Ars Technica Reviews OS X 10.5 522
A user 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."
Re:Man, I love my Mac... (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
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.
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.
Have those claims been peer reviewed? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I see no reason for a geek to upgrade (Score:1, Insightful)
1. When manually adding search domains and then receiving a DHCP addy that pushes more search domain directives 'nslookup' and 'dig' can now correctly parse '/etc/resolv.conf'.
and
2. X11 is installed by default and when forwarding back to the local X server Terminal.app will automatically launch it.
Two small items that where big annoyances to me in Tiger. Probably not a big deal to most...
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.
Re:Hatred for the interface changes (Score:2, Insightful)
But you see, his views are backed by reasonable arguments.
That's why, as a loyal Mac user of 22 years who hopes to never buy a PC again, I actually respect and agree with his opinion of the Mac OS X GUI.
Sure he's emotional about it, but he does know what he's talking about.
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...
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.
Re:Leopard... (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus XCode is free. As is the full developer documentation. What does Visual Studio and MSDN run you these days?
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)...
Re:The myth of the upgradeless (Score:2, 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...
Let us know how you go swapping out the motherboard in that thing. The video card is also pretty much a token gesture, given you have to search far and wide for one that you can be sure will definitely work with the Mac's legacy-free EFI and then within OS X.
Not to mention the minimum buy-in for an "upgradable" Mac is a US$2500 Mac Pro.
and lets face it, with just about any PC chassis you're going to be almost as limited since motherboard formats change over time.
Yeah, that one change of the mainstream motherboard form factor from AT to ATX over the last ~25 years (with a ~5 year overlap) sure caused problems.
You don't want a Mac for other reasons, that's fine - but lets all stop pretending the upgrade options are so very different.
Please stop pretending the upgrade options for the average Mac are even in the same class as the upgrade options for the average PC. They're just not.
Re:The myth of the upgradeless (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 is fast enough even for serious photo editing. As I said, Macs have excellent i/o options which somewhat reduce the need to upgrade the system itself.
The MacPro is expensive, yes - but you were talkign ABILITY and not EXPENSE. In my experience people either build a cheap system whose needs are met by something like a mini or iMac already, or they are building Uber Expensive Gaming Rig in which case you are talking MacPro money anyway!
Yes you can get away with something in the middle cheaper by building yourself, I used to build my own systems as well. But then I realized I valued my time, and was tired of myriad components that always needed just a little tweaking to actually work right together...
But I digress, again I am addressing the myth that Macs lack upgradability and expandability compared to most PC systems in use.
Fool me once, shame on me ... fool me twice... (Score:1, Insightful)
Who else remembers when Panther came out and Apple promised a new Finder? Well, the same words are being used to described the "new finder [apple.com]" in Leopard. Shame on you, Apple.
From TFA [arstechnica.com]:
The changes in Leopard do indicate that Apple has taken a renewed interest in improving the Finder, but motion is not the same thing as progress. For where I'm sitting, it looks like one step forward, two steps back.
Truer words have never been spoken. This guy deserves credit for inventing a vocabulary ("spatial"/"browser") so we can talk about the Finder issues clearly, and cutting through the haze of "new features" to see the underlying problems. How often do you see this level of insight from your typical schwag-drenched tech reviewer?
The problem with the Finder is that, even though most people agree that it's fundamentally broken, it's too mundane to get the high-level attention it needs. In particular, capital-S Steve probably figures most home users will be fine accessing their files through applications, otherwise it would have been fixed by now. But Steve! Remember you were the one who said that saving a few seconds of every user's day is like saving a few lives [folklore.org]. Now, Mac OS has an installed base of over 20 million.
New features does not a new Finder make. It may seem like a mundane issue, but now is the time to raise a stink so we can move on from this already. F F T F .
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
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lookin good (Score:3, Insightful)
.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.
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...
SimonRe: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.
Re:.Net vs ObjC (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about him, but I don't go arbitrarily changing object properties without reading the documentation about what they're for.
Re:lookin good (Score:2, Insightful)
As a recent OS X convert myself, my experience has been exactly the opposite of yours. I used to be able to work a lot faster, a lot smoother, without having to stop and interrupt my flow of thought -- yes, on Windows XP. Linux has been slightly less usable, but still more so than OS X. Here's why:
First, the shortcuts are not consistent from program to program. Firefox, for example, uses Ctrl-D to deny cookies, while Safari uses Command-D to deny. Browsing back and forth is Command-Left and Command-Right, but that is also the shortcut to go to the beginning/end of line (when typing into a form field, for example). Microsoft Word for Mac uses Windows-style shortcuts (end/home etc). I realize that this is not an OS X problem, but in a way it is -- these keys are not enforced like they are on other OSes (yes, linux has good shortcuts). These impede my flow of thought when I have to fish for the right keys to move from word to word, use the delete key (on a laptop), show the desktop (F11? wtf). I could go on and on about bad shortcut keys, but I think I have gotten my point across. Oh, and using Open Office is not feasible in OS X. I'm sorry, but it plain sucks (slow, inconsistent, requires X11...)
Second, window switching is abysmal. In fact, you can't switch between windows. You switch between applications. THEN, and only then, can you switch between windows with Command ~. Furthermore, you can't even switch windows if one of them is minimized. Yep, you have to fish for it with your mouse (this makes the minimize button and Expose completely useless). And no, Expose does not show minimized windows either. So, my shortcuts are all messed up, my desktop is cluttered, and the "zoom" button has unpredictable behaviors (try it in iTunes, for example).
Third, I have had weird things happen with my MBP -- fans just started spinning at 6000rpm for no good reason. I had to reset the PRAM. Why? Also, when the battery goes empty and the system goes to sleep, plugging it in does not let you turn the system back on! Err what? I have to wait 10 minutes or so for the battery to get charged at least a little.
So, OS X indeed slows me down to the point where I lose my train of thought when I'm "in the zone." This just sucks, and it's a shame too. I really like the look of OS X, and I think it's a great system -- but my needs are different than those of many people, and sadly is simply not a system for me. But I readily admit that it's the best damn notebook I ever had (and for $5K it damn well better be -- it's my company's).
mk
P.S. Sorry to have to post as AC, but I don't want to go to Karma hell. It's not my intention to start a flame war anyway, just giving you an honest answer to your question, from my point of view.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Re:The freakin' Dock) (Score:3, Insightful)
Upgrades rather limited... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac fans point to the lack of hardware options as a feater ("just works"), enterprise customers point to the lack of options as a restrictions ("limited hardware support").
On anything but the Mac pro (aka expensive) line, there is essentially no hardware options.
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: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.
Re:OSX and security (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's as simple as this: If I choose "Block all incoming connctions", I expect that it blocks all incomming requests.
What is wrong with this approach?
(*) Ok some of the caveats of this new design: The firewall automatically trusts all applications digitally signed by Apple. The problem is, that Apple delivers a digitally signed version of netcat, which provides you with a transparent communication endpoint (signed by Apple, therefor passing the firewall in limited access mode). So all the programmer of an (unsigned!) trojan needs to do is replace his calls to listen() (that would present a dialog asking for permssion) with a suitable combination of fork/exec -- in fact he could even write a wrapper library implementing this. So at the end of the day, your firewall is worthless again.
Note, that I didn't even start to talk about possible vulnerabilities in digitally signed applications yet.
bye, ju
Re:lookin good (Score:3, Insightful)
So, let me deconstruct them:
Re:lookin good (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, I never minimize anything but PDFs, and that's only as "storage." Otherwise, there's no reason to minimize anything -- all the desktop clutter is perfectly normal, thanks to expose and the separation between "applications" and "windows." Windows users, at least the plain jane ones, are in the habit of opening up a window full-screen, and when they want to use something else, they minimize it to the doc and switch to the next window, also in full-screen. So the taskbar (since they're generally not using tab to switch between windows) is their main navigation.
That approach is completely unneeded on OS X, where there's no "gray background" for an app and you don't end up with windows inside other windows, but rather the overall "application" that spawns actual windows.
I know you're speaking for your fiance having those problems, but whenever I've had to help someone with a new mac, I spend some time giving them some pointers, and explicitly stating that "it's not windows, and here are some things I KNOW you do in Windows that you don't have to do anymore." Thinks like use their pinky for hotkeys -- I tell them to use their thumb instead, and they usually go "oooohhhhh... that is easier!" And they start actually using hotkeys. I also teach them about expose, and after I give them some pointers about it they realize it's more than just flashy crap.
I have to train people how to use macs at my job, since we typically hire people based on technical skills, not on OS allegiance, so I end up seeing a lot of odd habits that Windows users pick up. Your fiance's experiences aren't at all surprising to me; you really need to sit down with someone and tell them that what they're doing is wrong, which is never fun when dealing with computers
Re:Is it really that postive? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're up for some great reads, just take a look at Siracusa's other reviews. His Tiger review introduced me to some very interesting concepts about filesystem metadata at work in OS X.
He's my first choice for industry-grade, professional review of technology, and he's a perfect example as to why I frequent Ars as much as I do.
Re:lookin good (Score:3, Insightful)
As a recent OS X convert myself, my experience has been exactly the opposite of yours. I used to be able to work a lot faster, a lot smoother, without having to stop and interrupt my flow of thought -- yes, on Windows XP. Linux has been slightly less usable, but still more so than OS X.
Often when people are power users, there is a big learning curve to get up to speed on a different system. The people I know who have the most trouble are those who insist on trying to exactly recreate their workflows from an old system and who are not open to learning new ways. People coming to OS X especially have problems because Apple often only really polishes one good workflow for a given task. At the same time OS X has some really useful new workflows and abilities that are often completely ignored by people who just want it to be exactly like Windows or Solaris or OpenBSD or whatever.
Please note, OS X is not the best platform for all tasks. Personally, I use OS X, Linux, and WinXP daily for different tasks and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't advocate any given OS for everyone and everything.
First, the shortcuts are not consistent from program to program.
Actually, I find them more consistent, with the exception of a small subset of programs that are quick and dirty ports or which intentionally try to maintain a cross platform interface based on another platform (like Firefox or Word). Have you tried Camino?
Oh, and using Open Office is not feasible in OS X. I'm sorry, but it plain sucks (slow, inconsistent, requires X11...)
OpenOffice is not well implemented on OS X. That is true. Try NeoOffice/J. It is the currently supported version and does not require X11. You must be using the really old and no longer supported X11 version.
I notice all the problems you mention so far are with using some given program that you used on another platform and which is different on OS X. Maybe you should consider the tasks you need to accomplish and then find the best software on OS X to accomplish them, instead of trying to find a port of what you used to use.
Second, window switching is abysmal. In fact, you can't switch between windows. You switch between applications. THEN, and only then, can you switch between windows with Command ~.
For very small numbers of open windows, OS X users suffer a slight penalty. For very large numbers of windows, the OS X way is significantly superior. Consider 100 windows open, 10 applications, each with 10 windows. On windows, to navigate from app1, window1 to app5, window5 you have to push 49 keystrokes. On OS X, you have to push 8 keystrokes (4 to switch to the right application and 4 to switch to the right window). That is a very serious usability win, even though it requires users learn to different keystrokes.
Furthermore, you can't even switch windows if one of them is minimized. Yep, you have to fish for it with your mouse (this makes the minimize button and Expose completely useless).
I see no reason in OS X to ever minimize a window. I think it is mostly a legacy control from pre-OS X MacOS. I recommend cutting it out of your workflow entirely.
Third, I have had weird things happen with my MBP -- fans just started spinning at 6000rpm for no good reason. I had to reset the PRAM. Why? Also, when the battery goes empty and the system goes to sleep, plugging it in does not let you turn the system back on! Err what? I have to wait 10 minutes or so for the battery to get charged at least a little.
Sounds like you are having hardware problems. My Macbook works fine while plugged in, even if I have no battery in it at all. All manufacturers will have hardware problems, but the consensus is Apple is right at the top of the pack for reliability, so I don't see that you can argue logically that this is a problem compared to Windows or Linux.