Re: [OT] Re: OS Poll
Hear! Hear! I like the points made by William, a man after my own heart. I often tell my wife when she complains^H^H^H^H^H^Hments on some behaviour of her PowerMac running MacOS X 10.2.1 that if she knew what was going on inside, she would be amazed that it BOOTED!!! I too have been in and around UNIX since the Version 5 & 6 days when I worked at the Navy Electronic Labs in San Diego in the 1970's. I am a huge Linux fan and have used it for several years. But when Apple made MacOS X available, I jumped in with both feet and love every second of it, even on my old trusty 450 B&W G3. Having both the beautiful Aqua GUI AND a nice flavor of UNIX underneath is just so nice, I can put up with a lot of "blemishes". Having worked in software development for over 25 years, I know there are always bugs and I can't ever see complex software and hardware systems being perfect. But MacOS X comes close enough for me to have a LOT of fun!!! I bought the MacOS X public beta and never opened it, knowing that it was not going to be ready for "prime time" but I just wanted it as a souvenir. I bought the 10.0 release, and tucked that away as well. I bought 10.1, loaded it on my B&W G3 and my Pismo and was thrilled! 10.1.0 to 10.1.5, better and better with each download... Lots of fun! Now, I bought the 5-user license of "Jagwire" to put on both my Macs and both my wifes Macs and have no regrests for spending any of it. I just bought a 512 MB SDRAM module for my wife's PMG4 for $75 and put 10.2.1 on it - WOW! When I think back to the day that I paid $300 for 32 KB of RAM for my North Star Horizon (an S100 bus computer from the 1970's), I can only be amazed every day at how cheap and how powerful these home computers of today are. And how blessed I am to see and use computers of today, well, I'm just very grateful... William H. Magill wrote: > On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:58 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > >> Knowing what has had to be done to get Mac OS X running, I am simply in >> awe. Okay, not like what I feel towards God or the Grand Canyon, but as >> much awe as I can feel towards any of the work of humans. In my POV, >> 10.2 confirms that Apple recognizes that the corners they cut to get Mac >> OS X out the door (just barely) in the market window have to be filled >> in. > > > This makes an important point... To those of us who have been on the > "net" since ARPA days, the simple fact that any of this stuff works is > truly mind boggling. And it doesn't matter if you are talking about IP > networking or OS operation. Everything we do IS rocket science. > > I've been a Unix person since there was ONLY System 3 and a Mac user > since 1984. And I can't begin to tell you how much I am overjoyed that > OS X is a reality. It may have blemishes, but it is head and shoulders > over any other operating system on the market today from ANY vendor, > and I've spent far too much time on all of them. > > 17 years ago desktop computing meant a KSR33 or maybe a VT100. I spent > many hours on a 300 baud thermal printer based terminal in the name of > "home computing." > > "We've come a long way baby!" > > Even with the Darwin base, the vast bulk of the work creating OS X has > been paid for by Apple dollars -- which means that they have to have > income; they don't have the government grants which financed the > creation of the Internet. (Sorry, Mr. Gore, but you had nothing to do > with the creation of the Internet.) > > Yes, we all want perfection, and we all want it now, but the simple > fact that any of this stuff works IS amazing. > > T.T.F.N. > William H. Magill > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- George B. Smith "Amateurs built the Ark, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professionals built the Titanic."
Re: (kill => OS Poll) or die;
Finally I am the most reviled poster in a group...
man this took forever. I'd like to that God, my Mother and all the
people at C.L.P.M. for letting me get to this point in my career. I'd
like to thank my wife and son who never stopped believing in me and
CmdrTaco; we did it baby, w!
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Andrew Brosnan wrote:
>
> perhaps
>
> sub DESTROY {
> our OS_Poll;
> print "please \n";
> }
>
> would be more polite :-)
>
>
--
Lou Moran
http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
Re: (kill => OS Poll) or die;
perhaps
sub DESTROY {
our OS_Poll;
print "please \n";
}
would be more polite :-)
Re: [OT] Re: OS Poll
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:58 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > Knowing what has had to be done to get Mac OS X running, I am simply in > awe. Okay, not like what I feel towards God or the Grand Canyon, but as > much awe as I can feel towards any of the work of humans. In my POV, > 10.2 confirms that Apple recognizes that the corners they cut to get > Mac > OS X out the door (just barely) in the market window have to be filled > in. This makes an important point... To those of us who have been on the "net" since ARPA days, the simple fact that any of this stuff works is truly mind boggling. And it doesn't matter if you are talking about IP networking or OS operation. Everything we do IS rocket science. I've been a Unix person since there was ONLY System 3 and a Mac user since 1984. And I can't begin to tell you how much I am overjoyed that OS X is a reality. It may have blemishes, but it is head and shoulders over any other operating system on the market today from ANY vendor, and I've spent far too much time on all of them. 17 years ago desktop computing meant a KSR33 or maybe a VT100. I spent many hours on a 300 baud thermal printer based terminal in the name of "home computing." "We've come a long way baby!" Even with the Darwin base, the vast bulk of the work creating OS X has been paid for by Apple dollars -- which means that they have to have income; they don't have the government grants which financed the creation of the Internet. (Sorry, Mr. Gore, but you had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet.) Yes, we all want perfection, and we all want it now, but the simple fact that any of this stuff works IS amazing. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:43 PM, Bill Stephenson wrote: > I don't mean to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know before I pony up > the > $$$. Heck... I'd be happy if we could find out AFTER we've paid! Apple's policy of no documentation until its too late to be useful is incredibly annoying. Why the release notes cannot be provided on the CD (especially now that we have moved to a 2 CD distribution, is something I still can't fathom. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 02:15 pm, Justin Simoni wrote: >> Can you name 1 computer actually made by Microsoft, ever? > > Xbox. > email this from your Xbox did you :-)
Re: OS Poll
Xbox. Justin Simoni -- + Freelance Web Design + Internet Application Development + Way Out There Artist [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://justinsimoni.com | 720.436.7701 > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 09:53 am, Ric Phillips wrote: >> MS, though not makers of hardware - to any great extent - > Can you name 1 computer actually made by Microsoft, ever? Or are you > talking about joysticks? > >> Hardware may or may not be an essential part of a platform. Oracles, >> Sun, and SAP are also 'platform' vendors - in different market sectors. > and you're saying people who buy a Sun computer are consider the OS > before the hardware? > Do you consider the merits of the stereo system and/or paint job of a > car before you buy it? > >> This is a new platform - not simply an extension of the old Apple >> platform. > You're right it's an extension of the Next platform, mixed with FreeBSD. > There's virtually nothing left of the old Mac OS except the name. > >> My 'guess' is that most PERL hackers would most likely be living in the >> 'colonies' of Apple's current platform. > Which colony, in which Empire, on which planet are you living in?You do > know that this is a 'PERL' list don't you? > >> If you are one of these frontiersmen, you are most definitely NOT the >> person the >> current Apple 'platform' was conceived and developed for. > I think you should go and have a look at the apple website - like any > company, Apple doesn't care who buys its products or for what, just as > long as they sell, and to aid this they have put lots of small > enducements into OSX - like why it can have more Windows like behaviour > for users or network easily with a windows network, or comes with a unix > disk formatting option and optional unix networking styles, or display > more Mac like features - hidden internals, no technical knowledge > required to use programs and no command line with cryptic commands. > > But at the end of the day people buy OSX because they need a new > computer.
Re: OS Poll
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 09:53 am, Ric Phillips wrote: > MS, though not makers of hardware - to any great extent - Can you name 1 computer actually made by Microsoft, ever? Or are you talking about joysticks? > Hardware may or may not be an essential part of a platform. Oracles, > Sun, and SAP are also 'platform' vendors - in different market sectors. and you're saying people who buy a Sun computer are consider the OS before the hardware? Do you consider the merits of the stereo system and/or paint job of a car before you buy it? > This is a new platform - not simply an extension of the old Apple > platform. You're right it's an extension of the Next platform, mixed with FreeBSD. There's virtually nothing left of the old Mac OS except the name. > My 'guess' is that most PERL hackers would most likely be living in the > 'colonies' of Apple's current platform. Which colony, in which Empire, on which planet are you living in?You do know that this is a 'PERL' list don't you? > If you are one of these frontiersmen, you are most definitely NOT the > person the > current Apple 'platform' was conceived and developed for. I think you should go and have a look at the apple website - like any company, Apple doesn't care who buys its products or for what, just as long as they sell, and to aid this they have put lots of small enducements into OSX - like why it can have more Windows like behaviour for users or network easily with a windows network, or comes with a unix disk formatting option and optional unix networking styles, or display more Mac like features - hidden internals, no technical knowledge required to use programs and no command line with cryptic commands. But at the end of the day people buy OSX because they need a new computer.
[OT] Re: OS Poll
Sure, the thread is somewhat OT, but we all need to think about what tools we'll use in the future, when the glitz has worn off information technology. > I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with > GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. From what I've been reading on openBSD's misc list (among other places) GCC 3.xx is not handling low-level optimizations very well. GCC 3.1 might, in fact, take part of the blame for the kernel panics. Trade-offs. You sometimes have to take a step back to move ahead. > As a developer I'm quite happy to > have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I > kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a big > deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it > worth the $$$. IMNSHO Knowing what has had to be done to get Mac OS X running, I am simply in awe. Okay, not like what I feel towards God or the Grand Canyon, but as much awe as I can feel towards any of the work of humans. In my POV, 10.2 confirms that Apple recognizes that the corners they cut to get Mac OS X out the door (just barely) in the market window have to be filled in. Anyway, I'm buying Jaguar this week or next month, as my budget will handle it. .mac doesn't fit my budget. I've been half expecting .mac to go for-pay, so I never used the .mac addresses for more than spam buffering. (Accessed the google newsgroups from the .mac address, and I was spending too much time on that anyway.) What would induce me to keep the .mac account? If my budget were in better condition, I'd probably keep it, although I don't really use anything but the e-mail. (Could they separate the e-mail?) I already have a provider, and their rates are kept reasonable. The provider serves my regular personal mail address, so I need something to motivate a switch. If .mac were JPY 10,000 a year, including a 56K modem point of access (15+ hours, in Japan), I'd consider switching. If the 10 yen for three minutes telephone connect time were also included, or if it were JPY 20,000 for ADSL, I'd seriously consider it. I do think they ought to have a free minimal .mac account, e-mail and a small iDisk, one per valid serial number, with all new machines, valid for the duration of the warranty/service agreement. That would probably sell more AppleCare, too. But what I would really like, and if Apple were to include it with their basic .mac, it would be a huge selling point, is a spam-trapping news-group-view mail address server/mail browser -- an address for public use with a browser that would do things like showing the send/reply sequence in tree form the way it shows on newsgroups, would sort mail by sender and subject line, would download an index list of topic lines and senders on demand (so I could delete without having to wait for the whole body to download), and where the server would send an automatic response to any mail that did not match the "accept" filter. Anybody know of work on mail server scripts that would support this kind of thing? Of course, where this all has to eventually head is that your phone will become your mail server. -- Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: OS Poll
See I didn't know the numbers that well. Nice to know I wasn't just imagining it :-) "deeply integrated" was really just a flippant turn of phrase. I'm a recent switcher, so it may simply be that my familiarity has increased. On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:03 AM, Les Harris wrote: > on 9/23/02 8:43 PM, Bill Stephenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with >>> GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > >> >> What does that do for us? > > Due to various improved compile time code optimizations executable code > generated by GCC 3.1 tends to be about 6 percent faster on average > than code > generated by the 2.95 branch. GCC 3.1 also features a much faster > preprocessor which makes compiling faster if you are a developer. > > A few Obj-C improvements include things like fixed linker warnings, > certain > @protocal definitions will work properly, and perhaps the largest > improvement: the classlookup code in the runtime library has been > rewritten > providing faster performance. > > There are some caveats to this as some things that will compile in > 2.95x > have a few more problems with 3.1. Also, previously compiled > libraries (or > programs even, perhaps) already installed on your system might have to > be > recompiled if you upgrade to Jaguar. > >>> As a developer I'm quite happy to >>> have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I >>> kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a >>> big >>> deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it >>> worth the $$$. IMNSHO >> >> What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it >> faster? >> More stable? > > Things are generally faster. I am unsure how the developer tools are > more > deeply integrated in Jaguar than in previous versions however. > > Les Harris >
Re: OS Poll
on 9/23/02 8:43 PM, Bill Stephenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with >> GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > > > What does that do for us? Due to various improved compile time code optimizations executable code generated by GCC 3.1 tends to be about 6 percent faster on average than code generated by the 2.95 branch. GCC 3.1 also features a much faster preprocessor which makes compiling faster if you are a developer. A few Obj-C improvements include things like fixed linker warnings, certain @protocal definitions will work properly, and perhaps the largest improvement: the classlookup code in the runtime library has been rewritten providing faster performance. There are some caveats to this as some things that will compile in 2.95x have a few more problems with 3.1. Also, previously compiled libraries (or programs even, perhaps) already installed on your system might have to be recompiled if you upgrade to Jaguar. >> As a developer I'm quite happy to >> have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I >> kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a big >> deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it >> worth the $$$. IMNSHO > > What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it faster? > More stable? Things are generally faster. I am unsure how the developer tools are more deeply integrated in Jaguar than in previous versions however. Les Harris
Re: OS Poll
Kinda depends on who "us" is. If "us" is "me" it means "we" have a much more stable, mature, closer to state of the art, well-supported development environment. If "us" is Joe mac user on the street who plays a couple games, uses an office suite, browses the web and farts around with MIDI a bit then I don't think I'd recommend the outlay. Personally I think the stability, speed increase, and feature set are noticeable. But that may be because I'm looking for them. But I don't really care enough to evangelize (sp?). On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:43 PM, Bill Stephenson wrote: > >> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with >> GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > > > What does that do for us? > >> As a developer I'm quite happy to >> have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I >> kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a >> big >> deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it >> worth the $$$. IMNSHO > > What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it > faster? > More stable? > > I don't mean to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know before I pony up > the > $$$. > > I know that Apple has one of the greatest "Hype and Spin" departments > of any > large company, shoot, they practically wrote the book on how to hype > tech > products. I want more than hype for my money. > -- > > Bill Stephenson > www.SecureShopper.com > 1-417-546-5593 > >
Re: OS Poll
> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with > GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > What does that do for us? > As a developer I'm quite happy to > have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I > kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a big > deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it > worth the $$$. IMNSHO What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it faster? More stable? I don't mean to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know before I pony up the $$$. I know that Apple has one of the greatest "Hype and Spin" departments of any large company, shoot, they practically wrote the book on how to hype tech products. I want more than hype for my money. -- Bill Stephenson www.SecureShopper.com 1-417-546-5593
Re: OS Poll
I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. As a developer I'm quite happy to have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a big deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it worth the $$$. IMNSHO - M On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 09:19 PM, Ken Williams wrote: > Just when I thought I'd sworn off this thread... > > On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:39 PM, Gregory Cranz wrote: >> I RESENT the fact that I just paid for 10.1 & now I have to pay the >> full price all over again for a system that I haven't owned for two >> years yet. Both 'major improvements' were speed related - which >> screams to me that OS/X was "beta-released" as non-optimized code. >> As a software developer I find that distasteful - as a consumer the >> fact that I have to pay money to have debugging scaffolding removed >> from a production release - or whatever optimizations were required - >> just to be told that I have to do it AGAIN at FULL PRICE - completely >> unacceptable. > > So, if they should have done that in the first version of OS X, would > you have been willing to wait until June 2002 for it? > > Anyway, if you're a software developer you should know that there are > *lots* of ways to increase speed of a project. One is to remove > debugging code, which simply couldn't explain the purported difference > between 10.1.5 and 10.2. One is to find little sections of your code > that are taking a long time and try to optimize them, which maybe can > explain some of it. But by most accounts the majority of the speedups > came from genuine new development, for instance creating new > interfaces between things like graphics accelerators and pieces of the > OS. > > It's quite inaccurate to insinuate that the difference between 10.1.5 > and 10.2 is just the removal of "debugging scaffolding." > > -Ken >
Re: OS Poll
Just when I thought I'd sworn off this thread... On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:39 PM, Gregory Cranz wrote: > I RESENT the fact that I just paid for 10.1 & now I have to pay > the full price all over again for a system that I haven't owned > for two years yet. Both 'major improvements' were speed > related - which screams to me that OS/X was "beta-released" as > non-optimized code. As a software developer I find that > distasteful - as a consumer the fact that I have to pay money > to have debugging scaffolding removed from a production > release - or whatever optimizations were required - just to be > told that I have to do it AGAIN at FULL PRICE - completely > unacceptable. So, if they should have done that in the first version of OS X, would you have been willing to wait until June 2002 for it? Anyway, if you're a software developer you should know that there are *lots* of ways to increase speed of a project. One is to remove debugging code, which simply couldn't explain the purported difference between 10.1.5 and 10.2. One is to find little sections of your code that are taking a long time and try to optimize them, which maybe can explain some of it. But by most accounts the majority of the speedups came from genuine new development, for instance creating new interfaces between things like graphics accelerators and pieces of the OS. It's quite inaccurate to insinuate that the difference between 10.1.5 and 10.2 is just the removal of "debugging scaffolding." -Ken
Re: OS Poll
Apple is neither a 'hardware' company, nor a 'software' company - nor even a hardware-and-software company. It is a 'platform' company. Which is why, MS, though not makers of hardware - to any great extent - are still direct competitors of Apple - and why referring to windows systems as 'wintel' makes sense. Hardware may or may not be an essential part of a platform. Oracles, Sun, and SAP are also 'platform' vendors - in different market sectors. Apple's platform development strategy has been less 'symbiotic' than other vendors - including MS. OS X's incorporation of Unix has been one of many smaller steps away from 'owning' everything. (I don't recall seeing an Apple logo on a hard-drive for quite some time.) The requirements of developing and marketing a successful platform are similar, but not identical to developing and marketing an operating system, or hardware architecture. A platform has to establish a boundary for a set of related technologies, which defines a domain of benefits and functionality exclusive to that platform. (It can be a porous boundary, and for many reasons has to be. But not to the extent that crossing it incurs no cost at all.) Apple's own catch-all term for it's current platform is as a 'hub' for the 'new digital lifestyle'. This is a new platform - not simply an extension of the old Apple platform. This domain has 'colonies' like X-Serve, which to my mind are expeditions into 'enemy' territory, the long-term viability of which will depend on the success of the expedition. Windows on the other hand, sums up the emphasis of its 'platform' in the 'zero-degrees of separation' jargon. Which is why .Net and .Mac are not competing strategies. .Net is intended to be a rallying-call for business information exchange, while .Mac is meant to be the rallying-call for personal information networks. My 'guess' is that most PERL hackers would most likely be living in the 'colonies' of Apple's current platform. And if not 'living' there at the very least frequently crossing it's borders into other domains. If you are one of these frontiersmen, you are most definitely NOT the person the current Apple 'platform' was conceived and developed for. As an increment of the operating system component of the platform OS X.2 is less than it is when understood an increment in the platform itself. And that Apple is charging for it, indicates that they finally understand that the platform rather than it's constituent parts, is their core product, and therefore a renewable revenue stream.
Re: OS Poll
On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 01:40 PM, Chris Devers wrote: > I'm really undecided on this whole debate. 10.2 offers a lot of cool > features that are worth paying for, but then a lot of those features > are > still buggy &/or incomplete right now. That's a good way of summing it up -- perhaps 10.3 will be what 10.1 was for 10.0 -- a bug fix release (to give back the stability lost from 10.1 when we upgraded to 10.2, but with 10.2's features). And perhaps we'll get that upgrade for free at Apple stores. Erik -- Erik Price (zombies roam) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 09:39 AM, Gregory Cranz wrote: > .Mac is by far NOT worth the money, Virex or no virex. (Just how many > OS/X viruses are out there anyway? puh-leez)\ This is exactly the attitude that Norton uses with it's OSX virus program. From the point of view of "harmonious living" -- Virex is a far superior tool. NAV ignores all PC Viruses attached to Mac based email and files. This means that it is trivial for a Mac to become infected and a "carrier" - passing along PC viruses while not being affected itself. Virex, however does detect and remove PC viruses attached to Mac "stuff." Those of us who work in environments which contain PC users don't like being told that our Macs are the source of their problems. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
Since we're lumping in Jaguar with .Mac already, I might as well take a chance to sound off also. No - I haven't done it - taken either plunge, just yet. I am VERY annoyed with Apple for the bait & switch mentality which they're using with their LOYAL CUSTOMER BASE. That's something that Apple should have learned not to take for granted by now...shrinking market share anyone? Still - I'm stuck - they have me - by the end of the month I'll most begrudgingly shell out probably for both. .Mac is by far NOT worth the money, Virex or no virex. (Just how many OS/X viruses are out there anyway? puh-leez) But the fact that I use this email address a lot now is a major inconvenience to switch Again still not worth the money - but I am what Apple is counting on - a lazy well paid platform zealot. For those of you at The Company who might subscribe to this list - pass this along to the Powers that Be - I'll play along THIS TIME - but Yellow Dog LINUX is just a download away the next time. I RESENT the fact that I just paid for 10.1 & now I have to pay the full price all over again for a system that I haven't owned for two years yet. Both 'major improvements' were speed related - which screams to me that OS/X was "beta-released" as non-optimized code. As a software developer I find that distasteful - as a consumer the fact that I have to pay money to have debugging scaffolding removed from a production release - or whatever optimizations were required - just to be told that I have to do it AGAIN at FULL PRICE - completely unacceptable. So to answer the poll - NOT YET. or rather - SOON TO BE, BEGRUDGINGLY On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 09:14 PM, Rich & Michaela wrote: >> > At $129 for a dot release? Not a chance. Maybe to go to 10.5. > > ..Mac is even more of a disappointment. At the same time that Apple is > pushing as hard as they ever have to get folks to switch, they are > treating their loyal installed base like crap. > > -Rich > > ellem wrote: > >> Because 10.2 and 10.1.x are different beasts I notice that some >> discussions need disclaimers like"but I haven't tried this on 10.1.4" >> and such so I am wondering >> >> Have you upgraded to 10.2? >> >> I have not, I am on 10.1.5. >> >> (And on a far less important note: Have you signed up for .Mac?) >> >> (Me either.) >> -- >> Lou Moran >> http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
Re: OS Poll
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 01:40:44PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote: > for example -- but the system feels *a lot* less stable > to me than 10.1 did, I've seen kernel panics for the first time in almost > a year, But Chris, the new kernel panic display was so much improved, you called co-workers over to your desk so they could see it. Obviously, that makes it 10.2 a new feature release. Actually removing the kernal panics, thats for the bug fix release like 10.2.1 (hopefully quickly followed up by 10.2.2 or 10.2.3) (For anyone who hasn't seen them, the kernel panic on 10.2 darkens the display a tiny bit, and then displays a dialog box in several languages and explains that the machine needs to be rebooted.) -- I know a grown up word, its "Magnetitious". It means when a magnet can stick on something.. -- Samantha Langmead, age 5.
Re: OS Poll
On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 02:20 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote: > On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 01:15 PM, Rich & Michaela wrote: > >> when the stuff they write requires their proprietary HW to run. (If >> the >> rumors of an Intel version are true that may change. > > To begin with, I highly doubt that the rumors are true - a switch to > IBM as their preferred PPC vendor is far more likely. They're already > buying huge numbers of G3 chips from IBM, and IBM has recently > announced a POWER4 derivative with SIMD instructions that smell quite > a bit like Altivec, meaning that the possibility of an IBM G4 or G5 is > quite good. > > However, even if the rumors were true, it wouldn't mean that Apple > would switch to making generic PC clones, nor would it mean that OS X > would run on clones. Apple will keep making proprietary hardware, and > OS X would still require that proprietary hardware to run, regardless > of the type of chip inside. The Power4 chip that Apple and IBM are rumored working on is a 64 bit chip. At present it's "server only" -- that is to say it A) requires lots of power and B) therefore runs hot... ie needs fans. That may change over time, but currently it means "no laptop." Depending upon your source, OSX has long run on both real, shipping 64 bit platforms -- the Alpha and Power4 chips... Darwin supposedly still does. Despite Apple's attempts to "spin" the contrary, megahertz DOES matter -- in the consumer arena. And Motorola, "just ain't got it." In terms of performance, both the CURRENTLY SHIPPING Alpha and Power4 chips run rings around the Intel chips scheduled to ship "next year" (2003). It still remains to be seen if the 2004 Intel chips will be "Alpha inside" or not. There are several good "rumor" articles floating around -- the most informative, and "believable" one I found was: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543317,00.asp Guess we'll have to wait for the Microprocessor Forum to see what the real rumors are. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
Erik Price at 8:21 AM 9/21/02 Apple clearly isn't too smart, at least in how they've numbered their >releases. But that's why they simply can't skip to 10.5, because >they've set a doom clock on their operating system. After OS X 10.9, >what will it be? OS X 11.0 ? OS X 10.10 ? That's going to look kind >of stupid from a advertising/marketing perspective. > >You won't see Apple jumping major version numbers, I'll put money on >that. > > > >Erik > Well, isn't that what Intel has done with the Pentium I, Pentium II, etc? (although I thought "Sexium" would have been amusing)
Re: OS Poll
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Andrew M. Langmead wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 01:40:44PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote: > > for example -- but the system feels *a lot* less stable > > to me than 10.1 did, I've seen kernel panics for the first time in almost > > a year, > > But Chris, the new kernel panic display was so much improved, you > called co-workers over to your desk so they could see it. :) I also would have called coworkers over to look if there had been a fiery car crash out my window, but that wouldn't mean that I enjoy seeing that kind of carnage > (For anyone who hasn't seen them, the kernel panic on 10.2 darkens the > display a tiny bit, and then displays a dialog box in several languages > and explains that the machine needs to be rebooted.) plus your IP & ethernet MAC addresses for, as you suggested, attaching a remote debugger & possibly reviving the system, if you have the tools to do such a thing. Otherwise, you're told in English, French, German, and Japanese that the system has crashed & needs to start over again. No more of the old ugly BSD text-mode stack trace across the screen. Yes, the kernel panic screen is prettier. And I hope to never ever have to see it again. -- Chris Devers Have you ever seen Jack Valenti & John Ashcroft at the same time?
Re: OS Poll
My .02... I've paid twice for OSX in a year and a half. First for OSX 10.0, which was unusable for most but for some reason I stuck with it and liked it (while gently cursing it every now and again). 10.1 was a free upgrade, and really needed to be. It stabilized the OS and made it a worthwhile product- I could actually be productive with it. There were still some performance issues, but it was as stable as any OS on any platform I ever used. Now I've paid for 10.2, which doesn't strike me as a bug fix, but as a major release. 10.2 introduces significant changes to the OS, while no doubt fixing some extraneous bugs left over from 10.1.5. As others have pointed out, we'll probably go from 10.3->10.9 as future major upgrades, with dot upgrade bug fix releases inbetween. In a year and a half I've paid about $260, about what I paid for the upgrade from NT 3.51 to 4.0 many many years ago that introduced so much instability in my life so that I once had to work two days just to reinstall and repair my system so that I could use it. So to me, in the big picture, Apple is asking a reasonable amount for a good new release. And, as I did a great deal of professional work on 10.1.5, if it seems too much to anyone to upgrade then stick with 10.1.5, it's not, imho, an unstable product, it just isn't as good as 10.2. I know many people who never upgraded from OS8 to OS9... philz (not an Apple marketing rep, just a happy user)
Re: OS Poll
The simple point of _all_ things is this: Nothing, REPEAT, nothing is for free. IF 10.2 is worth to you at whatever cost you get -- be it $80 or $130 -- then you will pay it. And if _NOT_ then it is not. IF you have it INSTALLED then whatever you paid when you INSTALLED IT is at a level you thought worth it at the time that you PAID for it. Even still, IF you installed it and it was NOT worth it then you reverted to whatever OS was/is WORTH it. REGARDLESS, you should be using the OS and the OS VERSION that makes sense to YOU and YOUR SENSE of value. IF you do not LIKE APPLES PRICING, then do NOT pay it. Life ain't perfect -- nor is Apple. They have, do and will continue to do things I think are wrong -- ie, piss me off. Hello, I have G3 that had sound in 10.0 and no sound in 10.0.4 -- but I have yet to get it to work hencedo I like it? NO!! But in the whole scheme of things...there is a lot better things to do -- like drink a beer or some other beverage. Anyway. The alternatives are even LESS appetizing to me. Aka M$ or Redhat/Mandrake == Linux. Apple is a company. They make a product. It ain't free. Capitalism, like democracy, is not a happenstance of environment. It is a consequence of action -- even inaction. You VOTE when you buy. You VOTE when you do NOT buy. My VOTE is for. For some it is not. Fine. Cool. And ALL of this has WHAT to do with Perl on Mac? Please do not take any of the above personally. Just me, a beer, and way too many emails on this topic for the evening. Many cheers, Ward
Re: OS Poll
> It is a > privilege for you to be able to use our OS." Hmm, I wouldn't use this argument, since the reverse is just as flippant: "We at Apple have an obligation to give you free product upgrades, forever" I remember paying for OSX March, 2001 for $129. In September of 2002, I again paid $129 for OSX 10.2. 10.1 was a free upgrade if you got yourself down to Compusa where a jolly guy in a red polo shirt was burnin' them like hotcakes. I also like to think that there are some hard working people behind Apple. I think people on the whole abstract things too much. "Apple" is just a company, it's not a collective mind, but is made up of blokes like us all. A year's work on something so complex, I can't fathom the depth and breadth of, gets my $129. Economy's like the one in America only work when people buy things. Apple's stance is that they're going to invent through this rough spot in the economy. But: > privilege for you to be able to use our OS." It is a privilige, for those with enough money. This seems fair, since there are free alternatives. Justin Simoni -- + Freelance Web Design + Internet Application Development + Way Out There Artist [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://justinsimoni.com | 720.436.7701 > > > Ken Williams wrote: > >> >> Then don't! > > You must really work for Apple marketing, right? That's exactly the > attitude they are displaying, and in some ways always have. "It is a > privilege for you to be able to use our OS." That's why we are in the very > "exclusive" 3% market share. That'll be an additional $129 please. >
Re: OS Poll
Ken Williams wrote: > > Then don't! You must really work for Apple marketing, right? That's exactly the attitude they are displaying, and in some ways always have. "It is a privilege for you to be able to use our OS." That's why we are in the very "exclusive" 3% market share. That'll be an additional $129 please.
Re: OS Poll
On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 10:02 PM, Ken Williams wrote: > I agree with Puneet - you just have to figure out whether the amount > being charged is worth it to you. If it's not, then perhaps Apple > screwed up the price point relative to your situation. But that > doesn't mean they didn't set it correctly for the majority of users. > OK but look I paid 129USD for the original OS X which was beta quality as far as I am concerned. Then (in theory) I paid 20USD for what was a "service pack" not they have it "right and they want a WHOLE 129USD... doesn't strike me as fair. If I was working a full time job I might feel differently. -- Lou Moran http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
Re: OS Poll
On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 03:40 AM, Chris Devers wrote: > The problem is, as is often the case, I for one am now eagerly looking > forward to 10.3, in which the host of new bugs with 10.2 are addressed. The standard wisdom is that releases like 10.1 or 10.2 are *not* bug fix releases, they're feature releases, and they're usually *less* stable than the versions that precede them. The bug fix tracks are the minor release numbers like 10.1.5 and 10.2.1. I'm sure you've seen this by now, but 10.2.1 is available for download, and this is the real 10.2 bug fix release (one of an upcoming series of several, I'm sure), not 10.3. We should expect 10.3 to deliver new features, with a full complement of new bugs. > Moreover, a big part of the new development comes from open > source projects, and it seems a little iffy to me to be paying > this vendor for packaging things that can be downloaded for > free -- not that that's different from what RedHat or SuSE etc > are doing. Like I say, I'm undecided on how ethical it all > seems to me. It's an inherent part of most open source development that vendors should be allowed to make money by packaging things up and selling them. Otherwise, they won't ever do it, and the code won't get disseminated very widely. > I'm looking forward to a good, mature, plateau release, with a > reasonably complete set of reasonably bug free features. We're > not there yet. Arguably we'll never get there, as what I'm > hoping for could also be described as stagnation & death of the > platform. Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's that famous quote: "we biologists have a special word for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." The same thing basically applies to any ongoing development process. There's always a tension between stability and progress. -Ken
Re: OS Poll
On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 03:15 AM, Rich & Michaela wrote: > I didn't find it worth it, so I didn;t pay for it. No forced > upgrade? What > do you suppose the chances for 10.1.6 are??? What this really means is > that I have to stay on the "not quite done" version of OS X until I am > willing to shell out the money. When was the last time you really saw *any* piece of software that was really "done"? It's an oxymoron. There will always be bugs, there will always be new features, in any piece of software that has sufficient usage and development. Thus there is never a real endpoint, only milestones that become marketing releases. I agree with Puneet - you just have to figure out whether the amount being charged is worth it to you. If it's not, then perhaps Apple screwed up the price point relative to your situation. But that doesn't mean they didn't set it correctly for the majority of users. > Don't get me wrong. I really do love OS X. I think it is the > best OS I've > ever used (and I've used lots, including many different > Unices). It just > needs a little more work, but I've already paid $129 for it. > Why should I > have to pay it again to get the bugs fixed? Then don't! -Ken
Re: OS Poll
On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 01:15 PM, Rich & Michaela wrote: > when the stuff they write requires their proprietary HW to run. (If the > rumors of an Intel version are true that may change. To begin with, I highly doubt that the rumors are true - a switch to IBM as their preferred PPC vendor is far more likely. They're already buying huge numbers of G3 chips from IBM, and IBM has recently announced a POWER4 derivative with SIMD instructions that smell quite a bit like Altivec, meaning that the possibility of an IBM G4 or G5 is quite good. However, even if the rumors were true, it wouldn't mean that Apple would switch to making generic PC clones, nor would it mean that OS X would run on clones. Apple will keep making proprietary hardware, and OS X would still require that proprietary hardware to run, regardless of the type of chip inside. sherm--
Re: OS Poll
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Rich & Michaela wrote: > Puneet Kishor wrote: > > > since everyone is pitching in with their rhetorical opinions, here's > > mine... > > An "OS poll" is a call for "rhetorical opinions." :) > > Second, no one has to pay $129. The OS is routinely available for > > anywhere between $79 and $99 with various rebates and all. Does it > > become more attractive at that price point? > > $79 - $99 for bug fixes to finally make 10.1 right. The problem is, as is often the case, I for one am now eagerly looking forward to 10.3, in which the host of new bugs with 10.2 are addressed. A lot of these new features are really cool -- I really like all the new networking tricks, for example -- but the system feels *a lot* less stable to me than 10.1 did, I've seen kernel panics for the first time in almost a year, and in all the performance gains in some areas are often washed out by performance stagnation or degradation in other areas (booting, for example, is taking a lot longer on my computer at home). But, most relevant to this list, I'm looking forward to an "upgrade" that finally brings in a new version of Perl. I know a lot of people have done it successfully, but after a botched attempt a few months ago and knowing how much of the system depends on having a working Perl, I'm just not going to mess with what came in the box. I'm really undecided on this whole debate. 10.2 offers a lot of cool features that are worth paying for, but then a lot of those features are still buggy &/or incomplete right now. Moreover, a big part of the new development comes from open source projects, and it seems a little iffy to me to be paying this vendor for packaging things that can be downloaded for free -- not that that's different from what RedHat or SuSE etc are doing. Like I say, I'm undecided on how ethical it all seems to me. I realize that Apple needs to keep brining in revenue to support development efforts, but then they've charged for Public Beta, 10.0 ["public gamma"?], 10.1 ["public delta"], and now 10.2 ["public epsilon"?], and as nice as it all is -- as others have said, it's far nicer than any Unix or Windows on a lot of levels -- the system still feels unfinished & in some ways unpolished to me. I'm looking forward to a good, mature, plateau release, with a reasonably complete set of reasonably bug free features. We're not there yet. Arguably we'll never get there, as what I'm hoping for could also be described as stagnation & death of the platform. I dunno, maybe. All I know is that each of these releases has brought us two steps towards where I'd like to see the platform arrive, then one step back from it, so paying for it feels like paying for something that was only done half-right. *shrug* -- Chris Devers
Re: OS Poll
Puneet Kishor wrote: > since everyone is pitching in with their rhetorical opinions, here's > mine... An "OS poll" is a call for "rhetorical opinions." > First, numbering is irrelevant. The argument that "I would have bought > it if it were 10.5, but 10.2 is not worth $129" doesn't make any sense. > Are the features provided worth it or not? That is all that matters. It > would have been ridiculous for someone to purchase the exact same OS > for $129 simply because it was labeled with a different number. Implied in that argument was the notion that there would be enough additional features to warrant that amount of version "skipping". > > > Second, no one has to pay $129. The OS is routinely available for > anywhere between $79 and $99 with various rebates and all. Does it > become more attractive at that price point? $79 - $99 for bug fixes to finally make 10.1 right. > > > Third, it has been written ad nauseam that Apple is a sw company and > not a hw company, or a hw company and not a sw company, etc. It is > beside the point... Apple has to survive. With 20 mil users, and more > than 95% still sticking on with a buggy but fast, attractive but crash > prone, easy but limited operating system, they are not getting any > revenues from there. They are both and probably always will be. In the early 90s they thought they were a SW company that could stand on the strength of their OS. Then they discovered that the revenues being lost to the clone makers threatened to put them under. Apple could never be a SW company alone, when the stuff they write requires their proprietary HW to run. (If the rumors of an Intel version are true that may change. 'Course the BSD/Next underpinnings ran on Intel 10 years ago.) > > > Fourth, so they charge for it. In return, they give away a host of > other apps that their "Mac" base really likes and uses, and their > "Unix" base is amazed at because they had never seen something like it > on their old, crusty *nix boxes. I routinely use a Linux box at work > along with Windoze... the Linux box is a pain in the derierre. I don't > have a desire to learn a cryptic command with a thousand switch > combinations just to be able to add a new hard disk to the computer. That is where much of the true power of UNIX lies. If you did a complete install of Linux, you no doubt also found things like Gimp, KOffice, etc. BTW My Linux box discovered its new hard disk without any problems, though admittedly I had to partition it. > In the end there is only one argument... I found it worth it so I paid > for it. You didn't find it worth it so you didn't pay for it. Nothing > else matters... and certainly not the 'plaint that Apple is charging > for it. Sure they are, but they are not forcing everyone to upgrade. I didn't find it worth it, so I didn;t pay for it. No forced upgrade? What do you suppose the chances for 10.1.6 are??? What this really means is that I have to stay on the "not quite done" version of OS X until I am willing to shell out the money. Don't get me wrong. I really do love OS X. I think it is the best OS I've ever used (and I've used lots, including many different Unices). It just needs a little more work, but I've already paid $129 for it. Why should I have to pay it again to get the bugs fixed?
Re: OS Poll
since everyone is pitching in with their rhetorical opinions, here's mine... First, numbering is irrelevant. The argument that "I would have bought it if it were 10.5, but 10.2 is not worth $129" doesn't make any sense. Are the features provided worth it or not? That is all that matters. It would have been ridiculous for someone to purchase the exact same OS for $129 simply because it was labeled with a different number. Second, no one has to pay $129. The OS is routinely available for anywhere between $79 and $99 with various rebates and all. Does it become more attractive at that price point? Third, it has been written ad nauseam that Apple is a sw company and not a hw company, or a hw company and not a sw company, etc. It is beside the point... Apple has to survive. With 20 mil users, and more than 95% still sticking on with a buggy but fast, attractive but crash prone, easy but limited operating system, they are not getting any revenues from there. Plus, there is pressure to deliver the "most advanced OS" on earth (whatever the #$%# that means). Whose gonna make it? So, they take team away from previous projects and put them on OS X to deliver something most (except for the most curmudgeon of them) are singing praises of. They gotta feed that team. Fourth, so they charge for it. In return, they give away a host of other apps that their "Mac" base really likes and uses, and their "Unix" base is amazed at because they had never seen something like it on their old, crusty *nix boxes. I routinely use a Linux box at work along with Windoze... the Linux box is a pain in the derierre. I don't have a desire to learn a cryptic command with a thousand switch combinations just to be able to add a new hard disk to the computer. But, that's how it is. Sometimes it is all fun and romantic to be doing it that way, sometimes it is just a pain in the ass. I come back to my iBook and I am happily reconciling my credit card statement via Quicken, teaching Scheme in the Dr. Scheme interpreter to my daughter, listening to streaming jazz from KJAZ, and writing a perl script to parse iCal files. What could be more fun. I like it, I pay for it. Fifth, the argument that "I got everything I wanted when I got the command line interface" is particularly perplexing from ostensibly Mac users because Mac users always want more, simple, bettah. I know there are die-hard fans of vi and vim and emacs out there, and all strength to them. But, I just happen to find the simplicity of jEdit or irEdit (which I am trying out) or any other regular window-based, mouse driven app much more familiar and comforting. MacOS X allows me that, and then some. Mac users gotta like iTunes (an amazing program if there ever was one), AddressBook that magically adds and picks out email addresses for me without my intervention, Palm Desktop (love its speed), AppleWorks (say what one will... it beats Office in most everything I do), iMovie (what a sweet, sweet application) and countless other "freebies" I got when I bought the OS. In the end there is only one argument... I found it worth it so I paid for it. You didn't find it worth it so you didn't pay for it. Nothing else matters... and certainly not the 'plaint that Apple is charging for it. Sure they are, but they are not forcing everyone to upgrade. Back to my ical parser... it is almost done. pk/
Re: OS Poll
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 11:12 PM, Rich & Michaela wrote: >> If Apple were smart, they would have called it 10.5 and marketed it >> they >> way they did 8.5. It would be a cheap upgrade for 10.1 users, and $30 >> cheaper than currently priced for new purchases. That would help >> people >> "switch", even within the brand (9->10). Apple clearly isn't too smart, at least in how they've numbered their releases. But that's why they simply can't skip to 10.5, because they've set a doom clock on their operating system. After OS X 10.9, what will it be? OS X 11.0 ? OS X 10.10 ? That's going to look kind of stupid from a advertising/marketing perspective. You won't see Apple jumping major version numbers, I'll put money on that. Erik -- Erik Price (zombies roam) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Rich & Michaela wrote: > At $129 for a dot release? Not a chance. Maybe to go to 10.5. > > ..Mac is even more of a disappointment. At the same time that Apple is > pushing as hard as they ever have to get folks to switch, they are > treating their loyal installed base like crap. I think what you're seeing is a move away from Apple's apparent basic philosophy of fundamentally they just sold computers, and the OS came with the computer. In the old business model a major selling point was that Macs last a long time - but indestructable computers mean fewer customers so obselescence for Macs has traditionally been brought about by changes in the OS between technological advances, and there lay the flaw they continually subdivided their userbase. In return for brand loyalty, they were expected to maintain machines which were realistically well out of the technological window. Now Apple appears to have had a close look at the"we've-got-you-over-a-barrel-digital-fiefdom" style M$ business model where yesterdays bugs become tomorrow's paid upgrades (Apple on Jaguar: "provides significant enhancements to it's modern, Unix-based foundation" - for "enhancements" read "bug fixes" culled from open source development) and stuff like the paid advertising in the quicktime viewer (Man I _bought_ the OS - why do I have to look at ads?), combined with stepping up the process of obsolecence - since 10.0 paid upgrades have appeared with an almost clockwork six monthly cycle, coupled with the reduction of the period when new users can upgrade for free, in the past this was for the life of an OS ie you buy a computer with OS7, you get to update it for free until OS 8. But for me the total biscuit taker is the ridiculous packaging of OSX server and OSX client (the difference AFAIK between the two are a handfull of carbon apps), and no documentation for the server side of, marketed as UNIX based, OSX, or rather I should say no documentation of where Apple made changes from the BSD code, and where it didn't. Inshort as an old mac hand, I like OSX but I think Apple is treating people like idiots throwing them glitzy bait to get them running to their software/hardware supplier to get the latest and greatest. Sure there are changes under the hood, but I went through 10.0 (the most advanced OS ever) which had no software or third party drivers, then 10.1 (now even more powerful) which though slow is stable but probably should have been 10.0 in the first place, so at 10.2 (Wildly Innovative), to be honest I've had enough carrot and sticking for a while, and I also feel a hell of a lot less generous towards Apple (BTW anyone know where those quicktime ads come from so I can block the DNS?). Robin
Re: OS Poll
I have not upgraded. First of all, I'm pretty happy with 10.1.5. And the new iCal and iChat thing don't really appeal to me and the graphics thing doesn't apply to me. I've been waiting to hear about a big speed increase, but I really didn't think I'd see that on my indigo iBook/366 no matter what they did. The iTools/.Mac thing doesn't matter to me because iDisk was way to slow for a 28,000 baud connection like mine. If Apple had included a Perl with lots of the modules we've all had to install (Like the old MacPerl came with) I would have been intrigued. And maybe some unix stuff to play with like VNC, which is so cool, I certainly would have been wanting. Have any of you used VNC? That is some cool free software! http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ But for me, there was nothing compelling enough to buy. I still don't have Photoshop or GoLive for OS X yet and I'd spend my money there first. Really, everything I want and need is there in 10.1. Apache, Gcc, and Perl. The rest I've managed to get running, MySql, GD, etc. About the only software I've bought for X is BBEdit and Fetch. Everything else I do, graphics and web page layout, I still do with OS 9. I can wait for Apple's latest OS until it's time to buy a new box. But I should point out that I think they're making progress. It amazes me that Apple can still do this better than MS. I'd still use OS 9 instead of WinXP and OS X is like a dream come true for a wannabe hacker like me. -- Bill Stephenson www.PerlHelp.com 1-417-546-5593
Re: OS Poll
> > On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 05:55 AM, ellem wrote: > >> Because 10.2 and 10.1.x are different beasts I notice that some >> discussions need disclaimers like"but I haven't tried this on 10.1.4" >> and such so I am wondering >> >> > > In hindsight maybe I should have just posted a link to an online poll > I'll probably write in the next few minutes... :) > > Seems I've opened old wounds... -- Lou Moran http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html >> >
Re: OS Poll
Erik Price wrote: > >It's not a "dot release". What do you think will happen after 10.9? > >Apple will be in some branding trouble then. Think of 10.2 as Mac OS X > >System 2. I'm sure you don't need to be told this. (Besides, it's > >pitched as a feature release rather than an upgrade.) > > 10.1 to 10.2 is a dot release in the classic (UNIX slanted) sense. Every > dot release has new features. There is no killer app that 10.2 provides. > That why Apple didn't push a higher rev number. Underneath it is more bug > fixes than anything. The new features are hardly worth $129. > If Apple were smart, they would have called it 10.5 and marketed it they > way they did 8.5. It would be a cheap upgrade for 10.1 users, and $30 > cheaper than currently priced for new purchases. That would help people > "switch", even within the brand (9->10).
Re: OS Poll
> At $129 for a dot release? Not a chance. Maybe to go to 10.5. Think of 10.2 as really OS 11, I think Apple really mucked up the versioning for this, since they want to keep it OS _X_. Even in a marketing standpoint, the versioning scheme is dumb. >From a CL and Unix goodies standpoint, it really doesn't make much difference, but anything that has a GUI has been enhanced with speed and aesthetics (Including Terminal) and the new iApps are very well designed. Justin Simoni -- + Freelance Web Design + Internet Application Development + Way Out There Artist [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://justinsimoni.com | 720.436.7701 > At $129 for a dot release? Not a chance. Maybe to go to 10.5. > > ..Mac is even more of a disappointment. At the same time that Apple is > pushing as hard as they ever have to get folks to switch, they are > treating their loyal installed base like crap. > > -Rich > > ellem wrote: > >> Because 10.2 and 10.1.x are different beasts I notice that some >> discussions need disclaimers like"but I haven't tried this on 10.1.4" >> and such so I am wondering >> >> Have you upgraded to 10.2? >> >> I have not, I am on 10.1.5. >> >> (And on a far less important note: Have you signed up for .Mac?) >> >> (Me either.) >> -- >> Lou Moran >> http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
Re: OS Poll
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 09:14 PM, Rich & Michaela wrote: > At $129 for a dot release? Not a chance. Maybe to go to 10.5. It's not a "dot release". What do you think will happen after 10.9? Apple will be in some branding trouble then. Think of 10.2 as Mac OS X System 2. I'm sure you don't need to be told this. (Besides, it's pitched as a feature release rather than an upgrade.) > ..Mac is even more of a disappointment. At the same time that Apple is > pushing as hard as they ever have to get folks to switch, they are > treating their loyal installed base like crap. Yeah, I don't like it either. They should at least continue to offer the free email addresses (of course no one would buy .Mac if they did, but...). Erik -- Erik Price (zombies roam) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS Poll
At $129 for a dot release? Not a chance. Maybe to go to 10.5. ..Mac is even more of a disappointment. At the same time that Apple is pushing as hard as they ever have to get folks to switch, they are treating their loyal installed base like crap. -Rich ellem wrote: > Because 10.2 and 10.1.x are different beasts I notice that some > discussions need disclaimers like"but I haven't tried this on 10.1.4" > and such so I am wondering > > Have you upgraded to 10.2? > > I have not, I am on 10.1.5. > > (And on a far less important note: Have you signed up for .Mac?) > > (Me either.) > -- > Lou Moran > http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
OS Poll
Because 10.2 and 10.1.x are different beasts I notice that some discussions need disclaimers like"but I haven't tried this on 10.1.4" and such so I am wondering Have you upgraded to 10.2? I have not, I am on 10.1.5. (And on a far less important note: Have you signed up for .Mac?) (Me either.) -- Lou Moran http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
