This is the place to discuss the latest (as of January 2008) version of 
Apple's OS X operating system.

68 responses total.

[There is already an OS X item; why not use that?]

[Yes, I posted that item; wanted a new one.]

OS X is derived from unix and hence inherits a lot of the unix gayisms. You
can beautify the crap all you won't, it won't change the fact that at the
core, it is still shit.

nihilist

    I'm still running MacOS X 10.4 'Tiger' (on a borrowed
iBook G3).  Mostly I seem to use it as an X terminal, though
I do run Camino locally.  Anything of interest in 'Leopard'?

I'm using OS 10.4.11 on a MacBook Pro. The 10.5 install disk came with it,
but I have not installed it: I fear a lot of apps I now use will not run on
it, and I also read about bugs in 10.5. 

(I wish people didn't call OSs by names of animals: there are no similarities
between the name and the OS.)

Tiger comes with several advances; one of the big ones (for me, anyway) is
Timemachine.  I really like automated backups.

That's a 10.5 app.

Re #6: heh, I was thinking the exact same thing :) and poor Cheetahs
they kind of suck and are going extinct even..

resp:8 Ooops, my bad.  And this is exactly why you are right and one should
not name operating system releases after big cats.

I've been running Leopard (10.5) on my MacBook Pro since shortly after
it was released over a year ago.  I will say that it had some rough
edges initially, but after the first couple of updates things got much
better; it's up to 10.5.6 now, runs quite smoothly, and I'm very happy
with it.

New features that I like:

    Time Machine          - automated incremental backups
    Spaces                - multiple desktops

Also, the Spotlight search facility is significantly improved from
Tiger.  Much faster, better functionality.  I use it a lot.

I've not had any problems with 3rd party apps not running.

I think Jim downgraded from 10.4 to 10.3 to make it run faster.

That's stupid and counterproductive.

Wouldn't that depend upon the machine?

I'd think it would depend on the machine and the uses to which it's put.

I think that opening oneself up to the security problems of an old,
unmaintained version of the software is just plain silly.

re #16 - so you advocate always upgrading to bleeding edge? Or just 'common
stable versions" ? 
 Just curious. 

What security problems?  The computer came with 10.3 originally but he
upgraded to 10.4 to try to run a later version of iPhoto which he decided he
did not want to run.  This was all taking up too much memory.  We added some
memory and it still ran slow.  He reinstalled, this time without a lot of the
unused junk (such as a driver for every printer ever made - some day he may
print with it and add one driver then).  I asked around about how to get rid
of various stuff (drag to the trash can).  iPhoto installed itself along with
a bunch of other unwanted stuff the first time around.  (Jim does not read
well and missed the 'custom' part of installation).  He is using the Mac only
to play with photos.  If he wants to write an email he asks me to do it, or
look things up online.  There are two places to add memory to the Mac, one of
which requires taking it apart to some depth.  
  We were given a printer with the Mac but it needs the inkwells refilled and
then you need a $20 chipsetter to set them back to thinking they are full.
We might borrow one and try printing some day.  6 cents/photo on State St.
Someone with an ink refill shop asked us to try fixing three desktops and some
laptops he has accumulated, in return for which he would probably reset the
inkwells for us if we wanted.  You can buy empty wells which are set to be
'always full' but then if they run dry you can damage the printhead.

resp:18 Look it up.  The rest is a huge amount of irrelevant detail.

Re #19: don't be grumpy :) arr! <make way, make way, geek chick coming
through :p tackles Sindi and sits on her>

I've never used a Mac.. and I'm kind of not inclined to because of the
cost/laziness involved; Intel 400Mhz 256MB RAM - would a OSX run on
that? Would it be worthwhile using/learning how to use it for someone
like me? Why are Remmers and Rane even using it - free?

Yeah, cross seems to be in grump mode lately.

I'd be curious, too, to know what security problems one opens oneself up
to on an old Mac that's not connected to the internet, although maybe
this item, which is ostensibly about Leopard, isn't the place to discuss it.

Security issues aside, I think it's kind of cool that folks can make
some use out of old software/hardware.

As to why I use the Mac - well, I buy my Macs, they're not free, so
that's not the reason.  I like Mac's because they're so well engineered
and come with great software.  More detail than that will have to wait
until I'm feeling up to expositing at greater length.  :) 

The Mac does not crash.  The hardware is also high quality.  OS X lets you
use BSD if you prefer, and even compile programs.

OSX won't run on an Intel that i know of.

All current Macs use Intel processors.  This has been true for a couple
of years now.

However, it is not easy to get OS X running on a non-Apple Intel machine.

I think what "lets you use BSD" means is that OS X has a BSD variant
(Darwin) built-in; running the Terminal application brings up a Unix
shell (Bash by default).

This lets you bypass the gui stuff and type commands.  Such as ssh.

I'm not grumpy; I'm just upset that no one has brought food under my
bridge for me to eat lately.

    I use MacOS X because I had a bad experience installing
NetBSD on a 300 MHz iBook G3, so I didn't want to beat my
head against the same procedure on the 900 MHz iBook G3 that
I was loaned.

    MacOS X ships with the important things that I need to
connect to a NetBSD or Linux host and run applications
there: ssh and an X server.  I also run a few X clients
locally on the Mac: xterm, xcalc etc.

No hassles.  No virus problems.  Elegant look and feel.  Works as 
advertised. Four biggies for me. 

Oh, I'm on OS 10.5.6.

I wonder if you don't find common threads between the cars people buy and 
the flavor of their computers.

I know I buy Honda Civics for the same "no hassles - as advertised" 
reasons.

I just don't buy cars.

Free curbside-find bikes, free small linux on curbside computers.

    Manual gearbox, window winders, locks etc. estate
("station wagon"), carries more than you'd think.  NetBSD
is analagous - everything's manual and it makes an efficient    
work-horse.

Or install real Linux on them and help them out even more.  Fixing people
up with telnet screws them over.

Linux installed to hard drive has plenty of space for ssh (dbclient) and it
is quite real.  What I use is much faster than the commercial versions.

That's good!

I got Russian working with links browser (which is graphical with embedded
images but uses console fonts).  And Russian streaming audio.  A 486 would
be perfect for this but we don't have any left.

    I don't have any 486 boxes either, but at least it's
possible to build energy-efficient modern PCs now.  Not sure 
whether any of those are reaching the curbside yet though.

humm. I run FreeBSD and drive a Jeep. Okay.

...Oh I get it. I like things for which there is a ton of free
documentation on how to modify for my own use. 

:D

We measured energy use and a 486 beats a 386 or a pentium.  The earliest
pentiums were less energy efficient than slightly later ones.  Faster cpus
use more energy.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss