OS X

[ragiepew]

Dont kill me now, but... I have a friend w/ a G4 and he showed me the beta of OS X (10)... plain and simple, it rocked. Maybe it was because it was something "new" but man it sure isnt the old Mac OS, sure its cheezy lookin, but nothing beats pulling up a command prompt and issuing your fav. unix commands! Anyway, I just wanted to know what the others thought.

 

[noxipoo]

does it use the unix file system? like / blah blah. or some weird MAC thing? Whistler is suppose to looks as cool as X. and the thing i don't get from max users is... they all are now saying how OS X is BSD based and how its stable and blah blah better than windows, but we had freakin freebsd and linux for how many years on the pc side now? sheesh!

 

[ragiepew]

Yes, OS X is based on FreeBSD and uses the unix filesystem. Its actually quite cool, a lot better than I had hoped. It has some neat effects (transperant windows, nice navbar (much better than windows start bar)), and for a beta OS, it was quite stable... but hell when they've been working on it for so damn long (4 years I hear), it better be. Anyway, my friend (the mac guru) said that they were able to compile the kernel (Darwin) on an x86 machine... quite kool. I havent heard anything about whisler... has anywone posted and screenies (i think its in beta testing now)... im really curious.

 

[Train]

ive seen screen shots of whistler, its basically a much refined version of win2k, visually you could probably not tell the difference, but i guess under the hood runs a bit smoother

 

[Oreo]

Sign the petition if you want OS X on the PC osxonintel It sure looks great, but the sad thing is you need Mac hardware (=very expensive).

 

[Train]

wont happen, Intel and AMD still are x86 compatible, which is good for backward compatibility (hell you can take the latest comp and run dos 1.0 on it if you wanted to) but its starting to slow progress, the MAC chips have an advantage there, and are starting to capitalize on this with thier newly developed architectures

 

[obeseotron]

OS X appears to be the suavest looking OS ever, period. It is a true next gen OS kernel, interface, everything. Windows 2000 is using basically a heavily modified Mac OS7 Gui running on a modern kernel in my opinion. Currenty Whistler is just like a big service pack for 2k, but MS may debut their new gui with Whistler. It isn't the default gui in the betas yet, but that is the the competitor for OSX, not the current look of Windows 2k.

 

[obeseotron]

OS X appears to be the suavest looking OS ever, period. It is a true next gen OS kernel, interface, everything. Windows 2000 is using basically a heavily modified Mac OS7 Gui running on a modern kernel in my opinion. Currenty Whistler is just like a big service pack for 2k, but MS may debut their new gui with Whistler. It isn't the default gui in the betas yet, but that is the the competitor for OSX, not the current look of Windows 2k.

 

[Noriaki]

<< OS X appears to be the suavest looking OS ever, period. It is a true next gen OS kernel, interface, everything >>



It is no such damn thing. It is a re-vamped BSD Unix kernel.
It's a HUGE HUGE HUGE step up from Mac OS9, OS X is pretty damn sweet, but it is no more a new kernel than Win2000 is a new kernel over NT4.

It's new to Mac's maybe...but we've had FreeBSD and OpenBSD on PC for a long time now, OSX is just catching up.

Yes mac had the first GUI, it's nice to see they've finally changed it after 15 years.

I will however give you that it is a pretty much all new interface. Even if it is built on the same kernel, it's a much nicer Desktop/UI than KDE, Gnome, or just about any others I've seen (Including windows).

I still won't use a Mac, I won't use a Compaq or an HP pre-built system, and I won't use an Apple pre-built system. Apple is starting to show me that they can make some pretty kick a$$ systems, but having to buy everything from one MFR is just damn expensive.

 

[BFG10K]

Yes, OS X is based on FreeBSD and uses the unix filesystem.

OS X uses HFS+, which is the current file system in 8x/9x.

 

[RagingGuardian]

It'd really be cool if I can pop OSX into my AMD box. Shame I can't because it seems pretty cool.

 

[Gunbuster]

Silly question: will OSX run on a DV Imac?

 

[ragiepew]

bfg10k- I dont know if that is accurate (im no mac guy, so i may be wrong) but from looking at the filesystem on osx you can run the standard u/linux commands, including chmod. now being able to set permissions on a folder/file/drive makes it way different from the old filesystem. Again, maybe the modded the filesystem for this changeover or whatever, i dont know.

Also, OS X will run on any machine w/ a G3 or better, so i presume it would work on a iMac.

 

[ragiepew]

whoops... double post.

 

[prontospyder]

Anyone have some cool screenshots of OS X in action?

 

[ragiepew]

just go to apple.com, they have some shots if you look around

 

[Soccerman]

I have to agree, the file system is typical BSD.. in fact, the only REAL work it seems they DID on OSX is resulted in making it easy to use (ala Mac OS), easy to install, and great (understatement) looking.

the command line is pure *nix. I suspect they had no reason to change the file system (why would they?)

 

[Eug]

As a newbie to Unix I'll just have to say that for the average user Unix truly sucks. Sure it's rock solid and extremely configurable, but the whole thing reeks of computer geekness. (I'm a computer geek so I can say that. )

I installed Linux and absolutely hated it. It's just a pain. OS X is truly what I've been waiting for. I was even impressed by the alpha. I haven't tried the beta but it definitely looked good. Too bad they don't have a PC version.

 

[Jaraxal]

As a user of Solaris 2.6 - Solaris 8, Red Hat Linux, Mandrake Linux, Caldera OpenLinux, Windows 95-ME, and Windows NT4 - 2000 I can say that I would love to be able to run OS X on an x86 machine.

I signed the petition.

 

[noxipoo]

with KDE 2 and the Aquatic skin, linux can look basicly lik OS X, without the crap

 

[Syborg1211]

yup, the new os look cool

 

[Soccerman]

&quot;without the crap&quot;

what crap?

heh, yeah it should be relatively easy to port OS X to x86 (after all, there are MANY versions of UNIX), BUT then you have to have compatability with PC devices.

they've been spending all this time on the GUI, Device compatability, Installation, etc.. Device compatability and Installation I think are probably the most time consuming.

 

[Train]

hey Yahoo servers run on Intel chips and they run FreeBSD OS, i guess all they are missing is a nice GUI

 

[ElFenix]

its unix for the masses, which no unix dist or unix workalike has ever been. i would love to run that OS. back in 98 or so they said they would port it to the pc, and i predicted i'd be running it and the latest version of nt 5. i can still hope.

from what i've read it uses the unix file system, not the old mac one. but you may be albe to install it on the old mac one.

 

[Eug]

It runs fine on old Mac hardware. The alpha I ran was on an ancient beige G3. Worked fine and was GORGEOUS, but it was slow obviously.

Microsoft should be worried. They've been able to rest easy (relatively speaking) knowing that the Linux GUIs seem like mediocre hack jobs in many ways. OS X truly changes things. In all honesty, this is the first time I've actually been impressed by a GUI and OS (except for BeOS, which is kind of interesting).

This OS is still pretty limited though, but if they made OS XI for the PC, I'd install it for sure.