Apple Mac OS X: ten years old today
Mac OS X is - formally - ten years old today. The first full release, then simply codenamed 'Cheetah' - only later did the cat branding become part of Apple's marketing drive - was made available to Mac users on 24 March 2001, six months after the operating system made an appearance in public beta test form. Mac OS X Cheetah UI …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Powershell...
Is bundled with 2008/Win7. It's also very good indeed, there is even a linux port project in work.
Powershell
Can I do "ssh me@myserver"? If so then you've got a sale, if not (as I suspect) then I think I'll pass.
Putty
The problem with that is I hate putty. Have you tried using putty with key auth? You cant use your standard ssh/rsa key, it has to be "converted" using a seperate app so that putty can use it. Why? Then there is the abominable copy/paste. Why on earth would you write a program that automatically pastes every time you copy? You select and copy a bunch of text in a putty console and it goes and pastes the whole lot to the command line again. Why? Who would want to do that? Have they not heard of the clipboard?
No, i really hate putty. I'll stick with gnome shell thanks.
@Goat Jam
Funnily I did wonder how you'd object to Putty, I haven't tried to use key auth, so I'll give you that one. However, the copy and paste functionallity copies when you highlite then pastes when you right click. It doesn't automatically paste whenever you copy.
Anyway, here is a list of ssh clients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_SSH_clients
You could try OpenSSH.
I musdt be in the odd camp then...
...because macs don't really do what I want them to do anymore.
I'm no longer ashamed to say I'm happy with Windows.
Hate to say this but...
> What does a windows box do that a Mac doesn't?
Macs are poorly equipped to deal with creative end users.
Apple tools are fine so long as you rigidly conform to what the system developers think is a good way to do things. Once you get beyond that, the "great Apple experience" kind of falls apart. It's more about the "we know what's good for you" mentality of Apple than anything else.
It's almost like Windows in that respect.
It's a much more bearable system if you ignore as much of the vendor supplied stuff as possible. Although in this case it is features and flexibility rather than crashes and malware.
It's best if you don't stray off the reservation.
RE: What does a windows box do that a Mac doesn't?
Games.
Although, I take the point you can boot into windows natively on a mac, but then your mac is now a windows box isn't it?
If Windows 7 was out 10 years ago
I'd probably wouldn't have migrated to a Mac ;-)
Light but interesting piece. Scarily I have that exact same box sitting in my media library and still running on the original Yosemite Mac.
I like OS X though now on Snow Leopard, it has moved on a lot. And Spotlight has made the finder as good as obsolete for me for 'browsing' files. Meta data and search and the integrated browsers from within the applications make it a joy to use. Quick apple+spacebar for me to launch or find any document I require
Hmm...
I always wondered why Apple used the cat naming convention, considering that the MacIntosh family motto is: "Touch not the cat, but a glove"
Roughly translated as "Don't stroke a wild cat without a chain mail glove on, becuase it'll have your face off"
Do they know about the MacIntosh/cat links, or is this just a coinsidence?
BeOS
I always wonder how things would've turned out if Apple had gone with BeOS instead.
Hmmmm....
At a guess, I'd say Steve Jobs wouldnt have gotten credit for Jonathan Ive's ideas.
Or they went bankrupt. Depending on how much of an Impact you believe steve has.
Power shell
Is now included with windows 7 premium or better .
Shame on You!
Jeez , you mark the 10th birthday of an operating system, yet ignore William Shatner's 80th birthday last Tuesday.
p.s Leonard Nimoy is 80 on Saturday.
Openstep was agnostic
Openstep was created platform agnostic. I believe it was able to run on 68000, the predecessor of PPC, and later adopted Intel.
@ Andy Christ
Actually, Snow Leopard was originally slated for both Intel and PPC G4 and G5 processors above a certain GHz rating and with 2+ cores or physical processors but all references to Snow Leopard on PPC were mysteriously pulled. No doubt an infuriating situation at the time for relatively new G5 owners and after Steve Jobs' promise of supporting PPC for "many years to come".
I have no doubt that Snow Leopard was meant to be the last hurrah for PPC and would have given this platform a mighty boost in performance. Someone decided otherwise unfortunately. We are left to imagine what could have been.
The Power Mac shown on Page 2 of this article, is from the same family of machines I'm using right now, the "Quicksilver" (mine upgraded to a dual 1.73 GHz G4 processor), almost ten years old now itself, still going strong and still running rings around my three year old Dell XP desktop at work.
"relatively new" PPC owners?
Snow Leopard was released just over 3 years after the G5's were discontinued. I would posit that "three years old" is not "relatively new" in the life of a desktop PC, and that even if it were, anyone who bought one of those final machines should have been well aware they were buying obsolete, legacy hardware. Perhaps not "obsolete" in performance terms, but certainly in terms of the development roadmap.
Whatever Jobs may have said about supporting PPC "for many years to come", one would be naive to think that would mean indefinite active development of the OS. The death of PPC on the Mac desktop was obvious 18 months before the G5s were finally discontinued.
If when Lion comes out it doesn't support my first-gen intel iMac, I won't be surprised or upset - I'll recognise that SL still works fine as do the apps I currently run, and that any apps that require Lion would probably run better on newer hardware anyway.
Yep...
One mightly pissed off G5 owner here... I got my G5 running 10.4 some time around 2005/6 (IIRC) and it's already out of support, with apple asking for an arm-and-a-leg for an upgrade to 10.5. I like Mac OS, but it's too expensive as is the hardware. It would be a different matter if I thought they'd support the hardware/OS for similar amounts of time to MS, but they just don't seem interested. Have you seen how much a mac mini costs? I mean, they're supposed to be the inexpensive option so sadly, it'll be Win/Lin for me from now on.
Maybe...
I have a 2005 G5 dual 2.0GHz. It runs Leopard very well. Unfortunately my employers upgraded CS to CS5 last June, which is Intel only.
To enable continued working from home I got an 8-core Nehalem MacPro with 12GB Ram which is a lot faster.
Best beloved has claimed the G5, but I still use it sometimes, and it's still a delight - although the MacPro knocks it for 6 when video re-encoding.
It all depends, I suppose, on what you're using it for
My T-Shirt...
...has "The Future is Now" on the back of it.
Carbon wasn't the reason for Finder's performance sucking, by the way. Mail.app was (and is) written in pure Cocoa, and its performance was an order of magnitude worse than Finder. We were made to use Mail.app, but it was impossible. I kept using Eudora, but hacked its mail-agent string to say Apple Mail instead. Eventually my manager found out, and... asked me to do the same to his copy :)
A lot of the poor performance was the move from MetroWerks C and Apple MrC as used in OS 9 to gcc as used in NeXTStep/OS X. Before Apple started using it, gcc had very little optimisation for PowerPC, and worse, it did some high-level optimisations that benefitted Intel code at the expense of other platforms.
It doesn't seem like ten years ago...
Right now I have a copy of the Mac OS X public beta sitting on my desk. I've never run it, though I did try to boot it up on a Power Macintosh 9600/350 a couple of years back. It only got so far before locking up. I never did try to troubleshoot it.
I remember hating to see the clean, classic look and feel of Mac OS 9 and prior vanish in OS X, but it didn't take long to get used to the VASTLY improved stability and actual pre-emptive multitasking! These days, even considering how much simple charm (is that even what I want to say?) the Classic Mac OS has, I'm not sure I could go back...
OS X public beta
The beta was time-limited IIRC. Judicious resetting of your system clock may allow it to boot.
Finder? Launchpad?
This looks interesting
http://www.obdev.at/products/launchbar/index.html
I must admit, finding stuff by keyword search rather than folder trundle seems appealing but I wonder what the down sides may be?
<cough>
Crashing, "a not uncommon event even in the Mac OS 9 era"
Sir, your understatement is a thing of beauty . . .
To answer a few questions...
I have to agree with the commenters who say that the Classic MacOS Finder was more pleasant - and in quite a few ways, better-featured. I don't like the new one much & never did. The Dock is fine but insufficiently flexible and customisable.
No, TotalFinder etc. are not adequate replacements.
BeOS - it was a superb OS, I loved it. But if Apple had bought it, it would be dead & gone by now. BeOS didn't have the world-leading development tools - they were as important as NeXTstep's polish.
Those who find Macs constraining and prefer Windows just have no taste; but then, most people have no taste, and most of them don't know it.
As for those whinging about iPhoto etc. - those are *apps*. They are not part of the OS, they're just bundled. You don't have to use them. I don't. There are other choices out there - lots of them once you include FOSS stuff.
P.S. Small typo: "migirate"?
OS X is UNIX
Not only do we have a "command line", we actually have UNIX now. (http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm)
This topic is closed for new posts.
