My First Impressions of OS X

**Siliconjunkie** · January 12th, 2005, 11:21 PM

Keep in mind that I consider myself an expert on Windows (MCSE on NT4 and 2000), fairly proficent on Linux/Unix from a desktop standpoint.

After Apple introduced the $499 mini yesterday, I was talking to a co-worker about it, that I had never really messed with OS X. He offered to loan me a 500 mhz G4 to get my feet wet.

So, I bring it home today, plug it in and fire it up.

Takes me a few moments to get my bearings, find the network setup and get it talking. Not too terrible, looks nice.

So, I fireup iChat and set it up for my AIM account. Find the bubbles for the conversation overly "cutsy", make a mental note to look for how to change that, but never get around to it.

Next, I head over to http://messenger.msn.com and grab the MSN client. Easy install, pretty familiar.

Now I figure out that clicking on the "x" in the upper left does not actually close the app, it just minimizes it. Which makes me wonder why the hell it has "x" and "_", all I can figure is that they send them to a different place on the chooser thinger. Seems like a big brain fart to me, but I also suspect there is something I don't know about what is happneing. Either way, it needs to be more clear what is happening. A less experienced user could end up with all kinds of junk running and never know it.

Overall, on a glance, it didn't thrill me alot. I will spend some more time with it and see how it develops.

On the aplication side, the Mac version of Outlook did not impress me one bit. I set it up to connect to my Exchange server and after an hour, it still hadn't completely synced up. Really stunk. To be fair, this is not a Mac problem, but something to keep in mind.

I had heard that OS X would mount windows shares out of the box. So, I setout to do this. After trying a few things and failing, I read around and find out that in order for this to work, you have to turn off all the encryption for SMB. I quickly decided that I am not going to hack all my Windows machines to let this guy connect to shares. I will need to do some more research, but I fail to see what all the fuss is about on this. We could accomplish the same thing with FTP before.

Sofar, I have been able to find applications to do most anything I want to, usenet and a few other things.

On the performance side, I would compare it to a similar speed machine with XP. Nothing earthshaking.

I did like the way it installs and how easy uninstalling is.

Anyhow, this is just my rambling, I will update it as I play with it more.

**Bob The Great** · January 15th, 2005, 05:31 AM

something fun to try is plugging stuff into it. From camera's to printers and everything else I've plugged in just works without drivers. Linux does this a bit too (or a lot, not used linux a lot).

The "x" problem your having where it just minimizes it into the bar thingy. Basically you have closed the program. Its not really taking up any resources for the most part, there are a few exceptions to this but for the most part they take up little or no resources. So you don't have to close applications you use a lot while you game or whatever. I always Apple+Q to get out of an application. Also remember Apple+W closes a single window.

Expose is probably something you've messed with a bit. On that old a system it probably doesn't run great (is this os-x 10.3.5 or so?) Its a big time saver!

I don't know about your mounting problem, it sounds like you have a much better handle on it then I. For the most part my iBook networks with windows pc's better then the windows pc's do. My guess is it isn't 10.3.x your using. I think it might work a lot better, the whole apple religion has been pushing "being a good neighbor" to windows.

good luck on your test drive, hope you enjoy it.

**vikeor** · January 15th, 2005, 06:22 AM

apples suck....

**Bob The Great** · January 17th, 2005, 12:41 AM

nice avatar man

ooh BURNNNNN!!

**Mr.Macintosh** · January 17th, 2005, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by vikeor

apples suck....

Was that really necessary? Now we know your opinion. Thank you. It would be ironic if he had an iPod.

Hope you like OS X. Also, if you could, I would get the Mac Mini. If you would get a faster and better machine OS X will perform better for you and you will like it even more.

**GameManK** · January 17th, 2005, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.Macintosh

Was that really necessary? Now we know your opinion. Thank you. It would be ironic if he had an iPod.

Hope you like OS X. Also, if you could, I would get the Mac Mini. If you would get a faster and better machine OS X will perform better for you and you will like it even more.

iPods suck

i think you're missing some words there. are you saying the Mini is good or bad?

**Mr.Macintosh** · January 17th, 2005, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by GameManK

iPods suck

i think you're missing some words there. are you saying the Mini is good or bad?

The Mac Mini is a good computer for the basic stuff. it has a 1.25 Ghz G4. He has a 500 Mhz G4. I have a Powermac G4 at 400 Mhz running Jaguar and it does ok job of handling the OS. I have a 1 Ghz G4 Powerbook and Panther screams. I think if he got a Mac Mini, the speed boost of the processor will make him like OS X more.

**RayH** · January 17th, 2005, 11:16 AM

For basic computing, OS X isn't too terribly complicated. I was playing with my sister's new iMac 20" widescreen. It's awesome! I just thought that if her nine year old daughter could figure out how to work it, so could I.

The best kept secret of Mac is that OS X natively supports a USB two button scrolling mouse! The standard Mac one button mouse does definitely need to be trashed.

**Siliconjunkie** · January 17th, 2005, 11:57 AM

Ok, didn't have much time to spend with it this week, so I don't have much else to add.

But, there is one thing.... And it's a doozie.

Why, oh why do all the browsers on this thing suck so bad? Safari, IE, Firefox, tried all of them and didn't care for any of them. Several issues presented themsleves, some of which could be attributed to webpage design, some are system/browser problems.

1) The fonts have a very "X-Windows" feel to them, they just don't look that good. I would say this is a system problem since they looked about the same on all the browsers.

2) Constant formatting issues on webpages. Tables would be wonky sometimes and other oddities. This seemed to not be the same in all the browsers, so if page A looked wonky in Safari, it may look normal in IE. This may be a webpage coding issue, but IE and Firefox on Windows don't seem to have this many problems.

3) I can now say that Java sucks, regardless of what platform it is on. It is evil and should be banned and the folks that created it should be forced to use nothing but it for all of eternity. This has nothing to do with OS X, but a related observation.

I will keep messing with it. Still undecided if I am willing to spend $499 to have a mini. The increase in speed would be nice, but I need to determine if the OS suits my quirks before spending the money.

**GroundZero3** · January 17th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by vikeor

apples suck....

please take your thread crapping else where

**gberz3** · January 17th, 2005, 01:11 PM

Having been recently enough "converted" from Windows to Mac (just before all the hype), I'd like to add my 2¢ if that's ok.

To my knowledge, there isn't a single thing between the Mac OS X and *nix community that isn't being done; besides video games. Yes, if you're a gamer, then by all means get a PC or, even better, a console. Not that Macs can't do it, but developers are for the most part (and I see this at work as well) too closed minded to go against "marketing".

As far as operation and performance, there are certainly more than a few differences. One of the most notable, as was brought out earlier is the "window closing" issue. The Macintosh paradigm is that of a MDI (Multiple Document Interface). Applications don't believe that simply because you happen to be closing the last window in an app that you necessarily want to quit the application itself. You could potentially be running processes in the background, or maybe want to keep it open for use in a moment without needing to go back and relaunch the entire app (I'd point to Photoshop as a prime example of an app you wouldn't want to have to reopen just because you closed the last window). Or with web browsing, it would get rather annoying to have to relaunch Safari, or Firefox, or IE (if you actually still use IE) just because you closed the last page you lost interest in.

One thing I would recommend is that you try OS X on faster machines 1.25 GHz or faster. As was brought out earlier by SILICONJUNKIE, I believe, OS X running on a 500MHz machine was as fast as his XP machine; it's even better on faster machines.

Another key is the ability to develop or add to programs that already exist with minimal cost. For instance, for most items (sorry, this doesn't much apply to the "cutsyness") changing attributes is as simple as editing an XML ".plist" file. If there is a system library you don't like, you have access to most of them and have the ability to (if you are so masochistic) change libraries; FOR FREE! No purchasing VISUAL STUDIO or one of 999,999 other costly development apps out there like with Windows.

This is an interesting thread, however, and I would like to keep updated and see what develops. Kudos to you SILICONJUNKIE for being open minded enough to at least try something before just ranting about it. You just earned about 1000 points on the CREDIBILITY-O-METER.

**Shabow** · January 17th, 2005, 01:23 PM

I have always thought that someone should make a Linux distro that would be very user friendly with little command prompt use and would also be compadible with Windows made software.

**gberz3** · January 17th, 2005, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Shabow

I have always thought that someone should make a Linux distro that would be very user friendly with little command prompt use and would also be compadible with Windows made software.

Please excuse the inconsistency in writing as I am still feeling the effects of about a 1/3 bottle of NyQuil.

Windows model is not open enough, SHADOW. They use too many proprietary (and somewhat useless) frameworks. If anything, Windows should improve their model and come into sync with *nix. You're trying to take something "bad" (excuse my blasphemy, Windows users) and make it a perpetual standard, instead of taking something that is "good" but somewhat more complex to use and make it more useable. If you're speaking of simply PORTING then yes, I'd say we're all for that, but you can't expect companies, and certainly not Apple, to port every single, say, ACTIVEX API simply to be compatible with Windows; not reasonable or useful. Many things need to simply be rewritten.

Also, just my opinion, but I believe that endusers should take more an interest in getting educated (e.g. become more familiar with shells and the command line). This would not only speed up development time and "time to market" for many products, but would, again, in my opinion, make applications evolve in a much greater way. User demand for things to be constantly visual and simple certainly approaches the point of diminishing returns.

. . .where's that NyQuil?

**Shabow** · January 17th, 2005, 01:37 PM

I don't like the windows framework either gberz3. But I think more people would be willing to switch if they could play games and use programs in Linux. Just a thought.

**jml90** · January 17th, 2005, 01:38 PM

I've used Os X and I really liked it

**gberz3** · January 18th, 2005, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Shabow

I don't like the windows framework either gberz3. But I think more people would be willing to switch if they could play games and use programs in Linux. Just a thought.

Point taken. Although I have to admit that I don't necessarily believe in switching for the sake of switching. The noble thing would obviously be for MS to swallow their "code" and create an overall better OS. But as unlikely as that is to happen, looks like *nix ports are currently the best option. Time will tell.

**gberz3** · January 18th, 2005, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by jml90

I've used Os X and I really liked it

Cool, care to expand?

**ShawnD1** · January 18th, 2005, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Shabow

I don't like the windows framework either gberz3. But I think more people would be willing to switch if they could play games and use programs in Linux. Just a thought.

I would disagree with that. Even if Linux was compatible with Windows, Linux will still need serious work to be compatible with Linux. Something compiled on Mandrake works for Mandrake only. Something compiled for Red Hat is Red Hat only. Suse - Suse only. Debian - Debian only. Even different versions from the same group are not compatible with each other. A package from Mandrake 8 won't work on Mandrake 10.

Well, I think I've jacked enough threads for this evening

**SpookyEddy** · January 19th, 2005, 06:24 AM

Something compiled for Red Hat is Red Hat only. Suse - Suse only. Debian - Debian only.

This is not true. Under certain circumstances code may be linked to libraries that are in a distribution specific location or something similar but for the most part binaries are portable (assuming the same platform, x86 for example).

Even different versions from the same group are not compatible with each other. A package from Mandrake 8 won't work on Mandrake 10.

Again this is not the case, in general packages are backwards compatible, you can even install Red Hat rpm's on a Mandrake box as often as not. It also raises the question, are you talking about incompatabilities between package management systems or just precompiled binaries?

Either way, both statements are false IMO.

Regards

ed

**Darknyt** · January 19th, 2005, 09:24 AM

Hello all. Was born a MS Windows user, but changed to Mac OS X for all my non-gaming needs about a year and four months ago. I personally like the GUI on Macs better than on Windows. But enough of the exterior, lets look at the interior of my Aluminum 15" screen PowerBook G4. Quick specs.... 1.25 GHz G4 cpu/512MB DDR333/80GB (Quiet)HDD/ Mac OS X 10.3.7 (Panther). I believe that Mac OS X needs to be run on machines with cpu speed over 1 GHz. Certainly no one here in their right mind would run Windows XP using a 500 MHz cpu and 128 MB PC-100 RAM (Although I once worked with a cat that used to run Windows XP using a P3 700MHz cpu and 786MB PC-133 RAM. Since then, he has upgraded to using his PC for nefarious profiteering, thus upgrading to a P4 system). In my experience, OSX was and still is easier to use than Windows. This is just my opinion. Networking setup without a flaw. I used to have to battle with Windows just to get the network runing smooth. I guess it depends on the user really. Expose on OSX is a GOD send. Thanks for something truly useful Mr. Jobs. Using that, I can see all the different application windows that I have open at once, and choose which one I want to work on. I have never been able to crash this operating system itself, but certain programs like Yahoo Messanger have failed me in the past as well as the present. I can excuse that, because I dont have to reboot the machine. Now the Mac Mini is something I would like to have in my home, but I cannot justify having two PowerBook G4's and a killer gaming PC in my 2 bedroom apartment as it is....... Funny how that works....cant justify putting in another computer in the apartment which would only run me $500, but had no problem justifying the purchase of a 42" Panasonic Plasma TV in August and 22" Chrome wheels for my Expo in November. Man I really need to reorganize my priorities. At least i'll be buying a house this year. Thats a good start.