# Mac os 10.2



## Julesâ¢ (Feb 3, 2002)

Have you seen mac os 10.2 (a.k.a. Jaguar)



























All found in http://homepage.mac.com/forax


----------



## Julesâ¢ (Feb 3, 2002)

Cool eh?
Tell me what you think?

(this aint spam)


----------



## wdw_ (Feb 3, 2002)

I think the fact that Apple has Jaguar pics on their own server is weird.

I *cannot* wait for 10.2. I hope they don't distribute it the same way they did with 10.1.


----------



## apb3 (Feb 4, 2002)

puhhleeez


----------



## symphonix (Feb 4, 2002)

Ahh, yes, 10.1. All I had to do was pop into my local Apple store for a free upgrade and to chat up the girl who works there.  
Its not a bad deal. We get free upgrades, Apple gets people into their stores.
And of course, you can order it posted to you, or download it. Who could complain?


----------



## tismey (Feb 5, 2002)

That's all very well if you HAVE a local Apple Store. Here in the UK, Apple's list of 'participating stockists' who had Fulfilment CDs was very short, pretty much confined to London, and they hardly had any CDs. I really hope they get it right this time...


----------



## Dak RIT (Feb 5, 2002)

A little bonus for you... Apple has recently admitted it is strongly considering expanding its line of Apple Stores to Europe (as early as Q3 2002)!

Apple has honestly viewed Europe as its 2nd or 3rd priority in the past, although now that it is beginning to really solidify itself and grow in the US, it's looking to expand.  It's also seen very positive growth in Europe recently and is working hard to improve its offerings there.

Cheers,
Dak


----------



## martijnvandijk (Feb 6, 2002)

DAK RIT, If this is really true I am totally excited


----------



## googolplex (Feb 6, 2002)

where did you hear that??? Why dont they open some up in Canada. Comon toronto! Canada really needs a good mac store. Our CompUSA equivilent equivilent, Future Shop, SUCKS! They usually carry only one mac and its usually old and its usually broken. One would be great in the eaton centre downtown here or something.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Feb 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by symphonix _
> *And of course, you can order it posted to you, or download it. Who could complain? *


We were NOT able to download it. Unless that is something that happened over a MONTH after the update was available! That was the problem everyone had, except me: I have 56k modem at home, and the best I can do @ school is download to 100M Zip and pray... so I was willing to order. I have no local Apple Venue, I don't care what Apple says, Doylestown is NOT local and I can't get there easily anyway.


----------



## JakPuma (Feb 10, 2002)

I can't wait until a month from now.  Apple is opening a stroe near me in this new mall.


----------



## liloconf (Feb 13, 2002)

won't apples system updater just download the new version?


----------



## sheepguy42 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by liloconf _
> *won't apples system updater just download the new version? *


Not to upgrade from 10.0.4 to 10.1, Apple made us all get discs for it 'cause it was so big (hence symphonix's chatting up a girl at his Apple store to get it). After that 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 (and I assume 10.1.3 etc..) are free to download thru the updater, it's just that symphonix ended his post with:


> *And of course, you can order it posted to you, or download it. Who could complain?
> *


where the "download it" part is not true for 10.0.x => 10.1


----------



## fryke (Feb 17, 2002)

Apple will have every right to charge *fully* for 10.2 or at least more than what 10.1 was for 10.0 owners (free). It'll be like 8.5 or 9.0. Or like 10.0 for that matter. That's why I still believe it'll be called 10.5 at the end (8.2 was renamed 8.5, 8.7 was renamed 9.0 before marketing the system just so they could charge money). It gave me a nice chance to give Apple some money when I didn't need to upgrade my hardware system. Isn't that the best reason why Apple is a better company than MS? I don't know many people who would do them such a favour.


----------



## simX (Feb 17, 2002)

As much as like OS X as it is, I don't think that Apple can charge even for this 10.2 or 10.5 update (whichever it is).  Why?  I'll explain.

I pay for operating system upgrades because they give me more features.  Did Mac OS X (10.0) give me more features when I bought it?  Sure it did, but it went back on so many others.

Even OS X 10.1.2 lacks many features of OS 9.  Here, I'll list a few:

 spring-loaded folders
 RAM disk
 USB printer sharing
 energy saver auto startup/shutdown/sleep
 built-in theme support (yeah, I know there was a dearth of OS 9 themes, but there was still this functionality!)
 telling the user the size of all the files in the trash when emptying (minor)
 folder action scripts
 installing only SELECT parts of the system
 true location manager (managing system volume as well as other misc settings)

I'm sure there are things that I have left out.  But my point is this: I paid my $129 for the modern memory management, the stability, the command line, and the other new features to Mac OS X.  I'm not going to pay another $129 or $99 to get back the old features from OS 9 -- or at least I'll seriously complain.


----------



## fryke (Feb 18, 2002)

my suggestion or thought was not based on angry users but on basic financial common sense.  Mac OS 8.5 also didn't give you that many new features over 8.1, or did it? What about Mac OS 9 to 8.6? Yeah, multiple-users, a technology they killed before (At Ease) and only implemented half-heartedly into 9. So basically I think you might be right to be angry, but it won't change anything. And think of the stuff they put out for free inbetween, like iTunes 2, iPhoto... You could say they're not part of the OS, and you're right, but the OS should be improved in three ways to allow charge of money:

1.) Stability/Security
2.) Speed
3.) Interface enhancements

And 10.2 or 10.5 will bring news in all of those respects. (Yeah and 'MiniFinder' was no longer part in System 7!!!)  (And floppy drives gone since the iMac!!!)


----------



## wtmcgee (Feb 22, 2002)

honestly, it all comes down to features/enhancements.... if its WORTH the price to upgrade,  i have no problem paying for it. if they're just looking to get another revenue stream out of a relatively minor bugfix release, then i will be angry. basically, i've always been one to pay if it's worth paying for.....


----------



## Krevinek (Feb 23, 2002)

The thing is, Apple did try to take advantage of the 10.1 Big Honkin' Update issue to make a little bank on it. 

In reply to simX, you have some valid points, but a couple of those you mentioned are not available due to technical reasons. RAM Disks are tricky to efficiently implement with the type of VM-always-on paged memory management now used. It can be done, but you either lose out on performance elsewhere in the system, or your lose out on the boost it gives you. Apple programmers have to work that one out fairly carefully. Maybe they could take a clue or two from the 3rd party *nix programmers that took a stab at it and see how they tried to do it, and how successful they were.

The issue of installing selective parts is a valid one, but there are some issues there over inter-connectivity, and predicting future hardware additions. Unless you want to start going through the process of installing drivers for every new piece of hardware you install, the kexts should remain where they are. If you try to remove frameworks, what happens to the apps that use em? If you try to remove the core set of unix apps X installs, what happens the parts of the system that needs them? Before Apple can truly give REAL customizable system install options, they need to find a way around this problem, and I hope that an 'Add New Hardware Wizard' and whatnot IS NOT THE ANSWER. I really hate having to slap the Windows CD in for trival drivers, and would gladly throw a few MB away to not deal with it.

I agree the issues you mentioned HAVE to be resolved, but this is a new environment, and requires new ways of doing the same things we used to take for granted in some cases (spring-loaded folders isn't one of these cases, and should have been implemented by now in my mind, even with the column view issue). Not only do we have to worry about keeping functionality, we have to ask HOW we can keep it in a new environment like this one. Afterall, it was the crappy memory manager in Classic MacOS that allowed the RAM Disk to be so easy, since you could turn VM off. It was the kludge of a system folder that kept it mobile and customizable, and unstable.

Let us hope 10.2 makes a step towards a compromise of some sorts, and addresses the issues that can properly be addressed at this time. I seriously doubt 10.2 will be making us shell out any more than they tried taking from us with 10.1, as it seems with the mark of X, development has geared more towards getting everything to a point where they can move forward with something truly new, rather than putting the finishing touches on the initial version of X.


----------



## kommakazi (Feb 23, 2002)

Those "screen shots" of Jaguar are bunk, look at the one of the About This Mac screen, it says copyright 1983-2001 Apple Computer. It is 2002 last time I checked.


----------



## Krevinek (Feb 23, 2002)

Last time *I* checked, those screenshots were from 6B11 (which is floating around the net if you look hard enough if you want to confirm), and 6B11 is from very late 2001 from my figures. We had the leaks start around Christmas, which would make the copyright figures valid.

What we are seeing here is 'old stuff being replayed as new stuff'. Doesn't mean it is bunk.


----------



## fryke (Feb 25, 2002)

More control over Mac OS X installation: They could and should make things like iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes etc. selectable/deselctable. Also iTools. It's a nice feature but if I don't need it I don't want it. But also consider that every harddisk Apple sells in a computer is now 10GB or larger. Even a fully installed Mac OS X doesn't take up more than 1.2 GB. The really bad thing is that you can't REINSTALL parts. If I choose to delete an application like TextEdit or Network Utility, I have no chance of getting it back without reinstalling from scratch or copy from another machine (both solutions aren't good enough for most users).

About 10.2: The 6B11 screenshots are old. It seems like Apple has stopped some leaks now, as newer pics are nowhere to be found. Yes, the build is from 2001, but copyright notes are never a proof about any fake or something. It's alpha/beta software and fixes like the copyright notes can take place late in the dev stages.


----------



## Frederic (Feb 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kommakazi _
> *Those "screen shots" of Jaguar are bunk, look at the one of the About This Mac screen, it says copyright 1983-2001 Apple Computer. It is 2002 last time I checked. *



You've got 10.1.3 ? Check the "about this Mac", and you'll see the same "1983-2001"... Last time I checked, it was 2002 here too


----------



## JakPuma (Feb 26, 2002)

Yup, He's right.  Here's my proof.


----------



## fryke (Feb 27, 2002)

Does nobody have a newer build of 10.2 and can spill some beans about how the installation went and whether it's already useable to some extent? Also, normally those thingies contain release notes and the installation gives you a logfile... Post, post, post.


----------



## thisbechuck (Feb 28, 2002)

lol, isn't it funny that the guy who started this rumor and posted these pictures hasn't posted one message since his preliminary 2? maybe he didn't know how to defend his "photos". allright, i'll shut up now


----------



## Krevinek (Feb 28, 2002)

He isn't the first to post those. I believe ThinkSecret was the first to post them on thinksecret.com back in December. I personally have a tendancy to believe a little bit more about ThinkSecret's news items, especially since they don't break until they have a reliable source on the matter.


----------



## Arin (Mar 13, 2002)

The discussion is all great, but does anyone have any info on WHEN it (10.2, 10.5 whatever..) might be released?

Wether there's an upgrade cost or not doesn't bother me so much, if it's really got updated support for my wallstreet's RAGE card*, the upgrade cost for more speed has got to be cheaper than a new processor.

*(see yesterday's post on http://www.mosr.com - March 12th)

-A


----------



## Dak RIT (Mar 13, 2002)

10.2 was actually initially targeted to be released at the 2002 MWSF a few months ago, although back in November was pushed back to 2002 MWNY because of concerns about quality insurance, plus it gives them time for more Stuff(tm) 

Expect MacOS X 10.2 announced this July, and out by September.  However, I see a lot of people expecting 10.5 to follow 10.2 like MacOS 8 did.  MacOS 8 was pushed through its life quickly, partly so the new OS could be called MacOS X   MacOS X is in fact still pretty young and has a lot of work to be done in it before Apple can start legitimately pushing for a release worthy of the number 11.  Expect 10.3 to follow 10.2.  Even if Apple skips a little I expect quite a few "X" builds... 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7 at the least.  Of course, what's in a name?  Each of these small increments will probably pack more improvements than we saw from 8 to 8.5.  Only when X is really mature do I think Apple will start looking to start a successor.  Probably once 10.6 comes out.

Cheers,
Dak


----------



## boomw (Mar 15, 2002)

OK. I know it's a dead horse, but until I hit the lottery I'm living in OS 9 world. Which isn't terrible of course and certainly faster. I  still hope Apple will make good on it's word about OS X FULLY supporting G3s.


----------



## Krevinek (Mar 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by boomw _
> *OK. I know it's a dead horse, but until I hit the lottery I'm living in OS 9 world. Which isn't terrible of course and certainly faster. I  still hope Apple will make good on it's word about OS X FULLY supporting G3s. *



Well, Apple didn't really break its word, ATi didn't want to write drivers for those older cards, and neither did Apple (since it wasn't Apple hardware, and Apple doesn't like writing drivers for other companies).


----------



## neutrino23 (Mar 16, 2002)

I suppose technically you could say that the graphics system in Lombard is an Apple product since I believe they integrate the ATI graphics chips at the board level. It is not like you could pull out a graphics card from a Lombard and pop in another.


----------



## Krevinek (Mar 16, 2002)

You also have to remember that Apple is the type of company where they are happy to let other people like ATi provide the hardware they need, BUT, Apple tends to make it clear that ATi/NVidia/Epson/HP/etc are the ones that need to foot the bill to get support done. Apple provides the support to get the code finished, but Apple doesn't want to foot the bill for the development.

Aple just doesn't like spending money for someone else's benefit, especially when the other company widens their profit margins doing so. I believe Jobs brought this mindset back, and it definitely makes sense when you see Apple's new policies for pricing updates and whatnot.


----------



## jsepeta (Mar 17, 2002)

1) MIDI support. Yeah, I know, Apple has promised Core Audio services. But there aren't any MIDI programs that work in OSX yet, which is frustrating because that's the main reason I bought a dual-500 (used, during MacWorld Expo, only to find out a week later! that the dual-1ghz were coming out)  

2) Then of course, we'll need OSX versions of MIDI apps. Now that Propellerhead has announced Reason 2.0 for OSX, we have reason to really get anxious. Also I'm interested to see how fast Emagic can have get 5.1 out of the gate. I'm not holding my breath for Digi to update ProTools any time soon, but it would behoove them to update the drivers for my Digi001.

3) The next step will be to carbonize all my VST plugins: Reaktor, Attack, Waldorf, Pro52, Battery, B4, LM4. Just like Photoshop users will be hosed when they try to use their favorite plugins in PS7 under OSX...

'til then, I'm stuck in 9.x


----------



## xoot (Mar 18, 2002)

Pretty good pictures, though.


----------



## Foo Fighter (Mar 25, 2002)

Shhh...don't tell anyone, but I have a pic of the ATM dialog box in 10.2.

Take a peak:


----------



## vic (Mar 25, 2002)

i bet that 10.2 will come out at the same time as adobe photoshop 7, and that would be sometime in april, possibly may.

(i was right when i prdicted the release of livemotion 2 and golive 6, myabe i have achance here )


----------



## g3ski (Mar 27, 2002)

Yeah, Steve Job promised that Apple would build OS X so it could run on the original iMac (with it's 32mb of ram-hehe). Well if that's true, Steve should use that same iMac (I will even give him 384Mb of ram) with X for a month as his main machine at Apple headquarters. I think we would have ati drivers faster than you can say "WinXP is just Win2K with the OS 9 Multiple-users login Duck". 

My beige G3 at 500Mhz with an Rage 128 feels like its stuck in molasses when I use X; then the dreaded rainbow CD of death - Uhg! And that Mac is *much* faster than a 333Mhz or 400Mhz Lombard. Yes, X can be used on those machines, but it is not *usable*, there is a big difference. At work, we were excited about iphoto, so we downloaded and tried to play around with it on the 400mhz Lombard - we were soooo disappointed. It was just too painfully slow to use.

So you can see that my main concern for X.II, aka 10.2, Xv2, X.2 is better support for all G3 based Macs, especially powerbooks prior to TiBooks. (I don't have any results from a 500Mhz Pbook 2000 (FW), but I would gander that it would be smoked by a 350Mhz G4 Yikes in X).

Everyone speculates that the video card drivers are the *only* thing that will help speed up older G3s, but maybe there are other changes that could be made. What about a more efficiently programmed finder based in Cocoa, rather than Carbon? What about a set of sub-routines that would make cpu driven quartz render faster. If Apple has been reworking 10.2 since November, I hope they give us a little boost.

10.2 needs:
older ati drivers (duh)
better overal performance
more efficient utilization of dual processors
force empty the trash to remove stubborn files
a cocoa based finder
more built-in file sharing options
built-in cascading and customizeble apple menu (fruit menu rocks!)

My predictions:
10.2 released at developers conference in May
10.2 provides support for up to 4 processors
10.2 includes more scanner drivers
10.2 provides a modest gain in performance
10.2 includes advances on the server side (could be anything)

thanks for peeping,
+jd


----------



## twister (Mar 27, 2002)

I just need a few simple things

*) Labels
*) Sherlock that isn't as slow as crap (he was good in 9)
*) Ability to hit "l" when opening a file from within a program to go to the files that began with "l"
*) Ability to sort files in a list by kind and not have to wait for results
*) Trash to tell me how much stuff is in it. (size wise)
*) Ability to customize the look.  I'd love to be able to choose from houndreds of skins.

That's all i can think of for now

Twister


----------



## Anim8r (Mar 27, 2002)

AH..

AH...


CHOOOintelOOOOO!



Sniff, sniff.


I'm sorry, did you hear something?


----------



## vic (Mar 27, 2002)

yeah i did? what your problem? can i help you somehow?


----------



## Anim8r (Mar 28, 2002)

Yeah, can you hand me a tissue?

I have an intel stuck in my OSX and it is making me sneeze.


Is that too cryptic?


----------



## vic (Mar 28, 2002)

ooooooooo


----------



## anrkngl (Apr 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by twister _
> **) Trash to tell me how much stuff is in it. (size wise)*



*click on trashcan
*hit apple-I
*read the size

I know it's not obvious (or on a toolbar at the bottom) but the information can still be gotten.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 2, 2002)

No offense, but I've come to the conclusion that you can all give up your dreams for good performance running OS X on a G3. It simply isn't going to happen.

Here's why:

Apple sells hardware. OS X is simply a catalyst to sell said hardware. G3s are not new hardware. They are dead. Anyone wanting to run OS X simply has to make the commitment to a G4 minimum, preferably a DP G4.

Believe me, I'm as annoyed as everyone else. I was under the misguided notion that my old G4 450 would at least run X comfortably. Not. Some people seem to think it runs OK on such a machine, but I think they are fooling themselves, it's really not very cozy at all.

I hate all the marketing gimmicks such as the huge chasm between "will run on" and "will run comfrtably on". Similar to the absurd "minimum requirements" for a game, which we all know will barely get you 5 fps if you're lucky. I also hate the recent trend to show megabits per second, instead of megabytes. Very sneaky. And the equally annoying "realtime" for video editing, when in fact, there is no such thing on any platform at any price (though you can get very close if you spend a lot, but let's not go there).

Bottom line: dump your G3s (easy for me to say, I guess) if you want to run OS X. Let me rephrase that. If you make your living on a Mac and want to run OS X, you absolutely have to get a G4 700 minimum. Don't fool yourself about getting anything else. In fact, do whatever you can to get a DP, it will make a big difference. If you simply browse the web and use Quicken and Appleworks to write letters in OS X, your RevB iMac willd do just fine.

I know many people will say their machines run OS X just fine. All I can say is that, for me on a G4 450 and an iMac 400 DV, OS X did not perform acceptably for production work. I was forced to buy a better machine and man I'm glad I did. There is no comparison.


----------



## dricci (Apr 2, 2002)

I think OS X *will* get better in 10.2 for everything, including G3s. The main reason being apple still sells G3 iMacs and iBooks and with all of these school deals, they will want them to look good. Happy students will be impressed by OS X on their school iBook or iMac and will want consider buying a Mac. This is a MAJOR way to get new users. Kid uses mac at school, drools for OS X, begs parents, parents say no, begs parents and goes on hunger strike, parents give in. Instant Marketshare(tm).

Besides, I've heard Apple is planning on using better compilers and more Aqua enhancements in 10.2. Aqua is what is slowing OS X down, not OS X itself. Maybe we'll also see a "Plantium Theme" option that turns off the eye candy and gives better performance?

I just say wait to make final judgement as OS X matures. I think 10.2 will be the major starting point for positive progress and new crap(tm) in OS X land.

Now if only people would stop programming for OS 9..


----------



## g3ski (Apr 2, 2002)

For our graphic design firm with 24 employees it is very costly to upgrade everyone to a G4/800 in a short time span. We currently have 5 G4/400 towers, the boss has a TiBook 500 and we just recently picked up a TiBook 667. That's only 7 out of 24 users. I recently saw a G/533 tower for $1000, and G4/733 for $1300. At those prices we are talking about $18,000-23,000. And that doesn't include the software (upgrade photoshop, illustrator, and office for 20 people is another $20K)

(Since NeXT was snappy on a fast 040 processor and linux is snappy on a PII-233, why can't OS X be snappy on a G3/500. I know.....Aqua/Quartz.)

The fact that Apple is making us upgrade our hardware to upgrade our software removes all roadblocks from a move directly to windows, since we could spend the money on all new PCs and Windows OS. That is the real problem with Apple's strategy. Gives us what they promised, OS X that will run on G3s, and we will make the transition to OS X sooner, and we will make the evolutionary jump to new G4 hardware, without the risk of being forced to move to wintel. The more people who can use OS X now, the more people who will buy Apple hardware when they upgrade

So here is one more vote (wish) for the Apple/ATI alliance to put out some rage II or rage 128 class drivers in version 10.2.

+jd


----------



## simX (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *No offense, but I've come to the conclusion that you can all give up your dreams for good performance running OS X on a G3. It simply isn't going to happen.
> 
> Here's why:
> ...



What did you DO to your poor little G4 450?!?!?!

While I acknowledge that OS X doesn't have the performance of OS 9 on the same machine, OS X is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY* USABLE*.  Yes, I'm pissed off when the spinning rainbow cursor comes, but it's not that bad.  Yes, I am amazed at the speed in OS 9 when I boot back into it.  But although OS X lacks overall speed in the Finder and such, it makes up more than enough in the way of productivity.  I can get so much more done in OS X purely because of stability, even though yes it is sluggish.

What's more, OS X is completely usable on my mom's iBook 600 MHz (*ahem* G3 processor *ahem*), and even more so on my dad's TiBook 667 MHz.

I seriously have to wonder what you do to your poor machines, mindbend.  While I don't use music tools or graphics intensive rendering applications, I do think that I push my comp to the limit.  I often have 20 apps open in OS X, just because I can leave them open.  I have iTunes playing, I'm browsing the web, sometimes SETI is crunching in the background, I have an IRC client open, Project Builder and Interface Builder, Graphic Converter, etc. etc.  OS X performs exceptionally well when running StarCraft, Oni, EV Nova, and other games too (of course, it's just like OS 9 -- quit all other apps and you'll have much better performance).

Yes, I would love to have an iMac G4 running at 800 MHz with an nVidia GeForce 2MX card in it.  Yes I would love to have a dualie-gig Mac with a GeForce 4 Ti in it.  But my trusty cube does just fine in OS X 10.1.3.  It's nowhere as near as painful as you make it out to be.

Let me say one other thing: we have to put the pressure back on Apple.  As far as I'm concerned, they should have delivered on all of the features and performance issues by 10.1.  I know all the arguments of "Apple had to release an operating system before the developers start writing apps for it".  Now it's bordering on unacceptable.

When running the Mac OS X public beta with horrible speed on my cube, I was just thinking.. "Oh... I'll just wait until the final version, and then I'll switch."  When Mac OS X 10.0 came out, I was itching to have 10.1, which promised to be screaming fast (and of course mosr.com and alllll the other rumor sites totally overexaggerated).  Now in 10.1.x, I'm waiting and waiting for OS X 10.2, which won't be here for another few months (don't bet on OS X 10.2 being released anytime soon).

While I totally adore OS X, I'll be seriously pissed if OS X 10.2 doesn't deliver all the features and performance I expect.  I want OS X 10.2 to be up to par with OS 9.2.2.  Apple should have gotten it right with OS X 10.1 AT THE LATEST, and now we have to wait 'til OS X 10.2.

Don't think I hate Apple and OS X.  I truly think that Apple's hardware, operating system, and software pack a 1-2-3 punch that's really hard to beat (and dare I say unbeatable).  But Apple really needs to get OS X 10.2 complete with all the features so that developers can rapidly port and we'll finally be gone of the old Classic system.

There, that's my two cents, written in OmniWeb on a cube running OS X 10.1.3.

Oh yeah, let me clear up a couple things:

1.  The Finder is actually a Carbon/Cocoa hybrid.  One MacOSX.com user pointed this out to me (I'm not sure who), but where do you think the Finder toolbars came from?

2.  OS X 10.2 build 6B11 shots have been out LONG before December.  I remember seeing them shortly after OS X 10.1 was released.  They are soooooo old, and I'm surprised that people are just starting to pick up on them now.  Just to put it in perspective, 6B11 builds were released to developers with iTunes 1.1.  Apple has surely moved much farther along than 6B11.

3.  Anim8r: OS X on Intel will only be in your dreams.  While Apple may be secretly developing an OS X build that goes on Intel alongside the Mac version, rest assured that that line of builds will only be released when Motorola goes up in smoke.  And by that time, Apple or IBM will have bought the PPC assets, in which case we'd have to wait 'til IBM or Apple itself go up in smoke.

In short, it's not gonna happen.  So stop dreaming about it.


----------



## JakPuma (Apr 2, 2002)

Apple has an Intel Darwin build already.  Apple would have to just pair up it with aqua to make intel os x.


----------



## dlookus (Apr 2, 2002)

> Apple sells hardware. OS X is simply a catalyst to sell said hardware.


Normally I would agree with this statement, but I think Apple lagging so far behind in the Ghz department is impetus enough for them to make their OS feel fast.

And, oh yeah,what simX said. 

Has anyone posted screenshots from more recent builds of 10.2? I hope they don't make it 10.5 and make us pay for it.


----------



## ksv (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dlookus _
> *
> I hope they don't make it 10.5 and make us pay for it. *



Why not? They'll charge for it anyway, and if they made it 10.5 we'd be closer to 11.0 
I seriously doubt that, anyway 

BTW, porting OS X to Intel isn't as simple as it sounds. Also,mostl current apps would have to be rewritten/ported for x86, and it's not a good idea to even think about it only a year after the release of OS X...


----------



## dlookus (Apr 2, 2002)

I didn't pay for 10.1.
I'm just saying we shouldn't pay for stuff that should be in OSX already.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 2, 2002)

that OS X 10.5 (yes, it will be called 10.5, mark my words) will be a paid upgrade. It will come more than 15 months after the original 10.0 release, and Apple isn't going to miss an opportunity to charge for it. I doubt it will be the full $129, but I also doubt it will be the $19.95 we paid for the 10.1 upgrade. My guess is that it will be between $49.95 and $69.95. 

There hasn't been alot of discussion about what is going to be new in 10.2. But performance better be the centerpiece of the ugprade. Finder improvements would be nice, but looking at 10.2 6b11, the only major Finder tweaks seem to be Spring Loaded folders.

Now consider this. Snax, as of version 1.2.7, now features both Spring Loaded Folders and Finder Labels. Not to mention you can customize the fonts in the finder, turn off antialising (which really speeds things up), get more indepth previews, and a ton of other features. The one caveat is that SNAX isn't quite as snappy as the Finder, but it's coming along quite nicely.

Hopefully more features have been added since the 6b11 build. It's new feature set was pretty minimal...


----------



## mindbend (Apr 2, 2002)

What a lovely discussion, eh?

Clearly, the speed issue (which I have harped upon for months now) is a subjective one. My business partner is running a G4 466 in OS X and doesn't complain too much about speed. Again, for me on an iMac 400 OS X runs right on the fringe of unusable in a business environment (Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator, GoLive, Final Cut Pro [actually FCP ran pretty well on the iMac]). The G4 450 was solidly in the usable column, but yards aways from the "comfortable" column. Just my opinion.

Here's a nugget from the latest Macworld to support my claims:

"If you plan on running OS X, you should consider avoiding G3-based Macs." p.53, May MacWorld.

I doubt they can predict the future any more than the rest of us, but I stand by my positon that a dramatic performance increase for G3s simply isn't going to happen. Some marginal improvements, maybe, but there is no way you are going to get 9.2.2 performance on a G3 in OS X. Ever. In fact, I'm not too optimistic about 9.2.2 performance on a G4 for a while, but don't quote me on that.

If I am wrong, I will gladly come here and proclaim my wrongitudinalness. 

I agree with Serp that it will be 10.5 and definitely be a fee-based UG.


----------



## twister (Apr 2, 2002)

Maybe i'm weird but i think OS X on my G3 B/W Tower is pretty good.  And on my mom's G3 Imac it rocks.  I don't think it necessarly has to do with X but how much other crap you have or how you decided to modify or hack into the system.

Twister


----------



## vic (Apr 2, 2002)

try using illustrator 10 in os x and than use it in os 9 and you will see retarded slownles i'm talking about... flash mx and photoshop beta work very well, but browsers are also slower in x than in 9, games work fine, and 3d apps too, but i need a good html editing software and photshop, and without those i will not moove to os x completely, and then i am goint to wait for os 10.2 and get the springloaded folders since it is very retarded how dedious it is to copy shit from one place to the other - apple got half of something right, that is the undo and the copy and paste feaure in the finder but they probably got a slap from steve jobs who likes to look at blank canvases and think they are art, so they did not include a move/cut feature in the fider. stupid, stupid, stupid is all i can say.


----------



## googolplex (Apr 2, 2002)

What asb out truly new features? Everyone seems to be talking about old OS 9 features it needs. I think those will come, but I would hate to think thats all apple is focusing on. I'd love to see some cool new things in the OS.


----------



## Pascal (Apr 2, 2002)

I can only say one thing : *Mac OS X 10.2* better be as fast as *Windows XP*. Yes, I know, some of you will say that XP is slow and Microsoft is evil. But have you tried it ??? The computer I tried Windows XP on was harldy a SuperPC : it was a 1 year old PC with a *Celeron* processor, for crying out loud !  But using it and comparing that computer's reactivity to my white 500 MHz iBook running 10.1.3 was a saddening experience... Man, what a world of difference ! I'm not thinking about switching to PC, at least not yet, but when even the slower PCs are faster than the almost current Macs, there is a problem !

And I am not so sure that everything is Motorola's fault... otherwise, the Game Cube wouldn't use a PowerPC, would it ?

Apple has to accelerate every single aspect of the Mac OS X experience.  From application launching to printing to the speed of Java and Net surfing. Apple also has to provide a computing experience that's liberating : connect to any network type with no hassle whatsoever, print to any printer a Mac user comes across, read any DVD or CD a user slips in its Mac.

I hope 10.2 will be much more than the addition of some fun-but-marginally-interesting pop-up folders. I hope that if 10.2 isn't out yet, it is because Apple is trying its best accelerating the Mac OS X experience.

10.0 -> abysmal
10.1 -> usable
10.2 -> snappy ?


----------



## Dak RIT (Apr 2, 2002)

Apple's been working hard to optimize how the Mach-O kernel and Darwin layers interact.  It is *not* easy, and there is room for quite a bit of optimizing still.  Expect 10.2 to have quite a few optimizations, although it still won't be done (if 10.1 was considered an avg. 200% speed increase, expect 10.2 to boast somewhere in the range of 67%-100%).

And yes, it will be called 10.2.  Whether or not Apple charges for it is up to them.  They didn't charge for 10.1, and they shouldn't have.  Although, they've put an enormous amount of work into 10.2 as well, and 10.1.3 is definitely usable.  I'm not going to guess though if Apple is going to charge or not, and frankly I don't think Apple has decided yet either.  Although, if they do, I support the decision.

When should they charge?  10.3?  10.4?  10.5?  10.6?  10.7?  10.8?  10.9?  11?  Yes, expect that many or close to that many versions, I have a feeling it's going to be a few years before we see 11.0 (I'm still betting on a new file system for it too).

Cheers,
Dak


----------



## vic (Apr 2, 2002)

pascal -  i agree with most of the stff you said, exept ther java thing, actually java runs very fast on mac and sun will take some of the optimized code apple has put into the mac version of java just cuz it's so good. and the os on the celeron was snappy and fast, but try rendering a movie, or working on digital photos in photoshop at 200 300 megs, trust me you will see why most artists use macs - with os 9 that is!!!! yes, i'm really tired of lack of 3d apps, and maya is not enough , i want hudini, studio max, softimage. and a snappy os as fast as os 9, that was a f**king snappy os, thats why i'm still using it.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 2, 2002)

Gee, Vic is even harsher than I have been!

Right now OS X is still my preferred OS, even with its sluggish interface, simply because of the other inherent advantages that we all know about and I won't repeat here.

As for 3D apps, it looks like Apple is looking to the future with their acquisition of NothingReal. While Shake isn't a 3D app, it's a high end Hollywood app which shows where Apple wants to be. Watch for Apple to purchase a 3D developer as well. I doubt they'd develop their own as they time setback would be too huge.

I have no doubt that Apple will continue to be innovative and have a world class OS on world class hardware. Their strategic decisions the last two years have been amazing. Hang in there on the speed thing, the wait will be worth it.


----------



## Pascal (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *exept ther java thing, actually java runs very fast on mac*


 OK, maybe I shouldn't have included Java in that sentence... but there are so many other aspects of OS X that ought to be faster than they are. Replace the word "Java" with anything else... say "disk browsing in the Finder" for instance !





> *and the os on the celeron was snappy and fast, but try rendering a movie, or working on digital photos in photoshop at 200 300 megs, trust me you will see why most artists use macs - with os 9 that is!!!!*


But rendering images has nothing to do with the OS. Rendering images has only to do with the raw power of the processor, and that is why I found my experience with the Celeron so depressing : despite having such a weak CPU, the  WinXP PC was fast, while my machine with a much stronger CPU only manages to limp along under Mac OS X.





> *that was a f**king snappy os, thats why i'm still using it.*


Although you may remember how slow Mac OS 7.5 was. It is sad to see how long it took Apple to optimize its system for the PowerPC. I hope it won't take as long before Mac OS X is optimized !!!


----------



## vic (Apr 2, 2002)

i can't remember os 7.5, i started with os 9, and let's hope they - for my sake at least - they will make the optimizations and features faster or i may be looking at linux or windows for an option.


----------



## Pascal (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *Hang in there on the speed thing, the wait will be worth it.*


I've been told that the future is bright with Apple since the beginning of the 90's with _Pink_ then _Taligent_ then _Copland_ then _Rhapsody_ then _Mac OS X_...  I seriously think Apple should rename its operating system _Excalibur_.


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *i can't remember os 7.5, i started with os 9, and let's hope they - for my sake at least - they will make the optimizations and features faster or i may be looking at linux or windows for an option. *



For some reason, I just feel like saying: Comparing two OSes like MacOS 9 and MacOS X is like comparing an apple and a banana. If you feel that you can say they are similar without using 'they are fruits,' then go ahead an continue bashing.

I for one know for a fact that so much has changed  with the UI between OS 9 and OS X that it is very difficult for me to say 'X needs to be faster than 9'. Depends on what you mean by faster for one, and it also depends on the complexity of the graphics engine. X introduced a whole new stage in the 2D pipeline that 9 doesn't have. It is almost like asking, 'I want this car that costs more to make, at a lower price.'

If you feel you need to move to another OS to get work done, by all means, do so. I am not going to be stopping you.


----------



## Pascal (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *I for one know for a fact that so much has changed  with the UI between OS 9 and OS X that it is very difficult for me to say 'X needs to be faster than 9'. Depends on what you mean by faster for one, and it also depends on the complexity of the graphics engine. X introduced a whole new stage in the 2D pipeline that 9 doesn't have.*


Well all the improvements under the hood (or in fact the new car altogether) is what keeps me from going back to Mac OS 9. Mac OS X is definitely a huge improvement over Mac OS 9 no questions asked. But the computer buyers don't care about true technology breakthrough : they only care about flash and speed. Granted, Mac OS X is very flashy, but it certainly isn't speedy. And as long as it won't be speedy, Apple's market share won't grow. As Mac users, we all pay the price of Apple's shrinking market share...

The truth is this : I don't want to buy a Wintel, I don't want to be a Borg. I want Apple to provide the best computing experience there is so I can say to every one that my platform of choice is the best !


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 2, 2002)

I was aiming that post at Vic, since his post seemed to be of a mindset that seems rather disturbing to me at this point: "I want what I want, and if it was possible before, then it is always possible."

Consumers have taken on this mindset as a whole, and it seems rather counterproductive to the idea of 'informed consumer' when they make assumptions about a product. I have encountered a similar mindset in a lot of Morpheus/Kazaa users: "If it is on the internet, I should get it for free. If I want it for free, I look on the internet."

I wanted to make a somewhat sarcastic post to point this out, but as usual, my sarcasm misses the mark.

BTW, right now because of the first year of OS X, Apple is slowly GAINING market share, rather than 'shrinking' as you put it. For every one person who jumps ship I see 3-4 come over (IRL), as well as the increase in units sold to consumers overall per year since Jobs came back. How is that a shrinking market share? (Although I personally wish Apple would make the documentation for writing video/3D/DVD drivers public myself)


----------



## Pascal (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *BTW, right now because of the first year of OS X, Apple is slowly GAINING market share, rather than 'shrinking' as you put it. For every one person who jumps ship I see 3-4 come over (IRL), as well as the increase in units sold to consumers overall per year since Jobs came back. How is that a shrinking market share?*


I am very happy to read that (although I think that this is only true in the U.S.A.) and I most certainly _wish_ it is true ! (By the way, what does IRL mean ?)


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 2, 2002)

In Real Life.

It is a term normally used when the younger generation wants to show the difference between online experiences/sights and offline experiences/sights.


----------



## vic (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *
> 
> For some reason, I just feel like saying: Comparing two OSes like MacOS 9 and MacOS X is like comparing an apple and a banana. If you feel that you can say they are similar without using 'they are fruits,' then go ahead an continue bashing.
> ...



that's the point. they ARE similar. they ARE both fruits. in other words - a computer is a tool, you don't eat soup with a hammer because it is not appropriate, but you don't nail with a plastic hammer either. i need to earn a living with a computer - not compare the os's. it's as simple as that.


--- and i'm not bashing, i'm communiacationg my frustration


----------



## Pascal (Apr 2, 2002)

Thanks for your explanation !

By the way :





> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *I have encountered a similar mindset in a lot of Morpheus/Kazaa users: "If it is on the internet, I should get it for free. If I want it for free, I look on the internet."*


This mindset cannot be found amongst Mac users since there are no Kazaa/Morpheus clients on the Mac in the first place !


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 2, 2002)

Why use Morpheus now when you can use Limewire, Aquasition or Mactella and get the same result? Morpheus is now a Gnutella client since their removal off the FastTrack network.

Plus Hotline, KDX, Carracho, etc all fall under the same category of file sharing apps commonly used to pirate MP3s.


----------



## vic (Apr 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *I was aiming that post at Vic, since his post seemed to be of a mindset that seems rather disturbing to me at this point: "I want what I want, and if it was possible before, then it is always possible."
> 
> Consumers have taken on this mindset as a whole, and it seems rather counterproductive to the idea of 'informed consumer' when they make assumptions about a product. I have encountered a similar mindset in a lot of Morpheus/Kazaa users: "If it is on the internet, I should get it for free. If I want it for free, I look on the internet."
> ...



you think i'm a consumer? believe me, if everyone was as consumer as me the nation would be poor. - i use my computer for personal and work/money making reasons -granted little at thsi point, but i'm working on it, and i though buying a mac would help, and it has, it has, but the jump to os x is sttaring to make me ffel like i'm being forced to be a consumer. i need to buy more hardware, i need to wait and be told what to do, cuz apple sais so, i need to stick with them becasue they are good and MS is evil, - in case you havent noticed os x was built for consumers, apple is trying to expand it's market share, it's starting to make me feel like it's becoming another windows, a consumer product. as i said many times before i LOVE the *promises* os x brings on the Mac platform, and i LOVE the hardware beyond any pentium, BUT what is is and no faith will undo science - so to speak.


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 2, 2002)

True, but there is also the fact that Apple followers have be complaining and asking for the next-generation MacOS for almost a decade now. Now that it is here, Apple followers start complaining at the fact that it is such a departure from the accepted norms. I personally laugh at both sides of this issue (Apple and their customers).

Give it a bit of time. MacOS 7-9 was not developed in a single year, and MacOS X will not be perfected to the degree of MacOS 9 in a single year either. However, I am fairly amazed at the amount of progress the programming team has put forth. Somewhere between 50-150 bugs squashed in the 10.1.2 update alone (fairly hard to find ones too). 10.2 will prove to be a fairly large step up  from 10.1. 

Heck, MS is having problems getting their customers to adopt WinXP for similar reasons. They switched to the NT kernel completely, and my friend is now complaining that MechWarrior 3 doesn't work anymore, but a very old DOS game works perfectly. Shows you that MS is in the same boat as Apple because they chose to do a fairly drastic departure from the Windows norm with XP.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 3, 2002)

> despite having such a weak CPU, the WinXP PC was fast, while my machine with a much stronger CPU only manages to limp along under Mac OS X.



You can't compare the two. Right now, OS X is a step ahead of the hardware. It's GUI does things that WinXP can not do. First off, it has TRUE antialiasing. Second, the drop shadows on windows take up a little CPU. Also, the transparency aspect also eats up CPU. 

WinXP is fast because it uses the same windowing architecture that MS debuted with Win95. There's really little new to it. OS X, on the other hand, uses a completely new engine that allows for all these beautiful enhancements like drop shadows, anti-aliasing, and transparency. The software has taken the next step. In any evolution, when that happens, obviously old hardware will be left behind. I really think the bar for OS X is set at a G4/733 or higher, if you want a completely smooth experience with the Finder. On my machines, I'm plenty satisfied with GUI speed. 

On another note, have you tried SNAX? SNAX gives you almost total customization of your file browsing, and allows you to turn off antialiasing on the windows, speeding things up. Couple this with Unsanity's Shadow Killer, and you will probably have a smooth file browsing experience (until you can get new OS X optimized hardware).


----------



## Pascal (Apr 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut_
> *(until you can get new OS X optimized hardware).*


I will certainly give Snax a try, but I cannot accept your last sentence : I consider that currently shipping hardware has to be Mac OS X optimized. I mean, come on : I have a white 500 MHz iBook with 256 MB RAM. It is not even one year old... it was designed knowing that Mac OS X existed and knowing about its hardware requirements. Mac OS X should work on something else than the fastest Macs available... Hey, even Windows isn't as stringent in terms of hardware requirements !

If Aqua is too harsh on my Mac's abilities, it should then be able to scale down gracefully (turning off transparency, removing drop shadows or using a _false_ drop shadow as in Win XP, for instance)


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

No s**t! why do i care about drop shadows? is the light coming from my monitor to my eyes or does the sun light up my interface?


----------



## rliebsch (Apr 3, 2002)

I play my Diablo2 and LoDestruction,
I rip my CDs to MP3
I watch my DVDs
I chomp my SETI units

I have loaded fink and XFree8
now i run Gnome/Sawfish in parallel

My box rocks.

It is a PowerBook G3 500MHz
I can even run Illustrator 10 on it.

I have no performance complaints at all.


----------



## googolplex (Apr 3, 2002)

vic, changes are hard. If you don't like changes then you don't have to make the change, but you will pay for it later. Most changes require sacrifices and the change to OS X might require a few, but the gains (long term and short term) IMHO outway the sacrifices. Apple had to get rid of OS 9 and they had to make an OS for the future so thats what we've got.


----------



## kilowatt (Apr 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> 1.  The Finder is actually a Carbon/Cocoa hybrid.  One MacOSX.com user pointed this out to me (I'm not sure who), but where do you think the Finder toolbars came from?
> *



I agree with 99.999% of what simx said. But, the finder is not a carbon/cocoa hybrid. I think I started that rumor, so I'll stop it too. I talked with some developers at apple, they said the finder was created in CW in os9. 

The parts that look like cocoa were hard coded with snips from the Cocoa API. There's not a scratch of cocoa code in the osx finder though. Its all hard coded. Each tool bar, each sheet, and each drawer. All coded by hand, on a per-object basis.

Just watch the threads the finder creates. 3 I think, and one per contexual menu.


----------



## vic (Apr 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kilowatt _
> *
> 
> I agree with 99.999% of what simx said. But, the finder is not a carbon/cocoa hybrid. I think I started that rumor, so I'll stop it too. I talked with some developers at apple, they said the finder was created in CW in os9.
> ...



WHOA!!! 

will they change this in 10.2 ? will the changes effect anything? is it necessary to be like this or can apple port the finder to cocoa? would it be better in cocoa or just the way it is? this mystery is bugging me!

BTW, iam in os x now, and will bbe here for a while i think because i want to become a coder/artist, i want to create programs that do art, like that flash artist that made praystation, exept i want to code my stuff, not do it in flash... proprietary stuff made by big companies is starting to bug me ever since i read slashdot ... hourly. 

i want the imput of some lready programers out there, what is the best language to program graphics in? java, cocoa? or something like c c++ in codewarior? can i do it in the apple dev tools? are there any cool unix apps there? i will also want to start working with peripherals like web cams so i need a way to know how to get the data in from such devices, how about the darwin layer... man these questions are really offtopic, i thin ill repost this some other time on it's own... 



--- heres to hoping the future of os x is bright! 

(i still think it's slow, but i willing to wait till 10.2 before i take drastic measures.)


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 3, 2002)

Actually, Cocoa/Carbon are fairly equal in performance. It is just easier to write better code using Cocoa than it is Carbon since Cocoa enforces its framework on the programmer. You can technically use either and get the same result. For your purposes though, Cocoa will be a bit better, since it has a more polished interface into Quartz, and probably IOKit (the direct hardware interface)

However, there is one thing I noticed Carbon does properly that Cocoa needs work on. Cocoa apps do not see the theme data for the title bar text. So whenever I use a black theme, I can't see the title text in OmniWeb/etc, while Carbon apps recognize and use the theme data.

Bad Apple! Be consistent!

Maybe this will change in 10.2, maybe it won't. Time will tell. (See! I made it SOMEWHAT on-topic!)


----------



## dlookus (Apr 4, 2002)

Vic,
Check out SVG. It's cross platform. Adobe pushes it but it isn't proprietary like flash, and i think it works with java (not sure.) But I think it's definitely worth checking out.


----------



## vic (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dlookus _
> *Vic,
> Check out SVG. It's cross platform. Adobe pushes it but it isn't proprietary like flash, and i think it works with java (not sure.) But I think it's definitely worth checking out. *




k i will, i once had a whole bunch of usefull bookmarks about it, i think it's really nice that the w3c is coming up with a sandard for vector graphics that could be as powerfull as flash. speacking about standards, when will the .doc format b made opensource standard?  i think this is one of the best remedias the gov could push on MS to opensource internet explorer and slice up the doc format... adobe at least opened up their pdf format for inspection by anyone.


----------



## googolplex (Apr 4, 2002)

If there is going to be an open word processing format it should be done in XML like the new StarOffice/OpenOffice one.


----------



## vic (Apr 4, 2002)

thqt's not what i mean, the .doc format is EVERYWHERE, so you have to make every word aplication compatible with that or people won't even consider it. that is why i suggestd making  .doc opensource


----------



## simX (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kilowatt _
> *
> 
> I agree with 99.999% of what simx said. But, the finder is not a carbon/cocoa hybrid. I think I started that rumor, so I'll stop it too. I talked with some developers at apple, they said the finder was created in CW in os9.
> ...



Yeah, it was you who got me thinking.  It does make sense if you look at it, though, to think that the Finder is a Carbon/Cocoa hybrid.

BAD kilo for spreading rumors about the OS X Finder!


----------



## kilowatt (Apr 4, 2002)

hehe sorry bout that simx 

In response to Krevinek's comments on cocoa and carbon:

I've dabbled in both areas, and now I only program cocoa. There are *HUGE* differences between carbon and cocoa.

Let me start with the obvious:
Cocoa is multithreaded by its nature. On a unix system with two or more processors, this makes a huge difference in speed. Even on single processors, the mach kernel is optomized for multithreaded applications. Thats what a microkernel is usually for. 

Also, programming wise, cocoa is far more object oriented than carbon. With cocoa, you can send messages to almost anything. And, its polymorphic, meaning each class cab implement its own version of a method.

The advantages of cocoa over carbon are simply staggering. I don't know about this 'theme' stuff, but from what I can tell, on older, slower, systems running osx (like beige g3's), cocoa apps run alot faster. On my g4, its not as noticeable. But on slower systems it really is.

If you want to see the finder's thread count first-hand, open up Thread View.app located in /Developer/Applications . Press apple-n, and select the finder. Open a few windows in the finder.

In almost any self-respecting cocoa application, you would see new threads for each window opened. 

However, all I see is three threads, one of them accounting for 99% of the work.

My point is that the finder isn't cocoa, and that cocoa is better.

Vic, I think apple is going to work mostly on improving the carbon finder for now. but, perhaps after 10.5, we'll start seeing beta cocoa finders. I hope so anyway


----------



## googolplex (Apr 4, 2002)

well said kilo, you need to post more . A cocoa finder would be really really nice! Why is the finder carbon anyways? Wasn't it based off the NeXTstep file finder or whatever it was called. And that app was cocoa? Or did apple make a new app?


----------



## Anim8r (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> 3.  Anim8r: OS X on Intel will only be in your dreams.  While Apple may be secretly developing an OS X build that goes on Intel alongside the Mac version, rest assured that that line of builds will only be released when Motorola goes up in smoke.  And by that time, Apple or IBM will have bought the PPC assets, in which case we'd have to wait 'til IBM or Apple itself go up in smoke.
> ...



Well Sim... I aint dreaming.
Since I am getting this info from within Intel and Apple i think it is probably pretty reliable. My two sources don't know each other and I may have blown a couple of friendships releasing this info. But i think it is close enough to general release that it might be OK. 
Bear in mind that this is not going to result in an OEM version of OSX or even a boxed Intel version that can be installed on just any PC. This is just giving Apple another source for procs and also lets them squash the "PPC is just too slow" arguments that are the last bastion of PC holdouts.


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 4, 2002)

I would like to point out to you (kilowatt) that I was stating Carbon vs Cocoa from a performance standpoint, rather than a programmer's preference standpoint. I also pointed out that it was EASIER to write better code in Cocoa than Carbon, but Carbon can be every bit as fast as Cocoa. Neither Cocoa or Carbon will not multithread for you AFAIK. To do so would needlessly add overhead for apps that simply don't need the benefits of multiple threads. True, many major apps need multiple threads, but there are smaller, simpler single-task apps that don't. The best judge on when to multithread should be the programmer, not Apple.

Your points are fairly well made, but I was arguing a different point, and was never disagreeing with yours in the first place (I like the Cocoa API as a programmer myself, I am personally used to C++ myself, and would like to see Objective-C++ or something of the like to make me more comfortable). 

BTW, it isn't uncommon for a single thread to be doing a lot of the work in non-OO multithreaded apps. Usually the secondary threads are used to manage the back-end of the application, and you will notice this effect even under some OO multithreaded apps where you have one back-end engine for a network or device that only does work when the device/network says there is something to do. Even under Omniweb it is fairly common for a single window thread to be doing most of the work the app is doing, since users tend not to load down a request in EVERY window and then wait for them all to complete.


----------



## kilowatt (Apr 5, 2002)

Krevinek,
looks like I mistook your coments about cocoa. I think we're saying the same thing, just differently.

Cocoa is a fine language, and personally, I prefer working in cocoa apps to carbon ones. On a user and programmer basis. 

My statements about threading were probably over-contrasting. Either language can certainly be multithreaded. But the cocoa language is just naturally like this, seems to take a little more work with carbon.

Its also true that many cocoa functions are just calls to carbon. I don't quite understand why, but thats what the cocoa API says. 

However, quite frequently we see cocoa functionality becoming part of the carbon structure. Take the 'services' menu (accessed by pulling down the 'application menu' and selecting 'Services'). The Services menu in Mac OS X 10.0 was only available to cocoa applications. However, now you will see it available in almost any application. (correct me if I'm wrong, I do see this could be merely some modifications to the services widget).

BTW Krevinek, you say you're an evil power surge user. Powersurge, if I'm not mistaken, is the computer between the 9600 and the Beige G3 that had a G4 processor in it (like the beige g3) but the 'power' features of the 8500-9600 (such as all those PCI and ram slots  ). As far as I know, this computer was never sold to the public...

you gotta tell us how you got it!


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 5, 2002)

PowerSurge actually refers to the motherboard design codename used in the 7xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx models that contained 603 or 604 chips. Although I did get to toy with one of the Altivec-enhanced G3/4 prototypes as part of my job awhile back. It was a beige G3 minitower with the daughtercard replaced with the prototype chip. Still works fairly nicely too. We were spiffing it back up for use by the owner or a close friend/relation to the owner.

Although keeping not-quite-on-topic, Cocoa/Carbon are starting to move towards parity, and Apple made that quite clear through some of the Carbon developments like CoreFoundation (which gives Carbon CFString/etc which match up with NSString and so on). Cocoa is not multithreaded without the programmer explicitly describing a thread task. It sure as hell is easier to make a thread in Cocoa and Java than in Carbon, but so is using the BSD pthreads available under OS X.


----------

