Lots of people have made some good points here (and some bad ones) but I think we're moving away from the topic and heading towards "OS X sux - no it doesn't" territory again. I think what I'm asking is for people to help me understand exactly what kind of things X is capable of once it can no longer be described as being in its infancy. Specific things that XP cannot do. I'm especially interested froma creative standpoint. What can creatives look forward to? Will there be a new kind of app for example that allows you a set of tools and u choose what the nature of your document is ie web, cd, video, image etc? Does X allow u to string apps together so that u can tell one app what to make another do? Will Director 10 be able to access Maya or FCP tools at the flick of the dock? Will X allow true voice recognition as a viable interface. Will Maya 6 allow u to treat video and 3D exactly the same?
What does X allow software developers in creative fields to do that Xp does not? I'm still learning to love X - believe me I want to. But at the moment I can't really see what people mean in real world terms when they talk about the power of X and the future potential of X etc.
NO ONE, I MEAN NO ONE, has ripped on the un-neccessary iMac price increase more than I have, but I have to say a few words in defence of the iMac with OSX.1.3. Having only used OS9.1 on B&W G3's and Graphite 533 and 733s (and the odd TiBook400) my only previous experience was with OSX 10.0.x on a toilet seat iBook, which lead me to write off OSX and all it's variants on any machine that wasn't at least twice as fast as that iBook (or in the 733-1000Mhz range).
But maybe (pay attention Murbot, I'm about to say you're right) a little user experience can sway me.
I used an LCD iMac with OSX yesterday and today. It was ORGASMICALLY NICE! (I'm very cheap, so I'm not sure if soiled underwear will be enough to justify the cost, but...) WOW! the combination was just SO right. Rainbow beachball spins a bit, but everything generally opens fast enough. But it just looks so gorgeous, and to me (coming from Windows@home and Classic@lab) it makes more sense than both Classic and Win98, while just being so hypnotically pleasant to use.
So, what has OSX given us that OS9 hadn't? Easy, there's is just no way I would ever pay iMac prices for the LCD iMac running OS9, but OSX has me seriously reconsidering.
<strong>But at the moment I can't really see what people mean in real world terms when they talk about the power of X and the future potential of X etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think you already know the answer to that question, but I'll give it a shot anyway... Three little letters: BSD
But then, you also asked where the Unix programmers are, didn't you? But you've answered your own question there too, in pointing out the existance of a MacOS version of Maya. The good folks over at <a href="http://www.aliaswavefront.com/"; target="_blank">Alias|Wavefront</a> haven't been sitting on their hands doing nothing, and I don't think that the open-source community or the research communities have been any less responsive.
But as much as I'd like to, I'm not going to extend this into a tirade to address all the myriad points in your... errrr... tirade, as it seems to me that you're not nearly as interested in hearing the good stuff as you are in pointing out the bad -- and you're disguising that fact behind a desire for someone to whip out their crystal ball. Nobody here really knows what the future holds, but I'll be happy to point out a few things from Apple's past.
People have been asking these types of questions every single time a paradigm shift breaks the water -- and the answer is always the same: Just sit back, and enjoy the show. In the extremely unlikely event that you feel a burning desire to buy a Wintel box to get your work done... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ...then have at it; it's only money, after all. I'll even give you a recommendation: Go with <a href="http://www.dell.com/"; target="_blank">Dell</a> -- and buy their on-site warranty; because you're probably going to need one and theirs is pretty good.
On the other hand, if you really do want to learn to love MacOS X... then use it. There's just no other way to get used to something new, other then to immerse yourself in it. And that's the bottom line.
What's wrong with having both? Both are several layers above how the computer really works. If you don't want the CLI, you basically never have to use it.
The conventional GUI is pretty long in tooth too then...
<strong>Lots of people have made some good points here (and some bad ones) but I think we're moving away from the topic and heading towards "OS X sux - no it doesn't" territory again. I think what I'm asking is for people to help me understand exactly what kind of things X is capable of once it can no longer be described as being in its infancy. Specific things that XP cannot do. I'm especially interested froma creative standpoint. What can creatives look forward to? Will there be a new kind of app for example that allows you a set of tools and u choose what the nature of your document is ie web, cd, video, image etc? Does X allow u to string apps together so that u can tell one app what to make another do? Will Director 10 be able to access Maya or FCP tools at the flick of the dock? Will X allow true voice recognition as a viable interface. Will Maya 6 allow u to treat video and 3D exactly the same?
What does X allow software developers in creative fields to do that Xp does not? I'm still learning to love X - believe me I want to. But at the moment I can't really see what people mean in real world terms when they talk about the power of X and the future potential of X etc.
Thanx</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to have shut your eyes to the possibilities. A lot of people have provided things that OS X can do that OS 9 never could and WinXP, 2000, etc don't. Open your mind a little and you'll see what people are excited about. You may not get excited, but that doesn't make facts (like UNIX under the hood, a real webserver in every box, standards compliance, multi-tasking, multi-user environs, etc.) go away.
Damn Matsu, I knew you shouldn't have ever used one of the new iMacs. They'll suck you in every time.
After a while of thinking XP wasn't too bad on the new PC I had to buy for work, I am SO sick of it. Sitting down to use OSX is just infinitely more pleasurable. Everything just works. And works SO well.
You want to gain a greater appreciation of your Mac? Buy a PC. I know from XPerience.
What's wrong with having both? Both are several layers above how the computer really works. If you don't want the CLI, you basically never have to use it.
The conventional GUI is pretty long in tooth too then...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing is wrong with both, it's just that some people have the impression they have to use the CLI (and its cryptic text comands) at some point with OS X. I think that is somewhat true, especially when OS X version 10.0 came out, if you wanted to do some high-end stuff or try more options than are always available through the GUI. Examples include: deleting stuff in the trash when the permissions are screwed up, and setting up a personal firewall.
However, I think that with 10.1, a lot of this CLI-required stuff wasn't required anymore, and I only expect that to be the case in the future, with exception to somepossible BSD related features. But in those cases, people have laready been making GUI front-ends for those features too, just not necessarily Apple.
So insofar as whether OS X requires knowledge of how to use the CLI, I think the answer is (or at worst, will be) no. The CLI is another toolbox available to those who want to use it. But it's a matter of changing that initial perception. Someof the onus is on us users, some is on Apple, some on developers.
PS: I don't think any OS offers anything that another OS doesn't. In other words, they offer the same "what" but the "how" differs. I think that's always been the case with Windows versus Mac OS. Mac OS does what Windows does, and Windows does what Mac OS does. However, Mac OS how Mac OS[/i] does thing is different than how Windows does things. I think the "how" needs improvement in Mac OS X right now, but I already think it's better (with a few exceptions) than Windows. That's also why I'm willing to deal with somewhat slower machines (in fact, I find little difference in the end, but I'll go with the consensus that Macs are slower).
The command line (CLI) is not, repeat not, evil! It's there for those who want it. But give me one instance of where you were forced to use it! Just as the mouse has made most things easier, it can also be cumbersome for some tasks.
Say, for example, you needed to rename an entire folder of files from Filename.jpeg to Filename.jpg. It would take tedious hours to do each one by hand. But it can be done in a blink of an eye at the commandline. But, MacOS X does not require any Unix skills if you don't want it!
Spooky. You don't like OS X doesn't mean others don't
You really sound like you want other people to join that "hating OS X club"
Not True - I really want to love X and as it stands I think its OK-ish but not as revolutionary or awesome as some have suggested.
Actually, I think you already know the answer to that question, but I'll give it a shot anyway... Three little letters: BSD
No I don't. BSD? is that meant to mean something to CD Rom Creators, Video editors, Imaging designers etc? What exactly can BSD do? All I've found from apple's blurb is that its dependable, reliable and respected apparently. What will BSD allow designers to do that they can't do today?
But then, you also asked where the Unix programmers are, didn't you? But you've answered your own question there too, in pointing out the existance of a MacOS version of Maya. The good folks over at Alias|Wavefront haven't been sitting on their hands doing nothing, and I don't think that the open-source community or the research communities have been any less responsive.
A fair point - kind of. Yes, Maya has appeared for those us us desperately wanting it on Mac but I can't see that X allows the folks at Alias to do anything different? If u had a new product like Mac Maya coming out and the OS allowed you to do never before done stuff with it, wouldn't you build in those features? The fact that they haven't makes me wonder of they couldn't.
But as much as I'd like to, I'm not going to extend this into a tirade to address all the myriad points in your... errrr... tirade, as it seems to me that you're not nearly as interested in hearing the good stuff as you are in pointing out the bad -- and you're disguising that fact behind a desire for someone to whip out their crystal ball.
Noone is asking for a crystal ball. When QT was first put out you could imagine the possibilities for creatives and what this technology could possibly offer. Its just down to knowing what it was, how it worked and therefore what it might be able to offer. Basically, I am asking all u Unix guys and OS X experts (I know nothing of Unix and would not describe myself as an X expert) who know more about this than I do - what kind of features and creative potential is locked up in X?
You seem to have shut your eyes to the possibilities.
I would have thought that asking people on this board who are more knowledgable would have been a sign of the exact opposite.
A lot of people have provided things that OS X can do that OS 9 never could and WinXP, 2000, etc don't.
Such as . . .?
You may not get excited, but that doesn't make facts (like UNIX under the hood, a real webserver in every box, standards compliance, multi-tasking, multi-user environs, etc.) go away.
And these benefit creative how?
And these benefit the average home user (the other 95% apple keeps harping on about grabbing) how?
PS: I don't think any OS offers anything that another OS doesn't. In other words, they offer the same "what" but the "how" differs. I think that's always been the case with Windows versus Mac OS. Mac OS does what Windows does, and Windows does what Mac OS does. However, Mac OS how Mac OS[/i] does thing is different than how Windows does things. I think the "how" needs improvement in Mac OS X right now, but I already think it's better (with a few exceptions) than Windows. That's also why I'm willing to deal with somewhat slower machines (in fact, I find little difference in the end, but I'll go with the consensus that Macs are slower).
Since the time X was revealed by Apple, I have heard that it is revolutionary, the possibilities are endless, will allow new ways of working, Unique etc from apple and all the mac based literature that I have read. I get the sense that X is extremely powerful, built on tried and tested technology and is somehow capable of great things in the future. All I'm asking is people's opinion of what exactly it may be capable of. This is not an anti X tirade - far from it. In fact I'm moving all of our systems from 9 to X shortly.
Consider this; we do a lot of CD Rom content creation. How might this evolve with X? What kind of things will software written for X, given that X has unlimited potential (as I've now read in several mac magazines) offer? I've come away from this board with the impression that X ius completely new whilst XP is nothing more than a rewrite of NT. So, doesn't it follow that X may be capable of things that XP isn't?
I'll give you two. Quartz - allows for iPhoto, which with the realtime photo catalog of resizable photos is really something unique. Plus the ability to work with PDF files/etc in a trivial matter.
Anti-aliased font support on the OS level. As I type this, I am using (ech) Win2000. Looking at little jaggies on the fonts all over my web browser. Of course, Micro$oft hasn't built this into IE yet, but you can see true beauty on webpages rendered by Omni, etc.
There are more. Quartz is a secret weapon, which will bring forth some new killer apps. Cocoa is the other one - reducing development time to next to nothing.
What I would like to see for v10.5.
Database File Systems - be able to assign keywords, etc., to all your files and search/browse through these as you can a database. See BeOS for example.
PGP/GnuPGP built into Mail, etc.
Maybe v11.0
Personal Information Server - user friendly way to turn Mac into not only a web server but full fledged Personal Info Server for web/mail/calendaring/blogging/etc. Use Apache/PHP/PGP as core technology. Allow for users to remote access their computer as a central "server" so they can window into their information from anywhere on the Internet.
[quote]Actually, I think you already know the answer to that question, but I'll give it a shot anyway... Three little letters: BSD
No I don't. BSD? is that meant to mean something to CD Rom Creators, Video editors, Imaging designers etc? What exactly can BSD do? All I've found from apple's blurb is that its dependable, reliable and respected apparently. What will BSD allow designers to do that they can't do today?
<hr></blockquote>
You're being selective about who "designers" are. For anyone doing any kind of web work, it's a godsend.
As for those creatives who will not benefit directly from the features of the BSD layer, they're still going to get: vastly improved AppleScripting capabilities, speed and responsiveness, for a whole suite of reasons; access to any number of UNIX utilities that can create and edit images on the fly, QuickDraw-style, and apps like Maya that were formerly impossible on OS 9's primitive foundation. You get the most efficient multiprocessor support and some of the most efficient threading available anywhere, which translates to being able to do many more things at once than was previously possible. The Quartz and OpenGL layers allow design apps to do things that were not possible under OS 9, and they haven't even begun employing Services yet - imagine a set of filters that operated on a standard format - TIFF or PDF - that could be invoked on a selection in any application, just by selecting a menu item!
Then there are indirect benefits, like full Java support bringing Oracle apps on board. How is that relevant to a designer? Well, if you're a designer working in a collaborative environment, or in a large business, it might just be crucial. Remember that Oracle is scheming up ways to serve movies - not web streams, the real thing - from its database. It actually demonstrated that technology a couple of years ago. Creation doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to share that creation with other people, or submit it into an infrastructure of some sort, and OS X ships by default with more such options than OS 9 ever had. Pervasive support for PDF is just one.
[quote]Yes, Maya has appeared for those us us desperately wanting it on Mac but I can't see that X allows the folks at Alias to do anything different? If u had a new product like Mac Maya coming out and the OS allowed you to do never before done stuff with it, wouldn't you build in those features? The fact that they haven't makes me wonder of they couldn't.<hr></blockquote>
The feature that X offered A|W was the ability to port Maya to the Mac in the first place. By A|W's own admission, it would never have happened on OS 9, demand notwithstanding. OS X can handle much heavier loads than 9 ever could, much more reliably. It's very close to a full UNIX (it will be a full-blown, modern FreeBSD-alike by the next major release, if Apple stays on schedule), so porting any UNIX application over is much, much easier than rewriting that application for 9 would have been. Cocoa and Interface Builder make designing a native UI for a UNIX application easier than writing an OS 9 UI has ever been, by leaps and bounds. If the developer can't be bothered to do even that, it's easy to run a rootless X Windows server in OS X. Does this mean anything to a designer directly? Maybe not. But it means that a lot of the tools that you might have envied that were only available for UNIX or Windows NT, or which required Java 2, can be easily run in OS X. That means more tools, and specifically more high-end tools.
[quote]Basically, I am asking all u Unix guys and OS X experts (I know nothing of Unix and would not describe myself as an X expert) who know more about this than I do - what kind of features and creative potential is locked up in X?<hr></blockquote>
Go look at <a href="http://www.caffeinesoft.com/"; target="_blank">TIFFany</a>. A very small company wrote and released that. It's a fine example of what OS X is capable of.
Applications ported over from OS 9 are not, generally speaking. Not at this stage of the game.
[quote]A lot of people have provided things that OS X can do that OS 9 never could and WinXP, 2000, etc don't.
Such as . . .?<hr></blockquote>
Full UNIX install (remember, web monkeys are creatives too!). An audio layer that, when finished, will blow everything else away. Much more efficient use of resources than any version of Windows, and a better interface. AppleScript. Quartz. Easy installs and uninstalls. Pervasive PDF support. Services. In particular, vs. OS 9: Virtual memory that's fast, compatible and doesn't suck. Real multiple user support. Threading that doesn't suck. Transparent, efficient multiprocessor support. A much, much faster filesystem. Stability. (For example, I've been trying to get a FW drive kit to work, which has crashed Finder many times. Many applications were running while this was going on. None of them even blinked as Finder went down and came back up in the background. Finder crashing in OS 9 is a different proposition. So is Explorer crashing in any version of Windows.) The ability to do more than one thing at once without either slowing down hopelessly or falling over. In OS X, I can run an intensive filter on a 600dpi image in Canvas, switch to another app - instantly -
and continue as if nothing was happening. Canvas only runs a bit slower in the background (and Canvas isn't a particularly well-behaved OS X app, either - it's another first attempt at an OS 9 port). The MP3 I'm playing doesn't skip. Also, I have the choice of keeping windows from different applications close at hand or foregrounding all the windows of one app, easily. You might not notice this if you treat OS X like OS 9 - that is, if you work in one application at a time, and you keep a busy application in the foreground until it's done. Once you get out of that habit, and get into the habit of backgrounding apps that have a lot of crunching to do and turning your attention to something more interactive, OS 9 seems maddeningly unresponsive. No Sherlock indexing popping up and slowing your machine to a crawl when you're up late trying to get a job done under deadline. The less time I spend waiting for something to finish - or even to yield control so that I can foreground something else - the more work I can get done.
More: Application launch times aren't an issue because I (almost) never quit them - not even to run games - and I (almost) never restart. I don't run out of memory, nor do my applications start getting unstable when they run out of memory, nor does my whole system get slow and flaky because memory is fragmented. The less time I spend fiddling with this sort of thing, the more work I get done.
[quote]You may not get excited, but that doesn't make facts (like UNIX under the hood, a real webserver in every box, standards compliance, multi-tasking, multi-user environs, etc.) go away.
And these benefit creative how?
And these benefit the average home user (the other 95% apple keeps harping on about grabbing) how?
<hr></blockquote>
In the obvious, underlying ways that have been mentioned many times: Effortless file sharing, stability, predictability, access to a wider-than-ever variety of applications - and the potential for many, many more, because OS X is light-years more attractive to developers than OS 9 is, vastly improved responsiveness (as far as switching tasks, and responsiveness of the foreground task when there's a lot going on in the background). A vastly more newbie-friendly UI (even allowing for the glitches). Adventurous creatives and average users can dabble in programming with AppleScript Studio, and build their own tools. And so forth.
I think we have to be careful that we don't step over the line with this. Mac OS should present technology with opportunites, but we are the ones doing the work, implementing its power and giving content from its available tools. Asking the question "what has OS X given us?" implies a kind of "free lunch" attitude that we, as content creators, should be very wary of.
Is Watson so unique to the Mac platform? Not really, but it is one of the most compelling apps out there on any -- a confluence of otherwise ubiquitous technology. I think spooky is more interested in what you do with Mac OS X than what is in Mac OS X. IMO, at that point, the creators matter than the computers. OS X simply presents a few doors for them, but someone has to open them and step through.
If that's what he's asking, then yes, there's some waiting to do for some things. That's inevitable with a new system.
Although, if you peek out of your Quark and/or Adobe caves, there might be some cool alternatives out there waiting. And if you want to build your own tools (don't rule that out! you don't have to have a CS degree to be a programmer!) OS X makes that not only possible, but fun and (relatively) easy.
You can close the thread now, Amorph has finally answered his question.
Also, it's not about what the OS can do that others can't: that's Microsoft's philosophy. They add more and more features to out-feature everyone else, paying little attention to the fact that these features, while not even well implemented, bloat the OS. OS X isn't about that, it isn't about what we can do that the others can't. OS X is about doing what everyone can, using a combination of open standards and Apple ingenuity, and doing it easier, more intergrated, and BETTER than anybody else. Examples: mp3s, iTunes, and iPod; and Quicktime, iMovie, iDVD, and firewire camcorders, just to name two. So, it's really not what can we do that others can't, it's all about doing it easier and better than everyone else.
PS That was a DAMNED good post, Amorph. I feel like crap having to follow that up. lol
I'm kinda getting it now. Much of what has been described I can see as real world benefits whereas before they were just like words floated around to sound good.
If only half of what you guys say could be part of the evolution of X and the mac platform then we could be in for a pretty groovy ride!
BTW Amorph, how would u suggest that I as a non programmer go about learning how to create my own apps in X? I figure, what the hell, let's go 4 it!! Any advice on where to start? And can I do it through GUI based tools? Much appreciated if u could help out
Actually, I wrote that to change the direction of the thread -- my sad attempt to be philosophic and all that good stuff. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>The command line (CLI) is not, repeat not, evil! It's there for those who want it. But give me one instance of where you were forced to use it!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I downloaded one of the first builds of Chimera and all the privileges were set for Root. I had to go to the CLI when I wanted to delete it.
Comments
What does X allow software developers in creative fields to do that Xp does not? I'm still learning to love X - believe me I want to. But at the moment I can't really see what people mean in real world terms when they talk about the power of X and the future potential of X etc.
Thanx
But maybe (pay attention Murbot, I'm about to say you're right) a little user experience can sway me.
I used an LCD iMac with OSX yesterday and today. It was ORGASMICALLY NICE! (I'm very cheap, so I'm not sure if soiled underwear will be enough to justify the cost, but...) WOW! the combination was just SO right. Rainbow beachball spins a bit, but everything generally opens fast enough. But it just looks so gorgeous, and to me (coming from Windows@home and Classic@lab) it makes more sense than both Classic and Win98, while just being so hypnotically pleasant to use.
So, what has OSX given us that OS9 hadn't? Easy, there's is just no way I would ever pay iMac prices for the LCD iMac running OS9, but OSX has me seriously reconsidering.
[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
You really sound like you want other people to join that "hating OS X club"
<strong>But at the moment I can't really see what people mean in real world terms when they talk about the power of X and the future potential of X etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think you already know the answer to that question, but I'll give it a shot anyway... Three little letters: BSD
But then, you also asked where the Unix programmers are, didn't you? But you've answered your own question there too, in pointing out the existance of a MacOS version of Maya. The good folks over at <a href="http://www.aliaswavefront.com/"; target="_blank">Alias|Wavefront</a> haven't been sitting on their hands doing nothing, and I don't think that the open-source community or the research communities have been any less responsive.
But as much as I'd like to, I'm not going to extend this into a tirade to address all the myriad points in your... errrr... tirade, as it seems to me that you're not nearly as interested in hearing the good stuff as you are in pointing out the bad -- and you're disguising that fact behind a desire for someone to whip out their crystal ball. Nobody here really knows what the future holds, but I'll be happy to point out a few things from Apple's past.
People have been asking these types of questions every single time a paradigm shift breaks the water -- and the answer is always the same: Just sit back, and enjoy the show. In the extremely unlikely event that you feel a burning desire to buy a Wintel box to get your work done... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ...then have at it; it's only money, after all. I'll even give you a recommendation: Go with <a href="http://www.dell.com/"; target="_blank">Dell</a> -- and buy their on-site warranty; because you're probably going to need one and theirs is pretty good.
On the other hand, if you really do want to learn to love MacOS X... then use it. There's just no other way to get used to something new, other then to immerse yourself in it. And that's the bottom line.
GUI = Graphical User Interface
What's wrong with having both? Both are several layers above how the computer really works. If you don't want the CLI, you basically never have to use it.
The conventional GUI is pretty long in tooth too then...
<strong>Lots of people have made some good points here (and some bad ones) but I think we're moving away from the topic and heading towards "OS X sux - no it doesn't" territory again. I think what I'm asking is for people to help me understand exactly what kind of things X is capable of once it can no longer be described as being in its infancy. Specific things that XP cannot do. I'm especially interested froma creative standpoint. What can creatives look forward to? Will there be a new kind of app for example that allows you a set of tools and u choose what the nature of your document is ie web, cd, video, image etc? Does X allow u to string apps together so that u can tell one app what to make another do? Will Director 10 be able to access Maya or FCP tools at the flick of the dock? Will X allow true voice recognition as a viable interface. Will Maya 6 allow u to treat video and 3D exactly the same?
What does X allow software developers in creative fields to do that Xp does not? I'm still learning to love X - believe me I want to. But at the moment I can't really see what people mean in real world terms when they talk about the power of X and the future potential of X etc.
Thanx</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to have shut your eyes to the possibilities. A lot of people have provided things that OS X can do that OS 9 never could and WinXP, 2000, etc don't. Open your mind a little and you'll see what people are excited about. You may not get excited, but that doesn't make facts (like UNIX under the hood, a real webserver in every box, standards compliance, multi-tasking, multi-user environs, etc.) go away.
After a while of thinking XP wasn't too bad on the new PC I had to buy for work, I am SO sick of it. Sitting down to use OSX is just infinitely more pleasurable. Everything just works. And works SO well.
You want to gain a greater appreciation of your Mac? Buy a PC. I know from XPerience.
<strong>CLI = Command Line Interface
GUI = Graphical User Interface
What's wrong with having both? Both are several layers above how the computer really works. If you don't want the CLI, you basically never have to use it.
The conventional GUI is pretty long in tooth too then...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing is wrong with both, it's just that some people have the impression they have to use the CLI (and its cryptic text comands) at some point with OS X. I think that is somewhat true, especially when OS X version 10.0 came out, if you wanted to do some high-end stuff or try more options than are always available through the GUI. Examples include: deleting stuff in the trash when the permissions are screwed up, and setting up a personal firewall.
However, I think that with 10.1, a lot of this CLI-required stuff wasn't required anymore, and I only expect that to be the case in the future, with exception to somepossible BSD related features. But in those cases, people have laready been making GUI front-ends for those features too, just not necessarily Apple.
So insofar as whether OS X requires knowledge of how to use the CLI, I think the answer is (or at worst, will be) no. The CLI is another toolbox available to those who want to use it. But it's a matter of changing that initial perception. Someof the onus is on us users, some is on Apple, some on developers.
PS: I don't think any OS offers anything that another OS doesn't. In other words, they offer the same "what" but the "how" differs. I think that's always been the case with Windows versus Mac OS. Mac OS does what Windows does, and Windows does what Mac OS does. However, Mac OS how Mac OS[/i] does thing is different than how Windows does things. I think the "how" needs improvement in Mac OS X right now, but I already think it's better (with a few exceptions) than Windows. That's also why I'm willing to deal with somewhat slower machines (in fact, I find little difference in the end, but I'll go with the consensus that Macs are slower).
[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]
[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Say, for example, you needed to rename an entire folder of files from Filename.jpeg to Filename.jpg. It would take tedious hours to do each one by hand. But it can be done in a blink of an eye at the commandline. But, MacOS X does not require any Unix skills if you don't want it!
"MULTI-TASK you little piece of shit, MULTI-TASK!"
So here's what OSX has given me: A great fear of OS9.
<strong>Say, for example, you needed to rename an entire folder of files from Filename.jpeg to Filename.jpg...</strong><hr></blockquote>
To reinforce your point, there are third-party GUI apps that do this too, so even in that specific scenario, you don't need the CLI nor the tedium.
You really sound like you want other people to join that "hating OS X club"
Not True - I really want to love X and as it stands I think its OK-ish but not as revolutionary or awesome as some have suggested.
Actually, I think you already know the answer to that question, but I'll give it a shot anyway... Three little letters: BSD
No I don't. BSD? is that meant to mean something to CD Rom Creators, Video editors, Imaging designers etc? What exactly can BSD do? All I've found from apple's blurb is that its dependable, reliable and respected apparently. What will BSD allow designers to do that they can't do today?
But then, you also asked where the Unix programmers are, didn't you? But you've answered your own question there too, in pointing out the existance of a MacOS version of Maya. The good folks over at Alias|Wavefront haven't been sitting on their hands doing nothing, and I don't think that the open-source community or the research communities have been any less responsive.
A fair point - kind of. Yes, Maya has appeared for those us us desperately wanting it on Mac but I can't see that X allows the folks at Alias to do anything different? If u had a new product like Mac Maya coming out and the OS allowed you to do never before done stuff with it, wouldn't you build in those features? The fact that they haven't makes me wonder of they couldn't.
But as much as I'd like to, I'm not going to extend this into a tirade to address all the myriad points in your... errrr... tirade, as it seems to me that you're not nearly as interested in hearing the good stuff as you are in pointing out the bad -- and you're disguising that fact behind a desire for someone to whip out their crystal ball.
Noone is asking for a crystal ball. When QT was first put out you could imagine the possibilities for creatives and what this technology could possibly offer. Its just down to knowing what it was, how it worked and therefore what it might be able to offer. Basically, I am asking all u Unix guys and OS X experts (I know nothing of Unix and would not describe myself as an X expert) who know more about this than I do - what kind of features and creative potential is locked up in X?
You seem to have shut your eyes to the possibilities.
I would have thought that asking people on this board who are more knowledgable would have been a sign of the exact opposite.
A lot of people have provided things that OS X can do that OS 9 never could and WinXP, 2000, etc don't.
Such as . . .?
You may not get excited, but that doesn't make facts (like UNIX under the hood, a real webserver in every box, standards compliance, multi-tasking, multi-user environs, etc.) go away.
And these benefit creative how?
And these benefit the average home user (the other 95% apple keeps harping on about grabbing) how?
PS: I don't think any OS offers anything that another OS doesn't. In other words, they offer the same "what" but the "how" differs. I think that's always been the case with Windows versus Mac OS. Mac OS does what Windows does, and Windows does what Mac OS does. However, Mac OS how Mac OS[/i] does thing is different than how Windows does things. I think the "how" needs improvement in Mac OS X right now, but I already think it's better (with a few exceptions) than Windows. That's also why I'm willing to deal with somewhat slower machines (in fact, I find little difference in the end, but I'll go with the consensus that Macs are slower).
Since the time X was revealed by Apple, I have heard that it is revolutionary, the possibilities are endless, will allow new ways of working, Unique etc from apple and all the mac based literature that I have read. I get the sense that X is extremely powerful, built on tried and tested technology and is somehow capable of great things in the future. All I'm asking is people's opinion of what exactly it may be capable of. This is not an anti X tirade - far from it. In fact I'm moving all of our systems from 9 to X shortly.
Consider this; we do a lot of CD Rom content creation. How might this evolve with X? What kind of things will software written for X, given that X has unlimited potential (as I've now read in several mac magazines) offer? I've come away from this board with the impression that X ius completely new whilst XP is nothing more than a rewrite of NT. So, doesn't it follow that X may be capable of things that XP isn't?
I'll give you two. Quartz - allows for iPhoto, which with the realtime photo catalog of resizable photos is really something unique. Plus the ability to work with PDF files/etc in a trivial matter.
Anti-aliased font support on the OS level. As I type this, I am using (ech) Win2000. Looking at little jaggies on the fonts all over my web browser. Of course, Micro$oft hasn't built this into IE yet, but you can see true beauty on webpages rendered by Omni, etc.
There are more. Quartz is a secret weapon, which will bring forth some new killer apps. Cocoa is the other one - reducing development time to next to nothing.
What I would like to see for v10.5.
Database File Systems - be able to assign keywords, etc., to all your files and search/browse through these as you can a database. See BeOS for example.
PGP/GnuPGP built into Mail, etc.
Maybe v11.0
Personal Information Server - user friendly way to turn Mac into not only a web server but full fledged Personal Info Server for web/mail/calendaring/blogging/etc. Use Apache/PHP/PGP as core technology. Allow for users to remote access their computer as a central "server" so they can window into their information from anywhere on the Internet.
No I don't. BSD? is that meant to mean something to CD Rom Creators, Video editors, Imaging designers etc? What exactly can BSD do? All I've found from apple's blurb is that its dependable, reliable and respected apparently. What will BSD allow designers to do that they can't do today?
<hr></blockquote>
You're being selective about who "designers" are. For anyone doing any kind of web work, it's a godsend.
As for those creatives who will not benefit directly from the features of the BSD layer, they're still going to get: vastly improved AppleScripting capabilities, speed and responsiveness, for a whole suite of reasons; access to any number of UNIX utilities that can create and edit images on the fly, QuickDraw-style, and apps like Maya that were formerly impossible on OS 9's primitive foundation. You get the most efficient multiprocessor support and some of the most efficient threading available anywhere, which translates to being able to do many more things at once than was previously possible. The Quartz and OpenGL layers allow design apps to do things that were not possible under OS 9, and they haven't even begun employing Services yet - imagine a set of filters that operated on a standard format - TIFF or PDF - that could be invoked on a selection in any application, just by selecting a menu item!
Then there are indirect benefits, like full Java support bringing Oracle apps on board. How is that relevant to a designer? Well, if you're a designer working in a collaborative environment, or in a large business, it might just be crucial. Remember that Oracle is scheming up ways to serve movies - not web streams, the real thing - from its database. It actually demonstrated that technology a couple of years ago. Creation doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to share that creation with other people, or submit it into an infrastructure of some sort, and OS X ships by default with more such options than OS 9 ever had. Pervasive support for PDF is just one.
[quote]Yes, Maya has appeared for those us us desperately wanting it on Mac but I can't see that X allows the folks at Alias to do anything different? If u had a new product like Mac Maya coming out and the OS allowed you to do never before done stuff with it, wouldn't you build in those features? The fact that they haven't makes me wonder of they couldn't.<hr></blockquote>
The feature that X offered A|W was the ability to port Maya to the Mac in the first place. By A|W's own admission, it would never have happened on OS 9, demand notwithstanding. OS X can handle much heavier loads than 9 ever could, much more reliably. It's very close to a full UNIX (it will be a full-blown, modern FreeBSD-alike by the next major release, if Apple stays on schedule), so porting any UNIX application over is much, much easier than rewriting that application for 9 would have been. Cocoa and Interface Builder make designing a native UI for a UNIX application easier than writing an OS 9 UI has ever been, by leaps and bounds. If the developer can't be bothered to do even that, it's easy to run a rootless X Windows server in OS X. Does this mean anything to a designer directly? Maybe not. But it means that a lot of the tools that you might have envied that were only available for UNIX or Windows NT, or which required Java 2, can be easily run in OS X. That means more tools, and specifically more high-end tools.
[quote]Basically, I am asking all u Unix guys and OS X experts (I know nothing of Unix and would not describe myself as an X expert) who know more about this than I do - what kind of features and creative potential is locked up in X?<hr></blockquote>
Go look at <a href="http://www.caffeinesoft.com/"; target="_blank">TIFFany</a>. A very small company wrote and released that. It's a fine example of what OS X is capable of.
Applications ported over from OS 9 are not, generally speaking. Not at this stage of the game.
[quote]A lot of people have provided things that OS X can do that OS 9 never could and WinXP, 2000, etc don't.
Such as . . .?<hr></blockquote>
Full UNIX install (remember, web monkeys are creatives too!). An audio layer that, when finished, will blow everything else away. Much more efficient use of resources than any version of Windows, and a better interface. AppleScript. Quartz. Easy installs and uninstalls. Pervasive PDF support. Services. In particular, vs. OS 9: Virtual memory that's fast, compatible and doesn't suck. Real multiple user support. Threading that doesn't suck. Transparent, efficient multiprocessor support. A much, much faster filesystem. Stability. (For example, I've been trying to get a FW drive kit to work, which has crashed Finder many times. Many applications were running while this was going on. None of them even blinked as Finder went down and came back up in the background. Finder crashing in OS 9 is a different proposition. So is Explorer crashing in any version of Windows.) The ability to do more than one thing at once without either slowing down hopelessly or falling over. In OS X, I can run an intensive filter on a 600dpi image in Canvas, switch to another app - instantly -
and continue as if nothing was happening. Canvas only runs a bit slower in the background (and Canvas isn't a particularly well-behaved OS X app, either - it's another first attempt at an OS 9 port). The MP3 I'm playing doesn't skip. Also, I have the choice of keeping windows from different applications close at hand or foregrounding all the windows of one app, easily. You might not notice this if you treat OS X like OS 9 - that is, if you work in one application at a time, and you keep a busy application in the foreground until it's done. Once you get out of that habit, and get into the habit of backgrounding apps that have a lot of crunching to do and turning your attention to something more interactive, OS 9 seems maddeningly unresponsive. No Sherlock indexing popping up and slowing your machine to a crawl when you're up late trying to get a job done under deadline. The less time I spend waiting for something to finish - or even to yield control so that I can foreground something else - the more work I can get done.
More: Application launch times aren't an issue because I (almost) never quit them - not even to run games - and I (almost) never restart. I don't run out of memory, nor do my applications start getting unstable when they run out of memory, nor does my whole system get slow and flaky because memory is fragmented. The less time I spend fiddling with this sort of thing, the more work I get done.
[quote]You may not get excited, but that doesn't make facts (like UNIX under the hood, a real webserver in every box, standards compliance, multi-tasking, multi-user environs, etc.) go away.
And these benefit creative how?
And these benefit the average home user (the other 95% apple keeps harping on about grabbing) how?
<hr></blockquote>
In the obvious, underlying ways that have been mentioned many times: Effortless file sharing, stability, predictability, access to a wider-than-ever variety of applications - and the potential for many, many more, because OS X is light-years more attractive to developers than OS 9 is, vastly improved responsiveness (as far as switching tasks, and responsiveness of the foreground task when there's a lot going on in the background). A vastly more newbie-friendly UI (even allowing for the glitches). Adventurous creatives and average users can dabble in programming with AppleScript Studio, and build their own tools. And so forth.
[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Is Watson so unique to the Mac platform? Not really, but it is one of the most compelling apps out there on any -- a confluence of otherwise ubiquitous technology. I think spooky is more interested in what you do with Mac OS X than what is in Mac OS X. IMO, at that point, the creators matter than the computers. OS X simply presents a few doors for them, but someone has to open them and step through.
Although, if you peek out of your Quark and/or Adobe caves, there might be some cool alternatives out there waiting.
[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Also, it's not about what the OS can do that others can't: that's Microsoft's philosophy. They add more and more features to out-feature everyone else, paying little attention to the fact that these features, while not even well implemented, bloat the OS. OS X isn't about that, it isn't about what we can do that the others can't. OS X is about doing what everyone can, using a combination of open standards and Apple ingenuity, and doing it easier, more intergrated, and BETTER than anybody else. Examples: mp3s, iTunes, and iPod; and Quicktime, iMovie, iDVD, and firewire camcorders, just to name two. So, it's really not what can we do that others can't, it's all about doing it easier and better than everyone else.
PS That was a DAMNED good post, Amorph. I feel like crap having to follow that up. lol
I'm kinda getting it now. Much of what has been described I can see as real world benefits whereas before they were just like words floated around to sound good.
If only half of what you guys say could be part of the evolution of X and the mac platform then we could be in for a pretty groovy ride!
BTW Amorph, how would u suggest that I as a non programmer go about learning how to create my own apps in X? I figure, what the hell, let's go 4 it!! Any advice on where to start? And can I do it through GUI based tools? Much appreciated if u could help out
My real answer is still, "what Amorph says."
<strong>The command line (CLI) is not, repeat not, evil! It's there for those who want it. But give me one instance of where you were forced to use it!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I downloaded one of the first builds of Chimera and all the privileges were set for Root. I had to go to the CLI when I wanted to delete it.