Pro User's Perspective on the New iMac (and Other Apple Revelations)
Pages: 1, 2
Conference Sessions
While I didn't get the chance to attend all the conferences sessions I wanted, I did catch a couple of good ones, both part of the Mac OS X Pro Conference Track.
The first, "Backup, Archiving, and File Transfers for Mac OS X," was a panel hosted by longtime Mac developer Leonard Rosenthol, with participants that included Craig Issacs of Dantz Development, the makers of Retrospect, and Mac expert Adam Engst.
An obvious holdup to widespread adoption of Mac OS X has been the lack of an adequate backup solution. Rosenthol made a great case in defense of developers of such products by presenting three matrices showing why it's been so hard to do.
The tables outlined about a dozen issues that needed to be addressed for each of three aspects of the OS: its five application environments, four volume formats, and four archiving/encoding formats. (You can download a PDF of the presentation slides, including these tables here.)
The two solutions mentioned most often for backing up (and more importantly, restoring) Mac OS X systems were Tri-Backup for simple backups of a local machine, and Retrospect 5 for doing network backups.
While neither of these products is in a release version, both are available for trial: Tri-Backup as a beta, and Retrospect 5 as a preview.
Another session, this one also given by Rosenthol, was just as pertinent to folks wanting to get the most out of Mac OS X: "Using Unix Software with Mac OS X." (A PDF of the presentation slides is available here.)
With more and more "ports" of Unix software available to Mac OS X each day, it's becoming a lot easier to install and run applications originally developed with other Unices in mind. However, as Rosenthol pointed out, there are a few issues that can keep you from running some Unix software in Mac OS X:
- Unix Drivers: Unlike all other Unices, Mac OS X relies on its own "IOKit" software component to interface with hardware. Therefore, a Unix driver cannot be ported to Mac OS X.
- Some Intel-specific distributions--those that depend on a little-endian byte order--might be problematic.
- Dynamic linking in Mac OS X is unique and might cause install errors.
- Mac OS X includes no implementation of the X Windows System.
Addressing the final issue, Rosenthol demonstrated a solution running X Windows rootless (with X11 windows side by side with Aqua windows) in Mac OS X. He did this using XFree86 for Darwin and Mac OS X, an open source project, hosted at http://sourceforge.net/projects/xonx.
Showing how to further integrate the two windowing systems, Rosenthol also demonstrated OroborOSX, a window manager that tries to make the X11 windows look and behave more like Aqua windows. For example, without OroborOSX, minimized X11 windows will not show in the Dock.
The session also included a description of some of the better-known Unix package management systems, including:
- Fink, which uses Debian tools to manage binary packages of many open source Unix ports for Mac OS X. As many of us already using it know, Fink is a great system allowing Mac OS X users to easily install Unix standards such as MySQL, X Windows , X applications, and many others.
- (GNU-Darwin includes even more binary packages than Fink (these as RPMs), though is arguably less easy to use.
Wrap-Up
This Macworld made obvious the blooming of Mac OS X across the Macintosh landscape. This is an exciting thing to watch for longtime power users who have been waiting for a modern OS from Apple for many years, and are now seeing it become mainstream. Most vendors here seemed to have an Mac OS X solution well under way, if not already released; those that didn't probably felt a bit out of place.
While we had hoped to see upgrades to the Pro line (at least a speed bump), server-grade machines, and more news about the next version of Mac OS X, the fact that so much already seems to be working well with the new OS portends very well for all of us who have stuck with the Mac, and even centered our professional lives around the platform.
By Macworld New York I predict most of the major applications will be released for Mac OS X, Apple will once again be strengthened by strong iMac sales, and the next generation of Pro machines will be announced. This in addition to further releases of Mac OS X will make 2002 a heady year for us. Who knows, if things go any better, Apple might have that fabled rack-mountable, multiprocessor G5 server available for Macworld San Francisco in 2003! Well, one can always dream....
Chris Stone is a Senior Macintosh Systems Administrator for O'Reilly, coauthor of Mac OS X in a Nutshell and contributing author to Mac OS X: The Missing Manual, which provides over 40 pages about the Mac OS X Terminal.
Return to the Mac DevCenter.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 20 of 20.
-
iMac Screen
2002-01-20 14:31:54 afaby [Reply | View]
I overheard an Apple Store employee saying that the arm that holds the LCD screen was rated for 10,000 moves before the springs inside need to be re-tentioned. If you move the neck up to 10 times a day, thats about 3 years of durability. Not to shabby.
As far as graphics professionals not using the iMac because of the LCD size and not being able to display as many colors as a CRT, the iMac isn't marketed towards those users. Remember, the iMac is the consumer level machine. Professionals will most likely get a G4 tower with a CRT for graphics.
-
USB ports - How many??
2002-01-18 09:16:50 mccabem [Reply | View]
So Job's says 5, the article's author says same as hte old iMac: 3.
Can someone please doublecheck what I just read at Apple.com and saw in a jpeg of the back of the new iMac?
As my eyes tell me, there are now 3 USB ports in place of the former 2.
THAT MAKES 4 USABLE USB PORTS. THE OLD iMAC ONLY HAD 3.
Now about the question of controllers.
One controller is dedicated to one port. This port is for your keyboard as it' going to basically make that one port into two.
The other controller has the other 2 USB ports on the base.
2 ports per controller. No crazy math. No plugin headaches for power users.
Maybe a little more crack for Mr. Jobs and the author? :-) -
USB ports - How many??
2003-10-19 06:21:40 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
dude u doesn't need to be crazy about usb ports...just get a usb hub and go home -
USB ports - How many??
2002-01-18 14:07:40 Chris Stone |
[Reply | View]
Hmm...you must have misread something in my article. In fact, I wrote "the new iMac has just one more USB port than its predecessor, and in fact, the same number of on-board USB controllers". I didn't say it had the same port count as the old iMac.
I've also heard, though not confirmed, that both controllers control 2 on board USB "ports:" One controller controls two ports, and the other, the third port and the modem.
The problems still exits, especially if you want to plug into the keyboard, determining which port would be best for a given peripheral -- granted, not a huge deal, but I think it's something folks should know.
I also mentioned Jobs' "math" since this was a new equation for Apple. As far as I 've seen, Apple always spec'd the old iMac as having just 2 USB ports, and didn't include those on the keyboard.
-
As a Pro User I lust for the iMac but...
2002-01-17 07:03:59 soosy [Reply | View]
As a Pro User I initially wanted a bit more from the iMac and then I realized it is a consumer machine. The fact that they got a G4 and a LCD screen in there for $1299 is incredible!
The other reason I wanted more from the iMac is because it's so cool looking. I want one, bad! But I've pretty much decided my next machine will be dual-processor. I really hope they revise the PowerMac case to look somewhat as cool as the new iMac. They should also bring back the cube or introduce a monitorless iMac... if the price is right, people would buy and I think there are plenty of Pro users drooling over the new iMac but wanting a little bit more options (especially in the display area). I think there's room for more than 4 product lines... can't Apple give us a little more choice without ruining their profitability. I know they already tried with the cube... here's to hoping they try again!
-
OroborOSX and minimise-to-dock
2002-01-16 09:11:58 adrianu1 [Reply | View]
Thanks for the mention of OroborOSX!
With regard to the minimisation of windows to the dock, I'm not quite sure what is meant (as pmccann mentioned in his post) in the article...
Perhaps the writer became a bit confused by some mention of the windows appearing in the dock icon...? (i.e. the list of X11 windows that is available from the OroborOSX dock icon.)
I do hope I can figure out some hack to make minimise-to-dock at least "appear" to work, but it's certainly no easy matter (especially since the windows are not actually owned by OroborOSX, but by XDarwin).
Bye!
Adrian Umpleby
-
OroborOSX and minimise-to-dock
2002-01-16 09:29:58 Chris Stone |
[Reply | View]
And thank you Adrian for creating OroborOSX!
You are right about my confusion regarding the listing of X11 windows in the dock -- that was what I had meant to say.
And good luck with getting dock minimization to work -- that would be very cool!
--Chris -
OroborOSX and minimise-to-dock
2002-01-16 10:50:10 adrianu1 [Reply | View]
BTW, I'm curious to know...
Did Rosenthal ever say the word "OroborOSX"?
How did he pronounce it?
I've never yet had any need to say "OroborOSX", and I've little idea how to...!
(orobor oh ess ten? oroboros-ex? oroboros ten?)
;-)
Adrian
-
OroborOSX and minimise-to-dock
2002-01-16 16:04:58 Chris Stone |
[Reply | View]
I think he used "oroboros ten" (or was it oroboros ex?).
Anyway, now's a good time time to set it in stone...so how would you like the name of your creation pronounced?
(you heard it here first , folks! :-) -
OroborOSX pronunciation
2002-01-17 06:54:07 adrianu1 [Reply | View]
Ummm... errrr....
Well, it's something I've spent quite a while thinking about...
The problem is, I don't actually much like the name. I originally made it up because it started off as a slight modification to the Oroborus window manager, by Ken Lynch (see OroborOSX v0.1 -a standard, 'unix-based' window manager), but designed to look a bit better with OS X.
Then I figured out how to do some neat integration by turning it into a Carbon app...
What I really want is to change the name -make it more evocative of a "Complete Environment for Running X11 Applications on Mac OS X" (CERXAMOSX!).
Any suggestions would be most welcome...
(Maybe I should run a competition ;-)
Thanks!
Adrian
-
Nothing under the tree....
2002-01-16 09:04:52 wolf10 [Reply | View]
I think most pro users were a little stunned that there was no new pro gear announced. I like the iMac, but the lack of a large screen, no video sharing, 100mhz bus, lack of PCI slots -- well lets just say it doesn't fit my needs. iPhoto may prove useful -- but only in a very limited way. I already have Photoshop, Quark Xpress and a host off high-end apps that will allow me to do everything iPhoto will do -- but I may try the hard cover book option in the future.
No faster towers, no OS X update -- I felt like there was nothing under the tree for me.
I have been waiting to buy a new tower for some time, and I held out until the announcement. I sort of reluctantly ordered a new machine since I can't wait any longer. It's too bad, since I should feel excited about a new machine -- not deflated. There is one bright spot. Apple was out of stock on new towers -- citing a ten day wait. Possibly this is normal, but it does seem excessive.
Maybe all of Apple's resources and G4 chips are being funneled into the iMac, creating a delay in tower production. Yeah maybe that is all it is. I would be crazy to get my hopes up for anything else.
Yet there are those claiming that faster towers could be introduced any day now. What if Apple is even now assembling a line of faster Quicksilvers and will fill my order with one of the new machines. NO, No, no. I must be crazy to even speculate that this could happen. But it could....
-
It's not....
2002-01-16 09:02:59 jcontonio [Reply | View]
Supposed to be a pro machine. So why do people write about the imac lacking features a designer or pro would need. It's for mothers and children and for business use. I know if I had these in my office for secretery's or something they would be incredible.
-
orborosx
2002-01-16 06:42:40 pmccann [Reply | View]
Unless I'm living in a parallel universe you still don't get X applications minimising to the dock with oroborosx: instead it implements a "mini-dock" of minimised windows (top left of screen by default), and also allows you to use "windowshade" via double clicking on the title bar of X app windows.
It's a great piece of work, and makes the installation of a working rootless X windows setup for OSX incredibly painless. Definitely recommended for anyone who hasn't played with Xfree or the like on another platform, and still plenty of fun for those who have.
Cheers,
Paul -
orborosx
2002-01-16 09:16:06 Chris Stone |
[Reply | View]
Thanks Paul, you're exactly right. Though while oroborosx: windows don't minimize into dock icons, they do list in the dock's X icon pop-up and the Finder's Windows menu.
--Chris
Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.
I am a long-time Unix user. That means I need to have the Ctrl key to the left of the A key. This is a genuine need, not merely a want; it is based upon ergonomics. The Ctrl key is heavily used in unix, and it must be easily accessable. It cannot be off in the lower left corner of the keyboard where it is difficult to get at, and where it distorts the position of your left hand such that you can't easily type other keys while holding the Ctrl key down.
Apple desktop keyboards are now all USB. They are all OK. The CapsLock key can be re-mapped into a Ctrl key.
Unfortunately, even in this modern age, all Apple laptops have built-in ADB keyboards. The ADB keyboard is broken-by-design. It is, in general, not possible to remap the CapsLock key into a Ctrl key.
There are some exceptions, but they are horrible kludges. They are
horrible kludges because the original design of the ADB keyboard was a horrible kludge. The correct solution would be for Apple to re-design their laptop motherboards to use built-in USB keyboards. This hasn't happened yet. If you run Linux, use Debian's solution. For Mac OS X users, uControl works. There are no solutions (that I know of) for either NetBSD or OpenBSD. Please note once again that the "solutions" above are in fact kludges, because of the original bad design of the ADB keyboard.
Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users! This is not merely speculation on my part. In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department, the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market. He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath. Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 12 years. I expect that trend to continue. (Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse, even though Apple intended to port almost all X-window software and deliver it either on a CD/DVD or installed directly on each Mac's hard drive. How Unix friendly is a 1-button mouse with X programs that often require 3 buttons?)
Apple has now lost two opportunities to sell me hardware. I really wanted an Apple laptop for their superior battery life, and for the PowerPC with Altivec CPU. (The Altivec is vastly superior to the x86 line for DSP.) Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead. If Apple fixes this problem, they will sell me a PowerBook next year; if they don't, I'll still be running OpenBSD on x86 hardware, and wishing I could use a Mac.