Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
X GUI

MacOSX and XFree86 run side by side 94

Posted by Hemos from the making-things-cool dept.
proclus writes "XonX has announced interoperability between Xfree86 and MacOSX. Relatedly, Xfree86 now supports the Darwin platform and XFree86 binaries are available. Many thanks to Torrey Lyons, Gregory Robert Parker, and everyone else involved! Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release? I think I'll have a look at some of those new fast Macs!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MacOSX and XFree86 run side by side More

MacOSX and XFree86 run side by side

Comments Filter:
  • the streaming server you speak of is quicktime streaming server, and yes it is open source and supported by apple

    it runs on darwin (mac os x sans graphics layey) and has been ported by the open source community to linux and nt

  • not quite, but here is the real deal (Score:4)

    by ragnar ( 3268 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @03:16PM (#529912) Homepage
    As some others have pointed out, this announcement doesn't bring Aqua and X together, but Tenon has a neat product called Xtools [tenon.com] which basically lets you run X programs seamlessly under Aqua. I'm using it now and it is pretty impressive.
  • That wouldn't make much sense. They must not be dead. Imagine that.

    "The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

    --

  • Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.

    Intel-based architecture on an OS? How do you arrange that?

    But I do agree with what you mean

  • "Darwin" is the catch-all open-source name at Apple. There's the Darwin OS (which we all know as Darwin) and the Darwin Streaming Server (which is the QT server, and what you're thinking of).
    --
  • Tenon's XTools does what you want, and XFree86 probably will, but doesn't now.

    --

  • Re:Aqua and a FAST MAC (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I just got a PC, and my wang hasn't disappeared yet. Is there a FAQ I can read? (Sorry for the newbie questions. I'm sure we will be the best of internet friends when I learn more how to play the computer.)

    Sincerely,

    Joseph23578413520634815@aol.com
  • Hit ebay and look for the Intel versions of Nextstep 3.3 or Openstep 4.2. Then go the the support area of Apple's website, find the Openstep section, and download the latest patches and updates (especially the Y2K updates). There are also hardware compatibility lists in that area of the site. Good luck! Remember, Nextstep SCREAMS on a P233... you don't super elite hardware to run it. My Intel NeXTSTEP box is a PPro 200, Matrox Millenium II, 3Com 3C905, Adaptec 2940UW, 9 GB Seagate Barracuda. Works like a charm.

  • Intel-based architecture on an OS? How do you arrange that?

    Place a PIII motherboard on top of your iBook.

  • Re:added value of OS X? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    first of all, I think you're anti-Mac kneejerk reaction must be met with chainsaw/scalpel rebuttal: look, Apple is not the creator of XonX, got it?

    This isn't an Apple attempt to horn in on the supposed "coolness" of Xfree86 (what a laughable concept). Apple has a graphics subsystem in Quartz that is by far superior to anything XFree86 will produce in your lifetime, or probably in anyone else's. XonX is a nice bridge between the world of X - bound, X-ridden X- strangulated Unices and the Mac desktop world. There have been some free Xservers for Mac before, but they really sucked even worse than X itself.
    For one thing, X on OSX, allows Unix admins GUI based administration of a Unix network from their pleasant and speedy Apple desktops. So much nicer than a Linux desktop system on whatever cpu ...

    But in the larger sense, OSX offers people the hope (a hope so long hoped for in vain on Unix itself) of running powerful desktop applications side-by-side with network services in a stable environment with a coherent user interface, conveniences and bonus multimedia programs (Quicktime, fullscreen hw accel DVD, iMovie) that Unix users have long ago had to resign themselves to never having. Add to that the availability of the world standard for office document creation and viewing - which Linux will never have.
    I expect if you open the hood on OSX you'll also find a scheduler tweaked to provide workstation/office desktop users the responsiveness they expect and need from their work tools, not the ponderous, balky multitasking of a truck-like server OS optimized to handle hundreds of concurrent processes adequately over the Internet rather than 2 dozen processes or so with speed and ease on a local desktop .

    What was that about Apple selling something you can essentially get for free? LOL - With OSX and X11 for OSX, you can get everything that Linux/bsd have to offer the deskto user and Apple's own multimedia powers, plus the ability to run graphics applications WITH WHICH YOU CAN ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, plus MS-Office and Internet Explorer. So the question you should be asking is really this: how does Linux justify its existence going forward as a contestant for desktop seats, now that its big claim to fame (stability) is anything but a unique feature in a world of OSX and W2K-Professional? It's Free? Whoopdy fucking DOO! What can you actually D O with it? Being fair in comparing desktop Linux with MacOS and WIndows the answer still is what it was 2 years ago: relatively little - and almost nothing at all without blood sweat and tears.

    If you like rebuilding lawnmower engines then desktop Linux is for you (it's unpaid greasy work and the end result is not pretty even whe4n successful). If, on the other hand, you'd rather have it "just work" or "just fucking work now please"[1] and also avail yourself of a much wider range of better performing desktop applications, then MacOSX is a much better option for you. It's easily worth it - especially, if you know anything at all about how much time people burn trying to make various basic hardware and applications work in Linux. If they only knew (!) - "it's worth it" and several times over to most people.

    [1] Come on Linux users be honest! You say something like this almost daily, don't you?

  • Yup, it's a RTOS that offers protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking....how much more value added poop do you need? So you will have the GUI of a mac, the security of a BSD, and if you need more you can run any of the crufty X apps that would fulfill your desire....
  • While you're right about the "whole widget" thing, I wouldn't count Mac OS X on Intel hardware out.

    It's quite possible Apple could develop an X86-based machine for OSX to run on. It simply wouldn't work on non-Apple X86 machines.

    The PowerPC is a superior architecture, but lack of interest from IBM and (especially) Motorola make it a shakey proposition in the long-term ... and it's certainly hurting Apple in the short term. Unless the AIM alliance actually does something, Apple could very well be justified in switching to an X86 architecture.

    How Apple will manage the PR backlash is hard to say - this is the company that strapped a Pentium onto the back of a snail after all. But at least they could get chips in quantity and probably save a few bucks in the process.

    But you're right on one thing: Don't expect OSX to be running on clones any time soon, at least until Microsoft blows up or something. They can't afford that kind of competition.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
  • Darwin is a bunch of things actually... check out http://publicsource.apple.com Darwin is an Operating System: Available to download from Apple, Darwin is a functional operating system that runs on PPC and x86 (thoughx86 support is very minimal for now). It is based on the BSD-ish core of MacOS X and simply comprises all the BSD stuff in MacOS X, plus the MACH kernel, HFS, NetInfo, and a bunch of other Apple/Next technology. You are thinking of "Darwin Streaming Server". Which is the Open Source (APSL) version Apple's Quicktime Streaming Server. Server software that allows broadcasts of Quicktime content over the Internet. It can run on MacOS X/Darwin, WinNT/2000, Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD I believe. There are other initiatives under the Darwin moniker as well... I suggest you go check'em out.
  • Like it or lump it, Apple is a hardware company. OSX is a means to forward sales of Apple hardware. X86 ports of this code will only be released if Apple moves to X86 processors for their own computers - also unlikely.

    Yes, there have been rumors of a port already existing - don't hold your breath for this to ever see the light of day. No one wants to have to deal with the umpteen combinations of hardware in the X86 world - even if Apple wanted to release the code, it could never adequately support it.

  • thanks pal, your comment just made my whole day's slashdot reading worthwhile.
    "crufty" is my new favorite word.
  • RISC is inherantly better than CISC, but that doesn't mean that it's forever going to be faster. Motorola in particular has been quite slow in developing the PowerPC.

    Apple is dealing with it by using dual processors, but that will only help for so long. The megahertz gap is widening, and while it doesn't mean everything, it certainly doesn't help any. The PowerPC may per-Mhz be faster than X86, but it's certainly not twice as fast as Apple would like you to believe.

    Let me disclaim myself before you flame me: I'm typing this on a PowerBook G3, have been a Mac user since '84, and intend to remain one for the forseeable future. And no, raw speed is not everything (a good user interface is worth more than a fast chip IMHO), but let's face facts: Motorola and IBM just aren't pushing the PowerPC architecture fast enough...


    - Jeff A. Campbell
  • Am I missing the point? The screenshots look nothing like aqua...
  • is it fun to work with?

    I do everything I can on Linux because Unix is fun. I'm not asking for perfection, only a tool that is a pleasure to use.

    I work with Windows day in and day out, and I detest it because while I may be having lots of fun, you can bet none of it is related to working with Windows. Windows is alternately boring and balky.

    OS X looks like it is going to be a lot of fun to use, so I'm prepared to like it.

  • > but "HELL NO" to running bubbly > UIs on your pimp 2Ghz AMD. Because OS X uses a Darwin base, is it possible that it will eventually move on to the x86 platform? It's *nix. It can be ported to any platform. I think Apple wants to perfect OS X and get much more developer support before they move on to PCs. Honestly, 3 years ago, Apple computers were 150% proprietary. Apple thought money was in hardware. Now the /only/ difference between apple computers and PCs is the Motorola processor. They standardized on IDE, PCI, USB, etc, etc... See a trend? Don't you think Steve Jobs knows that they have to get away from hardware into software? It is almost a sure thing that OS X will be on PCs in a year or two. They need to have a good product first. Perfect it with the loyal Mac community and take OS X to the other 95% of the computing community.
  • Does it work? This is the main anoyance for me while otherwise happily running MacOS9 in an X Window on my PowerBook with LinuxPPC + mol (Mac-on-Linux).
  • For the purposes of comparison between PC platform and Macintosh, I think it's safe to say that PC platform is defined as an intel-instruction compatible chipset and cpu that uses a BIOS that still persists in keeping track of real and extended memory and uses drive letters for volume access.

  • OSX takes a modern Mac UI, and the ability to run Mac apps, and puts it on top of a modern kernel with preemptive multitasking and all that other BSD type goodness.

    It's apparently also a good development environment, though I am a crummy programmer and can't address that.

    OSX is basically a Mac OS that has Unix guts. That is the added value. If you don't care about Mac apps, by all means stick to Linux and the Gimp.

    Would I buy a Mac to run Apache? No, that isn't the best value. FreeBSD on Intel hardware is a high-value solution for that kind of thing. But if I wanted a "real" desktop type OS that had a strong Unix foundation, I would use MacOS X. (And yes, I have used today's free GUIs... Debian, for example, has a long way to go before it is as easy to install and use as MacOS X. OK, go ahead, mod me down... but you know it's true.)

  • I should note: I know that this is X being developed for Mac, not Mac being developed for X - but I still stick by my statement that Mac is making a comeback, and this move in X is an a helping hand - even if Mac didn't have a thing to do with it...

    Like Karma doesn't matter...
    Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!

  • Re:If apple is dead... (Score:3)

    by gagganator ( 223646 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:30PM (#529934)
    mac os x will only come of age when micro$oft creates a mac os x myths page for it :-)
  • funny stuff

  • Re:added value of OS X? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hmm... Let's see... Photoshop Quark XPress Illustrator Flash Microsoft Office Digital Performer Cubase Logic Peak Quicken etc... etc... In other words, it's the applications. By porting an API to UN*X which most application developers can compile thier code to with minimum effort, Apple has solved the problem new OSses have getting off the ground: which comes first, the os or the applications?
  • Mac OS X runs apps that other UNIXish OSes do not, such as Photoshop, Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer, QuickTime, etc. etc. etc. It's commercially supported and marketed to average consumers who don't know what a command prompt is, let alone how to use it.

    --

  • THE SACRILEGE!

    Of course, who knows how long OS X is going to stay PPC only... ?

    --

  • I'm sorry - is running a search engine too hard for you? It's not like there hasn't been about 10^23 articles on MacOS X in the past few years, many on /.

    It's really pathetic when some pinhead has to ask someone else to explain every noun in a posting to him - I mean, this IS "News for Nerds". Go show some damn inititive.

    Hint: at the lower left of the window is a box with a search button next to it...


  • No, I think you are trying to make a point where there isn't one. Name 3 truly useful apps that require X and don't have equally useful alternatives that don't.

    Got 'em? Took you awhile, didn't it? OK, now describe what sort of person will be wanting those applications and will also want a Mac in place of a more powerful and much cheaper PC.

    I'll bet that was even harder, but you still came up with something, right? Well then, now the hardest part: Tell me, with a straight face, that there are more than a handful of these people in the world.

    Yeah, I didn't think so.

  • Maybe when X can do translucancy[1] properly.

    Isn't this what the new Xrender extension in XF86 4.0.2 does? After the distros start including 4.0.2 along with Xrender-enabled toolkits, we'll all have translucency.
    -----
  • Yes it is possible. However, more modern cards/machines/busses may not be supported.

    Your best bet is to load up darwin/BSD/or gnu/linux, add GNUStep, and windowmaker. FreeBSD has windowmaker as a default desktop choice.
  • It's time to have a clean break from legacy platforms. When the time comes to vote, say NO to X!

    ...which is exactly what Apple did.

    --

  • Nice try, but MS has locked up corporate desktops probably for good. Apple has a horrible track record in the enterprise (anyone remember their brief foray into enterpriuse servers??), and no one is going to put their ass on the line rewiring the office for a platform that still has crappy software support from most ISVs.
  • Your experience is quite different from mine. When switching from 3.3.6 to 4.0 - I experienced a large speedup, and everything felt snappier. It might be that the driver for your card didnt' take advantage of teh XAA. (I use a voodoo banshee)

  • Re:added value of OS X? (Score:3)

    by rafa ( 491 ) <rikard@anglerud.com> on Thursday January 04, 2001 @04:35PM (#529946) Homepage Journal

    I'm using a mac (imac, os8.1) right now, and while I think teh gui is quite nice, what really impresses me (as compared with my linux box at home, p200 usually running windowmaker or kde2) is how well the filemanager is integrated into the desktop, and how _fast_ it is. None of the filemanagers I've used under linux (and I've been using it for4 years as my only OS... I'm visiting my parents now, hence the mac) even come close to how responsive it feels.

    GMC is very slow, nautilus even slower. Konqueror can be decent once it's started and image previews and everything else is off, but it's still far, far slower than the mac filemanager.

  • 1) I didn't need to see M$ as being overthrown, in fact their OS is (eek) fairly good for beginners - but sucks for people like me that love to muck up the whole system so that they may use it as efficiently as possible and make it impossible for anyone else to use - altough it is easy to do the first if you don't worry about the second.

    2) I don't own Linux stock - I just think Linux kicks ass. And yes, I've tried several other OSes. As for BSD - it's pretty damned good; System V schemes are better. Enjoy!

    Like Karma doesn't matter...
    Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!

  • X is a protocol: it's at version 11R6, not 4.0. You're complaint is with XFree86; it's been progressing in the speed department, it depends heavily on what video card you're using the performance you'll get.

    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; the protocol has its flaws but it also has its strengths (networking support)

  • i actually put that in my comment just incase somebody knew! i've asked on some of the Mac boards, but people have told me it wasn't possible.

    still, i check MacOS X hints and didn't find any references in there. i'll look harder tomorrow, but if in the meantime anybody has the URL handy, send it to me!

    anyhow, thanks for the tip!

    - j
  • >Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.

    If that is true, I'm afraid that most of you will have a very long wait indeed!

    proclus
  • I am exactly one of these people. I develop software that runs on Solaris and I use the Macintosh to run office productivity tools.

    Here are 3 applications that require an X Window Server to use, and for which there are no useful alternatives:

    1. XEmacs

    No, I don't want XEmacs running on my Macintosh
    and displaying there too. I want the copy of
    XEmacs that runs on my team's shared Solaris
    development host to display on my Macintosh.
    And no, I don't consider running 'emacs' in a
    telnet window to be a useful alternative.

    2. Admintool

    Yes, I want to administer that Solaris host in
    the telco closet from the comfort and relative
    safety of my Macintosh. No, I don't
    consider telnet to be a useful alternative
    here either.

    3. Perfmeter

    Nothing like having a nice little running
    graph of the resource load on your favorite
    headless server horses. This is a cheap and
    dirty tool and there is no substitute. Gotta
    have an X Window server for it to display.

    Oh wait, you probably think I'm crazy because I want to use a Macintosh for writing documents and I don't want a whole other stupid computer on my desk just so I can run an X Window server on it.

    Surely there's only a handful of people like me. Guess what? The reason not so many people are running X Window servers on their Mac OS 9 boxes and using them to operate software on Unix servers is that you have to get purchase order signed to buy the Tenon X Window server.

    Sure, I guess I could toss out the Macintosh and switch entirely over to Windows NT or Windows 2000 where I can easily get an X Window server to run, but then I'd have to give up my Macintosh.

    Fortunately, with this XFree86 news I have TWO OPTIONS for getting X Window clients to display on my Macintosh. And that allows me to continue using all the really good Macintosh software without having to buy a whole other computer to run an X Window server.

    Why is this such a bad idea?

  • Heck, my 25Mghz 040 black NeXT Cube works like a charm.

    Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
  • Apple wouldn't use a chip like the Athlon because the power consumption is too high. They'd wait for a version which runs efficiently enough to run in a system without a fan.

    Can the P3s used in notebook PCs run fanless if used in a decently ventilated case?

  • Re:Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:3)

    by King Babar ( 19862 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @06:22PM (#529954) Homepage
    Name 3 truly useful apps that require X and don't have equally useful alternatives that don't.

    This part is easy. With X, you can run apps remotely and display them where you are. So, for me, anything I want to run on a Linux box at work but view at home is such an app. Now, I expect that's not the answer you were expecting, but if X doesn't immediately suggest to you the possibility of remote apps, you're missing the point.

    Got 'em? Took you awhile, didn't it?

    Nope; that part was easy.

    OK, now describe what sort of person will be wanting those applications and will also want a Mac in place of a more powerful and much cheaper PC.

    Well, I'm married with two kids. My wife vastly prefers the Mac interface, and an iMac was decent enough looking and quiet enough to put out in a public place, saving additional bucks for one of those "hide the ugly PC" computer thingies. Now, I do kick myself for not waiting another 6 months and getting the iMac I got for $500 less, but that's the PC life...

    I'll bet that was even harder, but you still came up with something, right?

    No, that was still pretty easy.

    Well then, now the hardest part: Tell me, with a straight face, that there are more than a handful of these people in the world.

    Now the funny part of this is that even though I live in Columbia, Missouri, a metro area with a population of 130,000 or so, I already know a handful of people like this. But so what? Why should I care how many other people use computers like I do? In the bad old days, that might matter because software was expensive and and closed source; not these days. I can have a Mac, a BSD box, a wireless network set-up, a DVD player, and all the comforts of a quiet-to-silent PC for a price I was more than willing to pay.

    Nobody can tell me I'm not happy.

  • Hmm, what I'd really like to see is to have it the other way around, with X fully incorporated into Aqua. It seems like all the implementations mentioned above only go part-way, ie the X apps are run their own fullscreen sized window. I suppose that works for some things, but wouldn't it be nice to have X apps inhabiting the OS X desktop, looking and acting just like Quartz windows and apps? I'm sure it could be done.

  • Careful what you say; GNUStep is duplicating the OpenStep API's, NOT the OS X API's. A good deal has changed in the road to OS X, and the graphics are totally different. The only similar thing about Display Postscript and Quartz is that they are licensed from Adobe.

    Any OpenStep library calls or code that coincidentally works in OS X does so only because it's something Apple didn't change.

    And Apple is not going to open up any kind of Aqua/Quartz documentation like they did with OpenStep any time soon anyway (and that was technically NeXT that published the Openstep spec, not Apple).

  • I think MACOS X is going to save MAC's ass. I have seen it is action and I have never been so giddy about a GUI since....well I guess I have never been giddy about a gui. Anyway, I wouldn't count MAC out yet. Much like the L-community they sit outside of the BOX and are try to change the way we do thing rather than just improve on it.

    To manny companies (MS comes to mind) stick on a linear path, never stepping outside of their legacy. With Aqua Apple has made their first big step since the introduction of their MAC line of computers.

    -Angreal

    P.S. RC5 on those fast MAC's is going to rock.

  • Not Aqua Support (Score:5)

    by Penrif ( 33473 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:00PM (#529958) Homepage
    Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release? I think I'll have a look at some of those new fast Macs!

    This is NOT Aqua support! This is XFree86 running on Darwin! So, you can have X on your screen, or you can have Aqua on your screen. Either way, you're limited to programs compiled for what's on the screen.

  • Aqua/X (Score:5)

    by Yarn ( 75 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:04PM (#529959) Homepage
    "Will this Aqua support be rolled into the next Xfree86 release?"

    No. At least, I'd put a large amount of money on it being a *long* time before X is extended to cover Aqua. Look how long it's taken for display ghostscript to catch on (hint: it hasn't)

    Maybe when X can do translucancy[1] properly.

    [1] Trans-lunacy? :)
  • Darwin is an OS that's open source that's supported by Apple. It also happens to be the underpinnings to Mac OS X. Hence, Darwin support == Mac OS X support.
  • Finally, a use for my new mac :&

    !-!_!-!_!-!
  • That Darwin was a media streaming server, that was open source, supported by Apple? Anyone care to explain?
  • t takes some BSD stuff and glues that 1985 crApple interface on it.

    The interface shares more with NeXTSTEP and OpenSTEP than it does 1985 Mac/Lisa/crApple interface.

  • 1. ease of use (no, really)
    2. consumer apps (m$ office, photoshop, quicktime, etc)
    3. new development (drivers install on the fly, advanced smp, etc. no we havent solved these yet)

  • Well, that's nifty... but useless. (Score:3)

    by Trevor Goodchild ( 187368 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:43PM (#529965)

    This is the exact opposite of what most of us really want!

    Let's take slow, over-priced hardware and replace the great GUI it has with a crufty hack that's older than jesus. Yeah, great idea.

    News flash: Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.

  • Um, XFree86 has been running on the PowerPC architecture for years. It just usually runs on Linux or NetBSD or something.

    --

  • You've missed the point here. Many useful apps require X Windows, and being able to run X Windows on Mac OS X is very useful to those who will be using that OS. XFree86 is a good alternative to other commercial X servers that will be available, such as XTools from Tenon.

    --

  • I checked their site, and I cold find any information regarding if you could run programs locally through Xtools. Technically MacX did everything you claim, but it still needs and UNIX server somewhere the run X and send the display back to the Mac. The disadvantage here is the files on the Unix server are not the files on your Mac (unless you have an extravagant netatalkappletalk setup going), and the network slows everything down (and MacX takes a crapload of RAM, though all X servers do I guess).

    I never used the product, and you mentioned you did. Just pumping you for info :)

    FYI: netatalk is like Samba's filesharing, but for Appletalk/Macs. Also does printer-serving, i think.
  • Darwin has been ported to intel based systems. Aqua will never be ported to intel. Why? Because evet Jobs make the entire widget & sells it as a packaged deal - this is why there are not mac clones. Aqua is the primary UI for darwin on the Mac - it will be a HUGE selling point. That is why apple cracked down on all of the skin makers. If you want Aqua YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY A MAC. If you want to use darwin & the run Xfree86 with KDE or Gnome, or nautilus GUI you can - even on intel based hardware. But unless it is a skin you will never see Aqua on Intel.

  • 3.9Mkey/s on a G4 450 cube (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    RC5 Does rock on the G4. Mac OS X is going to save Apple's ass. I use it daily. It's the first beautiful Unix. I amaze normal people as well as geeks when I open a terminal window. I keep having to tell myself it's a Unix. All the other Unix machine's I have used have either looked like they tried to immitate windows (Gnome, KDE) or made a real bad attempt at a user interface (CDE, and whatever that ugly thing SGI uses). The developer tools are free too! You can make your own aqua interface for command line utilities! I haven't seen a computer company do this, ever, it's almost as if they are listening to the communities on the net...
  • Not transparency (either there, or not there), but translucency (in aqua's case 256 levels). For instance, the browser window that I am typing in on mt MacOS X box cast's a shadow on the window below, but I can still read the text in the bottom window that is in this shadow.

    Every pixel of every window has a translucency value associated with it (Classic and Carbon Apps just get every pixel defaulted to 100% opaque). This does slow down the rendering, but Apple has been working overtime to improve this (DP4 to PB was a big step, and I expect even more for the next round), and they have been working to get ATI to use some of the 3d rendering hardware to pick up these calculations, so that the CPU can do other things (and there has also been a lot of Altivec'ing of this code.. watch things on a G3 vs on a G4, the difference is astounding).

    Putting this into X11 would be a lot of work, and would require a big increase in the amount of data flowing around. This is one of the reasons Apple has not been talking about remote displaying of Aqua, but has been talking up (in developer info) the use of remote methods to create client-server'ish apps....
  • Apple is a hardware company. OSX helps them sell boxes. Apple is not interested in helping to sell other people's boxes, because other people's boxes are icky looking and have floppy drives.
  • It's quite possible Apple could develop an X86-based machine for OSX to run on. It simply wouldn't work on non-Apple X86 machines.

    Apple is already on shaky ground with ISVs - moving to a new architecture would be suicide.

    Apple can't afford to revisit the pain of the 680x0 -> PPC migration.

    Added to which, the main point is that Steve Jobs abhors the PC platform, and thats why Apple will never move to PCs.

  • I was about to go download X for my shiny new PowerBook (with MacOS X) when I asked myself: "what X apps do I use?" I thought for a while, and only two came to mind: the GIMP and AbiWord. I only use AbiWord for its Microsoft Word importing, and I only used the GIMP because there was no Photoshop.

    That's the really cool thing about MacOS X: It has all of the UNIX-y goodness with all of the sexy OpenStep apps and all of the trusty MacOS apps.

    I don't need to download X!

    --
    Max V.
  • umm.. you can put the doc on the side of your screen... try over at MacOS X Hints [macosxhints.com], they had a not about that a couple of days ago...
  • Hmm. You know, it would be nice if somebody were working on a free clone of the NeXT/MacOS X graphics system.

    Oh, they already are. GNUstep [gnustep.org].
  • News flash: Most of us are hoping for OSX, including Aqua, on Intel-based architecture, not the other way around.

    And some people [gnustep.org], instead of just hoping, are trying to deliver it.

  • Added to which, the main point is that Steve Jobs abhors the PC platform, and thats why Apple will never move to PCs.

    Except, of course, that the definition of "PC platform" is so nebulous. How about a system with the same peripheral bus and drive interface as the Mac, the processor bus of an Alpha, and a processor whose oldest ancestor is seven years old? (The chip? An Athlon.)
  • I keep telling people that this is EXACTLY what Linux needs: X-11 for network connected apps (far less frequently used than locally attached display - deny if it you can!) and also for the legacy stuff you won't want to be without in the new millenium, such as, oh, xcalc or xeyes remotely displayed in lovely, net-safe 8bit color.

    And then alongside X, something that actually _does the job_ in a competent and polished manner. Like Quartz.

    Seriously, why not have both ? CLick X-11. Click back to Quartz. MI/X Xserver for Mac worked like that, except it was unmaintained crap. Tenon's Xtools might be even better as a model since they nest X-11 app windows with the Apple Coregraphics server. Anyway, the future of newtworked applications is clearly not in pushing pixels or pushing drawing primitives down the wire at clients, is it? It's already XML, and even html interfaces, Java, and Corba compponents.
    X is certainly not useless, yet, but it's basic premises even the ones behind its virtues, are being superceded even as its rough spots are shown up more and more by so-called stupid people's OS.

    Exemplary graphics applications just will not come to Linux with the graphics of X as they are, that much should be clear by now. (No, 3d apps using OpenGL don't count - they push X aside in order to get at the hardware direcl;ty) XFree86 on OSX and especially Xtools shows the way it could be better for Linux in the future or could have been already if people had been planning ahead for a Linux worthy of workstation/desktop use.

  • Are you completely insane? Try saying 'AMD-based architecture' and it will sound a little less crazy. The Athlon is really pretty decent (though god, do those x86 chips waste power- blech!) but the P4 is a trainwreck. The last thing you want to do is be all gung ho for Intel _now_. A few years ago you might have had a point but they are screwing up...
  • I am overjoyed that this development has come about. Aqua is wonderful, but I really like some of the features of XFree running on Darwin and was frustrated that VNC was the only way to use them simultaneously without spending money.

    If technology like this can be integrated into the next (or even the first? Steve?) release of OSX, the implications for developers and users alike would be incredible.I aggree that this OS is going to do great things for Apple- maybe we Mac users combined with the open source community can finally toss that sledgehammer!

    Ok, so maybe that last comment was a bit idealistic, but seriously, I feel like it's 1984 all over again (though, to be fair, I was 3 yrs. old at the time :) )

  • AQUA and Xfree86 (Score:3)

    by deander2 ( 26173 ) <public@ k e r e d .org> on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:11PM (#529983) Homepage
    the chances of apple opening up quartz and aqua to open-source developers are zero to none. they don't give a flying grit's ass if you run anything else, but if they opened those up then you wouldn't have to buy a mac. (i'm sure a port would be started ASAP)

    so in other words, yes, we can run xbill, but "HELL NO" to running bubbly UIs on your pimp 2Ghz AMD. (they won't even let us create look-alike skins!)

  • Yup, you're right. This is stale news.

  • If apple is dead... (Score:4)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:13PM (#529985) Homepage
    why is everyone developing for it?

    tcd004
    True Enlightenment [lostbrain.com]

  • By the way, just a question. Can anybody explain to me what the added value is of OS X?

    Running Xfree86 is something other *nices do too.

    To what extent does it offer anything better, improved, "more something" than the alternative unix/linux OS brethren?

    I've got this vague idea that Apple is trying to sell something that you essentially can find somewhere else for free?
  • meaning, log in as >console then type startx?

  • Re:Not Aqua Support (Score:5)

    by Snocone ( 158524 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:17PM (#529988) Homepage
    This is NOT Aqua support! This is XFree86 running on Darwin!

    Er, no, it's running on CoreGraphics, aka "Quartz". Quartz is not part of Darwin.

    So, you can have X on your screen, or you can have Aqua on your screen.

    Or you can have both. [noaa.gov]

    Either way, you're limited to programs compiled for what's on the screen.

    No. The above link works for free now, XTools [tenon.com] works for money now, and direct support in future Darwin XFree86's is planned.

  • getting rid of my Linux box (Score:4)

    by iso ( 87585 ) <.slash. .at. .warpzero.info.> on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:56PM (#529989) Homepage

    X-Windows running alongside (and inheriting the window widgets of) Aqua in MacOS X is about the only thing keeping me from using MacOS X on a regular basis. i can't wait to compile and install this new patch to see how close i can get to seamlessly using UNIX and Mac applications side by side.

    despite how much i hated Aqua and many of the changes of MacOS X at first, it's definitely grown on me as of late, and my "wishlist" is mostly comprised of nit-picky features (but damn how i wish i could put the 'dock' on the right side of the screen like i did in NeXTStep). once i can run X applications in a satisfactory manner, i will have absolutely no need for my Linux box (except, perhaps, as a toy).

    i won't be able to install this for at least a week however, as my Mac is too important for "real" work to start installing new patches to a beta OS. but i'm dying to know: does anybody have a screenshot of this particular implementation running on their OSX box? i'd love to see how well it integrates into Aqua.

    ..and serious "Kudos" to all the people involved in this project. after my current contract is done, perhaps i'll take some time out to help them with the code.

    - j

  • Re:Not Aqua Support (Score:5)

    by blukens ( 27693 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:17PM (#529990)
    Acually, the original comment is accurate. From the XonX [mrcla.com] page:
    A free version of XFree86 running side by side with Mac OS X's Aqua GUI is now here! Gregory Robert Parker did the original implementation of this for the Darwin port of XFree86 4.0. I have incorporated his code into XFree86 4.0.2 and cleaned it up a bit. It is still in rough form, but it works and is reasonably fast. This code will eventually find its way into the XFree86 CVS repository, but for now it is available here.
    and then:
    Before you launch the X server from Mac OS X, you must make sure that your startup script is correct. If you have an .xserverrc file, make sure it specifies the option "-quartz", which directs the X server to run in parallel with the CoreGraphics window server. To start the X server, launch the Xmaster application. You will see the screen flash and then you will be returned to the Aqua GUI. Clicking on the big button with a small "X" in it will switch you to the X window desktop. Holding down Command-Option-Control-Shift-A will switch you back to the Aqua GUI. Have fun!
    There are now two ways to run X on OS X, either booting into command line mode (essentially the same as Darwin) and running straight XFree from there, or from Aqua through the Quartz display system.

  • i always though that Twain quote was "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated," but i guess it's a case of a morphing quote.

    this page [twainquotes.com] says that the first instance of this quote was written as: "the report of my death was an exaggeration." doesn't really have the same "ring" to it, does it?

    - j

  • Read the page. It does NOT integrate into Aqua. Rather, it takes over the display, ala XNext, if you've ever seen that.

    You can switch back and forth via the keyboard...

    C.
  • X has become an incredible resource hog and a fine example of bloatware. I ran X 4.0 on my AMD k6-3 450 w/64MB RAM, and it was incredibly slow! Almost unusable. I moved back to 3.3.6 after two weeks of torture.

    It's time to have a clean break from legacy platforms. When the time comes to vote, say NO to X!

  • U tell em brother.

    mod this fscking shit up.

  • Won't make any difference at all to mac users. They are what they are. But the survival of the company is based upon attracting NEW users.

    The UNIX underpinnings will attract the technical crowd. The usability and style will attract consumer/home users. The only thing remaining is the business desk -- and Windows itself proved that if people walk into an office wanting a certain machine the comapny will follow. This was how PCs replaced Wangs and other terminals on corporate desktops in the '80s.

    All in all it's good.
  • Apple is a hardware company.

    Of course, I've heard this refrain for years now. It's as if there aren't any companies making money selling an operating system for x86 machines.

    Didn't Bill something-or-other start a company that does that?

    W
    -------------------

  • I couldn't find the "Mac OS X" hints story, nor elsewhere -- I think the story may have been pulled while its legitimacy is debated.

    In short, the proponents are claiming that the dock's orientation can be changed like so...

    defaults write com.apple.dock orientation Left

    ...but that it only works on the "Cheetah" build of OSX, which is only available to paying members of the developer network.

    Screenshots have been posted, but there are irregularities, not the least of which is the return of the Apple Menu in one of these shots. Come to your own conclusions:

    http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/Forum3/HTML/002132 .html

    Incidentally, I confirmed that it doesn't work on my copy of the Public Beta. Additionally, I checked the dock binary and "orientation" is nowhere to be found, although the other well-known settings are there.
  • You need to distinguish between a Macintosh that uses an Intel chip in it and between generic X86 "IBM-compatible" hardware. (When was the last time anyone said IBM comaptible!)

    With the former it is Apple propriatary and they make all the money from the hardware. With the latter their hardware sales vanish to the cheap clones; and their OS Sales have to overcome the manufacturer's reluctance to start shipping other OS's. Look how hard it was to get hardware suppliers shipping Linux on their boxes!

    The former is also technically easier for Apple as they then have solid control over the hardware of the boxes.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Actually, you can run local X programs. It includes all the standard stuff from X11r6. It is pretty nify.

  • Re:Aqua and a FAST MAC (Score:3)

    by Lover's Arrival, The ( 267435 ) on Thursday January 04, 2001 @02:20PM (#530001) Homepage
    Hi. I have a Mac, and the I reckon that the reason people like Macs is because they are Sexy, and easy to use. I would say that the fact that MacOSX awill be based on a Unix like architecture and OS won't make any real difference to the Mac market at all. Most people that use it arent really bothered as much by stability and the benefits that a Unix like OS will bring, and the people who are are much better served by Linux and other *nix'es.

    I think that the big seller with Mac OSX is going to be its 'look and feel' and general good looks. Apple have made all their big breakthroughs in the past on a similar basis, and I don't think things are about to change, really.

    I know I'll be getting one when MacOSX comes out! I have a Linux box too, but I love to relax sometimes on a Mac (Its like going to eat out at a nice resteraunt - everythings so easy;) and I really like the graphics software on it, too.

  • Mac seems to be moving slowly toward many of the greater qualities of *nix systems in its OS X release (pre-emptive mutlitasking, multiple users, etc), while keeping its own greater qualities. Now before I go any further, let me say that I've never really liked Macs, but since OS 8, I've been seeing them as better and better...

    Until Linux reaches the ability to be a powerful desktop system that's easy for almost anyone to use efficiently, Macs may come to fill that void in the business sector. Apple has made a series of incredibly smart moves over recent years (the iMac - a computer for the general masses, the G4 - a slower clock speed, but 128 bit channeling making it capable of handling significantly more non-dependant data than say of 32 bit chip of a clock speed twice as fast), and a few other things to boot. They've adopted less expensive RAM, all the systems within a series use identical parts (a wonderful dream for any IT pro), and, well, they're just getting to be a lot better than they were, though I think I've said that.

    This interoperability with X makes it a great value for large corporations with *nix (especially Linux) servers. I think that over the years, Apple will make its Macintosh series have a comeback. GO APPLE!

    Oh yeah, to make the subject makes sense, what OS is currently most-used as a workplace desktop? M$ Windoze...what would be displaced? Figure it out...

    Note: I have NO affiliation with Apple Computing - I don't even use one of their computers regularly. However, I still believe from what I've seen lately that they do have a good shot a taking back market share...

    Like Karma doesn't matter...
    Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!

  • No.

    --

  • QuickTime Streaming Server is available to run on the Darwin OS, as well as Linux and I think FreeBSD (not sure about maybe others).

    --

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close