September 17, 2001

3:23 PM

Yes, the nation's in mourning, but does that mean Apple's going to postpone its OSX Update? I mean they said September, and that was like two months ago. I wannnnnnnnnnnnt it.
posted by adrober (10 comments total)

i believe they were more worried about the safety of their staff while traveling abroad.
posted by jakd at 3:31 PM on September 17, 2001

The Expo has been cancelled, but OSX 10.1 should be on schedule.

But come on. Even if the dock *is* vertical in 10.1, it seems a bit trite now, don't you think?
posted by jragon at 3:46 PM on September 17, 2001

I use Macs, but OSX isn't much more than Steve Jobs' masturbatory fantasy. At Print'01, the largest print & publishing trade show, I saw zero installations of OSX and I know of zero shops of any size running it even though Macs outnumbered Wintel machines.

If OSX can't even get a foothold in its' largest vertical after a year it's hopeless.
posted by username at 3:51 PM on September 17, 2001

If OSX can't even get a foothold in its' largest vertical after a year it's hopeless.

Yeah, and that "Microsoft Windows" thing will never take off, because version 1.0 sucks so bad.
posted by kindall at 4:02 PM on September 17, 2001

The problem with print adoption of X is application support, namely Quark. Quark is not exactly known for a quick development cycle, and there are a helluva lot of shops out there committed to the Quark workflow. I can't see them moving to X until a Carbon Quark appears, or until InDesign matures enough to become a Quark-killer.
But hey, how about those 1.6GHz G5s on the near horizon?
(I guess you're right, jragon, it *does* feel awfully trite.)
posted by darukaru at 4:12 PM on September 17, 2001

Latest rumor is that you'll be able to bring a blank CD-R to an Apple Store and have them burn a copy of the update for ya. Sweet.
posted by toddshot at 4:18 PM on September 17, 2001

It's not just Quark but also Adobe and Macromedia. OS X applications are coming but it's taking much longer for the 3rd party developers to get them out the door than, I think, Apple originally planned. In the long run, this is okay though since OS X 10.0 isn't ready for primetime yet anyway. 10.1 is going to help tremendously, but we'll not see adoption of OS X until Adobe, Quark, and Macromedia release Carbon or Cocoa versions.

It still beats the pants off anything Microsoft has to offer (XP included). Give it time and Apple will begin to see some growth in marketshare. Nothing huge, but combined with increased advertising, the Apple Stores, and an OS that's better than its competitor's, Apple will see some growth. We have to look at this long-term...as in several years down the road...it's all about marketshare, mindshare, advertising, and delivering on promises--something Microsoft hasn't done in a long time.
posted by mrbarrett.com at 8:37 PM on September 17, 2001

Please, Apple, compile the OS for the x86!
posted by aaronshaf at 10:11 PM on September 17, 2001

10.1 is coming out, don't worry. Believe me, I've seen some of the more recent builds, and I'm darned surprised that they WEREN'T declared GM - they're that good. With several of the recent builds, they've finally removed "10.1 (Pre-Release)" from the About box. It's FAST, very fast, extremely stable, and basically everything Apple's been promising. I've been using X since the Public Beta days, and 10.1 is going to be the first version I'll feel comfortable installing on my mother's iMac as well as my G4.

to username: Did you ever think that the reason they weren't using OS X yet is because the major apps (Photoshop, Quark, et al) aren't on OS X yet?? When Photoshop 6.5 is out, believe me, all but the most diehard Platinum-lovers will be over to X. There's no comparison between 9 and X - it's far and away superior (not to mention its superiority to XP). Everybody knew this transition would take time. I personally can't wait for Office 10, because it looks to be the best version of Office on any platform.

on OS X on x86: NO. NO NO NO NO NO. If Apple made a version of OS X that any Johnny Windoze Box could buy and install, they'd kill the company. Apple survives on its hardware, not its software. If you want to run the Mac OS, buy a Mac. They're not as bad, slow, or stupid as your Windows zombie buddies have said. And don't give me the "x86 OS X for Athlon-powered Macs" line - when the G5 is out, I doubt anybody will be crying for Athlon-Macs again. Besides, though AthlonMacs might make for cheaper Macs, Apple is going to be one of the few puter makers to survive the whole tech downturn relatively intact thanks to their higher profit margins, something the Windows box makers aren't able to do.
posted by Spirit_VW at 7:14 AM on September 18, 2001

I won't get into the OS X on x86 debate but I will say the improvements in the OS and its GUI are so dramatic that a lot of developers who long ago gave up on the Mac are giving it consideration again. Myself included.

For me the inclusion of a real Java that is fairly up to date means that I could do software development on it and I can also be sure that what I write can be run by the three major consumer platforms (i.e. Windows, Mac, Linux).

So to my way of thinking, if OS X is "Steve Jobs' masturbatory fantasy" then it's probably one of the Britney Spears variety and shared by many :)
posted by johnmunsch at 11:09 AM on September 18, 2001