Mac OS X 10.4.3 8F28 Seeded

[BWhaler]

What Longhorn? The only thing Microsoft has actually produced is the old Windows XP with a new theme including some fancy new icons. They gave up on the new Windows File System which means they never will catch up to OS X until they get that implemented alone. The only thing "great" planned for Longhorn is the Canon based color management technology, but that hasn't even happened yet.

Listen, I love bashing Microsoft as much as the next Apple guy, but don't stick your head in the sand on this one.

Longhorn is shaping up to be a great OS. Yes, it is a shameless rip-off of OSX and Sun Glass. But that's the problem...and the [evil] genius of Microsoft. That's all it needs to be to really hurt Apple.

Apple needs to leapfrog OS X--yes OS X--and take it to the next level. Otherwise most people will walk through Apple store and go, "hey, that looks just like Vista." And the wind will come out of Apple's sail...

 

[BWhaler]

Actually, I believe Mac OS 10.1 was the biggest bug fixing patch
Remember those times guys, a free upgrade for Cheetah.

LOL. So true.

Funny thing is I thought that when I wrote the original post, and just KNEW someone was going to call me on it.

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[Evangelion]

I agree. I've been reading quite a few articles lately about Vista from people who have seen it. Microsoft is doing it's best to pretty the OS up, and they are using transparency, soft drop shadows, glass-like buttons ... sound familiar?

Transparency and drop-shadows are Apple-innovations, and if someone else uses them, they are ripping off Apple?

 

[Evangelion]

Considering how much CPU power everybody wastes on eye candy, I would find it hard to believe that this is at all a factor.

Yes, yes it is. I remember a review on Anandtech where Linux running on 2.5Ghz G5 ran circles around OS X running on 2.7GHz G5. Granted, it was server-tasks, but some of those issues might be visible even on end-user machines.

 

[Evangelion]

A microkernel is not a problem, but a kind of system design.

Looking at performance, microkernels DO suffer from bad performance when compared to monolithic kernels. Microkernels can get faster over time of course, but the overall design makes it inherintly slower than monolithic kernel is. of course, bad monolithic kernel can be slower than good microkernel.

In a microkernel, the operating system's core runs as a collection of separate programs. They are isolated from each other just like applications are. They talk to each other through well-defined messaging systems, just like applications. If one of these programs crashes, the rest of the system won't crash, and the failed program can be auto-restarted.

That's the theory, but practice might be something different.

 

[shamino]

Looking at performance, microkernels DO suffer from bad performance when compared to monolithic kernels. Microkernels can get faster over time of course, but the overall design makes it inherintly slower than monolithic kernel is. of course, bad monolithic kernel can be slower than good microkernel.

Companies are constantly slapping on useless CPU-hogging features, which they justify by telling customers to buy more hardware.

Why are they only allowed to do this for eye candy but not for features that improve system stability and flexibility?

The answer has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the fact that customers will pay lots of money for good looks, but are more than willing to put up with system crashes. And Windows is proof positive of this fact.

 

[shamino]

Yes, yes it is. I remember a review on Anandtech where Linux running on 2.5Ghz G5 ran circles around OS X running on 2.7GHz G5. Granted, it was server-tasks, but some of those issues might be visible even on end-user machines.

First off, this shows only that Linux is able to overcome an 8% difference in CPU speed. That's not a lot.

Second, OS X still runs its GUI layers, even in server-only configurations, where Linux can run without them.

Third, this is not necessarily due to a microkernel-vs-monolithic difference. You'd see performance differences between Linux and Darwin, even if Darwin was completely monolithic. It would be more fair to compare two builds of a common kernel (like BSD 4.4), compiled as monolithic and as a microkernel. I'm fairly certain that sources exist to make this possible, although they may not have been ported to the Mac/PPC platform.

 

[Evangelion]

First off, this shows only that Linux is able to overcome an 8% difference in CPU speed. That's not a lot.

Yes, it is a lot. G5 is a premier OS X platform, while it's secondary on Linux. And Linux wasn't just as fast as OS X was, it was FASTER, while running on slower hardware! To me that tells that there's someting broken in OS X.

Second, OS X still runs its GUI layers, even in server-only configurations, where Linux can run without them.

If the GUI is not used, then it does not matter. Or does OS X generate some fancy animations on the screen when the machine is serving web-pages?

Third, this is not necessarily due to a microkernel-vs-monolithic difference.

Just about anyone would tell you that everything else being equal, monolithic kernel will be faster than a microkernel.

EDIT: the review in question. The 2.7GHz OS X vs. 2.5Ghz Linux is in the "low level benchmarks"-section. In some tests, the difference between OS X and Linux is huge, even though Linux runs on slower hardware!

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Boy do I need them bug fixes. I've clean installed both my machines and I'm still bogged down in bug after bug. I like Tiger, though I only use the 2 real features (spotlight, dashboard) occasionally. I'd just like it to run smoothly.

 

[wdlove]

Boy do I need them bug fixes. I've clean installed both my machines and I'm still bogged down in bug after bug. I like Tiger, though I only use the 2 real features (spotlight, dashboard) occasionally. I'd just like it to run smoothly.

I'm sorry to hear that you are having so many problems. I think that Apple is delaying 10.4.3 for that reason, they want to fix asa many bugs as possible.

 

[super mini (mac]

10.4.3 will the isync work with palm pda's

the older versions of mac will isync with the palm tungsten T models

10.4.2 doesnt, is there a chance that 10.4.3 may as this would be a dish to eat if possible

 

[Mechcozmo]

Yes, yes it is. I remember a review on Anandtech where Linux running on 2.5Ghz G5 ran circles around OS X running on 2.7GHz G5. Granted, it was server-tasks, but some of those issues might be visible even on end-user machines.

If you read more details into it, it was because Linux just wrote to disk and then didn't care. OS X waited for the data to be written to the disk and not just the disk cache before returning the 'all clear' message. Linux took some shortcuts, and therefore, was faster. OS X was safer with the data it handled and made sure to deliver the data intact, and therefore, was slower.

 

[Evangelion]

If you read more details into it, it was because Linux just wrote to disk and then didn't care. OS X waited for the data to be written to the disk and not just the disk cache before returning the 'all clear' message. Linux took some shortcuts, and therefore, was faster. OS X was safer with the data it handled and made sure to deliver the data intact, and therefore, was slower.

Your response seems like the standard reply to this argument. Espesially since the benchmarks I talked about aren't the benchmarks you talk about (hell, I even specificly mention that I was talking about the "low-level benchmarks"!). And your point WAS addressed in the review. Here's a quote:

Another theory is published in a personal blog: the fsync() theory. Basically, the command forces the OS to write all the pending data to the disk drive, and then forces the disk drive to write all the data in its write cache to the platters. The theory is that most OSes do not force the last step, while Mac OS X does. However, this theory is not the reason for the lackluster performance that we noticed.

First of all, we saw at most 23 KB/s writes, again at peak performance, in the case of the Dual G5 running Mac OS X at 274 queries per second. To avoid excessive writing, our Dbbench client has a warm-up period where the database is put under load but no measurements take place. This makes our benchmarking consistent, and lowers the pressure on the disk system. You can read more about our MySQL test methods here. Secondly, we were using the MyISAM database engine, which does not support this "transactional safe writing".

I wasn't talking about the "end-user" benchmarks (like the database-benchmark), I was talking about the low-level benchmarks. I mean stuff like how fast the systems creates new threads, how was is the interprocess communication and the like. And Linux mops the floow with OS X, while running on slower hardware (2.5GHz G5 vs. 2.7GHz G5)

 

[wdlove]

the older versions of mac will isync with the palm tungsten T models

10.4.2 doesn't, is there a chance that 10.4.3 may as this would be a dish to eat if possible

I certainly hope so my wife has been having problems getting her Palm to iSync. Seems to be a bug somewhere.

 

[Windowlicker]

10.4.3 Next Week

I work at an apple certified repair service and we've had quite a few of those single 1.8 G5's brought in because of problems. Some of the units have stayed in our shop for over a month and luckily Apple informed that 10.4.3 will solve the problems and that it would be released next week.

That stands well with "mid october".

 

[wdlove]

I work at an apple certified repair service and we've had quite a few of those single 1.8 G5's brought in because of problems. Some of the units have stayed in our shop for over a month and luckily Apple informed that 10.4.3 will solve the problems and that it would be released next week.

That stands well with "mid october".

Thank you for the update, certainly lends more credence. I have been hoping for a mid October release of Mac OS 10.4.3.

 

[Chundles]

I get the feeling these point updates are going to get pretty hefty as we go along. I mean, look at what has to be turned on before Leopard:

- Rosetta (cause the Intel machines will be out before 10.5 so they'll have to build it into 10.4 in some way, probably in a special build)
- Resolution Independence (to cope with higher res smaller screens)
- Quartz 2D Extreme (why not, it's there...)
- Unified UI (to make it look cooler - it really needs to be the same throughout)

A bunch of little bug fixes, maybe a few new features like the Dashboard Manager widget thingy.

Lots of stuff to come.

 

[btedford]

The one thing I really hope that they fix in the 10.4.3 update is Classic Issues. Yes, I know it's interesting that I still use Classic. I only use it because some of my apps that I use for school are still Classic, and at my school, they have brand new eMacs, got them in Feburary so they are running Panther still, because my school still depends on Classic, and classic keeps crashing for them, in Tiger. They installed Tiger on all the Graphite iMacs and classic still doesn't work quite right.

 

[mkrishnan]

...my school still depends on Classic....

I guess they will have to hash it out before Mactels, or stock up on the last of the PPCs and hope they can figure it out before the usage cycle comes up....

 

[alexeismertin]

10.4.3 8F40 seeded but.......

Anyone have any idea when the 10.4.3 will finally be released?

 

[TrenchMouth]

I don't want to be that guy that doesn't recognize that there are problems with the current release of the OS, but I really haven't had any problems. I have one issue with iTunes and iPod connection, but its small and stupid and I doubt it would be covered in the OS update.

The only think I can say I would really like in 10.4.3 is an update to the interface to make all the iApps and Safari look like iTunes does now. I also like the look of Mail (and I know I am not alone here). However, I am not sure that there is an example of Apple updating the appearance of all apps without a major OS upgrade. It would be nice though. And of course, I would love to see other peoples issues being fixed. Just because I don't have/recognize them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Greenone]

Hello All -

I hope you don't mind my crashing this party with my newbie ignorance, but I'm about to get a Powerbook (my first laptop, and first time using a Mac in about 9 years - can't remember anything!). Here's my question - and please don't laugh:

What's the difference between OS X and the Office for Mac software? I already bought the Office for Mac (for students and teachers) and it's too late to return it. Will things run better with the OS X?

In case you're wondering, I'll be doing the following on the laptop: writing lots and lots of papers, writing a manuscript, perhaps also, checking email, surfing the net (want to do a lot of multi-tasking), I want to put all my digital pics on there, I want to occasionally watch movies, and I want to buy a DVD camcorder and store home movies on there, and maybe do some light editing someday, for the home movies. That's it.

Thanks!

 

[Heb1228]

Hello All -

I hope you don't mind my crashing this party with my newbie ignorance, but I'm about to get a Powerbook (my first laptop, and first time using a Mac in about 9 years - can't remember anything!). Here's my question - and please don't laugh:

What's the difference between OS X and the Office for Mac software? I already bought the Office for Mac (for students and teachers) and it's too late to return it. Will things run better with the OS X?

In case you're wondering, I'll be doing the following on the laptop: writing lots and lots of papers, writing a manuscript, perhaps also, checking email, surfing the net (want to do a lot of multi-tasking), I want to put all my digital pics on there, I want to occasionally watch movies, and I want to buy a DVD camcorder and store home movies on there, and maybe do some light editing someday, for the home movies. That's it.

Thanks!

OS X is the operating system... like windows, only better. Office is a separate set of applications like Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc... They aren't the same thing, you'll probably want to keep MS Office.

 

[Greenone]

OS X is the operating system... like windows, only better. Office is a separate set of applications like Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc... They aren't the same thing, you'll probably want to keep MS Office.

Thanks very much for your helpful reply!