Another Computer Question

[steve_qix]

Well, Mac OSx is really great, and so is XP most of the time (I still use Windows 2000 on my main software development machine that I built 7 years ago, and have done nothing to it over the entire time).... If you more or less leave things alone, it will usually work forever unless the hardware dies.

Let's go back to the days of IRQs and the like.  I was a software engineer even back then    (actually, since 1981 - before that, broadcast engineering).

I worked on early Apples back then... - hangs, crashes, things just "not working".. that's the way it was back then with most systems... If you tried to do anything "unusual", often there were major problems.. The PCs were similar... DOS, and then Windows 1 (and 2 and 3) and finally NT (oh, there was OS/2 in there, too)...

The Mac was certainly a closed system back then.  You bought their hardware and used their software and all was well with the world...... until you tried certain 3rd party applications... then the "fun" began.

I am so glad those days are over!

Of course Unix in all its flavors out does all this stuff.  At one time, I believe FreeBSD held the world record for number of years in continuous operation without a reboot, crash, etc.  Some system at NASA was supposedly up for more than 10 years.

FreeBSD certainly holds the record in my computer world.... 980+ days "up" !  This is a FreeBSD server which also functions as a mail server, firewall, file server, and router with 3 networks connected to 3 different NICs.  This system is definitely busy, and is on a UPS with a generator at the site as well.  All of this running on a modest Pentium III with 128 megs of memory, and the system is fast.

Programming wise, the Macs really were terrible.  Perhaps this situation has been resolved in more recent versions.  I have not written a program for a Mac since the Apple II CI (wow, and I dating myself !).  But, I can tell you at that time, the so-called "toolbox" (part of what they called their API (the programmer's interface) was very hard to use and the documentation was almost useless.

But now, we're in a situation where a major platform (the Mac) has what I would describe as a real operating system with a nice GUI.  This type of thing can only continue to grow.  It would be really great is Microsoft did something similar, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting  

And yes, there are GUIs on Unix (Linux, Freebsd, etc.) that work very well, but the reality of the situation is there are quite a bit fewer applications available for the Unix variants than one can get on the PC or Mac (with the PC obviously having the most)....yeah, yeah, yeah there's VirtualBox, but now you're introducing a level of complexity that the average user is not going to be able to deal with easily; it's slower - and I use a couple of windows apps that crash VirtualBox....

But, what the heck!  I'm glad to see Apple's new strategy resulting in better numbers for the company.

[WD8BIL]

Choose one of these, plug it in and poof... problem solved.
I got 3 500G running at home now. Perfect for storage expansion and you can take it with you to share stuff with your friends. (well, in my case it's just friend but you get the picture!)

Maxtor

[flintstone mop]

I'm getting pretty absent minded lately.........wow. I got the Acronis True image software and it worked prefectly to transfer "the system" and copy files and even floormat the new HDD. I did this to three machines to increase HDD size.
Thanks "YGF" , John for the point in the right direction

Fred

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The Mac was certainly a closed system back then.  You bought their hardware and used their software and all was well with the world...... until you tried certain 3rd party applications... then the "fun" began.

Absolutely not true. Nearly all the software I used was third party including apps from Adobe, Quark and Microsoft. If programming was so terrible how did Adobe build its empire on the Mac platform? Why did thousands show up to the Mac Developer conference every year?

I also added many boards and peripherals to the system, ALL were third party, Radius, Hewlett-Packard and the like. I never had any problems. All were installed in minutes, no IRQs, no special downloads, no other BS.

Major operations like the TV Guide were produced using Mac with tons of third-party software and hardware. Closed system. No, not really. The myth persists though. Amazing.

[steve_qix]

The Mac was certainly a closed system back then.  You bought their hardware and used their software and all was well with the world...... until you tried certain 3rd party applications... then the "fun" began.

Absolutely not true. Nearly all the software I used was third party including apps from Adobe, Quark and Microsoft. If programming was so terrible how did Adobe build its empire on the Mac platform? Why did thousands show up to the Mac Developer conference every year?

I also added many boards and peripherals to the system, ALL were third party, Radius, Hewlett-Packard and the like. I never had any problems. All were installed in minutes, no IRQs, no special downloads, no other BS.

Major operations like the TV Guide were produced using Mac with tons of third-party software and hardware. Closed system. No, not really. The myth persists though. Amazing.

We're talking religion, mostly.

But, as a very experienced software developer - religion aside, the Mac (AT LEAST AT THE TIME) was difficult, and the (API) documentation was really poor.  People will put up with alot if they need to get the job done.  You want the Mac look and feel?  You had to suffer the API    Hey, I've programmed to worse than the Mac, that's for sure!

The Mac's *former* general lack of acceptance into mainstream business computing was due to its closed nature, complete lack of any command line or standard MIS utility, and weak underlying software design.  MIS departments handling hundreds or thousands of workstations need standard tools that allow you to, in bulk, manage these systems from a central point.

MIS departments are very pragmatic.  What can I manage EASILY, REMOTELY, PREDICTABLY, EN-MASS, and is RELIABLE  - that's what I want in my network.

THESE PROBLEMS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN LARGERLY MITIGATED WITH OS-X, but having done this for many decades, it was no myth. 

I have been a software engineer and software developement manager for many years.  When doing Mac software, we always had to allocate more resources or allocate more time for the "Mac port" of whatever software was under development.  These were hard numbers, and it is what it is.  It just took more time.

Again, maybe this has changed with new releases.  I haven't had to write any Mac code for a while now, so this may be a non-issue.

Here at my fingertips I have FreeBSD (4 versions), Linux (Ubuntu), Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and of course DOS......

I like the new Macs and the new OS.  Assuming I don't have to buy any new hardware (I have scads of computers - none of them particularly new or ultra fast), I'm going to set up an OSx machine here and check out the development tools.

The Town is building a new library.  We are getting 3 high end Macs for video production and such, and as MIS director, I will be managing these systems.  Hopefully, there will be no unusual problems    I don't expect any at this point.

[K6JEK]

...
And yes, there are GUIs on Unix (Linux, Freebsd, etc.) that work very well, but the reality of the situation is there are quite a bit fewer applications available for the Unix variants than one can get on the PC or Mac (with the PC obviously having the most)....

I can't resist pointing out that MacOS is a UNIX variant.  The lineage is Mach, a microkernel UNIX which Avie Tevanian was the center of at CMU.  He built on that at Next, and NextOS become Mac OS X. Avie is no longer at Apple but his influence lingers.

The big additions are the object layer, Cocoa, a programming language, Objective C, both nice but (wouldn't you know it) Apple only for all practical purposes and, of course, Apple's truly lovely GUI. But underneath beats a UNIX heart.  Bring up a Console and type "ps -A"

Jon "programming since computers weighed more than you do" K

[steve_qix]

The big additions, of course, are the object layer, Cocoa, and a programming language, Objective C, both nice but (wouldn't you know it) Apple only for all practical purposes and Apple's truly lovely GUI. But underneath beats a UNIX heart.  Bring up a Console and type "ps -A"

That's why I like the new Mac OS      I was able to start some server daemons without any great difficulty.  Didn't mess with ipfw or ipfirewall or anything too meaty - my wife borrowed the Mac from her school, and she was literally standing over me, asking over and over "honey, are you sure this isn't going to screw it up?"  so, I didn't go too far   

[WA1GFZ]

Jon, I would assume you are  from the days of punch cards and paper tape since you hung with my high school friend Steve M.

[K6JEK]

Jon, I would assume you are  from the days of punch cards and paper tape since you hung with my high school friend Steve M.

Indeed.  I was an ace on a keypunch and remember when a battery operated paper tape spooler changed my life.  I have to stop thinking of UNIX (1969) as new.

[WA1GFZ]

HMMM 026 or 029 speaking of 1969

[K6JEK]

HMMM 026 or 029 speaking of 1969

You do know your stuff.  I used 026's in school and was thrilled to be using 029's at my first professional programming job.  I could program the little star wheel Program Card too, although they were mostly broken on the 026's at school.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

No religion at all. I'm not asking you to take anything on faith. I clearly presented facts to prove my point that the MacOS was and is not a closed system. Pointing out that the OS may not have been programmer friendly or had poor MIS/enterprise management tools does not speak to my point (except to prove it further - how could you, a third-party, have access to program a closed system, even if the tools were crappy?).

I agree with you that the old Mac OS had poor MIS/enterprise management tools. This has been well documented. But it is totally irrelevant to the closed-system debate and even more so the the typical home user scenario - the genesis of this thread (yea, I know, it was a long time ago). Actually, the thread was about backups, so I am sanctioning myself for being off-topic!!!   I will pay penance by being nice to slopbuckets for a week.

The Mac was certainly a closed system back then.  You bought their hardware and used their software and all was well with the world...... until you tried certain 3rd party applications... then the "fun" began.

Absolutely not true. Nearly all the software I used was third party including apps from Adobe, Quark and Microsoft. If programming was so terrible how did Adobe build its empire on the Mac platform? Why did thousands show up to the Mac Developer conference every year?

I also added many boards and peripherals to the system, ALL were third party, Radius, Hewlett-Packard and the like. I never had any problems. All were installed in minutes, no IRQs, no special downloads, no other BS.

Major operations like the TV Guide were produced using Mac with tons of third-party software and hardware. Closed system. No, not really. The myth persists though. Amazing.

We're talking religion, mostly.

But, as a very experienced software developer - religion aside, the Mac (AT LEAST AT THE TIME) was difficult, and the (API) documentation was really poor.  People will put up with alot if they need to get the job done.  You want the Mac look and feel?  You had to suffer the API    Hey, I've programmed to worse than the Mac, that's for sure!

The Mac's *former* general lack of acceptance into mainstream business computing was due to its closed nature, complete lack of any command line or standard MIS utility, and weak underlying software design.  MIS departments handling hundreds or thousands of workstations need standard tools that allow you to, in bulk, manage these systems from a central point.

MIS departments are very pragmatic.  What can I manage EASILY, REMOTELY, PREDICTABLY, EN-MASS, and is RELIABLE  - that's what I want in my network.

THESE PROBLEMS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN LARGERLY MITIGATED WITH OS-X, but having done this for many decades, it was no myth. 

I have been a software engineer and software developement manager for many years.  When doing Mac software, we always had to allocate more resources or allocate more time for the "Mac port" of whatever software was under development.  These were hard numbers, and it is what it is.  It just took more time.

Again, maybe this has changed with new releases.  I haven't had to write any Mac code for a while now, so this may be a non-issue.

Here at my fingertips I have FreeBSD (4 versions), Linux (Ubuntu), Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and of course DOS......

I like the new Macs and the new OS.  Assuming I don't have to buy any new hardware (I have scads of computers - none of them particularly new or ultra fast), I'm going to set up an OSx machine here and check out the development tools.

The Town is building a new library.  We are getting 3 high end Macs for video production and such, and as MIS director, I will be managing these systems.  Hopefully, there will be no unusual problems    I don't expect any at this point.