Mac OS X: too little, too late?

[lonbaker]

quote -> Please consider the breadth of hardware support that MS has to cover is their OSes, compared to the miniscule hardware (in comparison) of the Apple side. I have to give programmers credit where credit is due. I'd like to see Apple create an OS for x86 that covers the same amount of hardware that is supported by Win9x -- or even NT, for that matter (with backwards software compatibility, too).<- end quote<P>This is an excellent point. But I would not be surprised if Apple dug into the old NeXT archive and pulled out all the drivers that are needed to at least get started. NeXT ran on intel boxes for a considerable amount of itme so this is not has hard as it looks.<P>I also think that Apple shipping a major moden OS is alot easier given that it took a farily modern os and used it for the infrastructure. Where as MS is fighting a multi-headed monster of maintaining multiple OS teams trying to create technologies from the ground up. Apple getsto steal things from FreeBSD and other Unix variants in stead of build everything inhouse. This is a huge advantage and in the long run Darwin could be a bigger deal that people give it credit for. M$ should consider a similar tact in the future to aid them in development and bug hunting. As I understand a couple trinkets (? a word) from darwin are slipping into the next update of OSX Server.<BR>

 

[lonbaker]

One more bit. The one real achilles heal for MS operating systems is the inability to break the mold and really think in new ways. They came up with some core ideas for 95 that are still around and should not be. <P>Many of my friends are windows users and they are still amazed that I can install crap (as most developers do) on my machine and if it breaks I hold down a key boot up without all the bells and whistles, remove the offending peices, replace the previous items and I am back in business.<P>Under windows if the installed pieces do anything to crash the systems you are in a world of pain. If the registry get screwed then see ya later. I think MS should try to modularize the components of the OS. I am oversimplifying but it is definately a problem on the MS side and could become a problem on Mac side with OS X.

 

[naliguy]

MacOS X is too little too late for me. I have wasted enough money on Mac systems in the past, and have finally learned from my mistakes. An insider at Apple has leaked that MacOS X's game API development just now started, not two years ago when the MacOS X project began. Things like the already not-so-mature Mac OpenGL implementation, GameSprockets, and etc. will suck under OS X. I don't know about you, but some of Apple's problem in the past is leaving gamers flat on their feet. While the MacOS 8 and 9 now has a few games, it is still pathetic compared to Windows. MacOS X will probably have extremely sucky Game From now on, I'll be sticking to an open architecture x86 PC.

 

[naliguy]

MacOS X is too little too late for me. I have wasted enough money on Mac systems in the past, and have finally learned from my mistakes. An insider at Apple has leaked that MacOS X's game API development just now started, not two years ago when the MacOS X project began. Things like the already not-so-mature Mac OpenGL implementation, GameSprockets, and etc. will suck under OS X. I don't know about you, but some of Apple's problem in the past is leaving gamers flat on their feet. While the MacOS 8 and 9 now has a few games, it is still pathetic compared to Windows. MacOS X will probably have extremely sucky game support, I'll be sticking to an open architecture x86 PC.

 

[mert]

Was your "<I>open architecture</I>" responsible for your<BR><FONT SIZE="10" FACE="Arial">NINE</FONT><BR>repeated posts?

 

[mert]

...sorry <B>naliguy</B>, didn't realize this was your first [8] post(s). Welcome to Ars View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif

 

[dfiler]

Most of the complaints I've read in this forum deal with the interface shown in DP2. The preponderance of Mac sites suggest that the look-and-feel of OS X are purposely being with-held. Steve wants to wow us and secure blurbs on the evening news. Thus many features such as the tray are currently top secret. Some rumor sites even claim to have seen more advanced versions than DP2... but they can't disclose anything further for fear of exposing a valuable inside source. Honestly, does anyone actually believe that Apple doesn't understand how to construct a good interface?<P>Too litle, too late? Can you imagine how appealing a rock solid iMac would be? It would represent the holy grail of computing. User friendly and stable --> an appliance. If OS X is as stable as the Linux, NT, and the rest of the UNIX family (NeXT, amiga can't go unmentioned as well) Macs will be far more appealing. You could set up a 17" iMac for your grandparents, turn it on, and never have to help them do anything with it. It would be easy to use and wouldn't crash (completely). Isn't this what we've all been waiting for?<P>I can hardly wait! Unfortunately, the holy grail of computing is a tall order. I think that late 2000 or early 2001 should be expected. However, there are rumors around that apple will release OS X in stages just to get it out the door. Thus, early adopters will have something to play with but normal users will have minor updates to os 9 in the mean time.<P>darrin <BR>

 

[Hot Freak]

i am a mac user. that said, of course no one who uses a wintel box is going to switch over to a mac because of osx alone, but that really isn't the point. the only ones to get excited over an os release will be current mac users (and this means cutting edge users.) people will switch over to the mac from the wintel world because of 3rd party apps. if osx manages to be more things to more developers, then you will see a rise in the different types of apps written for the mac, and that's when you'll see more wintel users migrating. otherwise it doesn't make much sense. the only thing that mac fiends can hope for is that all the key developers have a clear idea as to how and why their software will run better on apple hardware. developers want their programs to run and look their best (its a point of pride, am i wrong?) and as long as apple maintains that as their goal, who's to fault them for anything?<P>as far as the dp2 preview goes... its kind of nice to see apple say they're going to include x, y, &, z feature and deliver on it.

 

[NuVector]

I have seen a good deal of discussion on this thread about whether or not MacOS X will enable Apple to bring any Windows users over to the Mac. I think this may miss the point. (Think Different!)<P>The "real" competition here (and Apple knows this) is Linux. It doesn't matter if Windows 2000 comes to market before MacOS X. What does matter is if Apple can have a feature-compatible OS (that will support its large base of legacy apps) to market before Linux's installed base grows too large.<P>Apple didn't release Darwin to compete with MicroSoft (whose response to open source software is to pooh-pooh it). They did it to gain parity with Linux.<P>Likewise, Apple isn't developing API's that will make hardware abstraction a first-time reality for the Mac (even moving the ROMs to disk files!) just for grins. They are doing it because they want to be the OTHER cross-platform system in order to follow Linux's lead. Developers everywhere are lining up to support Linux because it promises the ability to run one codebase on just about any machine -- but I think many would line up to support MacOS X over Linux if it promised the same cross-platform advantages. (What are all those PC references doing in a MacOS anyway?)<P>The question in my mind is "When will they roll out the Intel version?"<P>2001?

 

[merwinjk]

I'm a user, not a developer, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.<P>I don't think the Blue Box issue is going to amount to much of an issue at all. Why? For the same reason that 68k apps didn't kill the PPC transition. The only apps that will remain in "Classic" configuration will likely be older apps that were developed at a time when hardware had a fraction of the capability of today's hardware. Older apps, by and large, are little kittens as far as processing power needs are concerned. To run them in this quasi-emulation mode on modern hardware doesn't seem to be too tough. Likewise, fire up a 68k app on an iMac and it screems. When you factor in that hardware will be even faster and memory will be bigger when OS X is released, this issue is further reduced.

 

[Billium]

Compelling Mac-only software for OS X won't be long in coming, I predict. The development tools now known as Cocoa are radically more efficient than other systems, even MS's Visual tools (OpenStep/NeXTstep had the first visual tools and still the best).<P>One good example is TIFFany, a killer image editor that I'd trade PhotoShop in for without much hesitation, and I'm a full-time ten-year PhotoShop pro. At one time Hubble Space Telescope images were retouched with the thing. Take a look a this and other fun stuff developed and maintained by 3 and 4 person operations for the miniscule NeXT market. Now imaging what's possible with the entire Mac market out there. And remember, too, that almost every killer app for Windows was Mac-only first, including every component of Office except Outlook along with the entire Adobe suite.<BR> http://kumo.swcp.com/stonedesign-bin/shop.pl/page=products.htm

 

[S!LENT P4W]

Hm. As a coder I testify that improving DP2 from this point on is actually not that much of a work. Certainly *not* more than 5 months for a 100 or so developers.<BR>CarbonLib is done. Good. The remaining to be done is finetuning.<BR>Classic/Macos.app is done. Finetuning needed.<BR> * games on MacOS.app/Classic.app don't work well?<BR> why? Sprockets installed are not exactly up to date, especially their implementation through IOKit. In IOKit lies most of the trouble because I think for now Apple's developers did not bother implementing various graphic card drivers. The same goes for sound, usb, drives, etc. This is DP2 for chrissake.. games will work later, when the rest of OS is nicened up.<BR> * Cocoa-Yellow/Carbon/Classic/BSD fuzz<BR> Basically they all originate on Mach. I definetly see no trouble in intergrating them more together, considering on how much work is done. To fix UI quirks takes probably a day or two of work. <BR> * Resource forks<BR> I believe they will definetly have to stay because of creator/file types. If Apple kills resource forks, they will at least need some sort of (not again, please) Desktop DB, which has all of the creator/type/finder flag info in it and has to be re-hashed every month or so. Packages look like too much overhead for the small files. I can only see them as a *convenience* (but not a requirement) for larger Carbon apps, and probably as a must for Cocoa apps. Very large documents and font libraries could also benefit. For everything else, some sort of resource fork is a most. ".app, .nib", etc. being a standard extension model is unacceptable - the Carbon apps simply would not work properly under those conditions. Therefore some sort of resource forks will, I dare say, stay.<BR> <BR> + I see a promising future for both Carbon and Cocoa. Cocoa is very powerful and often (after a steep learning curve) easier to code in (less code, better efficiency.. Interface Builder == cool)..<P> Don't forget that optimization and fine-tuning is usually done after everything else, so expect much better performance. To change memory allocation or CPU priority for macos.app/classic.app is trivial. Then the drivers are ported/written and I think that will be a bit of a trouble even after OS X is out, but that is what usually happens with every major release of any OS..<P> I don't even bother to distinguish between Mac OS X Server and Mac OS X customer, because the customer release is actually only a much more up-to-date version of OS X server, their core and philosophy basically remain the same. You can treat OS X server as a test probe to see how a really early cleaned up version of OS X customer behaves in the real world.. It is exactly the same thing which was (a year or two ago) announced as a "premiere" release of OS X.<P> Conclusion: I can clearly see Mac OS X being deployed by October.<BR>If it's not then Apple is surely planning some major extension of what they have announced so far to be in OS X. I also predict that version to be stable and finished and have a G3 as a recommended CPU.<BR>

 

[dent]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Honestly, does anyone actually believe that Apple doesn't understand how to construct a good interface?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Since we're being honest, I'd have to say that from the looks of QuickTime 4 and Sherlock 2, people may well have reason to believe that Apple has forgotten anything it once knew about UI design. Their lead UI guy ("Tog") from a while back went to Sun of all places (he certainly hasn't done anything to help Solaris since then however).<P>[This message has been edited by dent (edited December 22, 1999).]

 

[Billium]

ummm... better link<P>TIFFany: http://www.caffeinesoft.com/tiffany_new.htm

 

[BayouBengal]

What will Mac filesharing look like in OSX? Will we still be using Appleshare, or will we be looking at something more NFS-like (or actually NFS) due to the Unix-style filesystem?<P>-----<P>both<BR>

 

[Cambo]

Are there any windows users who are willing to switch to a mac because of OS X? Yes, Me! I've been feed up with windows for several years now, OS X seems like the perfect cross between *nix and a polished GUI. I'm also a windows developer, which means M$ will do any thing to please me right now, but I'm still not satisfied.<P>Heck until 8 months ago I was one of those mac bashers/PC zelots who thought you guys were crazy. Then I saw a B&W G3 and realized how much effort Apple places into its software.<P>Was it just me or did anybody else hear that Apple was developing a Visual Studio type IDE? This combined with the *nix-ishness of the new OS will attract more like me, like flies to sh*t.<P>This combined with the massive amounts of new mac hardware now in consumers hands(iMac + iBook)=aka huge untaped market. The new MP G4's will only add rocket fuel to this fire. Not to mention the new wireless technology, Airport and the rumors of a wireless firewire 2.<P>There is no doubt in my mind that Steve Jobs is holding back something special for OS X, especialy if you know his history. All I can do is keep on changing the sheets after dreaming of an intel build. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P>(P.S. Sorry 'bout the length, but that's my rant for the xmas season)

 

[Belisarius]

My Quote:<P>Unfortunately for Apple, the bottom line for a lot of people, myself included, is that until Apple hardware gets even close to being reasonably<BR>priced<BR>-----------<BR>Resteve's reply:<P>We have gone over this to death here. If you take any given mac and try and get a decent PC equivalent, the mac will be anywhere from 5% less to 15% more. That seems pretty close to me.<BR>--------------<P>Well, perhaps you have gone over this to death, but you've apparently gotten it wrong. Just out of curiosity to see if what you were saying was correct, I decided to compare two similarly configured systems to see exactly what kind of price difference we were talking about. I used Apple (not much choice there, anymore) for the Mac price (http://www.apple.com), and Dell for the PC choice (http://www.dell.com). Here's the breakdown:<P>Apple <BR>450Mhz G4<BR>256MB<BR>27GB UDMA HD <BR>Zip-100 <BR>DVD-RAM <BR>Rage128 Pro <BR>10/100 NIC <BR>No modem <BR>No monitor <BR>Basic sound <BR>Basic mono-speaker <BR>No office suite<P>Dell<P>600MHz PIII<BR>256MB RAM<BR>27.3 UDMA HD<BR>Zip-100<BR>DVD-ROM<BR>32Mb Nvidia GeForce<BR>10/100 NIC<BR>56k Modem<BR>19" .26dp Monitor<BR>SB Live!<BR>Altec Lansing speakers<BR>Office 2K<BR> <BR>Prices: Apple - $3500<BR> Dell - $2731<P>Difference: $769 (~22%)<P>I don't know about you, but $769 is quite a bit of diffence to me. This is especially atrocious when you factor in the (at least) $450 for the monitor, and a few hundred bucks for the latest & greatest MS Office. Add in the far superior video card in the PC, plus the superior sound, and it really isn't much of a contest. That 22% quickly turns into about 35% real quick.<BR> <BR>Like I said before, until Apple gets realistic, the only audience they'll get is the newbie user, the fanatics, and the captive audiences (like DTP). Actually, I really do wish they'd get reasonable prices, because I wouldn't mind giving OS X a try once it comes out. Unfortunately, at more than a 20% price premium, it's prohibitively expensive.<P>Belisarius<P>(Can I ever get this post right? Serves me right for posting @ 2:30 in the morning after working 10 hours...)<P><BR>[This message has been edited by Belisarius (edited December 23, 1999).]<P>[This message has been edited by Belisarius (edited December 23, 1999).]<P>[This message has been edited by Belisarius (edited December 23, 1999).]

 

[IMKoRnNuts]

What do you guys think about this:<P>Apple is hiding the real Mac OS X from us. I think this is very possible. Why should they show off the whole thing for Microsoft to copy? A developer preview's only purpose is so that developers can prepare programs for the OS. Remember the G4 rumors? Well, the G4's were released WAY BEFORE what was speculated. I think we will see Mac OS X come out on time.

 

[Happy_Aardvark]

Look this argument bout costs is bull shit, why do people pay obseen amounts for SGI systems......because they determine that it is worth it.<BR>I'm not going to go into this any further.<P>

 

[Fildo]

For those of you who do not know, there have been consistent reports of an OS X build for x86 hardware existing within Apple. I would not doubt it, since much of the code for OS X came from NeXT's OpenSTEP. Whether or not it will actually SEE the light of day is another story. <P>An earlier post of mine discussed the possibility of a runtime environment within OS X for Win9x/NT apps. For similar reasons, neither this "Red Box" nor the x86 build EVER be shipped. Why? Apple's current business model is based upon HARDWARE sales, not software sales. <P>Of course, Steve's done this sort of thing before... yikes :O<P>[This message has been edited by Fildo (edited December 23, 1999).]

 

[SteveW]

One thing on the schedule. People are saying its only couple of months late. That's actually wrong. It was originally scheduled to be finalized last Summer (people expecting it around MacWorld). It was pushed in theory to add support for the Quartz engine and some other stuff. (More likely they realized it wasn't going to make it, so they added a couple of more things to stick in there, then said they were pushing it to make it have more features - standard stuff in the programming business).<P>And carbon might have been spec'd in March, and Carbon Dater been around for a while, but until the CarbonLib was released, and programming tools updated to support them (which was later, since Carbon Lib didn't come out until 8.6, at the earliest), Carbon-compatable apps will still be in short supply for a long while. While Win 16-bit stuff disappeared quickly, it took a long time for PPC apps to appear, mainly due to the great job apple did on their 68K emulator, which allowed developers to just code 68K and have it support both old and new machines.<BR>

 

[Laen]

Happy_Aardvark the reason costs keeps coming up, is that some mac users keep insisting that macs aren't that much more expensive than PC's. They are, if you believe it is worth the extra cost fine, but don't try to claim that the difference isn't that big. <P>resteves how many times do we have to go through this?<BR>

 

[MasonMcD]

To those who are wondering about the development cycle of OS X: These guys are NeXTers, which means a couple of developer releases, and a short in-house beta run, then delivery. This follows the OpenStep development cycle. We also have BSD underpinnings, and the maturity that entails, we have Avie Tevanian who *ran* the Mach team at Carnegie Mellon, we have UMA for hardware considerations, and we have the hardware abstraction capabilities of Mach. Some advantages for pulling in Win users: All of the *nix ported apps that will proliferate after X's release, kick ass dev tools w/cross-platform capabilities (though some are skeptical, this will happen), and (my own personal belief) eventual X platform independance (when the business model is hammered out). The hardware abstraction will also allow pretty seamless integration with NT in the enterprise space, with straight TCP/IP that doesn't care what kind of box you are.<P>I see a couple of things happening: Apple slowly opening its hardware (increasingly using OTC parts), removing proprietary ROMs, beefing up IOKit and Developer's tools and allowing hardware and software integration to be amazingly easy for each particular vendor, regardless of platform, and betting on the promise that Java will eventually become a competitive dev environment (it's still very young). The move to Cocoa and PDF are hints of the openness to come. Keep the UI as the crown jewel, eventually create an economy of scale where ease of development and ease of integration create the ability to finance the hardware R & D, and you've got a very healthy company who sees the web, java, XML, etc as the future. Proprietary is doomed in terms of functionality. Open standards *plus* ease of use and dev is the key. MS is shaky on the first two, Linux shaky on ease of use.<P>Anyway, my 2 cents.

 

[jhenzie]

I think apple has great potential with OSX, the linux trend has generated a great deal of interest in alternative operating systems, if Apple can leverage their inherent UI advantages and give me some multiprocessor hardware, I think OSX represents a dynamite solution for mid level servers.<P>I think CARBON is a must to accomodate the C++ crowd, but I would urge any developer, particulally those hooked on Java, to have a very close look at Objective-C.<P>I am totally enamoured with te language. I fnd myself using it more and more.<P>Objective-C combined with the Next Based development tools, Project Builder et al, provide a RAD environment with a true OO language that provides for a huge market of third party apps, witness the success of Visual Basic on the MS platform, and that was with an Object Based environment.<P>Along with an absoluely phenominal Application Server, WebObjects, OSX can be more than just an OS for the Apple faithful.<P>The unfortunate fact is that Java has a very religeous following and if it isn't J2EE it ain't happening, but the OO frameworks upon which WebObjects is based, along with Java as an implementation language, provide enormous productivity gains. Coupled with the ability to mix Java anf Objective-C/C/C++, makes this product very compelling.<P>Sorry for the somewhat fractured post, but i started on X86, transitioned to Linux, and have now found my utopia with OSX, give the platfrom time to mature, and it wont take long, and you will not be disappointed.<P>Justin Henzie<P>

 

[IMKoRnNuts]

I think Apple will release their own x86 version of Mac OS X, but only shipping on their own machine. They will make their own machine using Intel chips.

 

[PK1]

Not really being a Mac user I probably don't have the right to say this. Then again, all them Mac users spread their crap often. At any rate, I don't think Mac really should be used by anyone because of their closed architecture. BeOS really could have made some competition and produced a more workable OS but rather than making their own operating system better the wonderful people at Apple just blocked them out. Some people like the fact that you have very little variety when it comes to Mac hardware but I think for the consumer that is a bad point as well. Rather than trying to make a good product, Apple seems to be more intrested in getting a its iMac on the most popular shows on TV(who in their right mind would have that out-of-place iMac at work anyway.)<BR>-- Just my 2 Cents

 

[selfdoc]

I definitely enjoyed John's (p)review of OS X DP2. Being a Unix/Mac user since '88, I am excited to see the two come together in such a potentially powerful way.<P>There are just a few questions/comments that I wanted to post...<P>First of all, I'm curious about the extent of Quartz and its positioning in the OS. Where will QD still be available? Obviously it is still there in Carbon, but will developers for Cocoa be restricted to using Quartz? (I would view that as a good thing.) If it truly makes PDFs 100% Mac citizens, does that mean that we'll get "Print to PDF" in the File menu for free in all Quartz-compliant programs? Think of the implications of that.<P>Several people have mentioned that they believe that there is a totally new UI in OSX. I definitely think there's always room for improvement, but I for one am *praying* they don't use the QT4/Final Cut/Sherlock 2 look-and-feel. Talk about a giant step backwards! I don't so much mind the brushed-metal windows as I do the idiotic behavior of drawers that have nothing better to do than waste your time while they slide in and out, volume knobs instead of the intuitive slider, and buttons that don't look like buttons. If the whole Mac interface went that direction, I would be seriously upset. The marketing/design arm of Apple needs to sit down and be straightened out by the people who write the UI standards.<P>I'm also a tad worried about how files meta-information will be handled. It really seems like Apple's in a catch-22 here, because both of the obvious solutions leave a bit to be desired. Keeping file forks in place means that you've automatically made life very difficult for cross-file system compatibility. On the other hand, if you move to packages and file name extensions, there is more overhead introduced. And of course, Apple is playing both sides right now with no obvious future strategy. Overall, I like the Mac concept of unique file IDs, no path dependence, special folders (I read a TN recently on the Folder Manager that was quite interesting), and robust aliases much more than I like the Windows/Unix system of environment variables and weak path-based links (minus, of course, Unix hard links). This can be accomplished via packages, of course, but only if each and every file in the system is really a package in disguise (hence the overhead) with some kind of (hopefuly) XML-based meta-info inside. I dunno, maybe the overhead is a small price to pay. But damn, just think about what it would do to the command-line environment then! I hope Apple has come up with a good strategy here. The bottom line is, as long as I never have to see or rely upon file name extensions, I'll deal with it.

 

[MasonMcD]

All those people bitching about the Mac's closed architecture: We can see Apple's move to an open architecture with the increasing use of standardized parts and UMA, and eliminating the ROM to be replaced by ROM in RAM. And if any of you have a better business model that allows the company to survive whilst completely opening its architecture, brush up your resume. Apple is hiring.

 

[DrPizza]

The OS X 'application in a folder' thing looks to me to be identical to the mechanism used on the Acorn Archimedes, with its OS 'RISC OS'.<BR>

 

[tyco]

Great article about macOSX DP. I've learned a lot. Apple is a little late with MacOS X, but not too late. The iMac eased things a bit.<P>My problem about the macOS is the lack of jobs in the field (beside the designing & publishing field of course). How will they make the fusion of the high-tech field(Mach) and their Newbie(iMac) field?<P>My guess is that Steve Jobs will unveil a new High-end Multi-processor G4 next January2k. A big box server. A black one(for a change);-)<P>Have you looked at Apple's site lately? They're hiring lots of consultants. WebObjects will take a very BIG launch here. How about launching Netscape 5 at the same date?<P>Merry Christmas.

 

[Billium]

Ah yes, price comparisons. Belisaurius posted one a few whiles back.<P>Bel, you omitted two things from your Dell: DVD-RAM (not ROM) and FireWire. You can substitute a good UltraSCSI 2 card if you'd like, but a comparison needs a high speed bus added. That should come close to eliminating the price difference (not counting monitor), but there are still problems with the comparison.<P>Last time I did this, vs. a blue G3 about a year ago, adding SCSI to the Dell required a SCSI CD-ROM that they didn't sell. It also meant scrapping the internal Zip. On top of that, the machine was out of slots (maybe there was one left) while the Mac still had two, plus SCSI AND FireWire AND internal Zip. While your at it, add a second USB bus to the Dell (or would that be the first?) since the G4 has two busses, not just two ports, which is very handy for high saturation items like USB audio.<P>Then there's performance. The alphabet soup gets messy here, so read twice before getting too upset. PC Magazine found the G3/400 beat a PIII/500 overall pretty comfortably. MacWeek finds a G4/350 beats a G3/450 nicely, too. From that I conclude that a G4/450 will cream a PIII/600. (Just for amusement, I'll mention again my earlier recollection that NeXTers claim Mathematica for OpenStep was 50% or more faster than Mathematica for NT on idential x86 hardware. OS X is largely OpenStep.)<P>Better get a PIII/750 or so for similar overall performance with W98 vs. MacOS 9. Overall. For Velocity Engine stuff like audio, video and highly recursive math (encryption, SETI@home type computations) you'll need a dual PIII. For that you'll need NT, so add some to the price and add a LOT to long-term support costs.<P>And all that assumes that'll you'll ever get SCSI working well enough to matter. (FireWire isn't supported yet at all by MS; we'll see how W2K fares when it ships and gets a good trying out.) Even though Apple put the first SCSI port on the market into the Mac Plus in '86 they've moved on to FireWire. I'd suggest PC folks finally give up on reliable SCSI and move on, too, but Intel is refusing to support FireWire in the only motherboard design you have to choose from and is instead shoving the inferior USB2 down your throats--if they ever finish it. Given how long it took MS to support USB(1) you might be in limbo for a while. But then, you've been in semi-functional-SCSI limbo for 13--er, 14--years.<P>Sorry, Belisaurius. I'll take the Mac.

 

[The_ABG]

Billium:<P>Why replace the IDE CD-ROM and Zip in that Dell with the SCSI versions? The IDE versions work just fine as they are. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But then, you've been in semi-functional-SCSI limbo for 13--er, 14--years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Beg your pardon? WTF are you talking about? More anti-PC FUD is all I can see. A reply like that makes it fairly obvious that you haven't used SCSI on an x86 much, if at all.

 

[Billium]

ABG:<P>When I looked, which, as I say, was a year ago, putting in Dell's optional SCSI card required changing the CD and tossing the Zip, and they didn't offer the CD. The configurator wouldn't allow it to be done differently. I didn't look into why, although I suppose that at any rate you could get an internal SCSI Zip and CD and install install them yourself. <P>As for using SCSI on a x86, I've done it in spades. The problem that arises is thus: many devices will require alterations to config files--adding switches to driver calls--to get the interface right. If two devices need conflicting alterations, yer screwed. It may well work fine sometimes. It may not work at all just as often. I set up one machine with six identical CD-ROMs (hosting a research library on a LAN) that required some 15 switches added to the device call. On a Mac, ya plug 'em in and set the ID. Period. A device that doesn't work that easily gets sent back.<P>As another example, PC folks largely missed out on the entire history of Syquest drives for about that reason. I also recall a Byte Mag (back when it was reputable) review of scanners wherein they put three SCSI cards into a PC to test three scanners, cuz it was impossible to chain them. I also know that the most popular SCSI cards for PCs--the cheap Adaptecs--are only designed to support one device. Or they were when I last looked, about two years ago.<P>(...and as long as I'm bitching about PC SCSI, what's with the giant connector? By the time PCs got involved, Macs, Amigas, Sun, HP/Applo, IBM workstations and more all had the same 25-pin plug compatible SCSI. Then PCers got involved and promptly changed the connector to that 50-pin parallel style thing. ?????? And some folks like to call Apple arrogant.)<P>Performance and slots, FireWire, dual bus USB went unanswered in your reply. I'll still take the Mac, even if SCSI sort of works by now.<P>[This message has been edited by Billium (edited December 24, 1999).]

 

[The_ABG]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for using SCSI on a x86, I've done it in spades. The problem that arises is thus: many devices will require alterations to config files--adding switches to driver calls--to get the interface right. If two devices need conflicting alterations, yer screwed. It may well work fine sometimes. It may not work at all just as often. I set up one machine with six identical CD-ROMs (hosting a research library on a LAN) that required some 15 switches added to the device call. On a Mac, ya plug 'em in and set the ID. Period. A device that doesn't work that easily gets sent back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OK, I just gotta start out with a "WTF?" here. I can't say that I've ever had to add "switches to drivers calls" -- maybe because I forget my old DOS and Win3.1 days. I've set up a number of Win9x & NT machines with SCSI devices, without *EVER* dicking with command-line switches and/or drivers. Like CD-recording machines with multiple SCSI HDs, CD-R and CD, Zips, tape drives. Just set the SCSI ID and plug 'em in. Windows recognized everything right off the bat. Where have you been editing config files and playing with switches?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then PCers got involved and promptly changed the connector to that 50-pin parallel style thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I believe it was Adaptec themselves that tried the Centronics 50-pin connector. It wasn't something that conformed to the SCSI standards at the time, and they eventually changed it. But don't say that "PCers" made the change, because that's a generalization that is just plain wrong.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And some folks like to call Apple arrogant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And they still are. What's your point? View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Performance and slots, FireWire, dual bus USB went unanswered in your reply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Because I didn't address them. But then again, what was there to address?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd suggest PC folks finally give up on reliable SCSI and move on<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ah, no thank you. RAID drives in my servers? Not Firewire. Unless things changed this week, current FW drives are just IDE HDs with a FW adapter (and slower speeds, according to what's been discussed). Give FW a few years, and then maybe it will be able to replace SCSI in some certain situations. Right now the only place I'd be using FW is to connect some HP networking equipment.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>instead shoving the inferior USB2 down your throats--if they ever finish it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Isn't this a contradictory statement? Isn't Apple shoving the unproven and underutilized FW down the throats of Mac owners/buyers? FWIW, I'm going to get a FW (or rather an IEEE1394) card so that I can pull video in from my Sony digital camcorder. There are a number of these cards on the market now, so there's got to be SOME driver support, no?

 

[Billium]

[I'm not gonna bother with the fancy quotes, even though I appreciate it, cuz I'm mostly bored and doing this for fun. ;-) A good debate is fun. Merry Christmas, ABG. ]<P>Yeah, my driver call probs are a couple of years old, which I mentioned. My experiences with Plug-n-Play and Device Manager aren't a lot better, but they're more limited, too. I didn't go into my enjoyment of the Registry and fonts, either.<P>As for the 50-pin connector... it may well have been Adaptec's fault, but then they did that to get the part built cheap, Centronics connectors being plentiful, and this sort of thing is what happens when cheap is the primary objective. It remains a huge problem, too. Also, Adaptec is hardly a small company. I believe they put SCSI on the PC first, so it matters a great deal. The 'open' market for plugg-in stuff into Intel mutha boards has no oversight. To pick a different (from Apple) philosophical example, even Linux has Torvalds making all final design decisions.<P>Arrogance... hmmm... aside from all the stuff that Apple has defined or had the guts to adopt first, I notice that the PC marketplace is about as tied to MS and Intel as the Mac marketplace is to Apple, BeOS-on-Mac excepted. (Any free *nix you like will run on a Mac.) PC users have a choice of generic box builders; I have only Apple, but Apple boxes are, historically, for longevity, the best in the business.<P>Performance, etc. ... What was there to address? Well, I was answering a price comparson in the post that started this conversation, and I think those things were important distinctions between the Mac in question and the PC in question.<P>You are right about SCSI in servers. That's why Apple still offers SCSI as an option and as standard equipment in top-line machines and all servers. You are also right that the current FW drives are IDE with a built-in adapter interface that make FW performance an unfulfilled wish. On the other hand.... you have SCSI in yer server because Apple saw a cool technology 14 years ago and just insisted on it. Likewise USB when the iMac came out. G4s have the first internal FW interface. (The blue G3s did not have internal FireWire, which was a mistake in my opinion.) Drives are under development and will show up soon if Intel doen't get away with it's thing.<P>Intel's thing.... I don't think I'm contradicting myself when I accuse Intel of shoving. Apple has always been willing to adopt a good, standardized technology. SCSI, for example. Also RS-232 serial (later, PS/2 mouse, kbd), 10base-T (built in early on), USB (Apple adopted it as-is, Intel bought it), NuBus(32-bit self configuring slot bus in 87, Texas Instruments invention) and more. As it is, FireWire is an Apple invention, but it isn't news--there are a few million vid cams with it already sold. It's being adopted and it's better than USB2. How about that openness?<P>I work for a company that sells FW cards for PCs. On the other hand, I've heard good questions asked about 'legacy-free' PCs and the USB they rely on.: what happens when Win freaks and you have to start in safe mode? Will the keyboard work? I assume this problem has been solved (I hope so!), butI have no such worry with a Mac of any description.<P>[This message has been edited by Billium (edited December 24, 1999).]

 

[The_ABG]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for the 50-pin connector... it may well have been Adaptec's fault, but then they did that to get the part built cheap, Centronics connectors being plentiful, and this sort of thing is what happens when cheap is the primary objective. It remains a huge problem, too. Also, Adaptec is hardly a small company. I believe they put SCSI on the PC first, so it matters a great deal. The 'open' market for plugg-in stuff into Intel mutha boards has no oversight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can't agree that this remains "a huge problem" because Adaptec dropped the 50-pin Centronics connector eons ago. I haven't seen it since the 154x cards -- which are ISA. All the PCI SCSI cards I've installed since at least 1995 have had 'standard' SCSI2 connectors on the back. Adaptec isn't a small company, true; but I didn't imply that.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the other hand.... you have SCSI in yer server because Apple saw a cool technology 14 years ago and just insisted on it. Likewise USB when the iMac came out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well...I think at best, this is highly debatable. Macs were the first mainstream computer platform to include a SCSI controller, but they weren't the first to have it. Other x86 machines had it as an option card (just like they do today); this topic was debated here a while ago and others came up with the info on what computers had access to SCSI before the Mac came along. Heck, Shugart Associates developed SASI, the predecessor to SCSI, in 1979 -- long before even the Lisa hit the streets.<P>The same thing goes for USB. Kudos to the iMac for being the first to dump all legacy ports in favor of USB, but PCs have had USB since 1996. While you might claim that USB didn't catch fire until the iMac arrived, I counter that USB didn't hit its full stride until an OS came along that fully supported it -- i.e. Win98, which appeared in May of 1998. There were some USB devices before then, of course, but only a limited number of Win95 machines could use them. When Win98 came, there was no holding back. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>G4s have the first internal FW interface.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Congrats!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, I've heard good questions asked about 'legacy-free' PCs and the USB they rely on.: what happens when Win freaks and you have to start in safe mode? Will the keyboard work? I assume this problem has been<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>From what I understand in looking at bus diagrams, the keyboard still sits on the ISA bus. So while these legacy-free PCs have no ISA *slots*, there is technically an ISA bus still present -- but it's just for the keyboard and maybe the RTC. However, I have played with a number of mobos that allow you to have the USB keyboard available in DOS mode (i.e. 'Safe Mode') as default, so I guess there is a way to avoid having the ISA bus in there.<P>And Merry Xmas to you and everyone else! If I'm lucky, I'll be back home on my computer before New Years! View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif

 

[heschi]

OK, as a veteran mac and PC user, here's why I think Apple is screwed:<BR>1. They always seem to be about a year behind PCs on most fronts, although I must admit the G4 is a rather major advance. Example: Still stuck with ATI, and AGP 2x. The only time (except for cpus) that the Mac was MAYBE significantly ahead of the PC in tech was the early adoption of USB...and since they forced people out of EVERY old device (except ADB) I'm not sure that's a good thing. I had to buy a $100 device to use my LocalTalk laser printer, and the PalmPilot's a writeoff. I didn't want to buy a serial port adapter. And I had to get a SCSI card.<BR>2. They are almost impossible to upgrade in any major fashion. This is debateable, but I point to CPU upgrades as an example of this. Apple hyped its ZIF (zero insertion force) cpu socket, then proceeded to make USING it impossible with its new firmware.<BR>corrolary to 2: It's almost completely pointless to bring over old hardware from an old Mac to a new Mac. This isn't because you can't but because you MUST buy Macs with all the pieces of hardware you could ever need. (that sounds good...hmm...guess I said it wrong) Anyway, the point is, instead of bringing over your perfectly good CD-Rom drive, etc, you pay for them again. Now, I did a full upgrade of my PC this past summer. It cost me $300 to get a new case, mobo, cpu, and ram. (i used an integrated mobo temporarily) That's flat-out impossible on a Mac.<BR>3. (The biggest) Apple attracts the wrong kind of crowd. Even the staunchest Mac advocates push the easy-to-use interface as one of the big benefits, saying that computer novices buy them because they're seen as easier to use. This is true. However, how often does your average computer novice buy a new computer? From what I've seen, the average upgrade cycle is something on the order of 3 to 5 years. Since Apple is a software AND hardware providor, this can't be good for their sales. And all the people who DO upgrade their computers often (mostly gamers, I should know) use PCs because there aren't actually any games on the Mac. And don't tell me there are. I have a friend who's a Mac bigot. We've been on the lookout for cross-platform multiplayer games. The only one - and I mean the ONLY one - that he's willing to play that's crossplatform is Starcraft. And he likes almost every turn based or real time strategy game for Mac.<P>And I don't see how OSX can solve any of those problems. The only way to do THAT would be to totally rethink the Mac platform, something Jobs and the rest are clearly unwilling to do. (Please don't reply telling me that last is BS. That's my personal impression.) So it seems to me apple is screwed. Of course, if they brought Mac to the Intel architecture, I could see a comeback. Seriously.<P>That was long. Wow.<BR>-Heschi

 

[resteves]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR> 1. They always seem to be about a year behind PCs on most fronts,<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You also forgot, firewire, scsi, standard ethernet, standard cd-rom, multiple monitors, usable IR, sound, multimedia boxes,etc. There is a definet problem with games stuff, but otherwise it seems to be doing okay.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>2. They are almost impossible to upgrade in any major fashion. This is debateable, but I point to CPU upgrades as an example of this. Apple hyped<BR> its ZIF (zero insertion force) cpu socket, then proceeded to make USING it impossible with its new firmware.<BR> .... <BR> Now, I did a full upgrade of my PC this past summer. It cost<BR> me $300 to get a new case, mobo, cpu, and ram. (i used an integrated mobo temporarily) That's flat-out impossible on a Mac.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That frimware problem lasted all of 6 weeks. Get over it. And it only applied to a small number of machines. I am about to help a friend upgrade the cpu on his 94 (95?) mac to a G3/4, it should take 10 maybe 15 minutes.<BR>First, I am curious where you got all four things for only $300. (That was after the huge ram hike wasn't it?) But even so, I am planning on upgrading my CPU, no need to change the box or the RAM. (True, macs can't easily upgrade the mobo; oh well.)<P><BR>3. My guess is that with the large number of PC sales that go to corporations, schools, newbies, etc. The hard core gamer is not a huge part of their market. I think it is funny that you think apple is doomed because the machines are used for too long.<BR>As far as games 1) yes there are many many more on the PC 2) you or your friend are really picky. (myth, quake, unreal, civilization, marathon, diablo, warcraft, ceaser, AOE, Imperialism, MOOrion, M&M, are just ones I can name without having to think.)<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>And I don't see how OSX can solve any of those problems. The only way to do THAT would be to totally rethink the Mac platform, something Jobs<BR> and the rest are clearly unwilling to do. (Please don't reply telling me that last is BS. That's my personal impression.) So it seems to me apple is<BR> screwed. Of course, if they brought Mac to the Intel architecture, I could see a comeback. Seriously.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't see them being much of a problem needing fixing. (except the game thing.) From what I have been reading, one of the things OSX will do is make life easier for developers, and that can always help. <P>Oh yeah, if apple releases OSX for PC, and it runs comparable to a PPC, then apple is done. <P>

 

[heschi]

I have yet to see FireWire adopted on a large scale, although I will concede it's the standard of choice for DV.<BR>Ethernet-When you can get a NIC for $15, who needs it built-in?<BR>Multiple monitors is indeed cool. Can't argue with that.<BR>Standard cd-rom- I'm positive this could be argued, and I suspect it happened around the same time, but I don't have any facts.<BR>IR-Yeah, but to be honest, who cares? Granted, it's occasionally handy, but I wouldn't call it a big advance.<BR>Sound-Um, yeah, maybe what, 8 years ago? I'd say it's irrelevant.<BR>Multimedia boxes- Don't know what you mean View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<BR>And I'd call it a gaming-hardware crisis View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You'd think that with Apple's thing for giving the user everything they need, they could include a frickin' pair of speakers (pet peeve, sorry).<P>On the CPU upgrade front- only 6 weeks? Really? Cool. Didn't know that. Nonetheless, it's not quite the same as buying a Celeron 400 or 450 for under $100. I've actually installed a processor upgrade on an older machine, (7100) only to find I had to replace the video card (yeechhh!) and a number of apps didn't work with it...dunno about recent ones.<P>And for my upgrade:<BR>Barebones system-integrated video/sound, case, floppy, power supply- $130<BR>Ram-64 mb- $55 (pre-skyrocketing)<BR>Processor-Celeron 366- $80<BR>See? I brought my hd, cd, etc from my old comp.<P>And about their sales. I realize it's ironic that I think apple's going down because their computers last too long, but nonetheless, it has to be cutting into their sales. This is one way the open architechture (sp?) of<BR>Wintels is better. And actually, I think apple is becoming less and less of a preference in schools. However, I have no data to back this up.<P>And about games my friend and I play...myth-could indeed play that, hadn't thought of it. Quake, unreal, marathon- Like i said, he likes RT/TB strat. Civ-WAY too slow for my taste, but I guess. Diablo-he doesn't like it. Warcraft-I said that. Caesar..huh? AOE-just tried today. Win and mac versions are incompat. Ditto for MOO2. M&M..Isn't that an RPG? Or do you mean HOMM. Starting to see the problem? Yeah, partly it's just him being picky, but on the other hand I can't think of 5 titles for the Mac that were released at the same time they were on the PC. After a while, I get bored, and fer cryin out loud, AOE came out for mac AFTER AOE2!!<P>Anyway, good points. I just don't agree.<BR>Lastly, whaddya mean, apple is done?<BR>-Heschi

 

[a blindmouse]

Not to put words in anyone's mouth... but if Apple were to release an Intel compatible version of OS X that ran comparably to OS X for PPC, the company would be finished. With no more OS advantage, only a tiny niche would continue to buy Apple hardware (chiefly graphics & design people, i assume, that require G4 power, etc.) <P>Another example of how what's good for the platform isn't always good for the company. <P>On the other hand, if Apple can make Mac OS X as consumer friendly as 9.0 is, and as powerful as OS X promises to be, their hardware sales will go up dramatically. And maybe then they'll consider OS X for Intel....<P>-blindmouse