Mac OS X

By all means, give me some hinters before I go out a regret what I by. Iv'e been with linux for about 2 years now and can navigate it with to gui, although I highly prefer gnome . Iv'e only recently been looking in some books that I have with a few macs in it. All help would be wonderful.

Oh, and happy memorial weekend all!

(Was surprised to see dreamhost employees on here over this weekend!)

Why am I here? They haven't loosened the chains yet, so it's a bit difficult to escape. I've been told that if I'm especially nice I might be able to take a day off in August. ;>

Actually, I just like to get a little extra work done on the weekends. Sometimes it's necessary (those evil spammers love weekends), and sometimes I have little else of interest to do. Go figure.

As for Mac OS X ... It is a bit different than Linux in that it is based more on the BSD line. But given the lineage, it's definitely not your father's (or mother's) Mac OS.

There's a command line, with all the stuff you'd expect (default shell is tcsh, although there's a precompiled bash shell out there if you're interested). Major unix commands and utilities are included (grep, perl, emacs, vi, locate, apache, etc), including a compiler and some really nice developer tools.

Most command-line BSD programs will compile straight from source. Sometimes you have to tweak the makefiles, but that's usually the most you'll need to do. Note that Mac OS X does _not_ use X Windows, so you'll either have to install an X server or find a true Mac equivalent.

However, it _is_ a Mac so there's a mostly Mac-like GUI on top of it. Some things have changed, but it's more like a Mac than anything else (including Gnome). I have some gripes with the GUI from a Mac-user point of view, but it's better than anything I've ever seen on top of a Unix derivative.

One major problem right now is that it's kind of slow in some respects. Window resizing is sluggish on hardware it really shouldn't be slow on, app launching takes a while, and so on. Program speed is actually pretty good once it's running, but sometimes you can get the feeling that the UI manipulation stuff could use some optimization. Apple has recently stated publicly that speeding things up is a top priority. The common fix, it seems, is to make sure your box has plenty of RAM.

On the stability front, the OS itself has been pretty much rock solid for me. I've never had a hard crash. Some applications are kind of buggy, but I can force quit them without taking down the OS.

Most major apps that you'll need are available or will be shortly. Coming from the Unix side of things, you probably wouldn't notice a lack of usable apps. One plus is that with few exceptions most 'classic' Mac apps will run just fine in a sort of virtual machine Apple includes with the OS.

All in all, it's the first Unix I'd suggest to the average ordinary person, but it has some perks with nice geek-appeal. It's more of a 1.0 than a 10.0 (it's essentially a brand new OS), but most of the bugs are being ironed out pretty quickly.

Any questions on specifics?

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Hi Jeff,

I recall reading on one of the Mac related sites awhile back that there would be some sort of simple WYSIWYG HTML editor included with OS X as a free app. Since the death of Claris Home Page and Adobe Page Mill, there doesn't seem to be an inexpensive WYSIWYG editor for the Mac platform anymore (unless you count Netscape Composer). Do you know anything about that editor, or was it just a rumor? I seem to recall a report that it was included in the OS X beta.

Kevin

Yup, I recall that there was a graphical WYSIWYG HTML editor in my beta copy. I'm pretty sure it got pulled out before the final though, as it doesn't seem to have come with my copy. I didn't use it, but it seemed like a solid enough app to bundle.

It kind of makes me wonder if maybe Apple is planning on rewriting it and making it a bit more robust, and offering it for free or at low cost like iTunes. Apple has been increasingly busy in making 'companion apps' lately...

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

---
Any questions on specifics?

---
BSD? Ew, Guess I'll have to do some research on their basics, or just skip to getting a Mac and learn via trial-error.

Yeah - I think I'm the main DH full timer with much BSD experience. We don't run BSD on many servers (except for a couple of OpenBSD boxes) but I use FreeBSD on my home and work machines. It's kind of hard to explain the differences from Linux because on the surface most things seem pretty much the same. The locations of stuff seem a bit random at first (why is it necessary to have both /etc/ and /usr/local/etc) but once you start to understand the rationale behind things it starts to make sense. Since *BSD is (arguably) a true Unix (regardless of whether it's techincally considered such), there are a lot of things that are there for historical reasons.

From a user's perspective there aren't really that many differences between Linux and FreeBSD except for minor differences. I do find that it's a bit more stable (although I miss Debian's System V style init scripts a bit). OpenBSD is a bit harder to deal with, or at least to install. I haven't really messed with NetBSD or BSDI.

The various major *BSDs....

FreeBSD (http://freebsd.org/) - probably the most popular. Runs on x86 and also Alpha I believe.

NetBSD (http://netbsd.org/) - emphasizes portability to a number of different platforms, and has been ported to quite a number.

OpenBSD (http://openbsd.org/) - is mostly concerned with security - all the code in their default tree is audited for holes and buffer overflows etc.

BSDI / BSD OS - (http://www.bsdi.com) - woah - looks like they have been acquired. This is a company that provides a commercial level BSD based OS, and support services for it.

Ok - so that was grossly over-simplified.... but you get the basic idea.

I believe that OSX actually uses a Mach kernel, and I'm not sure how much actual BSD source code is used, but it is designed to be BSD-like in its operation. I am actually kind of excited about OSX - I haven't played with it much except seeing at on other NDN employees' computers but so far I like what I see. Now if I could just get one of those pretty titanium powerbooks.......

That is one difference - Mac OS X does use Mach, so it's not truly a BSD (on the kernel level at least). It does use most of the BSD subsystem, though, including a lot of networking code.

Trivia: Another OS that used Mach would be OS/2, which was pretty well regarded by those who used it.

One thing that is different about X is that much of the stuff in /etc/ has been moved into a special database called NetInfo. It's sort of like the Windows registry, but it's supposedly much more robust (and network aware).

Historically I'm a Mac user, with some Linux experience built up in the last several years. A lot of X is really carried over from NeXTStep/OpenStep, which is an OS that most people don't have a lot of experience with. It really is its own beast. I know the 'old' Mac OS like the back of my hand, but this is something totally new.

...Which, for those geeky at heart, means it's tons of fun to poke at and learn. From a regular user point of view, it's basically a somewhat mutated Mac OS.

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Thanks Jeff,

I'm not a very "geeky" type, so I don't know much about all this (I'm just tired of Windows and anxious to move to OS X if it is what I'm looking for) but I was speaking with a local fellow who is a Mac tech and repair guy, and he said OS X has some real big bugs yet, and he said something about the swap file being in the wrong place (?) and other than that, it requires a lot of RAM to run properly.

I played with OS X on (I believe) a dual processor G4 with 512 megs of RAM. It ran like a dream, but with that much power anything should. I'm wondering if it's going to be of much use on say a 600 mhz processor with 256 megs of RAM.

Not being a techie person (I have no desire to be one) after playing with the Beta of XP for a few days, I'm ready to leave Windows behind, and am investigating OS X for my needs.

As for the WYSIWYG HTML editor in OS X, an affordable editor for the OS means a lot to me, as Dreamweaver and GoLive (which everyone tells me I *must* use) are to me insanely complicated. I call it "toolbar hell", lol. I do not wish to hand-code HTML any more than I want to build my own computer, but if computers were my career, I'm sure I'd feel otherwise. To me (a somewhat advanced home user) they are tools just as a typewriter and a 16mm camera used to be for me. I never built my own typewriter or camera either, nor did I make my own reversal film stock or typewriter ribbons. ;)

Okay, that's my ramble for the afternoon. :)

Kevin
cosmicman.com

Also, I've heard that the non-native (ie 0S 9) apps run pretty slow, which might be a concern depending on what you're running. I do 99 % of my work in either browser windows or shell windows / xterms, so for me that's not so much of a concern (since these are both available for OSX), but if you are going to need to run a lot of legacy apps or something that's not going to come out in a OSX native version that might be a concern (it actually has to load the other OS which is why it makes things so much slower).

I am definitely interested to give 0SX a shot (and if I get an ibook or something I can always install NetBSD or PPC Linux on it if I get bored).

Oh, don't get me wrong - while Mac OS X has some geek-oriented guts, it's not something you should have to deal with. Most of the Unix stuff is optional, and any function that requires you to drop to a command line is considered an absolute failure in the Mac world.

But the Mac tech you spoke to is right in that OS X is very new, and still pretty untested. It's a brand new OS more than a basic upgrade, and has some shaking out to do. If you're concerned about things not working perfectly out of the box, you may want to wait until Macworld Expo in July, when v10.1 (in reality, v1.1) of the OS is released. It sounds like it'll be a pretty major upgrade.

Since it was released in late March, there have already been 3 minor updates. So at least they're working on it.

If you buy a brand new Mac, you'll get both Mac OS 9 (which has been refined over a period of 17 years or so) and Mac OS X included. You can switch between the two just to play with the new OS and 'get things done' with the older OS, or just wait until it sounds like most of the kinks are out of the new one while you use OS 9. That way you can be productive out of the box.

And yes, Mac OS X _loves_ RAM, especially if you're going to run 'classic' software on top of it. You're basically running two operating systems at the same time when you do that. I wouldn't settle for anything under 128 MB for light use. On the plus side, RAM is dirt cheap now.

I'm using a 400 Mhz G3 with OS X right now, and while a little pokey in spots, it's more than usable for normal use).

Classic app performance isn't that bad, actually, unless you play games (the hardware acceleration isn't perfect yet). It's switching between Classic and regular Mac OS X apps that seems to be a bit slow for me. I usually try to keep classic turned off though (it doesn't have to stay running unless you want to use old apps).

Either way, it's all much better than Windows in my opinion. But I really don't like Windows, so make sure you get a variety of views before sinking a lot of money into a G4 or iMac. :>


- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Thanks for all the info.

I'm kinda looking at one of the new iBooks, but also waiting to see what the next batch of iMacs are like. I want simplicity more than anything, that's why those two appeal to me. I do have a Rev. B iMac, but it's a 233 and has gotten pretty poky by now, even with lots of RAM.

Kevin
cosmicman.com

The new iBooks are quite nice I think - much better than the previous revision. At the price point they're selling, too, I'd seriously clean in that direction instead of an iMac.

Plus, I don't really care for the new iMac colors. I never got into 60's hippy kitsch though. Too young. :>

I've been using a DreamHost-supplied PowerBook G3 for some time and have been very happy. There's a lot of freedom that comes with using a laptop, and LCD screens are much better for the eyes if you use it a lot.

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Well lol, I *almost* bought a Flower Power iMac last month; just being able to play "Love Shack" by the B-52s and watch the light show FX won me over. (I missed being a hippie but I *was* a "wannabe" back then. ;) ) Alas, my credit card balance and my wife's steely gaze convinced me otherwise. ;)

As for the other colors, I really liked a few of them, like the original Bondi Blue, and I do get a kick out of the Flower Power thing ('60s flashback?) ...but that Blue Dalmatian is just ghastly!

I have read that OS 9.1 is a lot better than 9.04. Is that true?

Anyway, If I can manage a laptop keyboard, the *new* iBook may be it.

Kevin
cosmicman.com

---
but that Blue Dalmatian is just ghastly!

The weird thing about the Blue Dalmatian scheme is the yellow "fuzz" mixed in with the blue and white. If it were only blue and white I wouldn't mind it so much...

My fav iMac colors were Bondi Blue, Blueberry, Indigo and Sage. And I kinda regret not getting a blue and white G3 and 17" monitor when they were available. The "Graphite" doesn't appeal to me.

What I meant about the laptop keyboard is that it seems so different from a standard keyboard...size, closeness of keys, etc. But at least they don't have that little "pencil eraser" thingy excuse for a mouse I've seen on some laptops.

Kevin
cosmicman.com

I actually don't mind the flower power too much... But I'd prefer sage, or (especially) grape from the original line. But hey, if they're getting into theme patterns, I can't wait until they put one out with a spiderweb pattern to appeal to the goth market. And little bat wings on the Apple logo. Now that I'd buy.

Seriously though, while the new iBooks rock (660 MHz plus a built-in CD-RW drive!) I have my hear set on a Titanium G4 Powerbook as my next machine. My G3 (beige desktop, 233 MHz) is starting to show its age, so I'm looking at a new machine within a year or so, and it will definitely be a laptop.

And I'm really looking forward to playing with OS X! Just the thought makes me salivate, and on a TiBook - OH YES!!! Er, sorry, got a little overexcited there. As a longtime Mac user (since System 6) with Linux longings, it's definitely the best of both worlds. And the best thing of all -- my hardcore geek friends don't sneer at me for being a Mac user any more. Instead, they glance warily around as though to make sure no one's listening, and whisper "Have you tried OS X yet?"

Lynna

Business: http://www.spidersilk.net
Personal: http://www.wildideas.net

Got to play with OS X Saturday on a 600 mhz iMac w/128 megs of RAM at another, and it seemed to run just fine. :) Also finally got to see and play with the new iBook, and I hadn't realized how much smaller than the Titanium Powerbook it is! Very nice, but I still don't think I'm ready for the flatness and closeness of a laptop keyboard.

I'm waiting to see what the next batch of iMacs are like, and what kind of color schemes are available as well. Macs in general (from my experience and my wife's) seem to be lower maintenance and higher productivity than Win PCs.

On closer inspection, the Blue Dalmatian iMac doesn't look *quite* so bad after all...but I'd like to see something like a Hubble Telescope Deep Space Photo version. :)

Kevin
cosmicman.com

Oops, slight correction:

"Got to play with OS X Saturday on a 600 mhz iMac w/128 megs of RAM at another *store*..."

Kevin
cosmicman.com

---
I'm waiting to see what the next batch of iMacs are like, and what kind of color schemes are available as well.

Yeesh, Talk about stair-stepping replies. Say, you think if we keep adding replace we can top the empire state building? Sorry, i'm in a good mood tonight (new job!).

Anyway, I too played with "OS X Monday on a 600 mhz iMac w/128 megs of RAM" while I was in CA. It crashed, 3 times. Odd, I always see the parts no-one else does. Anyway, in the end I ended up getting -another- Win2000box w/1ghz, 512mRam and a 40gigHD. Not the worlds best but I does what I need it todo. Maybe next time I have a box promotion I'll be more tempted to an iMac.

And no, it's not the crashes that pushed me away. It's the completely different GUI that really scares me...ew.

---
It crashed, 3 times