Os X....

[abudhu]

What "version" of OS X do we have, or/and which one is better?
I have heard talk of Panther and Tiger OS X's. Are they just different GUI's?

Thanks.

My plan for multile OS's is coming to fruition and I require this information :)

[fischerm]

Currently the MLL, Zone, and Multimedia Classroom have Mac OS X 10.3 or 'Panther'. 10.4 will come out this summer, and is called Tiger.

[lnp]

Rawr...Tiger...

[dparm]

GUI in OS X really hasn't changed from 10.0 to 10.3, probably won't change in 10.4 either.

[jvk]

Well, actually Aqua (the OS X GUI) has changed quite a bit from 10.0 to now (thankfully). But interface tweaks aren't the only, or biggest, changes. Talk of cats is just Apple taking the internal nicknames of the versions and using them for marketing.

[dparm]

I disagree. There have been tweaks, but nothing huge. When 10.0 came out, that was the biggest change since System 7.0. This is the case with Windows...hasn't changed much since 95. Yes, it looks prettier, but is still the same basic layour.

[lnp]

Well, if you're just talking about how the icons look, yeah I can see your point, but several steps of added functionality (such as the search bar in each window) have been added in nuanced ways that have made OS X grow up to the same usability level as its ancestors. It was the lack of these tools that made seasoned OS 9 users hesitant to switch to a more adolescent operating system.

[jasonk]

I disagree. There have been tweaks, but nothing huge. When 10.0 came out, that was the biggest change since System 7.0. This is the case with Windows...hasn't changed much since 95. Yes, it looks prettier, but is still the same basic layour.


Uh.... 2000/XP are based on the NT kernel, which is a derivative of IBM's OS/2, where 95 and 98 were based on DOS.

There was a huge leap from 98/ME to 2000/XP.

[dparm]

Jason, in terms of the GUI, Windows still looks the same. I know that the kernel itself is different, but anyone who used 98 can easily navigate 2000, XP, etc.

And yes, I'm familiar with the evolution of the Windows OS...95/98 are DOS underneath it all, whereas 2000/XP simply emulate the DOS environment. :)

[jasonk]

Jason, in terms of the GUI, Windows still looks the same. I know that the kernel itself is different, but anyone who used 98 can easily navigate 2000, XP, etc.

And yes, I'm familiar with the evolution of the Windows OS...95/98 are DOS underneath it all, whereas 2000/XP simply emulate the DOS environment. :)

I misinterpreted the question.... ;)

[abudhu]

Jason, in terms of the GUI, Windows still looks the same. I know that the kernel itself is different, but anyone who used 98 can easily navigate 2000, XP, etc.

And yes, I'm familiar with the evolution of the Windows OS...95/98 are DOS underneath it all, whereas 2000/XP simply emulate the DOS environment. :)

The DOS environment was taken out completely from 2000/XP. The only thing emulating Dos would be the command prompt...XP/2000 are based on the NT environment, which is very different from DOS. Which is also why they are far more stable than 95/98/ME. NT was made for servers and had to be as stable as possible. DOS was made for home use, and thats why 98/ME ended up sucking real hard.

So where exactly does DOS emulation come in on 2000/XP?

[dparm]

DOS is emulated via the Command Prompt. I should've been more specific.

CMD still has a lot of good functionality in it, but for most users it is worthless. I use it primarily for netstat and ipconfig.

[abudhu]

Then I was right. Muhaha.

[Unregistered]

No, you really weren't right at all. You first asserted that the “DOS environment was taken out completely”, which wasn't even being argued against. You then pointed out exactly how Dan was right, by pointing out precisely the way MS-DOS is emulated in Win2k/XP. You followed that up with an inaccurate abridged history of Windows in which you claim MS-DOS was targeted at a home market that was all but non-existent when MS-DOS came to be, then followed that gem up with NT being targeted at servers, when the fact is that NT was supposed to occupy a niche similar to OS/2, but it's newly designed hardware layer left device drivers in short supply, relegating early NT adopters to smaller subsets of available hardware, and thus they only found usefulness in NT's advanced networking stack and more efficient file system, making it fine for the burgeoning LAN server market. And THEN, in a most confusing turn, you asked a question you already answered, “So where exactly does DOS emulation come in...” Then Dan confirmed that he was indeed referencing the command prompt, as you said, and then you claimed superiority.

I'm not sure how this makes you "right", but you're welcome to try and explain it to me.

[amichel]

Bah. That was me, it logged me out before I posted...

[lnp]

But I think we can all agree that OSX is awesome. Yeah, that's hot.

[amichel]

On that point, I cannot argue. OS X rocks out with the docks out, straight bangin' from the rainbow beachball to the Flurry screensaver.

I read some interesting, if certainly hopeless, commentary that 3 major PC manufacturers had initiated talks with The Great Steve to create an OS X for PC to offer people an alternative to the insecure behemoth that is Windows. Will it happen? No. But it's funny that rather than Apple going to them, they came to Apple... :D

[fischerm]

It could also be inferred from this thread that it will be impossible to ever get rid of DOS: even in a thread discussing OS X, DOS rears it's ugly head!

[fischerm]

I read some interesting, if certainly hopeless, commentary that 3 major PC manufacturers had initiated talks with The Great Steve to create an OS X for PC to offer people an alternative to the insecure behemoth that is Windows. Will it happen? No. But it's funny that rather than Apple going to them, they came to Apple... :D
It has been rumored for some time that Apple is maintaining concurrent builds of OS X that run on intel/AMD compatible chips, just in case IBM/Moto can't ever get their act together and come out with truly spectacular chips.

[abudhu]

Blaah..!!

Rumors, whatever.

The thing is Called Cherry OS.
Mac for PC.

Though I think they are now, or soon going to get their asses sued for some reason from Apple. Don't remember the real reason though.

[fischerm]

Well Cherry OS is not OS X, it is a PowerPC instruction set emulator, much like how VirtualPC is not Windows. Cherry OS allows you to install OS X (Or for that matter YellowDog Linux) on intel/AMD hardware. There is widespread concern that Cherry OS is little more than a rip-off of the open source Pear PC (http://www.pearpc.net/) project, a discussion on that can be found here (http://forums.pearpc.net/viewtopic.php?p=7210).

[abudhu]

Granted, but its the closet thing Windows is goign to see of a Mac for a long time.

Besides, it nice just having one or the other. If Apple ports their OS to Windows, stands to reason Windows will port theres to Apple. And then, well Windows will own..or Apple. Either way we'll see some cool Monopolys forming. Then there will be Linux chugging along bringing happiness to all who like alternatives.

[lnp]

Yeah, you lost me there.

[dparm]

Anyone else remember the CHRP back from the early 90s? CHRP = Common Hardware Reference Platform. It was a joint venture where a Motorola Mac Clone ran a special version of Windows NT AND Mac OS 7.1 (or whatever version it was) without any goofy emulation.

In essence, they rewrote NT with PowerPC instruction sets. I had a friend at Motorola at the time who said he booted up the prototype and it basically prompted him to load Windows NT, or MacOS. It ran NT just as well as an Intel box.

The idea died out though...perhaps this is a resurrection?

[amichel]

No, CherryOS is a big bunch of crap, and PearPC is only in the budding stage of working.

If Apple released OS X for PC, the problem would be lack of apps. All the OS X apps would have to be recompiled for x86 OS X (which is rewriting, in many cases), or they'd have to emulate the Windows kernel, which may be either illegal or expensive.

[abudhu]

Besides, if Apple would port there OS to the x86 architechture, that would be such a shot in the foot for them. "Hey, we are abandoning, (sorta) our own architecture and going over to the PC one! Wait...Wait..Windows/Linux own that one...oh shit"

I guess what I am saying is, if Apple went PC, then I personally believe most would simply abandon the original apple architecture they use, as all Os's would be using one universal architechture, which has the possiblity of being really bad for apple from a business standpoint. Considering their systems are built entirley differently, and they seem to rely on the profits made from selling their pre-built systems. Whereas PC's can be built by an indivually. Apple would then have to rely on its OS + Small quantity of programs to bring in the cash, which if Apple did go over wouldn't help them, since then all PC's programs could, theoritically, run off the Apple OS.

Did any of that make sense?

However, Games could be written for all the Os's, not to mention programs, Which would be sweet. Like I said Universal.

Bah, I like having them apart, and running on their own. It makes for better competition. Fight to the Death Apple/Windows!

[jharriso]

It's amazing, the individual OSs really emulate their name sakes.
Windows is easily broken, but if you're careful, you can see a lot of stuff with it.
Apple is tasty and appealing to the eye, but occasionally has a big giganto worm in it. Like our G4s in the Zone. <- EVIL.
Linux.. well, Linux doesn't really work out very well, so I'm going with the mascot, the pengiun. People are strangely fascinated by it, but most don't bother to learn very much about them. Those that do are often looked upon as a tad eccentric. Has the potential to quietly take over the world without the mass populous noticing. (Yes, the penguins are doing this..)

[amichel]

Actually, Apple would still be raking in the cash from iPod/iTunes. Last year, ~60% of Apple's revenues came from hardware sales. The rest was software and iPods. Given, losing 60% of your revenues would be bad news, but they do still have a leg to stand on.

[fischerm]

Even if apple came out with an OS that ran on intel chipsets, the OS would likely NOT run on a generic PC motherboard. You can go out and buy a motherboard with an IBM powerPC chip on it, but that board won't run OS X because it lacks the specific ASIC chips that apple makes. The point is apple will most likely always sell the hardware, even if it happens to have an x86 based chip inside instead of a PowerPC chip.

The apps thing is also very valid, although apple did a very decent job when they moved from the 680x0 chips to the PowerPC chips, apps ran in an emulated environment on the new architecture. Newer programming environments (Cocoa etc) lend themselves much better to the write once, recompile anywhere model. The real drag is if you happen to be doing low level chip stuff in your app, then you're screwed (unless the emulation layer does the translation for you).

[abudhu]

You lost me with the second part Mark. I get it though...

But your first part is quite contradictory, at least for apple. If Apple were to still manufactor there own hardware for x86 architecture, then it wouldn't be advantageous to them at all to move over anyways. Why build an entirely new set of hardware when what you have now works?

The only thing they would get is APPS, but they could just as easily code an emulator run in the background for their OS that would allow x86 games to work...which I wonder why they haven't done in the first place.

Also, the iPod thing won't last. The won't be seeing those revenue numbers all the time, and I would imagine it is going to start slipping pretty soon. There are a number of alternatives already, and I am not sure why the iPod is so attractive anyways. I hear with the suffle if you don't d/l /buy the songs off iTunes it won't let you put it on the shuffle (Any truth to this?) Apple will have to keep thinking up ways to advance if they want to keep making money.

On a sidenote I like how this thread has (and very interestingly so) turned into a discussion about Apple in General. Very welcomed.

[lnp]

Your iPod shuffle statement is all lies. LIES!

[amichel]

They are lies. The iPod Shuffle page on apple.com says the Shuffle plays mp3s, which you can't buy on the Music Store. Case closed, as it were.

The iPod isn't slipping an inch. The revenue numbers have only increased since inception. At several times the price it still steals sales from the flash market, and now they've got a flash offering. I see nothing but increase in the immediate future.

Yesterday, Apple's board voted to split Apple stock for the first time in...a while. Apple is raking money in so fast they don't know what to do with it. They have some inanely large sum of free cash just floating, and they have no outstanding debts, as they paid off their last loan early last year. For a company that was toilet water just 7 or 8 years ago, and now is one of the hotter tech stocks on the market, I'd call that impressive. And this is continuous growth. They're up over 400% from 2 years ago, 250% from last year, 45% from three months ago. Apple is in a very good place culturally and economically right now. People love the iPod, they're loving the Music Store, and they're loving the Mac Mini so far. I'm not sure it's even possible for Apple to do anything but grow at current. I think the x86 OSX deal will drop just because Apple doesn't need a long-shot like that. They're already in the money.

[lnp]

Oh snapz!

[abudhu]

Lol. Thanks for the info man.

Granted, Apple is growing due to the iPod, but how long can that last? Its going to level out eventually. You can't say Apple will keep growing because of that.

And, quite interestingly but I have heard a LOT of people are against the Mac Mini...and by a lot I mean a lot of OC geeks :-P They just see no use in it. For the average user I can see it as a good "mobile" computer as it were.

But yeah...
Ive got to order me an HD and an Enclosure sometime soon...Shove a MAC 0S/WIN XP/Linux on it. :D

[dparm]

Even if apple came out with an OS that ran on intel chipsets, the OS would likely NOT run on a generic PC motherboard. You can go out and buy a motherboard with an IBM powerPC chip on it, but that board won't run OS X because it lacks the specific ASIC chips that apple makes. The point is apple will most likely always sell the hardware, even if it happens to have an x86 based chip inside instead of a PowerPC chip.

The apps thing is also very valid, although apple did a very decent job when they moved from the 680x0 chips to the PowerPC chips, apps ran in an emulated environment on the new architecture. Newer programming environments (Cocoa etc) lend themselves much better to the write once, recompile anywhere model. The real drag is if you happen to be doing low level chip stuff in your app, then you're screwed (unless the emulation layer does the translation for you).


This is why the CHRP was supposed to be such a big deal.....one hardware platform that did it all.

[abudhu]

Maybe us OSCR folks could pool our knowledge and make a universal Board! :-\
Ha?
No...
Fine...

[amichel]

Apple isn't really growing just because of the iPod though. Their hardware business still does ~60% of their total revenue, with software sales taking up a good bit of that other 40%. No one has taken a lot of notice, but Apple has been producing some popular and powerful software since OS X came out. Aside from the 10.* versions of Mac OS which people continue to purchase like clockwork, Apple makes a pretty square buck on consumer stuff like iLife and now iWork, as well as Final Cut Express, Garage Band add-ons, etc. Then you cross into their pro stuff: Final Cut Pro, Motion, DVD Studio Pro, Logic, Shake. These are industry fixtures. With the new XGrid distribution gear they're shipping with Tiger, you'll see production houses dancing gleefully, as they can now easily take advantage of all the power of all their Mac stations, rather than having to maintain a renderfarm for no purpose other than rendering. (Not to say that renderfarms are going away, but picture a company with 25 or 30 G5s spread around on desks. I mean, that's a nice little chunk of computing power that goes to waste a good portion of the day.)

Contrary to what it may seem like viewed through the cultural lens of iPod mania, Apple is not a one-trick pony, as you seem to think. They aren't basing their future on the iPod, they're capitalizing on the iPod to position themselves in more consumer markets, and they're using the income boost to fund R&D for new products and software. I don't think the iPod is going anywhere anytime soon, but I also don't think Apple is planning on living on it indefinitely. They've got new stuff cooking in R&D, and as new generations of iPods emerge, I'll wager you'll see the iPod turning in to a more powerful general purpose machine, a PDA of sorts.

Moral: Apple isn't a balloon waiting to pop. Apple is the ever-expanding universe, boundless with possibilites, rich with diversity, at once awesome and terrible. Don't count on them flopping any time soon.

As for your Mini comments. "Mobile" computer? For what, LAN parties? Laptops are mobile computers. The Mini is a small form factor desktop. The trick to understanding the Mini is to understand that it's not for you. It's not for me either. It's for grandparents. It's for dorm rooms. It's for non-technical folks. It's not posited as a product for PC hardware hackers. It's not upgradable, it's not expandable, it "just works". For the average user, at five c-notes, the Mini will be better bang for their buck in the long run. Less hassle, less fuss, less muss. Even if you buy a complete package with it (keyboard, mouse, monitor), at ~$1000 full on, it's still a better long-term solution for a non-technical user than a comprable PC, though if someone is looking to drop that sort of cash, I'd recommend an iMac G5. Point is, you're not supposed to like the Mini because it's all the features of a G4 tower packed into a tiny form-factor. It's not that. It's not even all the features of a Powerbook packed into a desktop. It's just a nice little box that has ample power for day-to-day computing. Though, I would like one in my car (http://news.com.com/Putting+the+Mac+Mini+in+your+dashboard/2100-1042_3-5539831.html).

[dparm]

Adam, did you see Letterman where they cut the iPod Shuffle in half and called it the iPod Micro? ROFLMAO...

BTW that new Garage Band hardware piece "Asteroid" should be pretty cool.

[abudhu]

Awesome post Adam. Thanks for the info :)

Someone on [H] overclocked ther Mac Mini. Haha. Awesome.

[amichel]

Aw, I missed that Letterman. That's funny though. I hate the damn shuffle in every way but the profit it brings to Apple. I'm pretty stoked about the Asteroid, but I wish they'd have released it at MWSF. I'm desiring a firewire audio interface for my Cube, and I'd just as soon buy Apple's box than an M-Audio Transit or something.

It's amazing what you learn reading Mac news sites. :D Today, Merrill Lynch raised its 12 month price target for Apple up to $102 from the previous $85... If I had any spare stock market money lying around, I might get in on Apple, like, NOW. That's a pretty significant jump in target, plus, with the Apple stock split pending... oh yeah. Money. To. Be. Made.