16 Nov
2000
16 Nov
'00
2:50 a.m.
"Cameron Kaiser" wrote:
Actually, I saw OS X on my friend's G4 and I'm
a believer. Apple finally
did something right -- I could actually get a shell! And it's the only Unix
implemention I think that adequately hides the nuts and bolts from the dummy
user without obstructing someone like me from getting into the guts. I could
get a real man page. Cool!
I also liked it for the most part. However, I did not like
that it needs 128MB to run (though Apple said that the
final version will run in 64MB), nor the fact that the cd comes
without the development environment; that you have to
get separately. Also, I still don't quite like the
"gelcap" look nor the positioning of the window buttons.
But it is a huge improvement, and the best part is
that finally, there is a Mac OS with memory protection.
For me, this was the weakest point of MacOS, in fact
a most serious flaw.
--
Carlos Murillo-Sanchez email: cem14(a)cornell.edu
428 Phillips Hall, Electrical Engineering Department
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
16 Nov
16 Nov
5:48 a.m.
But it is a huge improvement, and the best part is
that finally, there is a Mac OS with memory protection.
For me, this was the weakest point of MacOS, in fact
a most serious flaw.
But it's NOT a MacOS with memory protection. It's a Unix with
memory protection, and a bag on the side to run old programs
(poorly).
11:56 a.m.
But it is a
huge improvement, and the best part is
that finally, there is a Mac OS with memory protection.
For me, this was the weakest point of MacOS, in fact
a most serious flaw.
But it's NOT a MacOS with memory protection. It's a Unix with
memory protection, and a bag on the side to run old programs
(poorly).
12:41 p.m.
I wrote:
But it's NOT a MacOS with memory protection.
It's a Unix with
memory protection, and a bag on the side to run old programs
(poorly).
Cameron wrote:
Yes, this is true. Old MacOS apps don't really get
the benefit of all the
new kernel offers. At least you can reboot the Classic environment if one of
them brings it down, but then that brings all the Classic apps down.
On the other hand, the old MacOS architecture is so long in the tooth I think
a drastic measure like this is totally necessary.
I agree with your last point. In fact, I think they should have done it
much earlier, like when they transitioned to the PowerPC. Better late
than never, I suppose.
Engineers I know are not very happy with the OS X though. They tell me
it doesn't do a very good job of being either Unix or a Mac. When the
edict comes down from the top that everyone *must* use OS X, there are
going to be many unhappy engineers.
I haven't tried it myself so I can't comment.
1:34 p.m.
Eric Smith wrote:
Engineers I know are not very happy with the OS X
though. They tell me
it doesn't do a very good job of being either Unix or a Mac. When the
edict comes down from the top that everyone *must* use OS X, there are
going to be many unhappy engineers.
I haven't tried it myself so I can't comment.
I think it has two main problems, the biggest being it is to flashy, but
also the problem that it's got UNIX underneath, but doesn't included
X-Windows. Something along the lines of the old A/UX would have been nice.
My first exposure to Mac's was a Mac IIfx that Honeywell morphed into a
workstation running A/UX 2.0.
The flashy problem has partially been addressed by allowing you to change
the button colours from 'aqua' to 'charcoal'. What ticks me off is that
the
classic Mac and the NeXT interfaces were very sleek. The new interface is
far from what I'd consider sleek!
As for having tried it, I have, but not extensively. If I could find time
to do more than just play with it, it might grow on me. As it stands, it's
made a bad initial impression on me to the extent that Motif and CDE seem
preferable!
Zane
3:36 p.m.
The flashy problem has partially been addressed by
allowing you to change
the button colours from 'aqua' to 'charcoal'. What ticks me off is that
the
classic Mac and the NeXT interfaces were very sleek. The new interface is
far from what I'd consider sleek!
Really? I found it quite compelling, especially the rasterised icons and
the transparency effects, and the "warping" window animation. XWindows is
IMHO antiquated by comparison: I've never liked GNOME or KDE, for example.
Give me a text login any day compared to those, but the OS X interface is
to me clean and sophisticated.
As for having tried it, I have, but not extensively.
If I could find time
to do more than just play with it, it might grow on me. As it stands, it's
made a bad initial impression on me to the extent that Motif and CDE seem
preferable!
I got a lot of time to play with it on a G4, and I really was blown away
from the first minute. Maybe I'm just easily
impressed, but I think it's
a nice Unix system (well, okay, I'm happy with
anything that runs Perl, and
it runs Perl :-), and I dig the interface. For me, the sour note is
compatibility, but I suppose a break from the past was needed sometime.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- TODAY'S DUMB TRUE HEADLINE: Enfield Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide --
8585
days inactive
8585
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
cem14＠cornell.edu -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu