Review: Apple's Jaguar is One Cool Cat

By Joe Wilcox, BetaNews

August 22, 2002, 7:11 AM

Mac enthusiasts say Apple is the mother of all invention. Maybe they're right. Microsoft took six years to deliver the kind of operating system the company promised in 1995. Windows 95 didn't live up to the hype until Windows XP. Apple managed the same feat in less than two years. Mac OS X 10.0, released in March 2001, lacked fundamental features such as CD burning and DVD playback. Successor 10.1, which debuted in September 2001, delivered better performance but couldn't match some of XP's best features. But Mac OS X 10.2, also known as Jaguar, beats Apple's original promise of a robust, modern operating system and outclasses Windows XP's handling of multiple programs running simultaneously. Still, many important changes are mere catch up to XP or even Apple's older Mac OS 9.

Apple delivered my official Jaguar copy on Aug. 16, 2002, about a week before OS X 10.2's official Aug. 24, 2002 release. Talk about efforts to woo the reviewer: Apple preloaded Jaguar on a PowerBook G4 800. But I already had been working with betas and final code obtained though "special sources." Before Apple's woo-the-reviewer package arrived, I had the "unofficial" official release running on three Macs: Dual 1GHz Power Mac G4, 700MHz flat-panel iMac and another PowerBook 800.

Apple claims to have packed in more than 150 new features into Jaguar--and they show. Little tweaks and changes can be seen throughout the entire OS. But some of the most important changes, surprisingly, are the least obvious. For this reason, I will post a first take on OS X 10.2 and add to it over the coming weeks.

Anyone upgrading to Jaguar--and at least all Mac OS X users should consider doing so--will find the install to be a long one. Sixty to 90 minutes was typical for my test machines. Strangely, that works out to be longer than for IBM's ill-fated but delightful OS/2--itself a record breaker for long installs--and much longer than Windows XP. The user can reduce the install by customizing the process, rather than relying on the default settings. Interestingly, the Power Mac and iMac took about the same amount of time to upgrade, while the PowerBook took much longer.

Speedier performance is one of the most remarkable improvements following the upgrade. Almost any Windows upgrade or administration of a service pack slows down performance--at least in my experience. But all three Macs perked up after upgrading to Jaguar. Quartz Extreme, Jaguar's new graphics rendering engine, may account for much of this improvement. Quartz Extreme shifts more graphics work to the Mac's graphics accelerator, taking much of the load off the PowerPC processor. But users upgrading some iBooks or older Macs will find their graphics accelerators are not supported by Quartz Extreme. Other benefits of the enhanced Quartz will work, but the biggest benefit will be lost.

The difference in handling shows, because of Quartz Extreme and for other reasons. Mac OS X 10.2 manages multiple tasks much more smoothly than does Windows XP, which often hesitates when switching between applications. I've often suspected XP's problem is related to how the operating system manages the graphical user interface--a problem Apple doesn't appear to have with Jaguar. This issue of how the operating system handles on the road, so to speak, is an important one. The smoothness of moving between tasks or applications is remarkably better than Windows XP, greatly reducing waiting time, and so accumulated frustration. Even on a two-year-old G4 Cube--with 400MHz PowerPC processor and 384MB of memory--Jaguar operated remarkably well. Windows XP installed on the same vintage of PC would have frequently puffed and stopped for breath when carrying even modest loads.

With Quartz Extreme, Apple also has served up more control over font smoothing, which can be adjusted for LCD or CRT monitors. Windows XP and Mac OS X handle font smoothing in different ways. As a matter of technology, Apple has done the better job making the feature available to different applications. As a matter of taste, I prefer the look of fonts rendered using Microsoft's ClearType technology found in Windows XP and Microsoft Reader. Still, for reasons that must make sense to Microsoft, XP users need to go online to adequately adjust ClearType, which does not work well on CRT, or tube, monitors. Mac users with CRT monitors get the benefit of Jaguar's improved font smoothing. XP users are out of luck unless they switch to a LCD, or flat-panel, monitor.

Renovations and remodeling

Apple has done an excellent job improving major, existing bundled applications while adding some very exciting new ones. Even so, too many new features play catch up with Windows XP. Worse, many of the most enticing new features, such as Rendezvous, are still works in progress.

Rendezvous may be Mac OS X 10.2's most promising and frustrating new feature. Rendezvous promises to simplify finding people, peripherals or other computers on the network. The feature eliminates the need to remember identifiers like Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Finding something on the network is as easy as point and click. But peripheral manufacturers will have to support Rendezvous for the benefits of the technology to reach its full potential. That will take time, although Epson, Hewlett-Packard and Lexmark have committed to supporting Rendezvous in some future network printers. For now, Rendezvous is best used finding other computers on the local network. The feature also adds cool capabilities to iChat, Jaguar's new instant messaging program, such as quick identification of other people on the local network and sharing files with them.

As for iChat, Apple has done a fairly good job making instant messaging cool. Messages appear next to the buddy in a bubble talk window reminiscent of the comics. In a nice touch, a blank bubble appears while a buddy types a message. The program supports all the basic instant messaging features and even adds spell checking, which is lacking on most competing products. But iChat lacks many sophisticated chatting features, doesn't support some file sharing options and fails to offer videoconferencing capabilities found in Yahoo! Messenger or Windows Messenger. Maybe iChat's most compelling feature is compatibility with the AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) network. Apple gives iChatters the choice of using AIM or .Mac for instant messaging.

Sherlock 3 perhaps is Mac OS X 10.2's standout feature. Originally introduced as a local disk and Internet search utility, Sherlock started on shaking legs. But the new version has found firm footing--and, whoa, can it walk. Apple has evolved Sherlock into a utility for delivering Web informational services to the Mac. The first iteration of Sherlock 3 features 10 channels: Internet, Pictures, Stocks, Movies, eBay, Flights, Dictionary, Translation and Apple Care. The Internet search feature is competent enough but not exceptional. On the other hand, searching for Joe Wilcox yielded this Web site as the first choice. The search feature using Internet Explorer 6 for Windows yielded one of my July CNET News.com stories--this one about a wireless deal between Microsoft and AT&T wireless. The second choice led to Joe Wilcox Indian Den in Sedona, Arizona. (It's a great store by the way. I shopped there during an Arizona vacation!)

Pictures searches Getty Images for pics that can be purchased online. Not surprisingly, I couldn't find my mug or any pictures of my home town. Other searches were more promising. I could have purchased a nice black and white photo of a dung pile, but decided to be thrifty. (Hey, my neighbor has got a dog and I have a digital camera.) The Stocks channel is a great way for getting stock news on companies, compete with charts on their performance. Movies proved to be my favorite channel. I could quickly find movies in my area, while watching previews within the Sherlock 3 window. Information is provided by Moviefone, from which tickets can be purchased fairly easily with the aid of Sherlock 3.

Yellow Pages can't be far behind Movies for niftiness and convenience. I quickly found my local Papa Johns pizzeria, complete with a detailed map and driving directions. The eBay channel is surprisingly good at turning up and tracking auctions. I followed several Sonic the Hedgehog UFO plush toy auctions for my daughter, but couldn't force myself to pay a couple hundred bucks for a stuffed character. My one gripe: The eBay channel often would not display the item's image, even though one might be available on the auction site.

Travel, not surprisingly, served up flight information. Dictionary delivered standard online definitions or synonyms. Translation was loads of fun. Hopefully, someone who reads Chinese can tell me if the feature is any good. I typed, "My leg is broken." Here is the English to Chinese translation I got back: 我 的 腿是 殘破 的 。.

Apple largely revamped Mail, which is based on Unix mail (Mac OS X is a Unix-based OS). The earlier versions of the program performed slowly and offered much fewer features than competing e-mail applications. But with the new version, Apple has largely resolved--but not eliminated--the performance issues and added some nifty new features. The Junk Mail filter is astoundingly astute at filtering out junk e-mail. The filter isn't perfect, but it's very good. Once the user completes a training period for sorting through e-mail deemed as junk, Mail dumps junk e-mail in a special folder for easy sorting.

Still, many of the new features play catch up with other e-mail programs. Transferring e-mail to folders is still a cumbersome process, Apple continues to favor rich text over HTML and the program doesn't track replies with the original messages, among other shortcomings. Mail's importing from other applications still needs work, although Apple fixed the majority of glitches. Nevertheless, I had some problem importing messages and folders from Microsoft's Entourage and failed in the process from Mozilla. Other features touted by Apple, such as the playing of QuickTime movies within e-mail, are long-time Entourage offerings.

Address Book is one of Mac OS X 10.2's most overhauled bundled applications. The earlier version was simply abysmal; features sucked and the program didn't work right. The earlier Address Book supposedly supported virtual contact files (vcf), but choked when importing or exporting them. Apple has resolved that problem very well. Dragging Entourage contact files to the desktop or folder turn them into vcfs that are easily imported into Address Book. Perfectly in my testing. Address Book is an adequate contact manager, but still lacks many features people on the go will demand. On the other hand, the database of contacts can be made available to almost any application, which is exceptionally handy. Both Mail and iChat use Address Book, for example.

Inkwell is Apple's handwriting recognition application, which is new with Jaguar. By attaching a graphics artist tablet to the Mac, the user can convert handwriting to typewritten text in virtually any application. Microsoft offers something similar with Office XP today and will expand that when the first Tablet PCs come to market in November.

Exclusive to Jaguar, meaning they won't work with other versions of Mac OS X, are new applications iCal and iSync. Neither application is yet available, but both are slated for September release. The "unofficial" copy of iCal I tested from those "special sources" worked fairly well. The interface is attractive and easy to navigate. But iCal appears to lack some of the more sophisticated features found in Entourage or other calendaring programs. The version I tested could not publish or access calendars from the Web, one of iCal's most touted features.

Apple came to town for a visit on July 24, with a copy of iSync for demonstration. I actually brought a blank CD along, offering the Apple folks the opportunity to burn beta copies of both iSync and iCal. I didn't get them. Apple's iSync promises to synchronize contact, and in some cases calendar, information with Palm handhelds, the iPod music player and some Bluetooth enabled cell phones. Unfortunately, iSync only supports one family of Sony Ericsson phones, which my cellular service provider doesn't carry. Because the phones use new GSM/GPRS networks not fully operational, early iSync adopters that run out and buy the Sony Ericsson phones may wish they had waited.

Big changes in small places

The majority of Mac OS X 10.2's biggest and most important changes are not altogether obvious. Apple did a tremendous amount of tweaking under the hood, so to speak. Interestingly, many changes merely unlock existing features previously available from the Unix command line. Still, these now easily accessed features and new ones are perhaps Jaguar's best changes.

Borrowing from Windows XP, Jaguar now lets the user choose which application to use when inserting CDs or DVDs. A default program can be set with this prompt or in System Preferences. But XP is more aware of different digital media types, offering a similar default program prompt for any device attached that contains digital media.

The Get Info feature for revealing file attributes catches up with Windows XP and in some ways exceeds it. Get Info now offers more file information, greater control over ownership and permissions and even a preview of the contents. Like Windows XP's similar Properties feature, files can be indexed for fast searches from the Get Info window. This indexing is important for new search features added to Finder. In one of the best enhancements made to Mac OS X, powerful search capabilities are available in any open window. By comparison, Windows XP's search feature is slow and clunky, like a Model T racing a Thunderbird.

One of the most important, unobvious changes affects sharing files or data with other computers. The File Sharing option is easier to use and delivers more options--some sorely missing in earlier OS X versions. Mac users can now fairly easily let Windows users easily share their files. More importantly, Apple has added printer sharing, a longstanding, standard feature missing in the first two OS X releases. In fact, users should scold Apple for not making printer sharing available in earlier versions; Windows has had this feature for years! The revamped File Sharing control also adds an Internet firewall option. While the earlier OS X versions included a firewall, the feature was difficult for all but the most sophisticated of users to access.

Image Capture now supports scanners, in another Windows XP catch-up feature. But the default drivers would not work with my Canon N1240U scanner, which I purchased at the local Apple retail store, I might add. Canon's drivers only work with the older Mac OS 9.

Only Apple's fine attention to detail would lead to an overhaul of an operating system's Calculator feature. But Calculator is tweaked and tucked in all the right places. Among other changes, the program easily does currency conversions, which can be updated quickly when connected to the Internet. Calculator also converts temperature, area, speed, pressure and other means of weight or measurement. No doubt, conversion will be a selling point with schools.

Classic, Apple's environment for running Mac OS 9 applications, is improved. Under System Preferences, users can now manage OS 9 applications and the amount of memory they use when running in Classic mode. Software Updates now tracks installed updates from within System Preferences. In earlier OS X versions, users had to get this manually information from a Packages folder.

Preview now offers more features, particularly supporting Adobe (PDF) portable document files. For example, a convenient menu tab allows quick access to any page. The Sound control is more capable, but still trails Windows XP. Users can now switch between the built-in audio controller or external speakers, such as Harman Kardon's Sound Sticks. The Energy control expands to a maximum 3 hours from 60 minutes the amount of time before putting the computer to sleep. In general, sleep mode works much better on Mac OS X computers than those running Windows XP. The feature is literally instant on or off under OS X, while the process takes 10 seconds or much longer under XP.

The Universal Access feature catches up with Windows XP big time--and in many ways eclipses Microsoft's OS. The best change is the ability to magnify items in such a way there is little or no degradation of text or images. This is a potentially a huge boon to people whose eyesight is far from perfect.

Apple also has added built-in support for Bluetooth, the emerging technology for connecting wirelessly to peripherals, handhelds and cell phones. This is a nice coup over Microsoft, which has yet to add Bluetooth support to Windows XP. Apple also incorporated 802.11b wireless networking support into Mac OS long before Microsoft added it to Windows. But Microsoft caught up and then some. Windows XP's support of wireless networking is much better than Mac OS X's.

Other changes are nice to have but most people won't need them. The desktop image can be set to cycle through to new images--get this--as often as every five seconds. The screen saver, which has been renamed Screen Effects has a nifty new feature. Those people willing to fork over $50 or 100 bucks for a .Mac account can import directly into Screen Effects slide shows their friends or family with .Mac accounts choose to make available for them.

For what it's worth, until July Apple offered online services, such as disk storage and e-mail, as part of iTools. Starting Sept. 30, existing iTools users will have to pay $50 a year for the revamped service, .Mac, and newcomers will have to fork over that 100 bucks. For existing iTools users, after they get over the grumbling of paying for something that had been free, .Mac is a pretty good deal. The service offers Web-based e-mail with 15MB of storage, 100MB of online storage with automatic online and local backup capabilities, McAfee's Virex antivirus software, personal home page with a fairly easy to use Web publisher and an online greeting card utility. When Apple releases iCal, users will be able to post and host calendars online using .Mac. The service also will work with iSync for synchronizing files and folders between two or more Macs. Apple is expected to introduce additional services throughout the first full year of .Mac's operation.

Is it worth $129?

Unquestionably, Apple has done a very good job with Mac OS X 10.2. Still, I am surprised at the number of glitches I encountered. Most are little annoyances, such as problems with Windows not retaining my resizing of the icons. (Earth to Apple: Icons set at 48 x 48 or 64 x 64 pixels by default are too big for most people.) Other problems, such as DVD movies playing at a reduced size using that woo-the-reviewer PowerBook 800, also seemed out of place for the third version of an operating system.

Still, anyone using any version of Mac OS X should consider plunking down the $129 Apple is asking for Jaguar or the $200 for the 5-user family version. Apple has added plenty of new features and tweaked enough under the hood to more than justify the upgrade cost.

But people considering a move to Macs from PCs, like those folks featured in Apple's Switchers ad campaign, should be wary. Windows XP is a great operating system, too, and brings less hassle along with it. XP may not handle as well as Jaguar, but Microsoft's operating system is more widely compatible with applications or for cruising the Web. Just ask my daughter how many plug-ins aren't available for Mac browsers on the kids Web sites she visits, as an example. Many Windows XP PCs also come with extras, like Microsoft Office XP Small Business Edition, as part of the purchase price. Mac buyers have to shell out anywhere from $300 to $500 to get Office v. X for Mac OS X. That version of Office works with some quirks on Jaguar, by the way, so waiting for a Microsoft update might be a good idea anyway.

So, what's my verdict? Jaguar is a great operating system, perhaps the best I have ever tested. But too many features play catch up with Windows XP, another great OS and one with more legs in this era of the Microsoft monopoly. On the other hand, Apple is on its second major upgrade to Mac OS X since its March 2001 release, while Microsoft for now doesn't plan a major Windows overhaul until at least late 2004. If Apple continues to push out exciting features at this pace, Mac OS X could easily leave Windows XP eating a huge cloud of dust. Now that really would be innovation in motion.

Joe Wilcox has been covering technology since 1994 and now spends his days writing about Microsoft for CNET News.com. Joe can be found online at joewilcox.com.

Add a Comment (106 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By asdyouass

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 7:01 PM

Score: 0

By nhavar

posted Aug 24, 2002 - 9:09 PM

I'm confused. The article states that Apple put together an OS in less than two years better than MS's that took six. Didn't the majority of OS-X already exist prior to Apple's development, I mean isn't it just BSD Unix with some (however extensive) Apple changes. So wouldn't it be more fair to say that Apple extended an existing OS to create something better in two years than MS could create from scratch in six. That would at least be technically accurate right?

Score: 0

By mhinck

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 11:22 PM

I was thinking on similar lines. Apple has actually been working towards a stable OS since OS 7 (which if I remember correctly came out around the same time as Windows 95) and they only accomplished that now by throwing out everything and building OS X on top of BSD. Microsoft on the other hand has always had a stable OS in the NT line but has struggled to move users off of the DOS based 9X line. If it weren't for backwards compatibility and game support, Windows 2000 would have been the perfect home user OS.

So they are two totally different paths that happen to have started and ended around the same time.

As for the thread below about XP being NT 5.1, from 2000 (NT 5), XP is only a minor version change but from 98 (or God forbid ME) it is a huge upgrade.

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Sep 4, 2002 - 5:27 PM

"...God forbid ME" ??

You saying that Win98 is better than ME ?
Sure right....

Score: 0

By jpndewit

posted Sep 6, 2002 - 5:37 AM

Yes it is for sure.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 25, 2002 - 5:39 AM

Well, you bring up an interesting point. However, you also have to remember that Windows 95 was not written from scratch. It was still based on 16-bit DOS under the hood. And while it is BSD-based, OS X has it's own kernel and drivers, and all of the main meat of what the user sees (entire interface, applications, etc.) are all created by Apple.

I think the point that Joe was trying to make is not one of code, but rather the experience of the operating system, which is arguably the most important aspect. For example: Linux is a wonderfully stable and robust operating system, but for the experience it appeals to very few as a real desktop solution.

Joe is (at least in my view) trying to say that the operating system experience (fast, stable, easy to use, compatible, etc.) Microsoft tried to create in 1995 was not achieved until 2001. And the similar experience Apple tried to create with OS X did not occur until Jaguar.

Score: 0

By CPUGuy

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 12:16 AM

Well, OSX was in development for far longer than two years. It started with all with NeXT, and then later the Rhapsody, which was the code-name for OSX, which, even that, was around much longer than just two years.

The author also states that somehow Apple is bringing out exciting new features at a fast pace... this is wrong... .Mac is just basically webhosting, sure iTunes is great, but it's been great for awhile, nothing in iTunes 3 is anything revolutionary, the same goes for Sherlock 3, it is great, but there is nothing particularly exciting about it, at least not to me.

I also don't see how this is the second major upgrade for OSX. 10.1 wasn't exactly major, I mean, it had stuff in there that should have been in 10.0, but they released a beta product (literally) as a final to the public.

It seems to be that the author believes that what's major for Apple is minor for Microsoft...
To Microsoft, a major update is going from NT4 to Win2000, which was definately a major thing, or bringing people off of Win9x and to the NT kernel, which that is too a major thing, or from going from XP.
In that respect, there have been NO major updates to OSX at all, including Jaguar.

Score: 0

By asdfasdf

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 1:33 AM

I'm not sure that I'd say Windows XP was based on Windows 95. I'd say that it is based on the NT kernel with 9x emulation (they call it compatibility mode). When NT was begun, it was dubbed NT (New Technology) because it was just that, new. It was not based on what had already existed.

Score: 0

By bseader

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 2:49 PM

I'd agree to this comparison. When speaking of a consumer OS you should leave out references to NT, a business OS. Comparisons between a consumer OS and business OS are fundamentally flawed. Windows XP Home Edition, though built off the NT kernal, is in fact MS's new consumer OS and therefore warrant comparison to OS X. Therefore saying it took MS 6 years to get the 'consumer' OS right would be accurrate.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 3:20 AM

Windows XP was not based on the 95 core, but rather the NT kernel and is a true 32-bit operating system.

However, again, we're not talking about code here. I think the point is that the consumer experience Microsoft tried to achieve with Windows 95 was not accompished until 2001 and the release of Windows XP. Whatever the underlying code, XP is still targeted at the consumer, just as 95, 98, and the horrible mistake Windows Me was.

Score: 0

By FunkyFreddy3k

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 10:50 AM

I dont agree with that one bit. I think Microsofts objectives now and what they were for the 95 product are quite different. I think it would be more appropriate to compare 95c with apples Jaguar. 95c achieved pretty much everything microsoft wanted to originally achieve with 95 in my opinion (it was never intended to be capable of everything NT was doing at the time - they had NT as a separate product to do those things and merging the products was a long way down the road map). Plus it also didnt take MS long to get to 95C.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 4:52 PM

Again, you're talking about code which isn't the point. Of course Microsoft had no plans to merge Windows 95 and NT, because NT was designed for businesses - it had very little hardware support, and few applications ran well on it.

But from a user-level experience, the objectives Microsoft had for Windows 95 and for XP are not much different. Windows XP improves upon the same evolutionary concepts Microsoft launched with 95 and improved upon with 98 and Me. Windows 95c simply fixed bugs in 95, I wouldn't consider it a big improvement from a user standpoint. Drivers were still shoddy and hardware support was weak, Windows still blue-screened, and the user generally didn't have a good experience with it.

Score: 0

By FunkyFreddy3k

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 6:06 AM

It doesnt really matter either way because microsofts objectives have been a lot wider than apples - and have been achieved a lot quicker than you are trying to make out.

So when are the Apple banners going to appear on this site, just like the winamp ones did shortly after you desparately trying to defend winamp3?

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 3:58 PM

How have their objectives been "wider" - just because Microsoft is a larger company than Apple? And how does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Sure, Microsoft has made some amazing innovations with Windows and as the article above states (not sure if you've even read the whole thing) OS X is still playing catch-up with Windows in a lot of areas. But the point doesn't change that Apple has been very quick in getting an OS out that is of consumer quality. And the fact that one can even compare OS X to XP (even if Windows is still better) is quite astonishing and a sign that Apple is on the right track. Just because you're a Microsoft loyalist doesn't mean you have to be anti- everything else. Try opening your mind, you may learn a thing or two.

Score: 0

By FunkyFreddy3k

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 4:53 AM

I could probably name at least 50 things, but you would again claim they are code related more than user related (which I still view as debatable, but I have better things to do than have a fewt like argument day and night for a week on here!). One obvious thing though would be microsofts focus on the internet experience that apple have paid little or no attention to until recently. As for me being a microsoft loyalist and not trying other OSs etc... its a shame you cant see how much Im laughing at you right now!

Score: 0

By asdfasdf

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 8:51 AM

What happened to fewt? I stopped reading the forums for a few months and now he's gone.

Score: 0

By Dravencove

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 10:51 AM

OUCH!

Score: 0

By donpacman

posted Aug 25, 2002 - 3:54 AM

same here.

Score: 0

By PacFu

posted Aug 24, 2002 - 7:26 AM

Ok, I work in a print shop, and my office room has 2 Desktop PCs, OS9 G3, OS X.1 G4, and PC server. I dont know what the big deal is about OS 10. I have SOOO many problems with the Mac that we have to hire a contractor to come in and fix them. For instance, if I try to copy files from the mac onto my PC file server, no matter what the size, the process BLUESCREENS the server. Yea, not fun. Printer drivers absolutely suck for the designjets I use (6-color 60" plotter); no custom page sizes. Anyway, I use XP at home and never ever have problems. If apple would spend another 2 years developing this os, then maybe it'll live up to the talk, but for now, I just don't see it.

Score: 0

By jaguaargh

posted Sep 6, 2002 - 7:58 AM

There is a simple way to copy files between Mac and PC with OSX. Simply set up a folder on your PC and enable sharing on it. Make a note of the computers name and the folder name (case sensitive).

Go ont your mac and command-k (connect to server).
In the server address put smb:/compname/foldername

The mac will now mount the folder as a volume on he desktop and hey presto - copy away.

Score: 0

By mushupork

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 12:56 PM

I believe there is a fundamental difference in OS development between MS and Apple. MS strives to what will satisfy the masses, rarely going beyond because it isn't profitable. Apple strives for perfection with a "build it and they will come" philosophy. Yes, both are answerable to stockholders--there are no true altruists here.

I am a developer and started w/ Mac, went over to PC, and now am easing back to Mac Why? Because I'm older now, have seen a lot technology-wise, and am seeing OSX just makes too much sense to ignore. I can't continue to support the monopoly when it means further silencing a true innovator. I mean, if there wasn't Apple, then what? Linux WINE? Give me a break.

Remember Tucker!

Score: 0

By mrastudent

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 9:37 PM

Microsoft has brought about far more innovation than Apple ever will.

Score: 0

By OpCode42

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 8:41 AM

I agree. Microsoft have bought many more innovative technologies than apple. ;)

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 4:05 PM

That's quite an ignorant statement. Apple is the company that pioneered a graphical interface on personal computers. Apple changed the way computers are used in education and really were the first ones to break the barrier and make computers useful. Before you were even born Steve Jobs was being laughed at by folks at IBM and HP for saying that a computer should be in every home. Tip: try to avoid making blanket statements that have no grounds, you'll save face.

Score: 0

By RiPPn

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 3:49 AM

Actually it was Xerox that created the gui, not apple, so maybe you should follow your own advice.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 5:15 AM

Yes, Xerox did do a lot of early development of the graphical user interface at PARC - but NOT on personal computers. I never said Apple created it, but they took a great idea and made something of it which eventually changed the world. Xerox unfortunately missed the boat.

Score: 0

By asdfasdf

posted Aug 28, 2002 - 8:55 AM

Microsoft's vision was a PC in every home. Microsoft also was able to deliver on it. Apple may have had the ideas first (that's debatable), but Microsoft was able to bring it to market in such a way that the market bought it. Nobody, not even the great IBM was able to out do Microsoft.

I'm not saying that I defend the means by which Microsoft acomplished their goals, but I will say that a huge part of business is presentation, marketting, etc. A great idea is useless, if you can't get people to buy it.

Score: 0

By refewt

posted Aug 24, 2002 - 11:35 AM

Since OS X is based upon unix (bsd), is it ANY better than previous incarnations of of the mac OS? I've been looking at OS X as a replacement for a NT Domain Controllers. Since OS X (jaguar) came along, with it's pretty good implementation of SAMBA, this is becoming a reality... and crosss platform integration is much easier.
A whole myrid of improvements has come with OS X.... though from my point of view they'd be better suited in the enterprise than on a home desktop....
What do you guys think? Has anyone here used OS X for its networking features?

Score: 0

By BetaLAW

posted Aug 25, 2002 - 3:49 AM

Networking and Macs, can happen, but only at a price. Certainly not like connecting two Windows machines together. Samba does work, but where is it written down how to make it work? What I found was that I had to intuit how to connect a Mac to a Windows computer. And use the printers on that machine, no way. And what's with all those 'trashes' that the Mac leaves behind on machines it connects to? Apple could go a long way towards improving it's inter-connectivity abilities.
Sounds like 10.2 is a step in the right direction, but since I recently paid for 10.1 I won't be rushing out to shell-out more $$ for 10.2. It will have to show that it is worthwhile (needed).
Sharing files is easy, networking devices is not.

Score: 0

By larrycox2000

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 5:51 PM

I enjoyed it.
I don't use a Mac (have 2000 & XP) but it nice to know about Mac features.

Thanks!

Score: 0

By jlopez

posted Aug 24, 2002 - 12:34 AM

I have them too plus RedHat...Mac is better...we got one because it was needed...one of the few computers that is a pleasure to work with...try it...

Score: 0

By jlopez

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 3:32 PM

Macs are better but, way to expensive for the average person...if you are a geek, simple go for Linux...if you want to stay on the boat go for M$...but please don't argue about the superiority of Windows...just keep installing your SP...

Score: 0

By brzilian

posted Aug 31, 2002 - 10:46 PM

Better built, eh?

Explain then why a friend of mine who writes software at IBM to test chips says that Apple's rejection rates for the PowerPC chip were lower than IBM's?

Does accepting hardware that don't pass IBM's quality standards sound like better hardware to you?

Would you like me to go on about the original iMac and G3 mice that were so poorly designed that they would lead to tendinitis? How about the TiBook's original casing that got so hot it could burn a person's lap?

Oh yeah, then there was the brilliant iCube design someone felt didn't need a fan. The heat cracked the polycarb casing!!!

Yeah, great hardware....

Score: 0

By gester

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 11:39 AM

yeah, then crash your system because the sp messed up your programs, the get the blue screen of death, find out your sytem.ini file got messed up then reinstall it all over again. yeah...windows is they way to go. There's nothing superior about windows. they have the games and that's about it. Mac has everything else besides all the games. if you want games go buy an xbox!

Score: 0

By tha-dood

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 8:02 PM

dont give me that crashing bull

i work with macs running osx at school... its all show and no go. ive crashed it many times doing something as simple as trying to do something in i-movie. i work with xp here at home and i cant crash it. in the event that it actually does hardlock, its only because of hardware issues like overheating. i dont know how you can compare the 2 and say mac is so much better and doesnt crash, ive had enough of listening to that lying.

and as for what i beleive nate said, mac is turning out thier os updates faster? come on.. its just application updates and they expect you to pay for the full version every few months. microsoft could do that too, but they let you update your products for free. ms could add more products and charge you for it every few weeks, but as soon as they do it, its a monopoly. in one case you are defending the pushing and intergrating of apple products, but at the same time people like you are attacking microsoft for doing it. ive had enough of this nonsense. microsoft makes money because they have a real good, reasonably affordable in the long range product (no paying for updates every 2 months) and corprate america being what it is... if another company doesnt have the same success, its a monopoly.

Score: 0

By mrastudent

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 4:19 PM

If staying on the boat is Windows, then going to Linux is jumping overboard. Linux still can't match Windows95 for desktop use. (Not in regards to hardware support, just useability, speed and software.)

Score: 0

By jlopez

posted Aug 24, 2002 - 12:32 AM

but it's a better OS...just proves how people will put up with M$ because they don't know any better...catch all the security updates for today?

Score: 0

By tha-dood

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 8:07 PM

alot of people run windows.. which is why people are trying to find holes

im sure if you could find people to spend the same amount of time on mac oses youd find the same amount of holes

so what for a little error, i can gaurentee you that there is no way that many people can put together as big of a project as winxp without any problems. sure they could spend 2 years looking for every possible hole, but get real, the only reason linux is as secure as it is is because it is open source. people at there own pace free of charge can all find holes and fix them, where as a company like microsoft would have to pay people to do it

Score: 0

By SomeGuy

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 6:53 PM

Maybe because people care about the user experience and not the operating system?
Yup. Got all the security update because we have the automatic update software.

Score: 0

By asdfasdf

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 1:56 AM

What version of Linux is better? Which windowing manager are you using?

Shall we begin to disucss the issues with Linux? Let's check the most recent version of Red Hat Linux. That would be version 7.3. It's only been out for a few months and already has 41 security alerts. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh73-errata.html

Let's try TurboLinux. They have 87 security fixes since June 5th. http://www.turbolinux.com/security/

SuSe has 33 alerts since January of this year. http://www.suse.de/us/business/security.html

Before you attack Microsoft for its insecure operating system and jump on your Linux chariot, try looking at the facts. Linux has had several remote root exploits this year. So much for being superior to Windows.

Score: 0

By asdyouass

posted Aug 26, 2002 - 9:20 PM

It's clear that you know how to count, though your talent for skimming text is lacking. The numbers you listed are deceptively accurate, as you fail to mention that the majority of these fixes are related to third party apps such as PHP, OpenSSH, OpenLDAP, Apache, etc. Also, the security fixes you're referencing aren't necessarily in response to posted vulnerabilities or exploits. Many are just good maintenance.

Using your research "methodology", a vulnerability in PGP for Windows XP, for example, would be an OS-related vulnerability.

So, here are a few numbers for your OS-of-choice:

75 Windows-related security vulnerabilities since June. 120 year-to-date (http://www.securityfocus.com).

100 Windows-related postings on NTBugTraq since June (http://www.ntbugtraq.com).

47 Microsoft Security Bulletins year-to-date (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security).

Obviously, the actual number of OS-related security alerts/vulnerabilities/issues for both Linux and Windows is far fewer than what you or I -- using your methodology -- have posted here.

In short, with the remotely possible exception of OpenBSD, it's very difficult to argue or prove that any widely available OS is secure. If the topic is kernel security, however, Win32 is clearly lacking (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26561.html) and much more susceptible to attack than is Linux.

Back to the point, most software is just plain BAD. It'll be a long while before we all have an OS that offers a user experience that is intuitive, stable, secure, and truly useful. It certainly appears that Jaguar is a step -- albeit very small -- in the right direction.

Score: 0

By asdfasdf

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 6:15 AM

In general I was speaking of patches. For those who say things like "with Microsoft I'm installing a patch every day ", I just thought I'd offer a little reality.

BTW even using my methodology, your number of 47 bulletins from Microsoft isn't accurate, since that includes multiple versions of Windows, Office, IE, and other products.

I wouldn't say that my methods are all that inaccurrate. RedHat, for instance, issues alerts on software that ships with it's distro, right? OpenSSL, OpenSSH and so forth are portions of the distro and there vulnerabilities are important. From a Microsoft perspective, I'd include Windows, IIS, SMP, IE, and Media Player, since they all ship with a Windows distro.

Score: 0

By asdyouass

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 4:53 PM

Point well made, asdfasdf. PGP is a poor example. IIS or IE would have been a much better examples since they actually ship with Windows. I noticed, too, that you only had issue with my reference to the 47 Windows Bulletins. Does that mean you concur with the other numbers?

Score: 0

By CPUGuy

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 12:27 AM

No, because PGP doesn't come with Windows.

But what your saying is, if IIS has a bug, it doesn't count as a Windows flaw.

I find it pathetic how people defend Linux products in such a way, it's just outright stupid.

Score: 0

By asdyouass

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 7:02 PM

Yes, PGP was a poor example. IIS or IE would have been a stronger, more valid representation. However, CPUGuy, you should take notice that I talk about "third party apps" in my post. Do you think IIS is representative of a third party app? PGP is a fair representation of a third party app, though not one that ships with Windows (again, poor example). I'd reference another if I could think off-hand of an actual third party product Microsoft still ships with Windows; and not one MS has "modified". Kerberos, anyone?

I also didn't suggest, "if IIS has a bug, it doesn't count as a Windows flaw." Again, there's a difference between a third party app and a proprietary extension or piece of an OS.

I'm not defending Linux products. Just trying to point out to asdfasdf that Windows is no Blue-Ribbon-Winner at an Ozark sow serenade, and that he should have posted accurate numbers for both Linux and Windows to argue a fair case.

Finally, if you've read my post -- judging by your belligerent response, I'm assuming you did -- you should've understood that the last three paragraphs both defended, and slammed Windows, Linux, and most software (though admittedly more Windows-bashing). You, indeed everyone, should be angry at the lack of quality, stability, and security for which you're being forced to pay.

With that in mind, it appears that the only pathetically stupid thing here is your taciturn antiphon, and witlessly pertinacious attachment to 20 pounds of binary crap that has been crammed into a 10-pound bag.

Score: 0

By CPUGuy

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 11:15 PM

The fact remains, if RedHat ships with Netscape, and that version of Netscape has a flaw, then RedHat Linux has a flaw, it may not be part of the core OS that is Linux, but it is a flaw within the distribution, RedHat Linux.

If you want to talk about just core OSes, you would have to take Embedded XP, strip away every extention to it, and then you have the core of Windows.

Score: 0

By Aranach

posted Aug 30, 2002 - 7:10 PM

Nah, you can actually not install netscape and all that other stuff with most linux distros. Or install lynx and go get all your software after a clean install if you want. Try installing windows without IE. Or getting rid of it from the system.

You may be able to get a small footprint out of XP embedded, but you're going to have to go though hoops to get a copy of it for your home PC. It seems to be more pointed towards people making devices that need at least some amount of OS. Not your typical home PC.

Score: 0

By CPUGuy

posted Sep 3, 2002 - 11:21 PM

That means nothing, it's still included with RedHat Linux, so that version of RedHat Linux has a flaw.

Score: 0

By Aranach

posted Sep 5, 2002 - 2:48 PM

Don't get me wrong. It certainly is nice of Red Hat to tell users of their distro that software that comes with their distro has problems. It's doubly nice since the default install is likely to have Netscape installed. So sure, Red Hat is doing the community a favor telling them that software that came with the distro that you have the choice of installing has a problem. It may be the case, especially with default installs of Red Hat, that the problem affects the installation.

However, it means more than nothing. I can install Red Hat without Netscape. I have installed Red Hat without Netscape. Netscape is on the CD for convenience, along with a bunch of other browsers. If my particular install of Red Hat does not have Netscape installed then my perticular install of Red Hat is not affected by the bulletin posted by Red Hat about Netscape. If my install, which is an install of Red Hat, is not affected by this bug, you can't say a blanket "Red Hat is broken" as mine is clearly not. You can say the default install of Red Hat is broken. It's probably a pissy issue of semantics here.

However, when one sees a security bulletin for, say IE6, you know for a fact that users of XP are going to be affected. IE6 is installed with XP and there's nothing you can do about it.

Therein lies the difference. I'm not saying either is better, I'm just saying you can't blanket one product as broken when the broken part is not necessarily a part of the product.

And your statement about XP embedded is likely true. I just haven't ever seen it available for my PC, that's all.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 3:57 PM

Funny though, they could say the same thing about the way you defend Windows :)

Score: 0

By CPUGuy

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 5:09 PM

Actually, no they can't, because I'm not defending Windows.

Score: 0

By kevinmook

posted Aug 25, 2002 - 3:00 AM

On any given day, I'd imagine Linux has about twice as many (not an actual number, just a guess) "Security Updates", just due to the open source nature of it. That's a GOOD THING.

Score: 0

By mrastudent

posted Aug 24, 2002 - 9:35 AM

"Better OS"? That's laughable. And if doing a few mouse clicks to update Windows is all I have to do, I'll gladly take that over waiting ages for stuff to open in Linux.

Score: 0

By jlopez

posted Aug 29, 2002 - 5:36 PM

hey the recent Linux version I would argue are better than NT 4.0...not up to 2000/xp yet...the problem with open source is that they have to copy what M$ comes up with...they will always be a couple of years behind...can anybody verify a rumer i heard that the next M$ OS will have a Start Menu more like the Dock on OS X...

Score: 0

By shao

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 6:48 AM

"Speedier performance is one of the most remarkable improvements following the upgrade. Almost any Windows upgrade or administration of a service pack slows down performance--at least in my experience. But all three Macs perked up after upgrading to Jaguar"

would this be because of the almost legendry lack of speed earlier versions of max osX exhibited?

Jaguar.. do the math! ;)

Score: 0

By NTUSER

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 8:47 AM

On a high note, you get a new calculator for $129.00.

;-)

Score: 0

By Thrall

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 5:15 PM

It's funny to see how Apple seems to make their money on the back of ignorants. I owned a Mac and used many, I'm not Windows biased, but why should people pay anopther 130$ for things that should have been in the OS from the start and some fixes.
As for the OS X vs XP debate, it just doesnt matter which one looks cooler, I'd just never go back to Macs with it's very limited hardware and software choices, even if the icons look better or what else. Everything is so simplistic it looks like it's designed for retards.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 2:05 AM

"Everything is so simplistic it looks like it's designed for retards."

Ah, yes. "Retards" like the former CTO of UUNet, who wrote: "But on the whole, Mac OS X is a dream come true for a Unix user who wants to use the system, not spend all his available cycles trying to get the desktop software to work right."

From http://www.macdevcenter....8/21/switch.html?page=3

Score: 0

By FunkyFreddy3k

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 5:08 AM

Seems to me windows is still the ideal solution. At one end you have unix with its over complexities and having to search for the right lil app to do what you want, or even to have to write a shell script to achieve something. At the other you have Macs where everything is hidden away nicely but to do much you have to click, click, click, click, click, click. Windows is more a case of click click done.

Score: 0

By ditoa

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 12:19 PM

i agree 100%

Score: 0

By Dapumkins

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 4:28 PM

Useless. All Macs are. I'm sorry, but I don't care how "easy" the OS is to use. That isn't what it's about. It's about how much the hardware costs and how much software is available. Even Windows XP isn't charging 129 for it's next Service Pack.

Hey if Mac OSX played even 1/5 of the software and games as a PC does, then I'd MAYBE own a Mac. But no, it has rediculous "sleek" hardware that costs thousands and runs like doodoo (a friend of mine has a G4 and always complains about it)

Score: 0

By Clewin

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 6:08 PM

Sorry, but as an owner of both Macs and PCs, I disagree, but that is mainly because I use the machines for different purposes. My PC is used for two things - games and OpenOffice (yes, mac version exists, but it's an older build). My mac firewalls, provides secure shell, secure ftp, xterms, SAMBA file and printer sharing, etc., all of which can be done with separate pieces of free Windows software, but it takes a while to collect them all. Most importantly, though, my mac shares a single firewalled IP between my 2 PCs and 2 macs over a single DHCP cable modem connection. PCs will only do this booted into Linux or BSD systems, or if only networked with other PCs (I have yet to find a free CROSS PLATFORM networking program for PCs - all are commercial, at least ones that I've found).

PCs rock for volume of software available.
PCs rock for price.
Macs with OS X rock for networking and compatibility between platforms.
Macs rock for uptime and useful bundled software (love the IDE, but I'm a programmer - what did you expect :).

Score: 0

By uss

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 9:24 PM

My mac firewalls, provides secure shell, secure ftp, xterms, SAMBA file and printer sharing, etc., all of which can be done with separate pieces of free Windows software, but it takes a while to collect them all

Firewall-Built into XP
Samba: Based to work off the WINDOWS File Sharing
Secure FTP: IIS

Score: 0

By animecabbit

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 5:54 AM

>>Firewall-Built into XP

You kidding, right? The worst freeware firewall is better than the XP firewall.

>>Samba: Based to work off the WINDOWS File Sharing

Yes, but what are you going to use? Microsoft technology on another platform? It's funny how every platform has their own file sharing format, and how Windows has it's OWN file sharing methods...

>>Secure FTP: IIS

You are kidding right? IIS is quite bug ridden, and only gets it's holes fixed when a big fuss is brought up about it. Plus, IIS on WinXP has a 10 user limit.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 12:24 AM

The firewall included with XP is only good for blocking outgoing connections. You cannot configure a decent firewall without external software.

Score: 0

By NTUSER

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 9:32 AM

As for the firewall that comes with the MAC, I find no reference to in MAC help. I also find no info on the MAC support page. Oh, here.... I found a reference to it at www.free-firewall.org, "Any BSD guru can configure it but most of us Mac people have no clue!".

So lets make it clear, BSD makes a great firewall.

lol

Score: 0

By NTUSER

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 9:55 AM

I HAVE to make another post, this is great...

Tell your MAC users to do this to get protection with the "builtin" firewall. No problem...

su to root, read the man page and run a few ipfw adds. Don't forget to flush before you begin. Before I begin? Don't you flush when your done? No No, you are thinking about something else.
# ipfw list
# ipfw -f flush
# ipfw add ...
# ipfw add 100 deny up from any to any 80 in recv ppp0
# ipfw add 65535 allow ip from any to any
# ipfw add bla bla bla a few more times.

Do a minimum of a 1/2 doz rules for a secure MAC and your done... easy as can be.

But make sure you don't miss anything because the default rule is to allow everything. "The flush command removes all previously entered rules except for the default rule that allows everything"

You aren't confused are you?

Score: 0

By NTUSER

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 9:10 AM

Actually the firewall in XP is designed to protect Incoming connections, perhaps you are confused? As far as its quality, I find no references to vulnerabilities when I searched google.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 1:53 PM

My mistake, I meant it is only designed to block incoming connections. XP's firewall does no inspection of outbound packets and thus is no protection against trojans or viruses.

XP's firewall also provides no application-level filtering. It's a great basic firewall with basic functionality, but don't be fooled into thinking it's as good as many external options.

Score: 0

By Baggio

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 8:10 AM

Some firewall protection is better than no firewall protection, and as has been pointed out, there are better freeware solutions. ZoneAlarm comes to mind. Why should I care if the built in version is somewhat inadequate, I can always install something else.

At least I have some choice. Macs do not exude the performance, nor posess the applications I have come to use daily. I'm still sticking with XP.

Score: 0

By fubar101

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 10:12 PM

Secure FTP: IIS " HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That was funny!

Score: 0

By uss

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 11:04 AM

All right, hack my FTP server then smart guy...

Score: 0

By Aranach

posted Aug 30, 2002 - 7:25 PM

By the protocol no FTP is secure. FTP transfers passwords in plain text. If somebody is listening to the packets running across your network and you log in to your FTP server your password is easily comprimised. This goes for linux as well as windows, BSD, and any other system. The protocol itself is to blame.

Something like SCP is a much better alternative to FTP since it uses an encrypted session to transfer data, even passwords. It's pretty much to FTP what SSH is to telnet.

This may be of less importance when you have a couple machines on a small lan in your residence. However as wireless networks become more common this may become an increasing problem. The number of wireless lans which are not configured properly is pretty high and allows easy access to snoops. Using a secure protocol is a better policy to follow in general.

That said I don't know if your detractor was laughing at IIS or FTP. If it was about FTP then right on, there's no real reason we should continue to use FTP, just like there's no real reason to use telnet. My university has banned their use and with good reason. If they were laughing at IIS, well IIS has had its issues though I've not really seen anything on the FTP portion. I can't say I've looked very hard though. The only thing I've seen is a potential DoS, nothing too threatening.

Score: 0

By fubar101

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 5:11 PM

Uhhh XP is Windows 5.1, and it costs $199 for this "Service Pack" (Windows 2000 is Windows 5.0)

Score: 0

By tha-dood

posted Aug 27, 2002 - 9:23 PM

so win98 was just a service pack to 95 then?

according to your logic that would be true but it isnt

they like win2k and xp are based on the same kernel... but are made more stable, better compatibility, etc

version numbers dont mean anything, infact i see xp as the biggest upgrade of all other windows versions.. as they say... easy of use and compatibily of 98 with the stableness and reliabilty of 2000

Score: 0

By Aranach

posted Aug 30, 2002 - 6:58 PM

Actually, I wouldn't even rank 98 as a service pack to 95. Maybe a sub-service pack. Granted if you're doing a fresh install of a 9x system now you go with 98. However, how much can you name that the original 98 could do that 95c with all its little updates (including FAT32 and USB support) couldn't?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. Maybe some more built in drivers. Wooo...

Then there was 98 SE, what was that? I'm sure they fixed some bugs and stuff, but did it really feel any different at all to anybody? There was the SE behind the 98 in the system window. ME was the biggest joke of them all. They added in the ill contrived system restore which eats up a large portion of your disk. They changed the start up screen. The damn thing crashed a whole lot more often.

Hrmm... I think I just said 95c was the peak of the 9x line. I suppose I'd rather use 98 than 95c, just due to the fact there's less patching and installing. Blah, 9x is dead as far as I'm concerned for my usage anyway.

Score: 0

By fubar101

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 10:14 PM

"XP is built from the ground up and was under development for over 10 years. I don't think it's "5.1", unless I missed that memo."

You should probably just stick to AOL since you don't know enough about your computer to comment on it.

Score: 0

By y2ksri

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 5:37 PM

XP is built from the ground up and was under development for over 10 years. I don't think it's "5.1", unless I missed that memo.

Score: 0

By mennob

posted Aug 23, 2002 - 5:08 AM

If you just open a XP-console window, you'll see this.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

Score: 0

By glide

posted Aug 22, 2002 - 7:32 PM

Yeah I second that. Windows XP was NOT built from the ground up (in fact, the original Windows NT (3.5?) was the last 'new version' built from the ground up). Windows XP is in fact Windows NT 5.1. Don't believe me? Go to WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\ntoskrnl.exe and do a PROPERTIES, then click the VERSION tab (or WINNT\System32 if you, ack, upgraded).

Score: 0