Mac os 10.2

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?
 
Originally posted by twister
*) Trash to tell me how much stuff is in it. (size wise)
Click to expand...

*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.
 
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.
 
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..:p
 
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
 
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:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Apple has an Intel Darwin build already. Apple would have to just pair up it with aqua to make intel os x.
 
Apple sells hardware. OS X is simply a catalyst to sell said hardware.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Originally posted by dlookus

I hope they don't make it 10.5 and make us pay for it.
Click to expand...

Why not? They'll charge for it anyway, and if they made it 10.5 we'd be closer to 11.0 :p
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...
 
I didn't pay for 10.1.
I'm just saying we shouldn't pay for stuff that should be in OSX already.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :mad: 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 ? :(
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top