Forums | MacLife

Snow Leopard shouldn't be a free upgrade, and anyone that thinks so has a screw loose. Now, a full price upgrade? Absolutely not. It's not really much more than a performance boost with a couple, small features. But this is going to be a very valuable upgrade. I mean, when was the last time Apple really dedicated itself to stability in this kind of way? No distractions, just a solid release.

Personally, I think it's about time we had a release like this, and I wouldn't mind paying for it at all.

I agree though, much over $50 would probably be a hard sell for previous owners, but it'll help to sell computers to new users.

Before you start discussing price should you know certain thing like when it's actually being released and what the final feature list is gonna be?

Just saying

Macskeeball wrote:

Tetrachloride wrote:

Safari stand-alone webpages is the only end user feature which stands out.

I'd imagine that proper Exchange support matters to end users in the enterprise.

/nods furiously.

OS X may not be ideal, but it's far better than any alternative...

What got veteran users like myself complaining is the fact that the old OS had been almost too smooth around the edges.

Think about it--the original OS in 1984 was very simple and features were added on top of it much like layers of sedimentary rock. It was already a refined system when System 6 came out in 1988, System 7 was released in 1991, and OS 8 hit the shelves in 1997.

Looking at 1984-1988, which is the time period 1.0 took to become 6.0, the OS never had any of those rough edges like OS X does. Even when significant features (such as MultiFinder and the HFS) were added along the way, the original code was good enough to build upon.

OS X always felt like a rushed product. My biggest complaint about it is the dependency on a command line interface. Isn't that exactly what we used to hate about Windows? Mac users used to boast about running a GUI with no system underneath it. Now we can't make that claim anymore. For shame...Unix may be stable but I've never liked it. It's even less user friendly than DOS.

333imacman wrote:

I'm no UNIX expert, but I do like having a solid foundation beneath the GUI. If something can't be done via the interface, i google it, and usually it can be done via the terminal.

Regardless, it's not like basic computer use requires command line access. I do brag about it, because there's something to be said about scalability. If you buy windows, you get a certain feature set with each version (Home, Pro, Ultimate, Starter). Mac OS X scales all the way from simple to advanced. My parents finally have a computer they aren't afraid to use because it's so simple. I have the same model computer, while being a much more advanced computer user, and I'm not held back by the operating system.

It just works, IMHO

Well said

Scott Baret wrote:

OS X always felt like a rushed product. My biggest complaint about it is the dependency on a command line interface. Isn't that exactly what we used to hate about Windows? Mac users used to boast about running a GUI with no system underneath it. Now we can't make that claim anymore. For shame...Unix may be stable but I've never liked it. It's even less user friendly than DOS.

The beauty of OSX (or any other mature *nix based OS these days) is that you do not need to use the command line if you are not comfortable with it. The command line exists for power users (like me) who find it faster and easier to use than the traditional GUI.

OSX is still in a different boat than Windows 9* or *nix OSes using X; as you cannot disable the window server and just run everything in a command line interface. You can log in as >console, but that is not the same.

Ya. I have my gripes with OSX but the CLI is not one of them. Way back in the OSX beta days I said that a measure of Apple's success with OSX will be whether or not they make it possible for the typical user to never have to use the CL.
Well, in all my years of using OSX I have never had to us the CL. I have a couple of times for educational purposes but Apple did succeed in making the CL optional and that's a worthy accomplishment.

Scott Baret wrote:

OS X always felt like a rushed product. My biggest complaint about it is the dependency on a command line interface. Isn't that exactly what we used to hate about Windows? Mac users used to boast about running a GUI with no system underneath it. Now we can't make that claim anymore. For shame...Unix may be stable but I've never liked it. It's even less user friendly than DOS.

There is no real "command line OS," OSs are just an interface between hardware and software. You can have command line interfaces to an OS, sure, but there is no real difference in how it works, as long as it supports the same basic features. (such as how it manages memory, multiple processes, etc.) The problem with Windows was DOS was a very old OS that didn't support the kind of OS features that are necessary for a GUI with applications to run smoothly, and was never updated to truly support them. While UNIX also has very old origins, it was designed to be a multi-user system from the beginning. It was ahead of its time in supporting features such as virtual memory, preemptive multitasking, etc. These kinds of features are what are necessary to run multiple applications simultaneously, which is the hallmark of a GUI desktop environment simultaneously running 3rd party applications.

The new Windows OSs still have a command line interface. While it may be "DOS emulation", the only reason why it's called that is because it has the same interface as DOS, but isn't really DOS. You can make a different interface for UNIX, as well, which has been done with bash, tcsh, etc. If anything, a command line is a good thing to have. There are some things that you can't do with a normal GUI interface, or are much more tedious than just typing it out. The real test is whether or not the GUI is complete enough to not require the average user to use the command line. You can pretty much use OS X without even knowing about the command line, assuming you aren't hacking around the system. On the other hand, Windows sometimes did require it, and linux requires it a lot more, not because they are "built on a command line OS", but because they simply didn't add GUI support for these features and the only way to access them is from the command line.

knobtwirler wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Well, in all my years of using OSX I have never had to us the CL. I have a couple of times for educational purposes but Apple did succeed in making the CL optional and that's a worthy accomplishment.

Does that include the kill command for apps that hang up the whole computer and remain unresponsive, or maybe a beachballed Finder? Because I have had to do that a few times, and I didn't like it. Even though you can control-click the app in the dock and choose Force Quit, or Force Quit via Activity Monitor, sometimes those two ways do not respond. I think I had to hold down the power button once or twice to shut it down in such a stuck state.

I've have to do this all the time running my 1GHz PowerBook. I've run everything too; Disk Warrior, Cocktail, repired Permissions, etc. Of course it is booted from an external disk so that may have something to do with it? It usually happens when changing from one user to another without logging off the 1st user 1st. It will just hang (sometimes) and become non-responsive. It actually used to happen in many different situations prior to the last update.

If you can't access the dock or activity monitor, you can still usually force quit using control-option-escape to bring up the force quit dialog.

hardware comment- sorry guys

the g5 thing i dont think is goin to fly at all.

i mean droppin all g4's that is bearable, and imacs meh, but those tower guys will be supremely po'ed.

but i guess if u have enough money for a tower then mac pro is chump change.

ive also heard that core duo's are not supported cannot confirm that tho.

Aside from SSH/Telnet there's rarely a reason for most users to touch the CLI.  For some reason too many users attach CLI with separation between "Power User" and every day user.

Also I'm not sure about the Finder bitching. The finder is rather refined, it just needs a few mild changes like Tabbed Finder Windows, much more customizable Spotlight (Bring back the results viewing options for the love of god) and such. Honestly I can't cite a better GUI at the moment (not to say there's not any room for improvement) but between the whining of once OS9 users yearning for a day when the Mac lacked preemptive multitasking or protected mem with the smurf insane "extensions" system really doesn't seem have any relevant substance.