OS X tiger X86 edition

[EssentialParadox]

OK, finally you guys acknowledge Aqua isn't the OS X API. I'm literally mouthing, "wow" at the fact it took you so long before you stopped trying to fight me against this fact. That's all I wanted - to educate you.

 

[drag]

There's also the points that Macs are better suited for professionals in any area because Windows natively runs a program and dedicates all its resources to that program, whereas on a Mac each program only takes up what it requires, so it is much more efficient when switching around between programs at speed; and then the points that the Mac OS is much more productive for the professional with Exposé features and such.

That's flat out wrong. It's not even true for Windows 9x.

Holy crap, batman! Until OS X, Mac OS didn't have SQUAT for resource management.

As far as memory management and such Windows 95 kicks the crap out of OS 7, 8, and all versions of 9.

The only reason why Apple stuck with the old fasion way of doing resource management is because each OS they tried to build never got released. Copland and such.

It wasn't until they were able to take code from NextStep Unix, combine that with FreeBSD and mounds of other Free software that they had a Mac OS that was even closely a match to the sophistication that Windows NT/2k/XP offers.

Now on the other hand in terms of ease-of-use and UI design Mac OS has always been superior. Most new features touted by Microsoft in Vista's GUI have been in OS X for some time now.

On the other hand OS X's filing system sucks.

And please stop referring to it as "Aqua API," because I've already corrected you that the API's are Cocoa and Carbon and the graphical representation of these API's is named "Aqua." Aqua has no API's and they're not interchangeable terms.

I'm not a Mac person - I don't know what the various names are. I think both spyordie007 and I both only meant to be talking about APIs.

Carbon is the 'modern' unixy API. It's based on the open-spec 'OpenStep' API, which itself is derived from NextStep which is the failed Unix OS that Steve Jobs created after he was kicked out of Apple.. which they later bought from him.

Since it's open spec there is a Linux desktop based around it called Window Maker, which uses the GNUStep libraries... which follow the OpenStep specs. Thusly there is a high degree of source code-compatability between Carbon applications developed for OS X and those developed in Linux for GNUStep enviroment.

Cocoa is based on the older Mac OS stuff.

They are made to appear and act in a similar fasion. Sort of what Redhat tried to do with KDE and Gnome with it's 'Bluecurve' project. That's what Aqua is.

 

[EssentialParadox]

You've got Carbon and Cocoa confused.
Cocoa is the complete unix-API-derivative, whereas Carbon still supports elements from the 'Classic' OS. But both are frequently used in OS X application programming.

But I don't want to get into a whole, "which OS is better" thing here because that'll never end. Plus I think halfadder covered it all pretty well already.

 

[halfadder]

You have those backwards. Carbon is the API from pre-OSX, Cocoa is the NeXT API. It's easy to remember -- cocoa tastes better than carbon.

Mac OS X isn't just based on NeXT, it *is* NeXT technology. NeXTstep and OpenStep used a lot of 4.xBSD technology. The developer releases of Mac OS X ("Rhapsody") were essentially OpenStep 5, the release versions of Mac OS X are essentially OpenStep 6.x. Most of the architecture and design of Mac OS X was already underway at NeXT before they "bought" Apple. After the merger, NeXT engineers essentually replaced the Apple engineers in almost every part of the business, aside from the Carbon implementation and Classic virtual machine.

As far as memory management in "Classic" Mac OS, it was pretty pathetic, but not bad for having its last major update before Windows 3.0 shipped. Mac OS 8.6 did gain some limited memory protection, which allowed users to finally actually "Force Quit" (rather than just have Force Quit lead to a crash anyway). But by the time 8.6 came out, clued users were already playing with OS X anyway, so the point is moot.

 

[EssentialParadox]

I know I said I wouldn't participate in a Windows vs OS X argument, but there is one big fact you Windows people can't deny, that I will just point out: Microsoft need to begin building a brand-new OS from the ground up. It's necessary for all Operating Systems. Apple took the massive plunge with losing the old OS's and starting a-fresh with OS X. There were initial problems, but now they're past that transition and they are now easily able to update frequently.
However Microsoft have kept the bloated Windows base for a long while now. The last update has taken 7 years. After Vista, another update would likely take 10 years, and so on. Whereas OS X is updated almost yearly.
Soon MS are going to need to start on a replacement, and considering Apple are already ahead, it's likely they'll get an even greater lead when this that time comes.

But, of course, it's a while away before this happens. Vista will last for a few years while Microsoft can ponder what to do. But at that point, the Windows vs OS X arguments won't be so balanced anymore.

 

[halfadder]

There's really no need to build a new version of Windows. Hardware keeps getting faster, ram and hard drives keep getting larger. People like compatibility. Microsoft can keep adding/updating more APIs with only minimal kernel changes, much like what they're doing with Vista.

With Linux gaining ground, Sun and Wyse pushing thin clients to businesses, Apple in bed with Intel... the WORST thing Microsoft could do is build a brand new OS.

 

[EssentialParadox]

My point is that it is taking Microsoft longer and longer to put out new OSes because Windows has become too large and unmanageable to update with any ease now. They started Longhorn around the beginning of 2001, I bet it won't be released until sometime in 2007. Considering the time they've been working on it, have they actually added anything worth calling a considerable update? It's just the fact that it's so freakin huge that it's taken so long; anything they want to add or update takes them a long time to navigate through everything to change just the smallest thing.
Imagine if they started working on the next OS now, right now. They can do it within at least 10 years. Do you think that's a realistic goal? Timeframe-wise, business-wise, or any-other-wise, their only choice is to start over. I'm willing to bet that anyone who worked on Vista/Longhorn for all these years will agree.

 

[drag]

Ya.. sorry about the cocoa and carbon thing. I always get those mixed up.

And I agree with Microsoft not-writing-a-new-OS. One of the things that Microsoft has done much better then Apple is maintain backward compatability. If they toss that out the window then they'd basicly screw themselves. Microsoft isn't going to want to have Linux with it's support for the Win32 API (called wine) to have superior compatability with older Windows applications then Windows.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox
I know I said I wouldn't participate in a Windows vs OS X argument, but there is one big fact you Windows people can't deny, that I will just point out: Microsoft need to begin building a brand-new OS from the ground up. It's necessary for all Operating Systems. Apple took the massive plunge with losing the old OS's and starting a-fresh with OS X. There were initial problems, but now they're past that transition and they are now easily able to update frequently.
However Microsoft have kept the bloated Windows base for a long while now. The last update has taken 7 years. After Vista, another update would likely take 10 years, and so on. Whereas OS X is updated almost yearly.
Soon MS are going to need to start on a replacement, and considering Apple are already ahead, it's likely they'll get an even greater lead when this that time comes.

But, of course, it's a while away before this happens. Vista will last for a few years while Microsoft can ponder what to do. But at that point, the Windows vs OS X arguments won't be so balanced anymore.

apple does update often but its useually minor and incremental and they charge each time. look at the old Mac OS, it was running essentially the same kernal since the OS 7 days (this was before windows 3.1 came out ! ). NT is not a half bad base, and it has seen incremental improvement over the past years since NT 4 was released.

 

[EssentialParadox]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
apple does update often but its useually minor and incremental and they charge each time.

So do Microsoft. :roll: And at a much higher price.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
apple does update often but its useually minor and incremental and they charge each time.

So do Microsoft. :roll: And at a much higher price.

umm...OMG two paid updates in 6 years OMG microsoft is evil they must die. apple has about 1 a year.

 

[halfadder]

Microsoft updates are usually cheaper too. I think Apple's updates are $79 for students, $129 for home/office users, and $199 for a 5-computer home family pack.

Newegg has the full version of XP Home OEM for $89.95, no previous version required. If you buy the 30-pack (for system builders) it drops the price down to $84.67.

$90 every 3 years is a damn sight cheaper than $129 every 16 months or so for Apple's OS updates*

*
Mac OS X came out short after Win2K came out. Since then Apple has had 3 costly upgrades and numerous point-release service packs. Microsoft has had 1 costly upgrade and only a couple service packs.
X Developer Preview 4 -> X public beta = 4 months
X public beta -> 10.0 = 6 months ($29, included $29 Off coupon towards 10.0)
10.0 -> 10.2 = 17 months (10.1 was a free upgrade)
10.2 -> 10.3 = 14 months
10.3 -> 10.4 = 18 months
10.4 came out less than 9 months ago
10.5 is due later this year

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Those are new OS's, not updates. Updates to the OS have always been free with Apple.

 

[EssentialParadox]

$90 every 3 years? What? Windows XP Home costs $199 new. Or you can upgrade from 98 for $99. And isn't it illegal to sell OEM versions of Windows?

Just because MS can't release new OSes as fast as Apple can, doesn't make Windows a better OS.
The changes in a new version of OS X are around the same amount you'll get in a new version of Windows. The fact is, new Apple OS features are more frequent, more common and newer than on Windows. It's a simple fact, right there.

 

[Nothinman]

And isn't it illegal to sell OEM versions of Windows?

No, it just has to be bundled with hardware. And even if it's $200 for 3 years, that's still under $70 a year which is a good bit less than what people are willing to pay for WoW.

Just because MS can't release new OSes as fast as Apple can, doesn't make Windows a better OS.

And just because Apple puts out releases every 6 months with a smaller price tag on them doesn't mean the opposite.

The fact is, new Apple OS features are more frequent, more common and newer than on Windows. It's a simple fact, right there.

So? For the price you paid for the hardware you had damned well better be getting something extra.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
apple does update often but its useually minor and incremental and they charge each time.

So do Microsoft. :roll: And at a much higher price.

umm...OMG two paid updates in 6 years OMG microsoft is evil they must die. apple has about 1 a year.

Apple's updates are major updates, as are Microsoft's. Apple just releases more often, which some of us like.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: halfadder
Microsoft updates are usually cheaper too. I think Apple's updates are $79 for students, $129 for home/office users, and $199 for a 5-computer home family pack.

Newegg has the full version of XP Home OEM for $89.95, no previous version required. If you buy the 30-pack (for system builders) it drops the price down to $84.67.

$90 every 3 years is a damn sight cheaper than $129 every 16 months or so for Apple's OS updates*

*
Mac OS X came out short after Win2K came out. Since then Apple has had 3 costly upgrades and numerous point-release service packs. Microsoft has had 1 costly upgrade and only a couple service packs.
X Developer Preview 4 -> X public beta = 4 months
X public beta -> 10.0 = 6 months ($29, included $29 Off coupon towards 10.0)
10.0 -> 10.2 = 17 months (10.1 was a free upgrade)
10.2 -> 10.3 = 14 months
10.3 -> 10.4 = 18 months
10.4 came out less than 9 months ago
10.5 is due later this year

Compare it to RETAIL XP pro, you know, something comparable.

 

[Sunner]

No, it just has to be bundled with hardware. And even if it's $200 for 3 years, that's still under $70 a year which is a good bit less than what people are willing to pay for WoW.

Well, WoW is fun, Windows is annoying.
Couldn't resist

Seems like a lot of people miss the fact that Apple is a hardware company, and the incentive they give people to buy their hardware is the software.
Much like Sun, they make a very popular UNIX dialect, but they do it to make money on their SPARC boxes(and AMD64 these days).

Apple makes OS X to sell Macs, if Apple made OS X available to your average Joe for him to run on his $300 eMachine, they'd be killing their hardware business.

As for OS X's superiority over Windows, in terms of performance, Windows will certainly outperform OS X in many ways once you start to scale up.
EssentialParadox, you make it sound like OS X is somehow better because it's newer, for example your silly comment about Windows supposed lack of good multitasking(I take it that's what you were gunning for with your comment about dedicating all resources to one process, etc).
If I'm not mistaken, OS X is actually quite a poor performer in many fields, threading performance mostly.

 

[Wuzup101]

One of the main advantages of OSX is it just works, increasing productivity in many fields. Apple supplys both the hardware and software and makes sure they work together well. If they made OSX for any x86 platform, not only would they kill their hardware buisness as Sunner correctly states, but OSX/mac experience would lose some of it's key advantages. I've built quite a few PCs, and windows does have it's strong points (more software and gaming compatability). That being said, I switched over to using a powerbook from a home built PC about a year and a half ago, and I will tell you that the powerbook, with OSX, is much more reliable from my point of view. There hasn't been one thing yet that it hasn't been able to do, save play the latest and greatest games. From a student's point of view, that's okay, as I have an x-box to play games on, and I can still play WoW enjoyably on my powerbook.

I also like the fact that I don't have to worry about getting viruses daily. In the year that I used my PC on campus (the one that's in my sig), it was virtually problem free. That is, until it got a virus a week before finals week - a headache to say the least. I had been using the corporate edition of symantic (sp?) antivirus provided by my school, and had been running updates daily and doing fully HDD sweeps at night, every night, and it still happened. The thing is, most of the people here are power users who are more computer savy than the normal PC user. You all are smart enough that windows works for you, and in many cases works well. However, in my own oppinion, and take that for what it's worth it's just an oppinion, OSX on a mac is better for the average joe user who doesn't need to run any speciality software designed only for windows. This is a HUGE HUGE HUGE portion of the personal computing market. Many people won't even try a mac because they are afraid of change (and I'll admit I was never a mac fan until I tried one at a computer lab). However, they won't hesitate to call me up to get rid of their popups, spyware, viruses, reformat their dell for the third time, etc... To anyone who just needs their computer for the average stuff (IE: internet access, watching movies, presentations, music, word processing, web design, minor graphics work, etc...) I find it hard not to recomend a mac over a PC. Now if you're a hardware buff, gamer, etc... there's nothing at all wrong with a windows PC, as long as you know what you're doing.

 

[Nothinman]

One of the main advantages of OSX is it just works, increasing productivity in many fields

Right, because no one's every complained about the little dialog with the bomb on it with the ever so descriptive "Error -666 occurred" or the need to "force quit" an app. Hell I think at one point in OS X's history if you mounted too many SMB shares it would kernel panic.

 

[EssentialParadox]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

One of the main advantages of OSX is it just works, increasing productivity in many fields

Right, because no one's every complained about the little dialog with the bomb on it with the ever so descriptive "Error -666 occurred" or the need to "force quit" an app. Hell I think at one point in OS X's history if you mounted too many SMB shares it would kernel panic.

[sarcasm]Well it's good to see you are a frequent OS X user[/sarcasm]
I've never even seen an "Error -666" message, or a bomb icon (isn't that in OS9 anyway?) or any kind of a kernal panic. Which is about 500 less than when I was a Mac hating PC user. It just doesn't happen on Macs. Simple as that.

You know, you can't really argue in a Mac vs PC argument unless you've used both systems a lot. I've used PCs for 9 years of my life and Macs for 3, yet I can say the difference is mega. But the thing is, you'll rarely find someone fighting for PCs who's actually used a Mac anything more than moving the mouse around on one in a PC store.

I went into a music technology class and got told we had to use Macs. I sighed at the thought we'd have to use these crappy baby toys.
At the end of the year I'd purchased my own.

nothinman - try it. You might like it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox

Originally posted by: Nothinman

One of the main advantages of OSX is it just works, increasing productivity in many fields

Right, because no one's every complained about the little dialog with the bomb on it with the ever so descriptive "Error -666 occurred" or the need to "force quit" an app. Hell I think at one point in OS X's history if you mounted too many SMB shares it would kernel panic.

[sarcasm]Well it's good to see you are a frequent OS X user[/sarcasm]
I've never even seen an "Error -666" message, or a bomb icon (isn't that in OS9 anyway?) or any kind of a kernal panic. Which is about 500 less than when I was a Mac hating PC user. It just doesn't happen on Macs. Simple as that.

You know, you can't really argue in a Mac vs PC argument unless you've used both systems a lot. I've used PCs for 9 years of my life and Macs for 3, yet I can say the difference is mega. But the thing is, you'll rarely find someone fighting for PCs who's actually used a Mac anything more than moving the mouse around on one in a PC store.

I went into a music technology class and got told we had to use Macs. I sighed at the thought we'd have to use these crappy baby toys.
At the end of the year I'd purchased my own.

nothinman - try it. You might like it.

I've seen plenty of Mac OS X kernel panics.

EDIT: Nothinman doesn't like anything non-Debian.

 

[EssentialParadox]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I've seen plenty of Mac OS X kernel panics.

Really? Where? What do they look like?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I've seen plenty of Mac OS X kernel panics.

Really? Where? What do they look like?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

They look like a machine crashing. A dialogue pops up and tells you that the system crashed. Then you reboot and hope it doesn't happen again.

 

[EssentialParadox]

Thanks for the very detailed and non-generic description, along with a circumstance on which it's happened (most likely it's OS9)

So a dialog pops up saying the system crashed? .....Seriously? I find that hard to believe.