefit to Application programming for instance. It means you can send a message to a object without knowing it’s type at compile time. I also means you get away from the bloated ugly hack called templates.
2.You can add methods, variables and classes to a library in Objective-C without breaking binary compatibility. I’d like to see that in C++.
3.Just like Smalltalk, Objective-C is more than just syntax. The class library is a integrated part to a much greater degree than any C++ class library. There is nothing in the C++ world that can beat the combination of Cocoa and Objective-C.
Anyway I give you this: Objective-C could use a update. It lacks some modern features. There should be support for namespaces and one should be able to give methods operator names. For instance it should be possible to call a method +, – and * .