IP: Getting to know OS X and liking it more by Dan Gilmor SJMN

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Changing computer operating systems can be like moving into a new home. You 
explore. You find annoyances, but enjoy the improvements. Ultimately, you 
feel comfortable -- or you don't.
On the eve of the annual Macworld conference and expo in San Francisco, the 
largest event of its kind, I find myself at a midpoint of sorts with 
Apple's Mac OS X. I'm using it, even if I'm not feeling as committed as I'd 
like.

Yet I'm increasingly convinced that OS X, still very much a work in 
progress, has a great future. Apple probably needs to make some drastic 
moves to ensure its long-range success, but it's important to recognize the 
genuine progress we've seen.

OS X was launched in early 2001, in a form so raw and with such lousy 
performance that even some hard-core Mac enthusiasts couldn't stomach it. A 
mid-year update brought speed improvements and other key fixes, though no 
one can call it truly speedy except on the fastest Mac hardware.

The key change was and remains the underlying architecture. Finally, 
finally, Apple was selling an operating system that brought the Macintosh 
into the modern era of relative stability. So when I recently purchased a 
PowerBook G4, also known as Apple's ``Titanium'' line of notebook machines, 
I decided to make OS X my primary operating system.

Regular readers know my longstanding fondness for the Macintosh, despite 
Apple's manifest failings over the years. I've always felt that the Mac got 
out of my way when I wanted to do something, while Windows tended to get in 
the way. In the past several years, however, largely due to imperatives at 
work and Windows' increasing robustness, I've used the Mac mostly for music 
applications at home, and not much else.

But the definition of general-purpose computer has evolved. I no longer 
worry as much that software developers support the Mac second, if ever, 
with new products -- because more and more of what I do on a PC has moved 
onto the World Wide Web and into e-mail. This means I need fewer 
applications on the computer itself, and once again the Mac becomes at 
least an adequate platform for almost everything I need to do.

Even with my limited needs, there's still not enough ``native'' OS X 
software -- programs designed to run on the up-to-date operating system. So 
I find myself using older Mac programs in the so-called ``Classic mode'' 
that runs OS 9 alongside OS X and lets me switch between the systems almost 
seamlessly. When one of the Classic applications crashes, which still 
happens, the entire system doesn't crash with it.

The overall look of OS X's ``Aqua'' screen design is gorgeous, no doubt. 
But I agree with complaints that the new user interface -- the operating 
system's look, feel and surface operations -- has serious flaws along with 
its pleasures. I, for one, would love to make parts of OS X work the way OS 
9 does. I like the old Finder much more than the new one. I like the old 
Apple menu. I dislike the new Dock. Too bad, says Apple; eat your spinach.

The Popeye part of OS X is actually under the hood. It's remarkable to 
realize that the Macintosh is becoming the largest installation of Unix, a 
truly industrial-strength operating system, on the planet. BSD, a Unix 
variant, is at the heart of OS X.

Some commentators suspect that OS X signals the death of the GNU/Linux 
operating system on desktop computers, not that Linux has ever had much 
life on everyday systems. That's a stretch. Apple's OS still contains a 
great deal of proprietary software, while Linux is completely open to 
inspection and modification. Linux is also free for the download.

I'm running Linux on one computer at home, but my Unix use, such as it is, 
has moved almost entirely to the Mac. That amazes me, and suggests 
potential that Apple's software honchos -- who, according to an Apple 
public-relations person, were too busy to be interviewed for this column -- 
surely recognize. To the extent that the Unix community sees the merits in 
supporting OS X, there could be an explosion of new software for the 
platform. Anyone writing software to run on Linux, for example, must be 
wondering if it's worth the trouble to rewrite it for the Mac. It may well be.

The BSD/Unix underpinnings mean that OS X isn't just an operating system 
for desktop and laptop machines. Every copy of OS X can be used for server 
functions, dishing out information to other computers, and Apple sells a 
server version that is designed and optimized for that purpose.
If I were an Apple honcho, I'd be planning a version of Mac OS X Server 
that runs on Intel-compatible computers. One reason is that Mac hardware is 
not keeping up with PC hardware in some key ways. Another is that the 
immediate ancestor of OS X is the Next operating system, named after the 
company Jobs started and then sold to Apple, and Next ran on 
Intel-compatible computers.

The most audacious step would be a consumer version of Mac OS X running on 
Intel chips. Don't hold your breath on this one. I'll explain why in an 
upcoming column.

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/