Slashdot Log In
Ars Technica Reviews OS X 10.5
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:06 PM
from the latin-for-exhaustive dept.
from the latin-for-exhaustive dept.
E1ven writes "Ars Technica has published their in-depth review of the newest version of Mac OS X.
John Siracusa both covers the user-visible features such as the new UI tweaks and Time Machine, and dives into the increased use of metadata and the new APIs introduced and what they mean for the future of OS X."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
lookin good (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully a good step forward for Apple that will lead to larger market share. I'll be installing as soon as my job gets its site license worked out.
Re:lookin good (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:lookin good (Score:4, Insightful)
The Mac OS doesn't compete with Vista as operating systems, but the platform as a whole, as a device for doing things, does compete with other platforms and manufacturers.
I don't see any reason for Apple to want to try to do what Microsoft does, and as a user of their products I frankly don't want them to. The reason I've always felt that Apple gear was worth the price is because it's a predictable, known quantity, and because it's sold as a system rather than as bits and pieces. While being able to assemble it would admittedly be nice for hobbyists (and it was nice back in the day when Apple sold motherboards through their VAR chain, so you could build them), it's not a compelling feature for most of their core market.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...and as a user of their products...
Perfectly fine. However, there's a group of people that wants something completely different than you do. I wouldn't be happy with the restriction of the Mac platform, and maybe you'd be frustrated with a PC. The reasons you like Apple are the same reasons I don't like them and prefer the alternative. This doesn't make either position more or less valid than the other. Both of us end up just as satisfied with our respective outcomes. But for people not in your camp, Apple is not competing with MS for thei
Re:lookin good (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the majority of Windows machines are sold as a system, not as bits and pieces. It's a fairly small subset of the population that builds their own computers. And aside from the motherboard, everything else on a Mac is just as configurable / replaceable as with a Windows machine. Apple fans might tend to choose not to upgrade components, but there isn't any real reason that they can't (again, aside from the motherboard / mainboard)...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've never been to Asia, I take it.
Fight the crowd...sit down...fill out a form...get a quote and wait briefly while the girls/boys in the back build your box to order:
- case
- motherboard
- power supply
- ram
- HD(s)
- optical drive
- cards
- k'board/mouse
- monitor
From Hong Kong to Shenzhen - Shanghai to Beijing. And t
The myth of the upgradeless (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor would I. That's why I bought a Mac desktop, where I can replace all the same components I can with a PC desktop... and lets face it, with just about any PC chassis you're going to be almost as limited since motherboard formats change over time. Over the years people have offered processor upgrades as well, made easier of course by them using Intel chips now where processor swaps are just as easy as any other PC motherboard.
And of course I have a laptop. And just like most laptops, there are more limited changes I can make - but Mac laptops come with a good range of i/o options, including gigabit ethernet and firewire 800.
Are you honestly saying you never ever would buy a laptop? To me I just can't see saying that someone would never buy a Mac because they can't upgrade one, is just not being true to yourself. You don't want a Mac for other reasons, that's fine - but lets all stop pretending the upgrade options are so very different.
Parent
Re:The myth of the upgradeless (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly that's not really possible anymore, as each of the three desktop offerings is made less versatile than a standard desktop PC by design decisions. The Mini uses low-end laptop components, sacrificing performance in the quest for small and quiet. The iMac uses a laptop MB and processor (most notably limiting RAM expansion), can fit only one hard disk, and saddles the buyer with a non-reusable, non-upgradable monitor that will still be looking gorgeous when the iMac is obsolete. The Mac Pro uses a staggeringly expensive dual-Xeon board (with equally expensive FB-DIMMs) and custom componentry throughout. (Oh, yeah, and costs $2200 and way up.)
I see the logic behind Steve's not wanting to offer a prosumer/hobbyist desktop. It would violate his design principles, cannibalize his high-margin iMacs, and create support problems for some users. But what he should do is license OS X on a very narrow basis. Allow one or two white box manufacturers to sell OS X-capable mid-price desktop machines with a very limited range of hardware, that could be extensively tested to keep "it just works" intact. Make the boutique makers offer their own support. I think you'd find small makers eager to take up the challenge for what would probably be a $200-$300/box OS X premium. I know I'd pay it!
Parent
Re:The myth of the upgradeless (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mini is actually one of the easier systems to upgrade, since you just have to pop the case off. Much easier to get at than a laptop... I can upgrade much of the system with improved laptop components (like a faster drive and more memory). Mostly the things people would upgrade anyway.
The iMac only holds one disk internally but offers Firewire 800 which
Re:The myth of the upgradeless (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to have run into the usual disconnect between the needs of normal users and hobbyist computer builders. Macs are computers for people who don't have the time or the patience to build their own systems. This is exactly why I bought one, it does what I need it to, adequately, it works just fine out of the box and doesn't run Windows. If I was inclined to build my own system I would have done so and would I would probably be running Slackware on it just for that little bit of added tech-trouble for me to enjoy dealing with but I lost the patience for that sort of thing many years ago.
Parent
Re:The myth of the upgradeless (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people just buy a new Mac when there is a new OS and sell the old system. That is a great way to fly. Not only do you always have the most current gear, you have zero recycling problems.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-jcr
Re:lookin good (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lookin good (Score:4, Insightful)
As the parent points out this is ludicrous - especially if you count the iPhone, OS X supports a much broader range of CPUs than Microsoft. I don't doubt Microsoft has spent more time addressing driver compatibility than Apple has, but there are a number of other issues in play, such as Apple's willingness to break backwards compatibility for the sake of cleaner APIs and a saner OS, and their utilization of third-party components wherever possible - BSD tools/Mach/KHTML/DTrace/ZFS(soon)/etc. Microsoft has full-blown NIH syndrome, with the end result that they go out and build everything from scratch, with 90% of it being worse than open source solutions. They're getting crushed by their own proprietary codebase and enormous level of legacy support
Parent
Re:Is it really that postive? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't care about your accusations of fanboy-ism. You are irrelevent. You did not produce an absolutely awesome review, with about as much balance and fairness as is humanly possible. The author at Ars Technica *did*, and your unfounded accusations and complaints are just not even worth reading. Which is why I only skimmed your post.
I did read your last sentence though, and honestly, do you think anyone *cares* if you shudder when you read reviews that don't match your personal preferences? Or that you are going stick to running two operating systems?
Seriously man. This was an incredibly good review. It did not deserve your accusations of fanboy-ism. I don't even own a Mac, and my total time using Mac OS X amounts to probably less than 5 minutes. And yet, even I could recognize the quality of this review. You say that the review didn't "slam" OS X for its user interface inconsistencies???? Did you even read the review? It *did* slam OS X for the new UI inconsistencies; maybe it didn't do it using obscenity and OMFG THIS SH** IS THE SUCKS language, so you didn't understand what was being written. Regardless, it definitely slammed OS X pretty hard for these problems. But it also recognized that these are relatively minor faults that most people probably won't even know or care about. Which is undeniably true.
I think there is something so insidious about the kinds of complaints that people like you make about reviews. You express this sort of unprovable accusation that "if you were reviewing product X instead of product Y, you would have a completely different bias". But they aren't reviewing product X, they are reviewing product Y. How is what they would do when reviewing product X even relevent? It's mud-slinging that you engage in when you accuse the author like you have, and I think it's pretty lame, especially when considering how clearly well thought out, detailed, and just all around *excellent* that review was.
Parent
Great Review (Score:5, Informative)
The freakin' Dock (Score:5, Interesting)
The weird thing about OS X is that in most ways, the GUI isn't as good as MacOS 9. I mean, the only real problems with the "classic" Mac GUI were that there wasn't a easily visible way to keep track of/switch between running programs, and the Finder was a pain to work with. Well, and the lack of right-click context menus.
The Dock is a crappy task switcher, and the Finder is still broken in most of the same ways it has been broken since, oh, 1984.
Apple just bugs me. They have neat products, but they could be GREAT. They aren't bound by compatibility like MS is, or even Linux. They could do whatever they want. The best of everything. But instead they keep refusing to improve the obvious things.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kind of like Linux.
I think it's great (Score:5, Interesting)
The other main complaint is the menubar - it's about 10% (guesstimate) transparent. It just adds a subtle shading to the otherwise-white bar. I rather like it, as did most of the commentators in the discussion that I skimmed through. Some people get far too fixated on minute inconsequential details...
So Leopard has an easy way to switch/keep track of running programs (the Dock), the Finder is no longer a pain to work with, and OSX has a context bar. And this one is worse ? I got to admit, I'm not an "old-mac" fan - I thought the OS was a piece of crap, and I far preferred my unix workstations of the day, so perhaps there's some magic thing the old OS did. I'm *really* not seeing much wrong with Leopard though. It's still the best damn unix workstation I've ever used, and I've used a lot of them...
Simon.
Parent
Re:The freakin' Dock (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, how I wish that were true....but Mac OS X has very strong compatibility requirements, far stronger than Linux and in many ways stronger than Microsoft.
When Windows and Linux went 64 bit, they just broke all the drivers. Apple maintained compatibility with 32 bit drivers while enabling 64 bit software.
When Apple migrated from PowerPC to Intel, they maintained binary compatibility with all the old software via a transparent emulator - something you don't find on Linux and that works only partially on the Xbox 360.
The application frameworks - Carbon, Cocoa - are very much bound by backwards compatibility.
Linux, with its tradition of open source and recompiles, has it easy.
Parent
You're doing it wrong (Re:The freakin' Dock) (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the article (with which I agree), the only real reasons the finder seems to be broken is because Apple is making it a crappy combination of a browser (or explorer, if you are more comfortable with that term) and a spatial system (like the old finder) instead of clearly separating these things and letting the user to decide what they want to do. The new global view options mung things up even more as far as an intuitive UI goes, IMHO. I guess I can understand the gripes about the Finder, but I really don't use it that much. I prefer using it as a browser in column view, and with that I rarely have to have more than two finder windows open to do any given task. However, my organizational style is probably quite different from others.
That said, I haven't used Leopard yet, but there are a few things that I'm really not looking forward to. The Dock doesn't seem like too much of a nightmare if it is pinned to the sides (stacks default to grid view, I'm told). I'm a "pin it to the left, keep it small, and keep it hidden" dock user. The new folder icons and their previews on the dock look like they will drive me crazy, but it shouldn't be hard to change that (hopefully).
Anyway, I don't think the dock is really meant to be a task switcher. Just a launcher that can also give some basic application status information.
Parent
Re:You're doing it wrong (Re:The freakin' Dock) (Score:4, Insightful)
The Dock is an application switcher/launcher, but not a task switcher. You can subdivide it two ways--an All Windows Exposé for a one-key direct shot, or you can switch to a busy application and then use Application Windows Exposé for more effective task switching within an application--far superior to a pop-up list (e.g. when you're working with 15 files in Photoshop or 10 palettes in a drafting application).
It is more or less the opposite of Windows priorities. It's not a good taskbar because it's not supposed to be. To do so would be redundant.
Parent
Dock much better than you are thinking. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I like it far better than the WinXP Taskbar (which I also use every day) or other Linux equivalents I have tried.
To me it does a far better job of telling me what applications are in use than the taskbar (which tends to run about three to four lines long in use), and acting as a store for my most common application sets. As someone else said, you use Expose for task switching which is simply the best mechanism for said switching that I have used to date.
The Dock is a crappy task switcher, and the Finder is still broken in most of the same ways it has been broken since, oh, 1984.
It's well threaded now which fixed just about all of my remaining complaints. Since I can't see why anyone would use anything other than column view I really am pretty happy with how it works now. Even the lack of FTP support for me is a "do not care" since I don't mind using Terminal for that anyway, and it can have files drug into it just like finder...
Then again, I never did like the OS 9 UI overmuch so I guess I have a different sensibility.
Parent
I notice Leopard ships with a BSOD... sorta (Score:4, Funny)
(down the page, you'll find it)
My review of OSX (Score:5, Funny)
9:00 a.m.
Despite having no friends, no life, no education no job, and no prospects, despite the war in Iraq, a plunging dollar, the looming energy crisis, global warming, and the sheer horror of being alive in this day and age, this morning, I woke up happy, for today would be my most exciting review: OSX 10.5 was being released.
I am not normally one to get excited about reviewing a product, especially if it is my first time using it; usually there is a feeling of trepidation about stepping outside my comfort zone, but today, it is notably absent. Perhaps because I have been following this product since its inception, living the Apple lifestyle in preparation, and becoming fully engrossed by the user community. The experience has been like a second birth to me, and the release of 10.5 is the wonderful culmination.
But I should back up. For those of you who have been living normal, healthy lives, 10.5, also known as the Leopard is the single most anticipated OSX release of all time, packed with 300 new features that would surely leave its competitors (the monolithic Microsoft and agile Linux) stunned and possibly bleeding as it whizzes by in a blur of growing market share and spots.
Apple Inc., the Cupertino-based personal electronics company behind the Leopard, burst into the public view in 2001 with the introduction of the phenomenally popular iPod music player. Apple then followed up that success with the iPhone brand cellular phone, which has sold a whopping 1.4 million units since its summer debut. Today, Apple hopes to leverage that success to bootstrap its long-stagnant personal computing platform, the Mac.
For the last decade, the Mac has maintained a relatively constant 5% share of the global computing market. In recent months, however, increasing disillusionment with the new Microsoft Vista operating system has pushed more and more people into Apple's open arms, but the uptake has been slow. The release of the Leopard, Apple hopes, will be the impetus for users to peek beyond the simple familiarity of Windows. Drawn by the prospect of a bigger and better world, they will slowly venture beyond their thatched grass huts into the thrilling unknown. The Leopard will then snatch them up and drag them into its stylish and intuitive tree to feast.
Or so it is planned. But will Apple be able to succeed where so many others have failed? Will it finally be able to wrest control of the desktop from the Monopolist? Yes, of course. But it is my duty as a reviewer to show, not just tell. So join me as I prepare to drink deeply of the Steve Jobs Kool-Aid and plunge myself into the Leopard, to prove this Apple revolution is truly the way of the future.
Part 1: Getting OSX
3:30 p.m.
The cold rain pours down outside, but under the glass roof of the Christiana Mall, it is warm and dry. Twenty yards away is the only Apple Store for miles, and consequently where one must go for the latest Apple releases.
Though I had arrived early, there is already a sizable line, stretching back to where I find myself now. The head of it, I am told, had been waiting since early morning, growing progressively more excited as the day wore on. His manic energy is infectious, it seems, and the light buzz of excitement percolating through the crowd quickly set my nerves on edge in the best possible way. This, I reflect, is better than most drugs.
I strike up conversation with the man waiting impatiently in front of me. When I ask him what he intends to do with the Leopard when he brings it home, he stares at me for twenty minutes. His steady gaze says more than any words could, and when he tells me he will teach it to love, and then maybe make a movie, I weep for the sheer joy that wells up in my heart. He holds me, understanding.
5:57 p.m.
The excitement has reached an almost painful level. It is a silent buzz permeating the very air; the crowd is l
John's right about Stacks... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's currently a debate [arstechnica.com] going on in the Macintoshian Achaia over at Ars on whether or not Stacks are a useful addition to the OS, or a horrible mess that should've been sorted out before Leopard's release. My personal opinion is that while Stacks show promise, making them a substitute for the old functionality (hierarchal menus) was unwise (to put it kindly). Stacks should have been an addition to Dock functionality, not a replacement for a widely-used system of navigation.
Introduction movie (Score:5, Interesting)
This review is great, I'm glad we have a source like Ars Technica to provide counterbalance to all the vapid and superficial product reviews we usually find elsewhere; Siracusa goes in-depth on every topic from the UI to the filesystem to the new Core APIs and Objective-C 2.0. I agree on just about every point, particularly his comment about Apple's need to eventually supplement OS X with a first-class managed code language and runtime [arstechnica.com]:
(As much as I love working and programming on the Mac, seeing how nice .NET is really gives me concern for the long-term future of Apple's platform.)
On the other hand, if you're not interested in all this technical mumbo-jumbo and only wanted to catch a glimpse of the new intro movie, here it is [arstechnica.com].
.Net vs ObjC (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a website [dotnetdeve...ournal.com] written by a self-confessed
ObjC is elegant, powerful and simple at the same time - it's what C++ ought to have been. Objective C is (by leaps and bounds) my language of choice these days, it's one of the most under-appreciated languages in modern use. Certainly, the comparative perception I get is that the frameworks are way ahead of
Simon.
Parent
Spaces is incredibly well done (Score:3, Interesting)
1. sliding from desktop to desktop ala Enlightenment.
2. right/control-clicking on a Window border and and a menu coming up to send it to Space X, or Show on All, ala Gnome and XFCE (KDE probably has this too, but I don't use it, so I'm not sure)
The first is just something I got used to a long time ago and haven't used in years, it was just nice. The second is a bigger absence, but the Exposé-style zoom out to display all workspaces way of doing it is practically instantaneous, and all desktops are in realtime, with videos running, new IMS coming up, it's a cool little multiple workspace monitor as long as you don't need to control one of those apps while watching. Multiple desktops were, for me, one of the Linux killer apps that made using it more enjoyable than Windows. Macs now having it (as opposed to the utterly-useless-in-my-opinion Exposé, especially with more than a handfull of windows) is major boost to its usability for me. Definitely the single most-used addition for me so far, and likely to be until I get a hard drive I can dedicate to Time Machine.
I definitely agree with a lot of the issues with the Dock. Being forced to see Address Book as the Applications icon is probably going to cause me to remove most folders from my dock entirely, which is a shame because I really like the "stack" behavior.
But can it run Java? (Score:5, Insightful)
Others are set to join him [javalobby.org].
Almost 12 months since Java 6 was released on other platforms. Still waiting, Steve.
Re:Hatred for the interface changes (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The story writer seems to have some pretty deep hatred for the interface changes to the dock, menu boxes, etc. Sure makes me want to skip upgrading my two 10.4 boxes.
I have barely used OS X 10.2-10.4 stock desktop. Always Shapeshifter and Candybar to rescue...
:) Reason may surprise you and people doesn't get point of themes: It is really low profile a
Apple doesn't understand one thing: Not everyone on Earth shares others , especially Steve Jobs graphical taste.
Now I am buying a 10.5 Family Pack and will be following Unsanity weblog for first Shapeshifter beta. Candybar is easy, I bet it will only take weeks.
The theme I will use at most of the times? Gershwix of course
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, you turn off UAC, then you get a nasty red shield with "Windows is not protected" and balloons saying "User account control is off". A power user can ignore these security warnings since they probably already do the right steps, but a normal user will turn it off, see the red shield, then "fix it" and boom, UAC is on again.
Worse yet, there are apparently a set of distinct tasks that can only be done with either UAC off, or UAC on. Some tasks require UAC to be on, while others require it to be off (I can't remember the list, but there are a few picky settings).
Some things with UAC on just really make life miserable - before I reinstalled Vista, I copied off my downloads and a few other directories to a USB disk (why redownload files that are downloaded in the past week?). Afterwards, with UAC on, mysteriously all the executable files cannot be run at all, even answering "Allow" to the UAC prompts. Useless. Permission repairing, setting security, etc., I could not figure out how to get those executable installers running again. Turn off UAC, boom they work just fine. All it takes is a folder on a network drive, or copied from a thumbdrive, and you can be seeing this happening relatively often if one of your applications gets tagged like that. Worse yet, Windows may decide your app is insecure and start prompting you with UAC prompts. It's random enough to be frustrating...
I found the old IE model a bit annoying (where every file downloaded off the internet gets marked with a "downloaded" attribute (NTFS)), but at least it prompts you if you want to run them, then lets you run them. Better than making it look like it works, but fails silently.
The strange thing is, Unix, OS X, and Linux get it right. If you're changing a user setting, no annoying prompt. A system setting - a password prompt (and it's usually good for a few minutes, so you can avoid seeing it repeatedly). The differentiation between user and system is such that rarely does one need system privileges, so seeing the dialog is a rare enough event.
Vista's "user virtualization" (where the system registry keys and system folders are silently mirrored to user accessible versions) could accomplish the same thing for the millions of broken Windows apps out there, and the amount of prompting kept a minimum... but it's like Microsoft intentionally decided to inundate us with this "security".
Parent
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:5, Insightful)
I run Tiger. My regular userid is not an administrator.
OSX will prompt me to enter an administrator username and password under three circumstances (in my experience):
In all three cases, I expect the prompt and the reason is clear. I think it works well...
Parent
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is deliberate, and when I first switched I hated it, but now I love it. The Apple UI does not encourage MDIs like it does in Windows, instead it's clearly designed for a huge amount of inter-application interaction (drag-dropping between apps and windows, etc). This is most probably born through Apple's media-centric roots where interacting between several apps very quickly is an absolute must. This is why the UI encourages users to keep windows to whatever size they need, and maintains a very "multitasking" feel by removing a simple way to shove a window over all available pixels. I find it only is annoying on poorly ported apps that maintain their Windows design cues - apps that demand a vast amount of screen space to do their job, and thus require constant maximization and takeover of my desktop.
Clearly a preference matter. I've used Toshiba, IBM, and Apple laptops personally before, and I greatly prefer the fact that I have two-finger click on the Mac. It's a must simpler gesture than reaching for the other button, I find, but again, this is purely personal preference.
I gotta agree about Finder and menuing. The finder has been, IMHO, largely fixed in Leopard, something that has been LONG overdue. Menuing over multiple monitors is a huge gripe. Why can they not simply clone the menu across all screens? It's not perfect, but it gets the job done dammit.
Parent
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let not even discuss the sheer volumes of the little balloons that pop up in the bottom right. It feels like both XP and Vista always want my attention. Hey, no security is installed. Hey, you need to activate. Hey, you have new updates to install. Hey, are you sure you want to do this? Are you really, really, really sure????
For me, a good OS gets out of the way and lets me work...I don't need something yapping at my ankles all day.
Parent
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for that little vision. Vista (or XP for that matter) as an annoying, barking, 3 inch tall Chihuahua is just perfect.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, this argument has come up in most Vista articles here. After one of them about a month ago, I started logging every UAC prompt I've gotten, because I didn't believe that Vista actually prompts for *that* much more than what you would get on other systems. I cannot compare with what OS X does, but I can somewhat compare with what Sudo does on Linux. These comparisons are not completely fair, because I'm running Vista in the normal setup, with the almost-admin user, but I have no reason to believe that there would be many more prompts with a limited account.
Since I started logging, I have gotten 72 UAC prompts in 25 days I have spent most of my time booted to Windows. I'll break down the prompts in a few ways.
First, by reason:
* 29 prompts were for program installations or updates, things that would require 'sudo emerge' or whatever on Linux. 10 of these prompts were while starting Firefox; I'm running the Alpha version, and get prompted to update to the latest nightly each time I run it. 4 of them were from trying to install one particular program, it's patch, and trying to work around a couple compatibility issues. One prompt was for Windows Update, to update Vista itself.
* 10 prompts were from when I logged in and this buggy hardware monitor program that I have ran. For some reason, it requests elevation. (Then, after running for a while, pegs one of my cores and I kill it. One of these days I'll remove it from the startup sequence...)
* 10 prompts were from enabling and disabling my NIC. I was having network problems for about a week, and was trying to diagnose. (This is essentially doing 'ifconfig eth0 down/up' in Linux, except that it tries to get a new DHCP address upon up, and I don't recall if ifconfig does this. )
* 8 prompts were from when I was trying to solve a weird permissions issue when I was trying to delete something. This involved various permutations of trying to take ownership of the file, changing permissions, doing something in the Users dialog, etc.
* 5 prompts were from opening the anti-virus dialog
* 2 prompts were for OKing software for the firewall
* 2 prompts were from doing some process management stuff; one from instructing task manager to show all processes, and one from running ProcessExplorer in admin mode, probably to try to figure out what program was holding a handle open to a USB drive.
* 1 prompt was from messing with the Steam service
* 1 prompt was from opening regedit
* 1 prompt was from opening the drive format dialog so I could see the options in it
* 1 prompt was from a user environment variable change. This is not entirely necessary -- a user doesn't need admin rights to change them. However, the dialog Windows provides to do so involves both user-local and system-wide environment variables, and doesn't appear to provide a way to access it with the latter in read-only mode, hence the elevation request. (XP does BTW.)
* 1 prompt was for something TrueCrypt related, but I'm not sure exactly what
* 1 prompt was for something that I have no clue about, because I got distracted before recording what caused it and forgot
Now, let's compare with what would have happened on Linux:
29 program installations. Assuming you're like my impression of most Linux users, you're using something like Portage or Apt to install programs, which means you're doing it as root, and need to sudo. In Linux it is usually possible to install programs locally, usually by downloading the source, doing
Parent
Re:OSX and security (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:OSX and security (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is extremely myopic. It assumes that protection from incoming connections must be provided by filtering TCP ports.
If they had actually tried so much as compiling an application they would have realized that Mac OS X shifts that security to controlling which applications can listen for incoming connections. Since this is something far more easily understood by users I would submit that this is a security improvement.
Using ipfw or other firewalls as you main line of defense on a desktop machine is far inferior to providing actual control over which files can be applications. Now if there are holes in that security feature I'd like to hear about it.
Parent
Re:OSX and security (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:OSX and security (Score:5, Informative)
With TCP the packet type is a part of the packet data and even the old stateless firewalls could handle it. With UDP you could argue that there's no difference but even then you rely on certain standards to filter (in the old days you just let any UDP packet with a destination >1024 in.. luckily those days are long past us).
There's a *huge* difference between asking to OS to block all *incoming* connections and asking it to block replies as well. No firewall works like that.
Parent
Are you joking? Geeks gain the most!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally wrong!
In addition to great improvements in the dev environment, GC in ObjC, and the presence of Dashcode for quick things - you have whole new frameworks like Core Animation (which can be useful to improve usability if used in moderation).
Or for the pure UNIX kind of geek you have an optimized 64-bit kernel, that finally has a filesystem wit the BeOS featureset (read the article). And a new and improved Terminal.app.
So the normal users basically get a faster OS with Time Machiene and a shinier look along with lots of incremental app upgrades, while the geeks among us get so much more...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or were you talking about a different kind of geek?
Re:I see no reason for a geek to upgrade (Score:5, Informative)
This is a troll, right?
What exactly on this list is "not of interest to geeks"?
Parent
Re:Fool me once, shame on me ... fool me twice... (Score:4, Insightful)
- He didn't invent a vocabulary, it's a well-established definition
- I think you'll find the acronym would be FTFF, not FFTF...
- Most of the complaints about the Finder are rooted in the old single-threaded networking behaviour. That *has* been fixed. I doubt you'll get too many more FTFF threads. Of course you can't please all the people all of the time, but the low-hanging fruit has definitely been gathered in now...
SimonParent