Feeds

back to article Apple's new non-feline Mac operating system, OS X Mavericks, ready to go

Apple has released the Golden Master (GM) verion of its upcoming OS X 10.9, aka Mavericks, to its developers, along with the GM version 5.0.1 of its integrated development environment (IDE), Xcode. Screen shot from Apple's Developer website announcing that the Golden Master of OS X 10.9, aka Mavericks, is now available OS X …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Paris Hilton

run out of cats?

nonsense, there're...

tabby

brown tabby

marmalade

persian

tortoiseshell

moggy

bengal

burmese

manx

...that'll do for ten years, plenty more after that

'mavericks', ugh, bunch of californians with over inflated egos thinking the rest of the world will bask in their trite place names

i'm sticking with snow leopard, by far the best of all the os x releases, cute kittens too

8
0

Re: run out of cats?

Those are all breeds, not species.

Of course, I firmly believe that Apple missed out on a golden opportunity. If they had release OSX Maru, I would have bought multiple copies just cause. :)

2
0

Re: run out of cats?

And then there’s

Felix

Top Cat

Jinx

Tom

or, if you prefer,

hellcat

magnificat

or

catastropohe

catatonic

cataclysm

… the list goes on.

2
0

Re: run out of cats?

I know where he's coming from.

Eagerly awaiting OS X Goose

2
0

Re: run out of cats?

i'm sticking with snow leopard, by far the best of all the os x releases, cute kittens too

Nice to see that I am not the one using Snow Leopard. The only problem is I can't upgrade past Xcode 4.2, it is a bit buggy. Also took a while to stop curing single window interface... so much.

0
0

Re: run out of cats?

Mavericks ... yuck ... Croydon or Hull would do nicely.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: run out of cats?

There are now over 2,000 known security vulnerabilities in OS-X. That's worse than pretty much any OS bar a few Linux distributions....

0
1
Joke

Re: run out of cats?

Ceiling cat?

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: run out of cats?

Neither Croydon or Hull have decent surf

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: run out of cats?

Surf? But they have got proper pubs and they are not in USA.

0
0
PJI
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: run out of cats?

2000? Evidence? Or just spuddling? Anonymity for such a claim leads me to the latter conclusion.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: run out of cats?

"There are now over 2,000 known security vulnerabilities in OS-X."

And OSX have no need to run no anti-virus software only because no one wants to target them blah, blah, blah. They are about to learn their lesson, yawn, and (for the 11th year running) the security train is about to come off the tracks, zzzzz.

Never mind the users feel safe because the OS has PROVEN to be one of the most secure and the users don't ever seem to encounter the supposed cataclysmic issues the (almost invariably non-OSX using) detractors have spent years wishing will become the next big security crash.

3
1
Silver badge
Coat

Re: run out of cats?

I can't believe in all the lists of "xxxx cat" above, no-one has yet mentioned "pussy" ...

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: run out of cats?

Actually the reason OS X doesn't need to run anti-malware software is because it does run it, it is called Gatekeeper and it comes bundled with the os.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Won't cost as much as a copy of Win 8.

4
0
Bronze badge

Microsoft doesn;t charge for service packs, Apple does

3
13
Silver badge

Total paid to Apple since 2005 if you kept up with every release (so, you bought 10.4 and everything since) in US dollars: 129 + 129 + 29 + 29 + 19 = $335

Total paid to Microsoft since 2005 according to the same rules (starting with an upgrade to Vista, assuming 'home' versions): 99 + 119 + 119 = $337

10
3

Which version are you including? Windows 7 ultimate is showing up as $179 on amazon.com right now.

Vista ultimate was far more expensive..like over $250. Windows 7 was over $200 too if you had bought it in 2009.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/06/windows-7-pricing-announced-cheaper-than-vista/

and vista's launch cost was $450 http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/30/windows-vista-ultimate-450-us/

But even if you take your prices into account, that only just works out because of Apple's price structure change. In the next 8 years, if prices stay the same, OS X is 80% cheaper.

That and $19 covers as many installs as you want. Apple even has a help article on it http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4854

If you want to stay legal on Windows, it'll cost you for each machine.

11
1
Anonymous Coward

Home editions are not an equivalent comparison - Microsoft charge extra for features like remote desktop that you get as standard on a Mac. Full disk encryption, decent backup utility - need I go on.

These days you get OS X with your Mac and pay about £14 for the upgrades which are far more than 'service packs' - which is cheap when you even compare the current price for Windows 7 to 8 which many would regard as a step back.

6
2

Since 2005

Only if you are counting from 2005, you could not have purchased a mac in 2005 which would still be capable of running the latest version of OSX... You would have bought new hardware at least once in that time, which would have come with a then-current version of OSX anyway.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Key difference being you don't have to upgrade in Microsoft land just to keep security updates going for more than 2 years. it is quite likely that most users of windows never upgrade version or only does so once. So it's not comparing it fairly, OS 10 was released in 2001 and has not been supported for as long as say XP (I had a Mac with 10.1 on!). Oh and you can't now skip a version of OSX, the App Store forces you to go one at a time, you can skip with windows.

BTW We have 2 Macs and 2 PCs so I am not trying to stir just point out the differences,

2
3

Total amount of

time wasted installing or reinstalling your OS.

Apple 2 hours.

M$ 2 weeks.

3
1
Stop

Re: Total amount of

Windows vs OS X pricing is pointless unless you take Pro pricing as your comparison.

I have two machines with Win7 Home on them, and had to pay either £60 for an upgrade to Win8 Pro or £179 for a Win7 Pro license. Why? So I could install more than 16GB RAM.

Sorry, but M$ can f$ck off.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Total amount of

time wasted installing or reinstalling your OS.

Apple 2 hours.

M$ 2 weeks.

If it takes you 2 weeks you may want to check our Acronis True Image. Until I switched to Mac that was my daily backup routine, and it saved my rear end twice. I very much prefer a backup that supports a restore from the ground up, which is why I use Carbon Copy Cloner on the Mac (a full restore from Time Machine is also possible, but I've never found the need to try).

2
0
Anonymous Coward

And if you allow for the circa $500 Apple tax that you paid for the OS on the original hardware purchase where does that leave the balance?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Total amount of

"time wasted installing or reinstalling your OS."

I guess you haven't used Windows for a while. It is MUCH faster to install than OS-X. And you have far fewer security patches / updates to install with a current version of Windows than with OS-X....

0
0

Re: Total amount of

Speaking as one who 2 weeks ago installed a clean Windows 8, I spent a whole day installing updates going back years - not for Windows 8, but for all the software and SDKs I had to install to do my job. Framework and security updates dating back to what must be XP days.

To be expected perhaps, but I didn't have nearly half as much of that nonsense in OS X with a clean install.

Also, Win 8 does a wonderful job of hiding the Desktop Windows 8 Update from the common user - the Metro interface options only let you either: Update Automatically, or Don't Update.... No 'let me know' option. Stupid.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Total amount of

"To be expected perhaps, but I didn't have nearly half as much of that nonsense in OS X with a clean install."

But your issue was due to other software you chose to install - nothing to do with the base OS....

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Total amount of

It still sits in the Control Panel options like always.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Total amount of

And you have far fewer security patches / updates to install with a current version of Windows than with OS-X....

BS. I happen to run both OSX and Windows. What gets updated often in OSX are individual apps, which is a side effect of them being so cheap you can have many of them helping you in your work. When it comes to Windows there's so much they had to concentrate it into a couple of fixed days so you could plan ahead for the waste of bandwidth that day. OSX's core does get updates, but it actually surprised me to see two in the span of a week.

0
0

Re: Total amount of

"But your issue was due to other software you chose to install - nothing to do with the base OS...."

When the parts of the base OS at the time the software was written (DirectX, .NET, etc) require re-patching with yet more windows updates to allow it to run, then yes it has plenty to do with the base OS.

Windows is more than it's install didk: it's a whole trove of legacy libraries and frameworks. When you install a Windows OS, you're not installing the "whole" package.

You can say the same for most OS's, but OS X isn't even remotely in the same ballpark as Windows.

0
0

Re:

Yeah they do.

They just piss off all their users by changing the UI to justify it.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Total amount of

I wouldn't count on that. It took me a couple of hours, plus one e-mail to EA tech support, to migrate my Mac from Snow Leopard to Lion (ok, so I was doing a migration from a old hackintosh running SL to a proper Mac Mini running Lion. The e-mail to EA tech support was because for some reason my key to Plants Vs Zombies, which I snagged during an EA giveaway, had become unusable). I imagine that it would have took me two weeks too if I were to do a clean upgrade- had to download my apps all over after all, and XCode is one huge SOB.

0
0
MCG

Re: Total amount of

Well, sure - if you're a f*****g idiot or totally incompetent. Troll.

0
0
N2

To be honest

I couldnt give a shit about it, I would like an update to return the 'save as' feature to Lion.

If not, its back to Snow Leopard

1
1
Silver badge

Re: To be honest

Top tip: in 10.8 and above (so, I assume also the pending 10.9 though I haven't used it), hold down 'option' while the file menu is open. The hated 'Duplicate' will turn back into 'Save As...'

If your hands are up to it, shift+option+command+S is the appropriate keyboard shortcut.

1
0

Re: To be honest

Seriously? Not used a Mac in years, but if you have to put up with that kind of crap - no thanks.

1
1
Bronze badge

Optional

And don't forget that by default it saves changes to the new file to the original as well, so remember to untick that option.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: To be honest

"Save as" is the perfect example of how users get used to bad practice and obstinately wish to remain with what they are used to.

"Save as" is responsible more than anything else for file system detritus, with multiple versions of files littering the filing system where there is no clear cardinal working version. A recipe for disaster. When you consider that OSX now has versioning built right-in why, oh why do you need "save as"?

If you are renaming, use the rename function. On OSX you keep a single file with *all previous versions in it and browsable (with a handy comparison tool) and retrievable* and you won't end up with different versions littered everywhere and end up forgetting what the crap each one was for.

If you are starting a branched version, use the "duplicate" command. You will end up with a duplicate version you will be prompted to give a new name when you next save and you will also be explicitly prompted to save the old version before you exit that one too. The problem with using "save as" for making duplicates is users often forget to save a version before they use "save as", so what is in that version they have left behind, well um they aren't too sure when they last saved it, so better just leave it there for ever and f**king ever because the file is in that all important intermediate state "I'm not sure what but, hell, one day I might need it."

Like we need more of that in our lives.

Cm'on, engage brain, tell me one way "save as" can remotely be seen as better than using "duplicate" and "rename" commands.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Lets see if my remining two Intel Macs will now be cut off from upgrading. My 2007 Mac Pro couldn't upgrade a while back and then it's PSU died anyway.

I like the OS, just the price of the computers sucks.

1
1

Woah!

My 2006 HP Pavilion is still providing excellent service, and Microsoft are still supporting its OS.

Well, at least they will be until April.

Oh, yes, its battery hasn't worked for a while. But even so...

2
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

The next released after Mavericks will be Compton? What's that, an NWA tribute?

1
1

Ahh Compton. I've been there once, in a helicopter, it actually has an airfield which threw me somewhat. The 'I've heard it all before' tone in the voice of the air traffic controller as I reported I was 'straight out of Compton' did tarnish the experience somewhat.

5
0
Silver badge

Compton

It's also the name of an X compositor, so Apple might have hard time establishing that trademark.

Not that somebody else using the same name has ever stopped them before...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Worthwhile Features?

Compressed memory? App Nap? These sound like ways of making a machine slower.

The same result in speed and power saving could be achieved by running the CPU at only 300MHz...

1
8

Re: Worthwhile Features?

"Compressed memory? App Nap? These sound like ways of making a machine slower."

Compressed memory is used as a strategy to avoid page swapping for VM, so it actually makes the machine faster. The computational cost of doing the compression/decompression is significantly smaller than the I/O cost of making the slow, expensive trip out to hard drive storage.

7
0

Re: Worthwhile Features?

Actually much of the wasted power in the CPU goes on static power which can only be mitigated by turning down the voltage. So it turns out to be more effective to run the CPU more-or-less flat out until you've completed present workload, then halt CPU and wind the supply voltage down to minimum that will maintain state whilst waiting for an event that requires servicing. Reverse the sequence to resume processing. I would guess that the mac hardware products have this little trick completely optimized already.

I don't know what App Nap is.

I am a little more skeptical about the VM impact of compressed pages.

There are certain obvious "compressions" which are really de-duplications, but I assume that Mac OS X already does these (i.e. only load the code portion of a shared library once and map it into the process space of each executable that's using it)

To make it work well with dirty pages, you would need a particular type of workload that leant itself to this - the most obvious being that you are using 6 applications but each one is full screen so that when you application switch (alt-tab?) between them the ex-active one's dirty pages will become eligible for compression and the newly-active one will cause it's pages to be decompressed (the latter forcing the former). This might be how people use Macs, in which case fair enough.

1
1

Re: Worthwhile Features?

Grr. It's vs its ... apologies.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Worthwhile Features?

Compressed memory is not a new idea, but it is a good idea for certain system usage patterns. These days even a web browser can gobble stupid amounts of RAM and in-memory compression is typically faster than disk paging (and less damaging to flash storage devices).

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zram

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.