Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:12:28 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Nathan Mace <nmace85@yahoo.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OS-X question(WAS:GUI question.) Message-ID: <p0510140bb8a59e566b67@[10.0.1.26]> In-Reply-To: <200203012019.PAA14268@uce55.uchaswv.edu> References: <200203010532.AAA17582@alpha.vaxxine.com> <p05101403b8a5459d1362@[10.0.1.26]> <200203012019.PAA14268@uce55.uchaswv.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:15 PM -0500 2002/03/01, Nathan Mace wrote: > for years i swore i'd never own a Mac, but since Os-X came out, i've been > wanting a mac more and more. Ever since 1989 (when I first encountered the power of Unix on BSD 2.9 on a PDP 11/70 with 128KB of RAM), I have been waiting for someone to deliver an OS with the incredible ease of use of the Macintosh (I was converted to the one true faith in 1984) with the power of Unix. I remember A/UX. I remember what a joke it was. I also remember MachTen. Close, but no cigar. I remember when NeXT first came out, and realized then that this was probably as close as I would ever get. Ever since, I lived in hope that we could get NeXTstep or at least OpenStep ported to the Macintosh. I remember the promise of Rhapsody, which was never delivered (I've got a couple of books on it, but at least it was never delivered to the masses). I remember when MacOS X Server came out, and how much I wanted the desktop version. I remember the problems that people had with the early betas of MacOS X 10, and I remember when MacOS X 10.1 came out. I am now on MacOS X 10.1.3, and am fairly happy. There are still some things that aren't working correctly yet, but I am very encouraged. > can anyone tell me how OS-X is from a unix type > mindset? It is 95% of the way there from the Mac perspective. However, it does not ship with an X server, and getting one to work on MacOS X is not trivial. It's much more difficult to get it working and fully integrated with the MacOS X desktop (i.e., in rootless mode). Most any of the command-line stuff you want is probably either already there (among other things, they've integrated OpenSSH), or should relatively easily compile and install. > i know that somethings will be different, such as directories and > naming conventions. thats to be expected. Note that MacOS X doesn't work well on UFS filesystems -- whatever they did, they screwed up the support for UFS in the process of adding support for Macintosh HFS and HFS+ filesystems. Note that HFS and HFS+ don't differentiate between upper and lowercase, although it will preserve the case when it displays the filename. Unix-style symlinks work (somehow), but they don't work the same way as aliases under HFS/HFS+ (in part, because HFS/HFS+ have a concept of assigning each file on the filesystem a unique id, and the alias references this unique id as opposed to the inode). This affects Unix programs that try to reference files through aliases -- because aliases are almost universally alien to Unix programs, whereas symlinks are dealt with correctly. > but how well is it as a unix > desktop? although i havn't used it, i think it would be great. unified > widgets, great look and feel, in most cases commerical quality apps, as well > as OSS apps. I can say that I definitely prefer it! ;-) Seriously, if you use the X-on-X version of X11R6 in rootless mode, you really should have the best of both worlds. Just be careful! Keep in mind that MacOS X requires quite a lot of hardware -- the old G3 class machines are being dumped, so make sure that you get a G4. Indeed, I'd recommend a fast G4, with lots of memory. I have 1GB of RAM on my PowerBook G3 "Pismo" with a 48GB IBM Travelstar 5400 RPM drive, and it can be a little slow on my machine. Speedwise, I'd really prefer to have a PowerBook G4 Titanium (even if it was just 400Mhz, the same clock speed as my PowerBook G3), although I do prefer the modular battery/drive bays and the plastic case instead of the troublesome ultra-thin titanium case (which is difficult to remove and then put back on without bending). > any downsides that i should be aware of before buying one? and > would you recommend a low end powermac or or high end imac? i'm not into > graphic's related work, i imagine that since i currently use freebsd as my > desktop that i won't be doing anything resource intensive except compiling > various OSS pieces of software. Myself, I'd prefer a lower-end PowerMac, which gives you expansion options and monitor options that you don't have with the iMac. However, before you buy a machine, I suggest that you go down to an Apple store and look at the various systems, so that you can make up your own mind. Personally, I can't stand the new iMac -- it looks like a basketball cut in half, with a silver stick inserted. The monitor is nice -- it really does move very easily, and it really does stay where you put it. It's cool being able to move it up and down and twist it up or down, to get the perfect position. But if that's the price to be paid to have the new iMac, I'll pass. > also, whats your take on the higher pricing of the hardware? i know it costs > more, but i've been told that it last longer. as in a 5 year old mac is > still usable with current apps, where as a 5 year old PC is pretty slow using > the same current apps. does anyone know if this is true? Well, the machine I use as my daily system (the PowerBook G3 mentioned above) is considered a 2000 model, and I bought the very last one that was available in Belgium before the PowerBook G4 became available (slightly over a year ago). The hard drive is user-upgradeable (if you're careful), the memory is user-upgradeable (I did it myself), and it has one battery compartment as well as a modular battery/drive bay. You can get DVD-RW units that can be installed in the drive bay, and a company has come out with a FireWire attached modular bay that is compatible with the same modules. Except for the processor not being upgradeable (yet), I would say that this is probably still the best portable machine that Apple has produced. Because it has an ATI Rage 128 Mobility chip, it is still capable of running MacOS X, and is probably about the oldest machine capable of doing so. The older "Lombard" machine actually does have an upgradeable processor, but because it has the older ATI Rage Mobility chip, it can't run MacOS X. I also have a PCI PowerMac 7200/90 downstairs that I hope to replace the logic board on (swapping for a 7300 series), so that I can upgrade the processor to a G4 model, and then using the "Unsupported" patches, I should be able to get it running MacOS X as well (although I'm actually planning on running NetBSD or OpenBSD on it). I bought this machine in something like 1992, and if I had instead bought a slightly more expensive 7300 series model (which was also available at the same time), I wouldn't have to do the logic board upgrade -- all I'd need to do is replace the CPU daughtercard. Comparison-wise, I don't find Macs to be any more expensive than comparably equipped name-brand machines from companies like IBM or Compaq, and they certainly have a much lower total-cost-of-ownership over their lifetime than any PC you will ever find. Even when you compare against no-name clones, Macs still have a lower total-cost-of-ownership over their lifetime (although the entry price is higher). IMO, Macs win, hands-down. > and lastly, can you recommend OS-X to a unix desktop user? opensource > licensing issues aside. I would recommend it, yes. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Do you hate Microsoft? Do you hate Outlook? Then visit the Anti-Outlook page at <http://www.rodos.net/outlook/>; and see how much fun you can have. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510140bb8a59e566b67>