Mac OS Prose

2003-01-29T17:44:00.000-05:00

Goodbye and thanks to this Blogger version of the site.
Hello to the new home of Mac OS Prose.

The new Radio-based site won't have a lot of frills just yet, but at least it'll have the capacity to become a better news and commentary site on par with many other sites like it that you probably read from day to day. Eventually, search capacity will be added as well.

The archived posts will remain, but this is the last entry for the Blogger site. I would still recommend Blogger to anyone that needs a quick blog site that can be accessed anywhere. However, Blog*Spot is probably the better choice, because you can't expect the world from the free, basic Blogger service.

See you at http://radio.weblogs.com/0118556/.

2003-01-28T07:41:00.000-05:00

Mac OS Prose has a new home...

But if I told you where it was just yet, I'd have to kill you. (grin)

I've chosen Radio as my new blog creator and host as it has greater flexibility. In the next day or two, you'll get the new address. Posts here will cease at that time.

Apple is gaining more of the all-important mindshare. See this Infoworld article,, this another Infoworld article,, and an article on eWEEK.

2003-01-22T11:41:00.000-05:00

@#$! Blogger!

I'm really never against free blog hosting such as Blogger, but, after spending several precious minutes in composing a post to you earlier, only to have Blogger throw it up with VBScript errors, I'm more motivated to end my blog's life, much less bother to move it to a new site. After a cool down, I changed my mind. I know my site is one out of many Mac blog and news sites, most of which are more bona fide in its news generation and less involved in commentary. Still, this is my professional vent point, and a new site will enhance any tips and tricks and insights I can provide that no one has actually written.

In other words, I still don't like it when people beat me to the punch with a good idea.

Expect "Mac OS Prose" at its new home, very very soon. Nothing is really free.

2003-01-14T12:32:00.000-05:00

Teach a man to fish...

During my client's rollout of new Mac OS X systems, I've carefully watched how new users accommodate to the new operating system (all of these users worked with Mac OS 9 previously). Generally speaking, their transition is good.

What seems to be the popular application is iChat. Word is getting around fast in switching on the app in Rendezvous mode, adding a custom picture, and posting a custom "available" message. Given that these users haven't had a comparable chat application that is in use throughout the company, iChat is a fun addition.

Interesting news if you haven't found it already: Apple has a beta of an X11 (X Window) environment for Mac OS X. Some may think that this would threaten the XDarwin project in some way, but I disagree. I suspect both will have their uses and needs. I already have XDarwin installed but I may consider trying out Apple's offering, which ostensibly ties into the Quartz interface with more finesse than XDarwin.

The Big Blog Move for me is delayed. Financial and time reasons. It will happen over the coming two weeks, however.

2003-01-09T09:28:00.000-05:00

What? My thoughts on Steve Job's keynote at Macworld on January 7?

I'm on vacation from my workplace, and my planned move of this blog to another host has been delayed. I did watch, in its entirety, the keynote address last Tuesday. I found it one of the CEO's better addresses.

I think that Steve Jobs was grasping at straws for a theme to sell products. His last ideas, the "digital hub", and movie making, have been successful in generating ideas that have worked their way into the rest of the industry and spurred some sales. This keynote was missing that glue, although Apple provided quite a festival of refreshed or new applications.

The popular iMovie, iPhoto, and iDVD applications were updated, and all now mesh well to add extensibility to each. The most popular application was new: a KHTML-based web browser known as Safari. In case you're been under a rock, it's available in a beta version as a free download. It's not a perfect browser, but it works very well, and very fast. In fact, normally I have to use Internet Explorer to update this blog. Other browsers don't work. But Safari does. A few bug fixes and feature enhancements and this baby will be ready to go.

Back to my keynote thoughts. Apple is looking for something new, and, for a change, they really didn't have anything very new to offer. Analysts (read: people who draw up typically uninformed opinions for a living) may see this somewhat correctly as a bad thing. However, considering that Apple is doing OK in this slow tech sales period, it's important to see that Apple is never one to back down when things are rough. Anyone who watched Apple climb out of its doldrums in the late 1990s knows not to count Apple out.

As I expected, the new FireWire arrived. It was a logical upgrade, and I was convinced that Apple would introduce it before it updated its USB offerings to 2.0. The PowerBook offerings stunned me, and I don't think its a great idea. I like the offerings, but adding these additional products to the line increases the company's inventory as well some confusion to those just getting introduced to the product line. In particular, the 12" PowerBook is awfully confusing with the similar iBook design.

The new commercial on the airline with the small actor from the "Austin Powers" movies and the Chinese basketball player was one of the funniest commercials from Apple in some time. I hope it gets a Super Bowl play.

Enjoy the rest of the week. Talk to you on Monday.

2003-01-03T13:59:00.000-05:00

Moving Day is Coming.

I've made my decision to move my blog to a stronger weblogging tool during the week of January 6. It'll help that I'll be on vacation from my workplace at that time and can devote a strong amount of attention to the move. I'll move all 6 months of archived posts to this site, and I hope the tool works well in helping me do so.

The new file server at my client's workplace, a Windows 2000 Server running Services For Macintosh, has moved past its growing pains on the company network and is fully operational. It's replacing an AppleShare IP server and a Mac OS X Server 10.1 configuration that had promise but wasn't very robust as it could've been. Part of the lack of robustness involved its administration tools, admittedly improved with the 10.2 Server update that was never applied to this server. As a basic plain-vanilla Mac OS file server, it will have the strength and integration to my client's data center that I've been researching since June.

Macworld Expo 2003 San Francisco begins in earnest next Tuesday. I'm not the finest news site, but if things go well, you'll be directed from this site to next details about the keynote address, with pictures, RSS feeds, and the works. I'm getting all excited thinking about it.

One fine bit of reading while you wait:

GameSpy has a nice synopsis on Mac gaming in 2002. Well, I guess this is really Macintosh professional news after all, since Mac gaming appears to have entered a new support renaissance where the odds of a port are much stronger for popular PC titles.

2002-12-31T07:45:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year.

Not much throughout this week to discuss, primarily due to the holidays. However, a Macworld Expo trade show begins in less than a week.

Do I have any impressive predictions for what Steve Jobs may show in his keynote address that opens the show? Not a one. But what do I expect to see?

Expectation 1: No "G5" or any new processors, yet. Maybe in July. Expect speed bumps on existing architecture, however, especially with the iBooks.

Expectation 2: A major change to FireWire and USB. Apple was probably reticent to add USB 2.0 to their systems before they updated FireWire. I suspect they are ready to unveil "Gigawire," a.k.a. FireWire 2.0.

Expectation 3: Updates on existing iApps. iSync is finalized. Maybe a new app.

Expectation 4: No other extreme surprises, except maybe a release date for QuarkXPress for Mac OS X.

I'll start the New Year with a discussion on OpenGL performance and games in Mac OS X--a subject close to my heart since all of my games (Medal of Honor, Jedi Knight II, and especially Return to Castle Wolfenstein) experience unexpected quits during gameplay. I've scanned the console crash logs and found something odd. More later. Happy 2003, everyone. Stay safe and not too much partying, please.

2002-12-23T14:39:00.000-05:00

It's the holidays (for most Christians, anyway). What the heck are you doing here?

Go enjoy your families, not your computers, this week. OK, OK...bop the kids/nephews/nieces/cousins on your knees for a few minutes and kiss the spouse/significant-other passionately at least a couple of times before you break the shrinkwrap on that new game.

I've been enjoying Phillip Windley's blog on IT issues in the government sector. He had a different seat to view these issues than most, as he is (well, for a few more days anyway) the Chief Information Officer for the State of Utah.

I've enjoyed Phillip's site as a model for this blog: Informative views, an open mind to new technology, and a well-designed, searchable site He's using Radio,, the RSS-able blog software where I have decided to switch this blog sometime in the first quarter of 2003. A great, all around tech opinion site.

I caught wind of his site when he spoke of the consumer laptop, the iBook. On Friday, Phillip announced that he purchased a PowerBook G4 1GHz laptop to replace his XP laptop that has to go back to the State of Utah.. He's in hog heaven--and so am I, as a matter of fact.

Last week, I switched from a company-owned PowerBook FireWire laptop (still a strong system for OS X if you have a lot of RAM) to the same setup as Phillip. While I enjoy my new dual-867MHz G4 desktop at home, there's a stronger integration of power with this laptop. Nothing feels slow on this computer.

See you in multiplayer Return to Castle Wolfenstein world (I'm "JackStryker", in case you're interested) throughout the week, and have the holiest, if not happiest, of end-of-year holidays.

2002-12-19T20:43:00.000-05:00

Mac OS X 10.2.3 is now available from Software Update.

Remember--don't be a bleeding edge user unless you want to be. Wait over the weekend to see what happened to those who didn't.

Two welcome fixes: Provides a fix for the HP Communications stall, and improves speed of Virtual PC 6.0 (which just happened to be released yesterday). At least Connectix is pretty innovative with each version. About the only thing that Apple didn't add was Java 1.4 support.

No GUI for its IPSec support yet, however, several companies such as Equinux's VPN Tracker and the recently announced free VaporSec provide you with alternatives.

2002-12-19T11:13:00.000-05:00

The GNU-Darwin project is about to kill itself over GNU/Free Software ideology. And what is it with Apple and WEP support?

Find out more on Slashdot, and MacSlash (who broke the article). Sic semper stultus.

Here are interesting experiences on installing an Xserve in the classroom from Low End Mac.

I've been having a hard time locating information on WEP key support in AirPort wireless networking. Specifically, can AirPort support several WEP keys instead of having to type in a single key? In products available for Windows, this is possible. Also, getting an existing WEP key to work can be problematic if the key is a long string (alphanumeric or hex). The use of AirPort isn't very consistent on non-Apple wireless networks, and its an example of Apple either ignoring the problem or choosing to work in its near-disasterous "Not Invented Here" mode that almost killed the company.

If you know of a source for AirPort WEP support, drop me a line.

2002-12-16T10:29:00.000-05:00

Real One Player for Mac OS X is now available as a final product.

I've been very impressed by this client, especially over its RealPlayer for OS 9 versions. (Works great with geeky things such as NASA TV.) Get it here.

Things are going to get quieter here with Macintosh news quieting over the American holidays. However, I've been hoping to dive into my Mac OS X-to-Active Directory authentication testing as a new Windows 2000 server is coming up that will support it live on my client's network. If I'm able to play around between now and the start of the new year, you'll see my initial reports here.

2002-12-13T23:49:00.000-05:00

SMB corruption in Jaguar: Fixed or not fixed?

I, along with a few others, sent a note to the preeminient online Windows-Macintosh integration resource, MacWindows, regarding SMB file corruption in Jaguar. I noted problems with SMB after updating to 10.2.1. Original Jaguar's (10.2.0) SMB implementation was functional, and not as slow as in previous versions of OS X. At my workplace I used SMB to connect weekly to a share on a Windows server to update an Excel spreadsheet.

After 10.2.1, my Excel spreadsheets wouldn't open. I kept getting damaged-file messages. I confirmed that the problem was with SMB by copying a known-good Excel file to SMB, then attempting to open the file from the share and then after copying the file back to my Mac. Both were damaged.

After installing 10.2.2, the corruption disappeared. I figured the problem solved, and I noted it here.. One reader, whose name isn't recorded now on the site (thanks for reading!) relayed my assessment that 10.2.2 appeared to fix the corruption. However, a reader on MacWindows posted today that 10.2.2 doesn't appear to fix the problem for him. He used QuickTime movies to identify the problem.

So, the question remains: is it or isn't it fixed? I suspect that we're both right. Windows works differently in some locations under different network conditions, among other things. It may be possible that he experienced corruption because he copied a non-flattened QuickTime movie from a Mac to a Windows share. When you do that to any Macintosh binary file without stripping its resource fork, the fork gets mushed into the data, causing it to become damaged. I can't confirm that since the report doesn't indicate the kind of file he used. I did copy a QuickTime movie (flattened) back and forth from my SMB share without problems, including playing it from the share.

I suspect that the reader's file wasn't flattened. I also haven't read a lot of problems about SMB and Jaguar on other sites. What has been your experience? Feel free to write me about your experiences.

2002-12-11T21:21:00.000-05:00

Quark has a sound of desperation, if a recent rumor is true.

An article on the Apple rumors web site Think Secret indicates that Quark Corporation is making phone calls to assure customers that they will still be able to buy Macintosh systems that can boot into Mac OS 9, contrary to Apple's announcement that systems sold in 2003 will boot in Mac OS X only and cannot use Mac OS 9 except in the Classic Environment mode.

This doesn't ring well in my mind. Quark is obviously reacting to something. Could their worries involve the recent bad press concerning their view that the Macintosh and publishing market is shrinking, and that moving to QuarkXPress for Windows is a better idea? Concerned that, with that bad publicity, that even more Macintosh users are seriously making a move to Adobe InDesign 2.0?

Hopefully Quark's own bad missteps will light a fire under their butt. My worry, however, is that Quark is an explosive , unpredictable commodity.

2002-12-11T08:45:00.000-05:00

It may be snowing in Indianapolis, but the flames are being fanned on a few pages.

This simple, uninformed article on IT-Director.com is ignited to approximately 1500 degrees by this equally strange response on the same site.

Not particularly newsworthy, but the two articles do show the polar extremes of the Macintosh-ignorant and the Macintosh-zealot. If I were In Charge, I'd take away their computers, give them an Atari 2600 and force them to find some greater meaning in their lives. Perhaps a high score in "Pong."

Another piece in the Apple digital hub and professional editing puzzle fell: Apple announced that a new version of QuickTime is coming that supports cell phones. Not big news except when you think how Apple tends to put a twist on technologies they didn't invent.

In case you didn't believe me, Jedi Knight II for the Macintosh is really a great game. A G4 with a powerful video card is best. I'm really obsessed, however, with the multiplayer version of Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

"I need ammo!"

2002-12-09T12:41:00.000-05:00

Don't use "Mac" to abbreviate "Macintosh" if you want any chance to be taken seriously.

I've seen far too many articles where the term "Mac" is used to talk of all things Macintosh, and it annoys the hell out of me. It's not the same as how some Star Trek fans feel at being called a 'Trekkie' as opposed to a 'Trekker.', but for other more professional reasons.

For one, the letters "mac" means another thing in the field of information technology. If you're talking about the unique identification code on Ethernet network interface cards, you're speaking of its Media Access Control, or MAC address. Unfortunately, inexperienced IT people will typically write "MAC" (in capitals) to describe a Macintosh. In the United Kingdom, a "mac" is a umbrella.

Another reason to keep to "Macintosh" and not "Mac" is how some IT people use the term "Mac" with derision as they say it. The term "Mac" has turned into a slur in the IT world. Honestly, the term "Macintosh" doesn't hold a lot of weight, either, which is probably one reason why you don't see either term in describing the new Xserve rack mount server.

Just my two cents for the day. I have a lot of my plate at the job, so no more commentary today.

2002-12-06T09:37:00.000-05:00

Trust me: Don't blindly install everything that Apple provides via Software Update.

Specifically, you need to read the instructions for all updates before you begin any update.

I've been reading lots of readers caught in gotchas caused by the Power Mac G4 Mirrored Drive Doors Firmware Update, the Mac OS X 10.2.2. update, and other installations. For many of these users, the problem comes down to neglecting to think about what you're doing. Hell, even I've been guilty of doing this a few weeks ago when I updated my MDD Power Mac to 10.2.2, knowing that it would hose my computer due to a bug with the HP printing software that causes its drivers to hog processing time until your Mac slows to a crawl or kernel panics.

And why did I do it? Because I wasn't thinking. I was caught in that Macintosh mode of thinking where we expect the moon and the stars from anything that Apple provides to us, especially if it's a freebie. It's a different psychology than what some PC users may understand, where caution is much stronger than in the Macintosh world. When most Mac users buy software, we rip the CD from the case, install the software, and damn any manuals or instructions that come with the program. In the earlier years of the Macintosh, this wasn't as much of a problem because of the simpler design. However, this ain't your dad's Mac. It's your Mac, and it's running not only a different Mac OS, but likely has a dramatically different hardware design that requires a little more care.

Professionals and home users need to use some common sense steps for any software update or install:

1) READ the instructions about any software installation or update.
2) UNDERSTAND what the update or install is supposed to do. If you don't understand the purpose of a particular update, don't install it until you find someone that knows and can explain it to you.
3) WAIT several days after an update is introduced before you even THINK about installing an update. If there are real problems with the software itself, this problem will show itself from the many trouble reports you'l see on the Internet. In other words, let other more careless people "beta-test" the updates for you in advance.

Two good places to visit for trouble reports are MacFixit or Apple's Discussion Boards on their Support Page.

4) READ the instructions for the update again.
5) PRINT a copy of the instructions BEFORE you begin.
6) DETERMINE A PLAN to revert the change (if the update allows it)
7) DECIDE if the update is really worth installing.

Remember that users who have tweaked their Mac OS X installation dramatically (read: against Apple's recommended configuration) may experience a bad time. If you have hacked an old Mac (read: not an original G3 or G4) to run Mac OS X, you should already know that you're running the bleeding edge of compatibility.

It's a good thing that we have BSD underneath our Mac OS GUI. It leaves many more possibilities for repairs or changes, unlike in the old Mac OS 9 days where we'd have to wait for Apple to get with the problem and provide a fix. A good example: after the HP printer software problem appeared with the 10.2.2 update, several enterprising people developed several workarounds and temporary fixes while Apple and HP slowly find an official solution.

Your mileage may vary with any update. Don't experience "Go Fever" with your Macintosh, or things could blow up real good.

2002-12-05T14:40:00.000-05:00

Macworld Expo Tokyo Cancellation: Good or Bad?

I'm a little split on IDC's announcement, as relayed through MacUser in the U.K. On one hand, I'm all for Apple consolidating their resources to one or two trade shows in the places where they count most. On the other hand, Japan is Apple's strongest international market, with a disparately large proportion of Macintosh users in comparison to those in the U.S.

To a degree, I'm all for eliminating one of the two Macworld trade shows in the U.S. The summer show is normally held in New York, but recent events are returning it to Boston, its original host city. Apple didn't take that change lightly since The Big Apple is a larger consumer base, and threatened to withdraw from that program. (I haven't yet heard a follow-up on this matter.) The only program that hasn't been threatened is the San Francisco trade show, likely since Apple has to spend fewer resources to attend that show (Apple's headquarters are in Cupertino, CA).

Apple has been trying to break the cycle where their sales dip as conscientious Mac die-hards await new products from an upcoming trade show. By going to a single U.S. show, Apple may suffer only one dip, as well as getting more marketing and resource bang for their bucks. It leaves Apple to announce new product with greater surprise and less rumormongering, which erodes the marketing effect.

2002-12-05T09:07:00.000-05:00

Apple fills in the quiet holiday anticipation with an interesting and anticipated twist on FireWire technology.

Apple Developer Connection is offering a preview release of their IP over FireWire technology. Essentially, this allows two or Mac OS X systems to be networked together and use any IP-based resources, but over their high speed FireWire connection.

Slashdot has an article about this introduction. I can see it as a quick way to form a LAN game party, myself. No hub required--just a lot of FireWire cables.

2002-12-04T09:19:00.000-05:00

I think this article from ComputerUser hits the nail on the head regarding Apple's future markets.

After reading it, I've begun rethinking where Apple's strengths should be placed, rather than which markets that Apple appears to show interest.

I think that Apple has almost lost the education market to the Windows/Dell sales powerhouse. No longer are computers isolated, so the little Apple computer in the corner has been replaced by mobile, wireless storage bays filled with laptops. Apple does offer mobile labs of its own, but I think that Apple's losing this battle for the same reason that they aren't firing on all thrusters with the enterprise sales market. Not nearly as many teachers maintain their computers today as opposed to the past; many schools or school districts have IT departments. Guess what kind of training and experience are dominant in school IT departments?

Like in enterprise, Apple must provide exhaustive and extensive documentation on mating Apple products to the larger Windows infrastructure. But the problems don't stop there, I thought, which led me to the prediction that Apple's education installed base will not increase and its market share will not get much better without one major element: software.

Education software is a peculiar beast. Most consumer education titles have always been written to work for both Macintosh as well as Windows. This trend, however, has been breaking. Companies such as Disney and Mattel have predominantly Windows-only titles, and quite a few companies that made the hybrids have had financial trouble and have folded, changed their business model, or have been bought out by a larger, less Macintosh-hospitable software development group.

Professional administrative software such as PowerSchool has been bought by Apple to shore up matters, but the OS and admin support may not matter if classroom-oriented titles don't appear in a Mac OS X version. I'm hard pressed to find many OS X native titles for education.

Never mind the available hardware. Without a sufficient Mac OS X-compatible software base for education, Apple has a much more difficult hike up an already very steep and dangerous mountain. Because of Apple' s past business sins, educators still think that Apple is an obscure technology island where they don't care to get stranded.

2002-12-03T07:40:00.000-05:00

Apple's reputation is being polished by its product, but they've missed some spots.

A recent InfoWorld article talks about the doldrums that is the IT industry. A shining point, so sayeth the writer, is Apple, who looked the economy's realities in its face and denied it, bringing forth new ideas (or better packaged ones) to keep its ship afloat in a stormy sea of slow PC sales.

Does that mean that Apple is in better or worse shape? Generally, it's better. However, they can really shore up two areas: Enterprise and Education. The education market is just turning to Mac OS X, primarily because the applications they need aren't Mac OS X-ready and the deeper server support is a mixed bag--while Mac OS X Server supports both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X clients, the server operating system's network booting feature (NetBoot) still supports Mac OS 9 (as of 10.1--I know 10.2 should have a stronger feature by now).

Apple really gave itself credit with its first enterprise-level rack mount server. However, it needs more redundancy and stronger documentation. Apple is generally geared to write text for their home and small end-user consumers in the business market. But enterprise really wants exhaustive and proven methods, not promises such as the LDAP/Active Directory integration in 10.2 that doesn't really work using Apple's documentation (some third-parties have worked it out--a topic to revisit very soon once I have access to an AD domain to test it with).

To sum it up: Apple's grade is a B. Just a bit more polish is needed for the markets that Apple has let languish for one reason or another.

A link to an interesting article relayed from MacCentral on the increasing popularity of Mac OS X Server products.

2002-11-28T21:25:00.000-05:00

I think Quark has got their spin up to about 7400 RPM right now. I'm still not convinced.

(OK, OK, so I said I wouldn't post again until Monday. But a bunch of you were reading today, and I wanted to keep your attention.)

Quark has quickly (and over a holiday, even) sent out a spin-control public announcement regarding their support of QuarkXPress on Mac OS X.

It makes sense--that is, all except the "fewer publishers are purchasing Macs" thing. Of course publishers aren't buying new Macs. Their industry is in the toilet. But, like the highly misinterpreted concept of "market share" in computers, just because Apple isn't selling many new computers (which is market share) doesn't mean that the base, installed market of Macintosh systems is shrinking. Publishers are just milking a few more months from what they computers and work that they have, and for good reason.

Publishers have really been hit--hard--in the past two years. In particular, computer book publishers have been dropping like flies. Visit a bookstore and think back to where you'd find two back-to-back aisles of computer books of all kinds. Today, you might--might find a half-aisle with a few programming and certification books, with a handful of self-help books.

If these companies haven't been sold, they've died. Coriolis Press is a recent victim. I was 4 chapters into a very large book I had signed with the company before it canceled my book and, a few weeks later, canceled itself. I've worked for four computer book publishers in some capacity in the past 8 years and have been saddened to see many of them deteriorate into a shadow of their former greatness.

Companies love to condense the number of resources they have for cost savings, especially in lean times. Computers and their users are a natural target since you can coax a little more work out of the remaining few. Personnel cuts are usually indiscriminate, but the prepress departments are not usually extremely big. Desperate companies may eliminate their prepress departments altogether, deciding instead to outsource their prepress to another company.

The Macintosh is the de facto computer for prepress and graphic design. Windows, despite its advances, still lacks a certain finnesse and accuracy in its color management, font rendering, performance, and interface consistancy compared to an identical experience on a Macintosh. That doesn't mean you can't use Windows, however, getting someone to print your book will be a challenge since many of these companies expect your work not only in QuarkXPress format but on a Macintosh disk. They can accept your Windows disk, but likely charge you extra for the trouble.

Another serious matter that Quark should consider when analyzing their drops in sales on QuarkXPress involves how users perceive Quark. First, why was it necessary for publishers to upgrade from QuarkXPress 5 from version 4? Most users weren't going to try that trick again. They were burned by their last move from the usable and stable version 3.32 to version 4.0, which was so ridden with bugs that users demanded a way to revert their 4.0 jobs back to 3.32. There really wasn't a lot of technical benefits or new features that motivated users to make a switch. The second matter: Quark's customer service is reknowned for their scary service. Why move to a new product when you can't guarantee that Quark's own Customer Service will help you with a problem?

For some users who have been bitten by computer software companies that are here-today-gone-tomorrow, another worry may be why Quark has been so slow in getting a Mac OS X version of QuarkXPress out the door. Are they "struggling?" Could they even be "beleaguered?" Quark is a private company, so there aren't any shareholders to push the management to get their act together.

So, while Quark has, in all likelihood, truly detected a decrease in Macintosh orders for QuarkXPress, there are too many factors for them to make very radical moves that could leave the DTP ball in Adobe's hands.

2002-11-27T21:08:00.000-05:00

It's an American holiday here, but I have one news tidbit that floored me about an Xserve user.

The original article on Insanely Great Mac discussed some recent significant Xserve users, including Clear Channel, the mega-comglomerate that owns WFBQ-FM 94.7 here, the home of The Bob and Tom radio show.

But it was the first post that really a clincher. I'm going to copy the post here just in case--it was that impressive:

"I work for an educational support facility. We provide a media library (10000 videotapes, audiotapes, CDs, DVDs, anatomical models, etc), available to teachers in a 4 county area in SouthWest Florida. We also provide electronics and computer repair services.

Before we installed our Xserve, we utilized several machines. An HP front end server for taking orders, a Dell server for database/scheduling, a WorkGroup Server 8500 (AppleShare IP) for our internal needs, a Power Computing PowerBase 240 as a Filemaker server, and another PowerBase running as a router/firewall between all this and our Lan.

The number of workstations on our LAN fluctuates wildly because we also host training sessions and teleconferences. The base number of users is 8, with our visitors often bringing it up to 30. We serve 28 schools ranging in size from 500 to 3000 students each, roughly 3000 teachers, around 10000 workstations.

On the repair end, we kept yet another Mac as a Filemaker server, keeping track of pickups, deliveries, and work order status and history. Additionally we had a couple of machines setup as diagnostic stations (transfer the hard drive from an ailing machine, drop it into the diagnostic workstation, run Norton, defrag, etc).

We got our Xserve in July, with the idea of consolidation. Using a conservative estimate, I reasoned we could replace the HP, the 8500, and one of the PowerBases. I had planned to do this in stages over a time span of about a month.

However, fate intervened. A storm knocked out the Filemaker machine and router machine. Having had the good sense to make regular backups (school of hard knocks), I decided to just install Filemaker on the Xserve, and to turn on routing... it would do in a pinch, until we got our regular machines replaced. We might run slow (filemaker is a bandwidth/CPU hog!), but we would run.

To my amazement, the Xserve just took it in stride. As an experiment, I copied EVERYTHING to the Xserve and exercised it over one weekend, carefully testing response time, watching for dropped packets, CPU usage, memory usage, etc. With joy I noted that not only did our LAN load go down (due to the apps no longer needing to talk over the wire), with everything going all at once, the Xserves CPU load was insignificant.

Over the next month I moved EVERYTHING over to the Xserve, for real. I kept the WS8500 as a backup machine, but the other machines have all been recycled into workstations or cannabalized for parts.

The Xserve handled this all so well, that in September I added additional responsibilities. I broadcast a Quicktime video stream from a camera in our repair shop, and I setup an MP3 broadcast of music I find enjoyable so that whenever I am 'on the road' I can at least have some decent music (sorry, private broadcast!).

I setup Netboot, allowing us to boot Imacs from the server, with a complete set of diagnostic tools available, the sick machines own hard drive sitting idle and helpless, ready for any and all repair procedures.

Since the middle of September our Xserve has been performing remarkably well. Consider everything it is doing. It serves our Web site, it is our file server (Apple AND Windows), print server, mail server, Directory server, FTP server, Filemaker server, DHCP, TFTP and Netboot, DNS. On top of that, it is streaming a 24 hour Quicktime video, as well as a 24 hour MP3 radio playlist. To boot, it is our firewall AND our router. And yet, with all that, the average CPU usage is less than 4 percent. That's right! FOUR percent!

Last week, I happened to have 5 iMacs in at once, so I decided to put Netboot to the test. I set each machine to boot OS9.22 from the Xserve (using the Startup Disk control panel), then shut them down. As fast as I could move my fingers from one machines power button to the next, I powered them all up simultaneously. The last one, I timed how long from the startup bell to the appearance of the desktop.

The result? The iMacs actually booted faster from the Xserve than from their own hard drives! But only by a few seconds (3 to be exact). The Xserve CPU load? Whilst still tending to everything I have already described, and acting as a surrogate hard drive for 5 iMacs (and routing all that data to them, by the way), it rose to a whopping 41 percent.

I would be very interested in hearing from anybody who has put Xserve, NetBoot, and Macintosh manager to real use in a classroom. I think (based on napkin calculations) that an Xserve could handle a couple hundred NetBooted and managed workstations easily under certain circumstances. The little darlin's (those snot nosed kids who make Dennis the Menace look like an angel) could do anything they want with the machine. When it gets so fouled up that you can't work with it, you don't have to re-install, re-configure, re-store, or re-ad.

Just re-boot, and it has a clean, fresh OS9 with everything a student workstation should have. It's as if the Supreme Being granted forgiveness and wiped away all the childs sins.

And it doesn't take any longer than, well, just booting!

Xserve switch? If you are Unix/Linux experienced, it's a no-brainer. Simple as 3.1415926... If you are a Mac lab admin, you'll be up and running real soon, with just a few new things to learn. If you're a MSCE or such, well, you'll have to unlearn some things, and learn some new things, but if you're able to figure out how to do anything remotely useful with Windows, you'll be a hero with an Xserve and OSX Server 10.2 !

Michael Duane Rice
Computer / Electronics Analyst
Special Projects Center
[e-mail address removed for anti-spam measure]"

'Nuff said.

Regular posts (for what some might call "regular") will resume on Monday, December 2.

2002-11-27T09:38:00.000-05:00

Perhaps this article was written before Quark's recent conference. That news should be the really scary part of any Mac OS X transition.

This article talks about a company's reticience to move to Mac OS X because of their dependence on QuarkXPress.

News flash to this company: Apple's not calling the shots here. Quark may never release its Mac OS X version of QuarkXPress. Don't make a bad business decision by being wholly dependent on one technology or application. InDesign is a viable option to review. It may be cheaper and more efficient to make that transition than to wait with your Mac OS 9 applications and find that, as you buy systems later next year that are incapable of booting Mac OS 9 from the hard drive, that your business has really fallen behind.

2002-11-26T20:58:00.000-05:00

QuarkXPress in jeapardy?

That's the buzz, although some people in a few circles are probably not surprised.

QuarkXPress is the de facto desktop publishing application for Macintosh, arriving in the early 1990s to compete with, and eventually overtake, Aldus (now Adobe) PageMaker, the original DTP application. Quark (which many people call the app for short, although "XPress" is really the product and Quark the company name) is widely used for power DTP creations, particularly in the book and magazing publishing world.

A few years ago, Adobe realized that PageMaker was running out of steam and features to compete. So, in came InDesign, a totally new application in 1999 that used many of the same tools and palettes from Photoshop 5 and Illustrator for easy use. It wasn't the "Quark Killer" that Adobe promised, but it did show a few signficant kinks in Quark's armor.

The first armor kink was Quark's shoddy performance and bug problems that made versions 4.0 through 4.0.3 of QuarkXPress almost unusable. It also lacked proper reverse compatibility to early versions of QXP when version 4 was deemed too unstable by many users.

At present, QuarkXPress is the only major prepress application that has not arrived in a Mac OS X version, and it is easily a year overdue.

The second kink appears to be from within Quark itself. Forgive me, Jack, for portraying you as a news site, but As the Apple Turns had a very humorous take on comments from the Quark CEO that seems to indicate his distaste with the Macintosh population that uses Quark. The venerable news and rumor site The Naked Mole Rat spoke of Quark CEO Fred Ebrahimi's comments that lead many to feel that Quark is not trying hard enough to get an OS X version because they want to move to a Windows base only. Quote the Rat:

"Publishing professionals who attended a Quark-convened “executive summary” in New York last week are still abuzz over the performance of Quark CEO Fred Ebrahimi, a gentleman whose outbursts make Steve Jobs seem like Captain Kangaroo.

The ostensible topic du jour: the pending integration of Quark Publishing System and Digital Media System within a framework of Microsoft’s .Net and SQL Server technologies. Notably absent from the roadmap: any support for Mac OS X Server.

Indeed, these witnesses attest, audience questions about Mac OS X provoked an Ebrahimi tirade of Old Testament proportions: Quark’s Dear Leader told his squirming guests that “the Macintosh platform is shrinking,” and that “publishing is dying.” He suggested that anyone dissatisfied with Quark’s Mac commitment should “switch to something else,” although he insisted that making the move to Adobe’s long-Carbonized InDesign package is “committing suicide.”

Kiss of death for Quark? Maybe, maybe not. Quark is obviously trying to move users to the larger Windows base, and even if they score only a fraction of these users, I feel it would have a somewhat larger user base than with Mac users. However, Mac OS X is an attraction, not distraction as it has been for Apple in the late 1990s, and its user base is growing. Maybe not in the circles that Quark desires, but growing, nonetheless.

This is Adobe's chance to grab the brass ring and slap Quark around with it, in my opinion. As a rule of thumb, Adobe's first versions of their apps are pretty awful, but by version 2 or 3, the quality of the application tends to hit its stride and become production-ready. InDesign 2 has improved on many of its 1.0 sins and has made many users make a switch from QuarkXPress.

Personally I've never figured Quark to have a lot of management brains to stick with their strengths. Growth is a natural objective for any business, but this company has had the DTP side of things wrapped up. If they wanted to move into Microsoft technology integrations, that's great--but doing it by sacrificing their bread-and-butter application? Not good. Not good at all. It really sounds like Quark is envious of other technologies that intergrate more with the computer, such as MP3 players and applications. They want to become part of the "digital hub" too. Rrrriiiiiight.

Watch this sequence of events for Quark become hyperbole, and listen to the sounds of cash registers and invoices printed for copies of InDesign destined for people who have waited enough.

2002-11-25T19:06:00.000-05:00

I'm just filled with news, so here goes the volcano.

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago of something big that was to happen professionally. Well, it did and it didn't happen. As I might have mentioned in summer posts, I applied for the Mac Genius position at the soon-to-be-opened Apple retail store in Indianapolis. Things looked good for my qualifications, but I knew that my benefits and compensation would be a problem. So, things came and went, and I was dinged for the position. The store opened on November 2 to a very happy city reception.

Fast forward to two weeks ago. Apple calls me, asking if I were still interested in the position. Turned out that one of their three Geniuses had found a better offer. I had a pleasant interview with the store's manager, who was enthusiastic about my skills and experience. I was still skeptical that Apple would be able to meet my salary since I'm paid nowadays with a pretty professional rate. Unfortunately my skepticism did prove true, although Apple made a good attempt to get close to what I made. Sadly, the benefits didn't fit. After receiving an offer for the job, I declined.

Well, at least I can say I was offered the job. Not many could say that. If you've visited an Apple store and spoke with a Genius, you might get an idea now of how much Mac stuff I have crammed in my brain.

So, enough with the meeting of my "Admiration Society." Let's dig into some news, with more to follow tomorrow.

His journey towards the Dark Side is now complete: Writer David Coursey how Mac systems make a great Christmas gift. He practically gushes, but not with zealotry, and has a few positive words on Windows XP as well.

The last major application from Macromedia is announced: Macromedia Director MX has been announced for a December release. It appears that Macromedia has beaten Adobe in carbonizing their primary applications for use in Mac OS X. Here's hoping for decent functionality.

Yes, you CAN open up a Macintosh: Apple has wisely posted a guide for those of you who wanted to save a few bucks on that hard drive or RAM upgrade and install the stuff yourself.. As a rule, follow the same steps you'd use in upgrading a PC--especially anti-static protection. Nothing will ruin your day by shocking your Mac or its parts to death. Trust me on this one.

I found on MacWindows some very interesting information on getting Mac OS X to work with login authentication with Windows Active Directory. I've been dying to try it, but tasks at work make it impossible. I hope to have some time to play with it later this week.

2002-11-21T13:03:00.000-05:00

I'm not dead, but my computer plays dead at home.

Sorry for the dead air. Current workloads slow down matters, and there's been some quiet on the Macintosh newsfront.

I installed the Mac OS X 10.2.2 update on my home computer, a new dual-867MHz system, last weekend. I don't really know why.

I knew that 10.2.2 would hose my printing with my OfficeJet printer and cause severe OS performance problems thanks to an incompatibility with an HP printing process. The solution is to kill that process, but I still get pretty bad performance. Perhaps I shouldn't use almost all of my disk space by recording so many TV shows using my Eye TV PVR.

I think I can blame it to plain stupidity. I consider myself a good tech, but I have lots of "blonde moments."

2002-11-15T12:37:00.000-05:00

Mac OS X 10.2.2 Update appears to be a Good Thing.

That's on par with the updates for Apple. One very bad bug that appears fixed involved file corruption when copying files to and from a Windows SMB share. That feature was OK in 10.2 but broke with the 10.2.1 update.

Haven't really seen much more in the way of features or stability, however, this is another Good Thing, where problems with the OS don't affect everyone to the extent that you notice any changes except the positive. Kinda like a car tune-up or a set of new tires.

If any of your systems are modified dramatically, such as a processor upgrade, watch out with Jaguar--I'm seeing weird things occur with some older configurations where OS 10.2 caused oddities and the 10.2.1 update killed the system with kernel panics. My friend, who owns my old Blue and White with a 550MHz processor upgrade from PowerLogix has been plagued with strange lines and styations on the GUI. Fewer show up with the colors in millons on the video card. Everything appears normal when runnning Mac OS 9.

I'm hoping that the problem is tied down to hardware, such as the ATA controller expansion card to bypass the system's flawed original controller, which corrupted a drive over time. I'll be installing his 10.2 on the original hard drive on the original drive to see how things go. Let's hope it's not the processor.

I think Gateway is not long for this world.

2002-11-13T15:59:00.000-05:00

Busy as hell right now with the real job.

There's a lot of news and tidbits going on, but personal time is scarce at the moment to do it justice. I may have some very startling personal news as well. More to come in the coming 24 hours.

2002-11-12T13:07:00.000-05:00

Wow. It's interesting to have your name dragged around in the mud for a few minutes.

My review of Sam's book on UNIX system administration is up on Slashdot. Someone not-so-nicely questioned my authority to write a review, as if I'm being paid to write this stuff. He thought I was someone else. Please. We're using Slashdot, for cryin' out loud, where opinions are like *ssholes--everybody has one. Even poor ones.

Still, the remaining responses are interesting, with quite a lot of funny responses on "future" titles. The "Learn Women in 24 Hours" idea would be a crack best seller in the geek world, in my opinion.

I haven't dived into the innards of the new Mac OS X 10.2.2 update. More on this development shortly as I wade through the installation experiences from the nuts--er--um--that is, those who chose to install early.

2002-11-07T09:46:00.000-05:00

Microsoft tries its hand at innovation (again).

Never mind that few companies genuinely use the term in the proper meaning. Commercially speaking, the original Macintosh interface was innovative. The Segway is innovative for its repackaging of technology to create a unique product. But there have been plenty of tablet computers, of which only one type--the portable digital assistants such as those from Palm and PocketPC--have been commercially successful. (Do you know which company created the first true, albeit commercially unsuccessful, PDA device?)

Microsoft announced its Tablet PC concept to the approximately two or three press members who weren't obsessed with Tuesday's election results. In fact, the news was pretty overshadowed by actress Winona Ryder's conviction.

Be that as it may, few people are enthusiastic at this new package on older technology, particularly with matters such as limited battery life, its use of a version of Windows XP, and poor handwriting recognition. Still, Microsoft has deep, deep pockets, and has been known to use their wealth to hang on the back of their competition like a Borg cube chasing the Starship Enterprise.

Personally, I don't find the device very innovative, but innovation is different from functionality. There's a ergonomic and practical limit to the size and definition of a portable data unit, such as a PDA or a sheet of paper. Essentially, it can't be smaller than what the eyes can see without assistance, or what the human hand can hold. Further, it should have a long battery life, or need no power assistance at all.

This point, to me, is why we aren't running around with tablets instead of newspapers or books. There's also a personal feel, an aesthetic quality to paper or a book as opposed to the greater ultimate fraility of a tablet. In comparison to a tablet PC, paper is practically indestructible. One drop of your tablet to a hard concrete sidewalk would prove my point.

2002-11-06T15:50:00.000-05:00

A few more pieces on Macs in the enterprise and server space can be found here and here.

2002-11-06T14:55:00.000-05:00

Does it seem like I can't stop talking about Jedi Knight II? Guess what? I won't talk about it!

At least, not in this post, anyway.

I submitted a book review of Teach Yourself UNIX System Administration in 24 Hours by UNIX guru and writer Dave Taylor on the ever-popular geek chatboard, Slashdot. I'll let you know when or if it's published on the site.

The nutshell: It's a great rosetta stone book. If you know Linux, this book will familarize you with how some things are done differently with Mac OS X and Solaris. Quite useful, and now part of my growing sysadmin collection.

2002-11-06T09:18:00.000-05:00

More talk about Apple's vaporware feature set on Slashdot, and an Apple training inspiration, thanks to a fan.

I should've thought about this article myself, seeing that I was knee-deep with an Xserve and Mac OS X Server 10.1 and 10.2, trying to get the various authentication processes operating. I did vent and put in my 2 cents, however.

Kudos to Paul from Typing Out Loud for the fan mail. He asked me whether Apple certifications would probably be worth it for his locale in St. Louis, especially given the costs involved since Apple doesn't make their classes cheap at all. The basic answer, I said, depends on the job opportunities around your area, as well as your own experience. I've been working with Macs since 1987 and PCs longer than that, so I had a lot of background before I turned pro. The Apple Certified Technical Coordinator certification is my first elective accreditation. To fix Macintosh systems as an Apple agent, I had to pass an Apple Service Technician exam, so I didn't feel I needed much more. In fact, until last year, Apple didn't offer anything else for professional accreditation.

Thus far, you can't go down to a bookstore and pick up an Apple study guide, and their classes are about $1,000 a pop. Then, while responding to Paul, I thought of a cheaper solution. Why not buy or borrow (wink-wink) a copy of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server and train using it? OS X Server may be harder to get because it is a serialized application with an install code, but it's not impossible. The OS comes in a 10-user version for $500, and an unlimited-use version for $1000. After that, the only cash you'd need would be $150 per Prometric exam. So, if you're going to drop some cash, at least get a copy of the OS and have a real experience with it. All this assumes that you have a Mac available to run it on, of course.

Paul's site runs on Moveable Type, and looks great. So that's yet another positive note for moving my blog to that environment.

In other news, Apple just released their first 1GHz PowerBook, now with a slot-loading SuperDrive CD-RW/DVD-R writer installed. Portable DVD burning. Sweet. This system might have a stronger impact in the broadcast media, where PowerBooks are showing up often where a quick record, edit, and transmission to the studio for broadcasts is a needed tool in remote areas. Might also make my job pretty interesting if I can justify it at my customer site...

2002-11-05T13:21:00.000-05:00

The last post should show my e-mail address, but didn't. Apparently I found a glitch in Blogger. Ponderous, man, ponderous!

2002-11-05T13:15:00.000-05:00

What a "lovefest" with the Indianapolis Apple Store grand opening on Saturday.

This is a differently designed store from the original 25. Apple has reduced the relative size to save on lease space costs, but the change isn't a big matter except for the loss of their mini-theater. You can see some good photos thanks to Justin Williams' camerawork.

On a personal note, the store had a copy of the long-awaited Star Wars: Jedi Knight II game. And yes, I did a Snoopy-happy-happy dance out of the store and to my car. For those interested, a demo of the game for Mac OS 9 and X is available. It's identical to the PC version. The demo is 67MB in size to download, so don't do this over a dial-up modem connection--wait for the demo to appear on the CD of a future edition of MacAddict magazine.

This game shows in gameplay, however, that something in Windows is heavily leveraged for stronger performance in comparison to a Mac OS X system. My brand-new dual-processor system with a GeForce 4 MX 32MB DDR video card can use 90% of the superior graphic settings, but no more without suffering performance issues. In comparison, an Athlon 1GHz system I once owned last summer with an older GeForce 256 card did spectacularly well. I suspect DirectX's influence, but then, maybe this is also a matter of the multitasking mode that UNIX creates, just as Virtual PC isn't as fast in Mac OS X as it is in the less-advanced, cooperatively-multitasking Mac OS 9. Multiplayer support should be stronger as this version supports multiple processors.

But, back to business. The store should help quite a bit for home and small business users who want Apple products or support. Until that opening, support was sporadic throughout the town, although an oasis or two could be found, such as The Mac Experience, a local retailer in downtown Indy where I bought my Mac. I like them. They were personable and, knowing that the Apple Store was coming, has worked with Avis Rent-a-Car-like determination not to be forgotten. For central Indianapolis users, I will likely point them first to MacExperience before the Apple Store just from a location standpoint, but overally, Apple does hold the cards for the strongest service since they own the whole thing.

Been working on a problem with NFS exports. Mac OS X supports NFS, but its configuration must be handled through the NetInfo Manager application. Compared to other UNIX flavors, NFS configuration in Mac OS X is an extreme pain. I found an application called NFS Manager, which simplifies the process by mating a GUI that handles the configuration details above the board.

The problem I have involves the exporting of HFS volumes, particularly those that use spaces in their names. I suspect that DVDs and CDs must have properly formatted volume names for other UNIXs to mount them. I have no problem in exporting them--its the client connectivity that's the problem. More to come on this.

Another problem at my customer's site involves specialized color copiers that use the EDOX print servers. Printing is generally OK with Mac OS 9 and its AppleTalk printing. Mac OS X appears to be a no-go, however, even under AppleTalk. If you're familiar with this problem (or NFS),

2002-11-01T13:35:00.000-05:00

Can't we all just get along? Hell, no. Linux isn't ready for anyone but geeks, and the zealots should really wake up to that fact so they can get to work on fixing Linux to make it an "average Joe" operating system.

Yet another article from Open for Business discusses the value of Linux over Mac OS X, a follow up to his original article. That is, at least that's the point I think he was trying to make. Unfortunately, his article works from a bias more than from a balanced look at why Linux shines or dulls. In a nutshell, Linux is better because he claims it is. Some quick quotes from his article and my comments to them follow:

"It all started at the beginning of this month, when I published the article Mac OS X: An Apple a Day keeps the Penguins Away?, which clearly noted that in every area, GNU/Linux was nearly as good, as good, or even better than Mac OS X for the average user. "

Subjective, and likely false. The "average user" is not defined. Linux is a great server OS, but can be nightmarish to configure. Almost all home computers ship with a version of Microsoft Windows. Virtually all business users use Windows as well. There some Macs and other operating systems scattered in there, but Linux is definitely a major player. What "average user" can find, install, and configure Linux? Where's the statistics or study to back this up?

"I expected to be told about how easy it was to use Mac OS X, or how much better the software was. Instead, the majority of "reasons" I was given were focused on specialty applications such as Photoshop and Final Cut. One person asked me something to the effect of "tell me where I can get Quark Xpress for Linux."

That's a fair enough question - if I were covering desktop publishing, but I was not. This shows a major lack of understanding on a very crucial topic - the typical user. I'm sure to the person who asked me that, he felt this was a serious lacking in Linux that made Mac OS X greatly superior. That's a big problem for those in decision making roles, as it is very hard to make sense of what system is ready for the average user when many people don't even understand who the average user is."

Circular reasoning. Most businesses and home users buy a computer to accomplish a task, not to just own a computer that runs a particular operating system. Only geeks give a rat's patootie if the box runs Linux or BSD or Windows. The "average user" is NOT a geek, yet the writer implies this in his writing. This appears to be Linux geek zealotry, with no real logic that validates that Linux is any better or worse as an operating system. The question that readers have naturally punched up is that Linux is very weak with mainstream applications that many businesses require. Damn the GNU and its ideology, some may say. We need to get some work done, not tool around with the computer like an expensive pet toy.

"Okay, so I've said the user does not necessarily want Quark Xpress, and I've also stated that he doesn't want amazing eyecandy. What is it that he does want? It's simple really - usability and the ability to do simple tasks (e-mail, web browsing, letter writing, and so forth). This is all stuff that the GNU/Linux desktop is ready and waiting to offer, in fact, for simple tasks, Linux has a big advantage over the Macintosh. You can take your existing PC, and within an hour, have a system fully loaded with everything you need - not what Bob in marketing decided you should have (like Windows) or what seems "flat out cool" (like Mac OS), but rather what you need to make your computer a productive environment."

Huh? It appears the writer is getting a firm grasp of the obvious by the end of the second sentence, but from there, his logic falls apart. He speaks of Linux as a single entity, which is a falsehood. Linux has as many identities as there are distributions from makers such as Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, and others. NONE of these distributions provide virtually identical or virtually consistent interfaces to get a task done. Available or installed applications vary throughout the distributions. Unlike Linux versions, almost all of which come with tweaked KDE or GNOME interfaces where menus and commands differ widely, Mac OS and Windows provide a more consistent experience because they limit the number of options, rather than attempting to design a graphic interface by committee. That doesnt mean that Linux is worthless. It just means that the various flavors don't provide any consistency that supports his point. If the writer pointed to a specific distro, and pointed to some statistics on the number of users of that OS, and present other facts, it would make an interesting argument. As it stands, this is only an opinion, and not a factual one.

Another point: Most of the applications found in various Linux flavors do NOT work as their Windows or Mac OS counterparts. Hell, practically every system configuration tool in Linux is quite foreign in comparison to a Mac OS or Windows installation. How successful a person can install and configure Linux depends greatly on the version used and the hardware it's installed to. Linux's ability to detect hardware has improved, but it is nowhere as reliable as Windows, and definitely a far cry from the Mac OS (old or new). I've been using Red Hat 8 for a few weeks now, and it took me several minutes to figure out where to change the screen resolution, much less understand how to change it. He's not making his point at all to those who have used both Mac OS X and Linux and can provide a valid comparison.

OK...enough publicity for him. I don't believe the writer has used Mac OS X in any capacity, and his article really reads more like a Linux advocacy or zealtry piece. Mac OS X, as many operating systems, has lots of warts. Mac OS X is also about 2 years old, and has a lot of time to mature. Linux has been around for 10 years and, while a great server OS and even desktop OS for those who can take the time to learn it and configure it to what they need (read: your average geek user), is a non-issue to an average home or business user. Why? A simple reason that's easily proven: Linux is not shipped on most PCs or Macs, and so Linux is not even a known quantity to the typical home or business user.

Most users just want to buy software and install it without having to answer questions any more complex than where to install it and what features to include in the installation. Linux does not offer that experience yet. Many installations require use of a command line. Not even Windows, which evolved from a command line, requires this of its users any longer for almost all software.

One more comment that shows this writer's zealtry, rather than enough objectivity to call a spade a spade:

"In the end, the point is not whether or not Mac OS X can serve a particular "speciality" community best (such as publishing), but rather if it can serve the average user best. So far, no one has been able to argue that this is the case, and for good reason - the average user is unlikely to need any features that Mac OS X has that GNU/Linux does not.

And if that's the case, why choose a proprietary - and expensive - system over one that is Free as in both freedom and price?"

Zealots. A quote I overheard--on Slashdot, of all places, puts this comment to rest: "Linux is only completely free if you value the time it takes for you to install and configure it as worthless." Same is true for any OS, but, unless you are a geek, and your hardware is fortunate enough to be modern, but not too modern, Linux is not ready for prime-time for the average user. Apple is as proprietary a computer as Compaq, and Dell, and HP, and IBM, and Gateway. All of them can run Linux. Every one who buys these computers chooses to do so. They don't have a gun to their head. Many of them want an experience that Linux can't yet provide. A few of these buyers are geeks that KNOW that Linux can't provide what they need yet.

Linux has a long and bountiful future, and will succeed in some places where Mac OS X is only an also-ran. But crap like this that poses as logical commentary doesn't help the OSS cause when its statements have more holes than Bonnie and Clyde after the feds ambushed them.

2002-11-01T10:57:00.000-05:00

I passed a couple of Apple certification exams on Wednesday.

I'm now an Apple Certified Technical Coordinator. Not that my experience and skills wasn't good enough for muster, but it's a good thing to have some professional accreditation and validation outside of the old Apple Service Technician testing, which is Apple's equivalent to the various service tests required by other computer vendors that allow techs to certify as competent to break open their computers without voiding the warranty. In other words, not particularly glamourous.

Next stop on the certification realm: an ACSA, or Apple Certified System Administrator. This is Apple's direct equivalent of a Microsoft Certified System Engineer, or MCSE. In fact, the coursework includes administration and configuration not only in Mac OS X, but Windows 2000, XP, and UNIX. Courses will be available sometime this winter, and based on Mac OS X 10.2 client and Server. Hopefully these courses will be less expensive than when I last saw them offered for 10.1: each of the four classes needed for the four tests were over $1,000 apiece. The new 10.2 exams require three tests, one of which is elective.

By April, I'll need to retake my Service Technician certification and, as a certain chef says, have to kick it up a notch. Apple has figured out that annual recertifications are good for their pocketbook as well as keeping inexperienced techs from screwing things up. So, to ensure that techs have software as well as hardware knowledge, Apple is revamping their old Service Technician program of desktop and portable hardware testing to form the Apple Certified Desktop Technician (ACDT) and Apple Certified Portable Technician (ACPT) certifications. Not only does this include the general tests to demonstrate your competency in repairing hardware, but now I'll need to take a Mac OS examination. The test can be one of several offered publicly for the ACTC or ACSA track. ACDT and ACPT certifications are available only to Apple Authorized Service Providers, such an Apple employees at an Apple Store or people like myself who work with an AASP-approved company. There is a public version of the old Service Technician tests, but unlike Apple's private hardware certifications, you can't repair warrantied equipment as Apple's agent or order parts from Apple. You can combine its relative prestige with the ACTC and ACSA tests, both of which are publicly available.
I took the ACTC tests built on Mac OS X 10.1, which has been superceded by 10.2. Tests for 10.2 should be available soon. If you have any Apple certifications received prior to October 14, 2002, you'll have to recertify.

Unfortunately, you can't just trot down to your local bookstore and pick up a study guide on the various Apple tests. No one's made any that I know of (although I have considered it). So you can't quite self-study the curricula, leaving you two options: Don't study, or attend one of Apple's training courses. These courses are not cheap, however. You do get the advantage of a classroom atmosphere to ask specific questions and real hardware and software to play with as you train.

Thankfully, once you are certified for ACDT and ACPT, an open-book retest will be provided online at no charge.

2002-10-31T16:09:00.000-05:00

Great financial moves by Apple lately, but is that the Ninth Gate I hear creaking open...?

Seriously, the announcement that Dell will sell the Windows version of Apple's iPod MP3 player was a pleasant shock for most, myself included. But I also felt it was a brilliantly executed move. Combined with the news that Apple also scored with Target stores to sell Windows iPods, this really covers the bases for Apple in terms of shoring up sales in product that has a bright future. It might be a harbinger of more consumer-cross-platform products from Apple, although I doubt they will stray from making anything that can't be attached and used in some way with a Mac system or any computer. Here be dragons in that philosophy.

It's Hallowe'en, and I'm typing this while dressed as a Jedi Knight at work, complete with a lightsaber replica from a popular saber replica site (but not the official). This week, starting today, gets exciting for me personally, if I may digress a little from the professional fare and talk above myself for a second or two. Today, the second Star Wars movie premieres at a local IMAX theatre, with lots of digital clarity. On Saturday, Apple opens a new retail store in my hometown. I've changed my mind and decided to go Full Geek and wait in the cold for the AM grand opening, if nothing more than to hope to score a first copy of the new Jedi Knight II game, if they've received a shipment.

So, excuse me while I get my Geek Card punched up for exhibiting Exemplary Geek Chic and polish up my lightsaber.

2002-10-30T09:45:00.000-05:00

Apple does offer new and existing technology with creative or ease-of-use flair. But how well do they sell it?

Business Week's Charles Haddad weekly column talks about Apple's expanding scope of supported technologies and how they've appeared to break their old "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome in terms of other computer technologies. An interesting read, but it makes me want to hark back to my recent posts on how Apple is doing a pretty poor job at selling to the enterprise. I know they can sell more. But for Apple to continue its growth in the business world, it has to learn to sell it. Apple is so 1990 in terms of their sales model.

2002-10-29T15:47:00.000-05:00

I had to rip Apple a new hole in a customer feedback call I received today.

I've asked Apple to help demonstrate their wares for my client over the past few months to experience what benefits Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and the Xserve could bring to my customer. Sad to say, the server component wasn't to be: Apple doesn't have an understanding that enterprise sales are solutions-driven, not product-driven.

So I told the Apple rep who helped me initialize this new relationship--well, pretty much everything I've logged here over the past few weeks. The strongest point I could've made to Apple was not to show up at a vendor's door with a dog-and-pony show, with lots of substance but no solution. Study your enterprise clients. Realize that it is next to impossible that a business will chuck their Windows servers (or any servers) for an Xserve solution. Find out what the customer does and where an Xserve (or ten) would outperform a competing solution. Then write up a proposal and send it to the customer's IT contacts for a meeting. This may not guarantee a sale, but certainly is more informative to the customer to Apple's abilities. After all, a customer is more likely to be interested if Apple has something interesting to say. With my latest visit from Apple, it was exactly the opposite.

I wasn't mean or impolite in the call, of course, but it was professionally scathing. The Apple rep has heard much of what I've told him from other customers, so hopefully this advice migrates up the Apple channels and changes are made.

Despite their stumbling, Apple server efforts appear to be gaining fruit, in a raw audience sort of way. Not a lot of companies sell servers, but those few do sell a lot of them. Apple managed to get on this list with only a few thousand servers. But that number reflected a tripling of server sales over the past year. As Apple polishes up the Xserve and Mac OS X Server's abilities, the future looks brighter for these boxes.

2002-10-29T09:40:00.000-05:00

Linux may be 10 years old, but Mac OS X Server is a feisty little toddler.

See this article from Byte.com's Moshe Bar that compares performance of Mac OS X Server 10.1.5 versus SuSE Linux for PPC. Both ran on the same hardware: an Xserve.

Linux ran circles around OS X in terms of overall performance, but OS X Server did hold its own pretty well for a 1-year-old. An interesting read.

2002-10-28T09:20:00.000-05:00

Despite my computer experience, web stuff hasn't quite been my can o' beans.

I just never got around to it. Mac OS Prose is the first web site I've created that I've actually published and maintained, and that was only because it was a canned, type-it-and-publish experience (thanks again, Blogger). Until recently, I just never had anything substantial to rant about (online, that is).

It looks like there may be a faint glimmer of light for moving my site to a web host available from my ISP's cable modem access. At least two web sites I've found hosted there appears to imply that my ISP isn't one of those canned web hosts where customization is practically impossible.

While Moveable Type looked really flexible, I think I may start with Radio UserLand first, and see how it goes.

2002-10-27T07:22:00.000-05:00

After my blog host was hacked, I'm reconsidering where I'll reside.

Last Friday, 10/25, Blogger was nastily hacked to the point where the entire site was taken offline to restore matters.

I chose Blogger as my site for a few simple reasons:

--It was free.
--It was easy to create
--It was easy to maintain
--It was compatible with Macintosh browsers, well--as long as you used Internet Explorer. The complex scripts used in generating the Blogger interface don't appear properly at all from OmniWeb (my choice of browser), and barely work in Netscape 7.

After the crack, and after looking at a recent successful move by the lovely and outspoken blogger Dawn Olsen to Moveable Type, I've considered a move myself.

I've really wanted this site to have a few more significant bits and not just have me wailing and blabbering about, and building a site with more complexity with Moveable Type or Radio Userland, which looked really nice in the Mac blog from Apple board member (I think) Ken Bereskin. Radio Userland comes as a software package designed for Mac OS (including X) or Windows, and appears easy to create and maintain a site. Moveable Type requires more intermediate to advanced skills in CGI scripting, but isn't impossible to learn.

The catch: Moveable Type is donationware, but harder to assemble if you're not an HTML whiz. Radio is a versatile canned solution, which means it's not free, but not expensive either ($40). Both appear to require you to find a web hosting server, however, which is my problem. Most ISPs do provide some web hosting for their customers, so I'll be looking to see if I can add my own content (code) in place of their stock templates. This should take care of things in the long run unless I post something really interesting/controversial and get overloaded by hits from a particularly cool geek community chat board.

I've really appreciated Blogger and would recommend it to anyone who wants to get started on a blog, but technically, it's probably time for me to move on.

2002-10-24T12:01:00.000-04:00

There's always a dull period of news after Apple announces earnings. But the future may be bright.

Still, there are a few morsels that strike my fancy. One of them, which I haven't bothered to read just yet, is a forum topic on The Mac Observer that asks "What Do You See in Apple's Future?"

Cool question. Since I have my own forum here, I'll take a stab at it.

Look for Apple's market share to continue its slow but measurable progress. If Apple keeps its collective technologies maintained and updated in their current mode, good things can happen through simple reputation. Mac OS X is the nexus of Apple's new refreshed look among 'niche' industries such as the scientific and video communities.

The Apple Stores will continue to swim and rarely sink with Apple marketing.The "Switch" campaign appears to be doing its job, but it can use a new twist, especially for the holidays and for businesses on the brink of considering Mac OS X technologies as an accessory or replacement for failed, antiquated, or redundant Linux or UNIX processes in their workplace.

If Apple doesn't start basing its enterprise sales on vendor research, they're screwing themselves. Apple cannot simply parade their boxes to businesses, who search for a specific technology to fill a specific need. Apple must approach vendors after asking specific questions and tayloring their sales approach. Almost every major computer company offers a server. Apple has to focus their server to what it does best, or present solutions that match what the business wants, not what Apple presumes. The age of the "one box does it all" approach to selling is over.

Mac OS X application availability will increase.Mac OS X has many new fans that have not touched Macs before. Many of these new fans are developers, and application ports from UNIX and even Windows is on the rise. The staple business and graphics applications will still be there, but expect some vertical market applications to make major moves. A dark-horse prediction: Alias/Wavefront may port their Studio application to Mac OS X.

Games are one good measurement of application or platform success for Apple.The performance of many games under Mac OS X is very promising, with fewer bottlenecks than under Mac OS 9. Since OS X has greater integration with many game technologies and is developing into an interesting programming platform for some, I expect to see more and more games developed for PCs and consoles available for Mac OS X almost immediately after the PC software release.

Look for stronger desktop iron in 2003.Apple built the "Windtunnel" G4s for a reason. Its technology seems to support a stronger processor than was used. The collaboration with IBM on further PowerPC development may make some big waves if the companies keep their focus and interest. Motorola isn't in the picture in my mind.

2002-10-22T13:29:00.000-04:00

Lots of retrenching and power plays lately.

Of course this can refer to the in-fighting with Apple and IDG World Expo. It can also apply to the strange moves by Quark in the United Kingdom and sales/support of QuarkXPress.

On a personal note, I'm still recovering from some wisdom teeth removal on Friday, and it's more of an ouchie than the last time I've had this done. The lack of wisdom here could be explained by my increase in pain, so be patient as I dig up more drugs and more news and commentary.

Two things that have picked me up the past few days: I picked up Return to Castle Wolfenstein and enjoyed giving virtual pain to Nazis and undead while receiving my own from the dental surgery. A must-buy for gamers. And, yes indeed, I did hear the great news that Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast for Macintosh has finally reached gold master status. I might be in touch with the Force before the month is over.

2002-10-18T11:59:00.000-04:00

Is Apple making another bonehead move?

Probably not, if you're talking about their abrupt decision not to participate in Macworld Expo 2004, to be relocated in Boston. Apple, which does not operate Macworld (IDG World Expo, which is part of the IDG conclomerate that includes Macworld magazine, does), hasn't really explained in full why they don't care to go, but a few good possibilities have risen to the surface.

1) It's become too expensive for Apple to participate in two trade shows, especially having to move lots of people and equipment across the country, rather than just up the street, relatively speaking, for the San Francisco Macworld show.

2) Apple has been trying to break the pattern in their buyers who wait until Macworld announcements before they buy anything, in anticipation for something new.

3) Apple may see more market capitalization from the Big Apple than Boston.

In any case, I think that IDG should keep the show running as planned. Macworld is still a huge draw, and a fresh change might be interesting without Apple's direct (and to some, overwhelming) influence on a third-party exposition.

In other news, Apple is providing copies of Jaguar free to teachers in the U.S. This is a critically great move because K-12 educators are the weakest migrators to Mac OS X for several reasons: Older hardware that can't run OS X efficiently or at all, Software incompatibilities, and the cost of the OS or training to use it. Need more information?

2002-10-16T21:47:00.000-04:00

OK. So I was off a little.

Apple posted a $45 million loss for this quarter. The good news in this loss is that it involved expensing out one-time costs (likely involving losses that the company suffered in its own stock investments with other companies that fared much worse in the market), the company would have met Wall Street profit expectations of $.02 per share, or around $7 million.

Of course, most computer news groups will take this in a bad way, and probably so will some stockholders. However, Apple is still quite solvent, with cash on hand of $4.3 billion, and plenty of good news in their products, so long as they learn how to offer their products with the audience in mind.

What does interest me is that the number of Macs sold this quarter is pretty off. About 734,000 systems were sold. The average number is around 830,000. It's effective evidence that Apple is nowhere close to immune to the computer sales slowdown. It's a ripe time for Apple to "invent" a new idea that makes the computer industry abuzz. Last time it was the "digital hub." That idea appeared to take off pretty well.

2002-10-16T11:15:00.000-04:00

Quarterly financials for Apple this afternoon. Should be fairly good news. Too bad I can't give them much from my clients.

As Apple is a publicly-traded company, they are obligated by SEC regulations to publicly report if earnings fall short of expectations. I don't remember hearing of any such warning, so Apple scores yet another quarterly profit. Stability is good. The last time Apple got a soaking was in December 2000 after they had to take it on the chin for the brillantly designed but ill-fated G4 Cube. What audience was that thing for, anyway?

The only question that remains is: How much profit was gained this quarter? If memory serves, while Apple's obligated to report bad performance, they don't have to mention good performance in the same manner. So, given the good sales of Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, the new "Windtunnel" G4 towers, and 17" flat panel iMacs (with perhaps an iPod or thousand), today should be a nice day for the stockholders. Apple may give a very happy overdelivering surprise. If I could, I would buy a little stock. Only Dell and Apple are profitable with personal computer sales, and the news can't get any worse in this sector.

In other news-like stuff...

Recently met with sales representatives from Apple to discuss...um...the company's available wares, I think.

When IT staff meet with vendors, the purpose is typically a problem-solution meeting. Before such a meeting, the vendors are expected to do their homework about the company and their architecture, ask questions about their needs, wants, desires--that sort of thing. This exploration is sometimes aided by the inquiring company itself, which may provide questions to answer for a particular technical matter. Once the studies are done, the vendor meets with the IT staff of the company, summarizes how they make their living, and jumps right in how the company's problem and how they, the vendor, can define solutions--using their products, of course.

I was disappointed with Apple by how they simply tried to sell the box, rather than selling a solution. The Xserve was presented at the meeting (a device of which I've had the pleasure of testing) but not much was given on how the box met the company's specific technical need. I felt as if I had returned to the late 1980s where computer shops would sell computers with all the flash and glitter but gloss over the computer's shortcomings. "Hey--it's a computer! You need this! Everyone does!"

I don't work for Apple (not to say I haven't tried once) so I can still skewer them for this incredibly bad performance. Apple must learn, when speaking to most businesses, not to talk about the box, but of what the box can do for the customer's specific tasks and issues. The Xserve is a nice box, but most companies have Windows servers and have no logical reason to migrate to anything else. If anything, these vendors would choose Linux solutions over Apple for obvious reasons, such as direct compatibility with their existing hardware, and because Apple is still looked upon as an outsider in IT and unknowledgable or unsupportive of enterprise technology.

I know this isn't the case from other matters that Apple handles, such as their open-source support and technical capacities present in their OS and hardware. There's plenty of testimonials, reports, studies, and businesses who have reintroduced or reinforced their Mac OS technologies. The problem for Apple is the way they communicate. For education and home customers, the song-and-dance of "Our computers are shiny, compatible, and do everything well digitally" works fine. For businesses, take the time and energy to ask the customer what they need or have, and learn about their existing architecture. There's not a company in this world that will drop what they are using for Apple products with the sales pitch I witnessed (despite the point that it contained useful information for those not familiar with the company or its products). Apple has to learn to simply fit in, rather than take the old "we-present-ourselves-in-hopes-you-can-find-some-room-for-us" presentation mode.

2002-10-14T21:13:00.000-04:00

...And to wrap that all up...

Zing!
Microsoft more or less admits to a bit of marketing trickery. Actually, it wasn't quite trickery, as there really was a person behind the article. However, by being a contractual employee of Microsoft while making this article, it's really a paid endorsement. The article notes the point questioning Microsoft's truth in representation (after all, they have created composite people before to try to pass them off as actual people, unless you read the fine print, if any). At the time of this writing, Microsoft pulled the page.

What I didn't get from the article involves the Mac setup of the PR person. First off, in PR and advertising, Macs are king. I still smell a rat about this conversion. However, if the woman had a ratty old Power Macintosh 8600 or something, the switch would make sense. Anything would be better. That's really my problem about the article. While Apple's Switch site doesn't go into great detail about the PCs the switchers used, at least the systems were relatively modern (my guess: 2-3 years). Windows XP can put a lovely face on many a PC user's issues from prior versions.

Oh, well. That was amusing, but this isn't a Microsoft-bashing site. They make tools, and my purpose at this site is to say if they work, or don't.

2002-10-14T16:18:00.000-04:00

An amusing follow-up to Microsoft's new "Switch" campaign.

So far, it appears to be blowing up in their faces. Slashdot has recently posted an article regarding the marketing, to the bemusement of all. It's a great read--people are picking the article apart.

One Slashdot reader made a great catch: While the article is supposedly written by a freelance writer (who is uncredited on the page), the picture used in the article is from a stock photography image catalog. Another poster joked about the fact that the image comes from a competitor to the Corbis image catalog, which Microsoft owns.

I think it's a composite of a person, at best, but evidence seems to point to the likelihood that this is not a real person at all, and merely a marketing tool. That's too bad, for it shows Microsoft in the very bad light that Apple's Switch campaign attempts to provide. If your product has advantages, there shouldn't be any problem in fighting fire with fire (as opposed to fighting fire with a simulated fireplace). Microsoft seems to think that many people aren't savvy enough to compare or choose, or at least see a poor marketing piece for what it is.

2002-10-14T13:34:00.000-04:00

Microsoft appears ready to strike back at Apple's Switcher campaign. It's a little lackluster, however.

This article appears to be a marketing piece showing that Mac users can move to PCs running Windows XP. Wow. Not that this is a revelation or anything. The reason Apple's been pushing their Switch campaign is because Microsoft has been so successful in getting some Mac users to make the move to PCs.

The problem I note with this article is its lack of information on technical specifics. Contrast it to Apple's extensive Switch web site, complete not only with their hyped testimonials but also instructions on how to switch technologies and data, and it's clear that Microsoft's effort here appear isn't particularly convincing except to those who have already switched.

What interests me is how relatively flat the Microsoft article appears. Typically, Microsoft's marketing machine is quite powerful and swift, if not late to the party. This article doesn't seem like the monopoly we know and, um, use.

2002-10-14T13:09:00.000-04:00

New PowerPC Chip for Macintosh? I'd put money on it.

Numerous articles on the 'net point to a practically-confirmed report that Apple and IBM are testing a 64-bit PowerPC chip design for use in a later Power Mac system. This makes sense on many levels, particularly with the points that:

1. Apple has a big investment in PowerPC architecture. Moving to Intel would cause far too many bumps.
2. Motorola has all but lost the ability or desire to ramp up the existing PowerPC chip architecture.
3. IBM knows that they can use these new chips in other projects, so they have a stronger interest, as well as the capital necessary to burn the necessary R&D cash to make things work.

Here are some links (courtesy, as always, to MacSurfer's Headline News) regarding the news from here,, here, and here.

Want an iMac but couldn't afford the cash? Keep an eye out at retail warehouses such as Sam's Club (WalMart's warehouse wholesale stores), where older or discontinued iMac stock frequently migrates. I bring this up because a recent tidbit suggests that the 15" flat panel iMac is being discontinued as Apple pushes the more refined 17" flat panels.

Don't forget to drop by The Joy of Tech for your daily Mac-oriented funny. (Trust me, Mac neophytes--these get funnier as you immerse yourself more in the Mac culture.)

As some of you know, I posted a review of UNIX author Dave Taylor's recent book, Learning UNIX for Mac OS X. Thanks to Dave, I received a copy of Teach Yourself UNIX System Administration for a future review. I've had time to scan through it a bit, and it's pretty juicy. The book discusses administration in the most popular UNIX-style operating systems, including Red Hat/Linux, Solaris, and Mac OS X, with lots of detail on handling the admin needs and the idiosyncracies of each. More to come, probably on Slashdot first, then here.

Here here to Gene Steinberg on his short but succient point in a recent article, pointing out that you don't have to master UNIX to use it.

2002-10-09T19:12:00.000-04:00

Incredible Cosmic Power (or, I got more RAM)

Just added an additional 512MB DDR RAM to my Windtunnel G4, bringing it up to 768MB. Oh, the power. Additional RAM definitely improves Mac OS X performance. It cost me only $126 from Crucial.com, and it came next day although it was marked as 2-day. An excellent purchase. I strongly recommend at least 512MB for Jaguar, 384MB minimum. If you like Virtual PC, just max your system (2GB on the new G4s). The more RAM you can add to the PC environments you run, the more helpful it gets for running the OS. Notice how I avoided the use of the term "speed." More RAM does help speed, but there's not a quantum increase in performance--just a useful one. Red Hat and Windows XP were very happy with 256MB.

Charles Haddad makes some damn sensible conclusions about Apple's marketing in this recent article.

If you're developing Java Swing apps for OS X, a recent article from Slashdot may be of interest to you.

Has anyone been dealing with many crashes in Microsoft Word lately since a Jaguar upgrade? I've got the service pack installed, but while saving or opening, it bombs. I strongly suspect bad fonts, but see the previous post about how Norton Utilities is probably worthless and dangerous prevents me from finding out. Maybe I'll just do the ol' trash the Fonts folder trick to see.

2002-10-08T13:26:00.000-04:00

Mac OS X and Linux/OSS: A Symbiotic Relationship.

This article has gotten the ire of a lot of Mac OS X fans lately. The article provides some stern criticism about OS X and how it doesn't provide a better alternative to Linux because OS X isn't open source.

Hogwash. Many posters to the article agree with me that Linux and Mac OS X aren't competitors. They're compatriots, and Linux doesn't have to squeeze out one dime for all the free publicity that OS X stirs up with its UNIX underpinnings.

Apple is helping to popularize OSS by supporting many projects that work with OS X, typically in the XDarwin/XFree86 mode, but some fully revamped to work natively in Aqua. Sure, Apple is trying to make a buck, but some OSS zealots are wrong in their belief--just because OSS is free doesn't mean that making money from it or other more proprietary implementations of OSS is bad.

Both Linux and Mac OS X have an audience. Just pick one. What improves in one platform may likely make its way to the other. With that logic, Apple has a lot to be thankful for from the Open Source community.

2002-10-08T12:46:00.000-04:00

Norton Utilities 7.0 for Macintosh has achieved the level of the mundane.

Serves me right for not doing my research thoroughly. In the past, Symantec's Norton Utilities for Macintosh has been the strongest third party Mac OS diagnostic and repair tool. That, however, has changed, primarily with the introduction of Mac OS X.

Suddenly, companies like Symantec have suddenly lost the ability to code, or at least lack the understanding necessary to make a strong repair tool. I picked up NUM yesterday to fix some minor issue with my new G4. That was the first mistake: Version 7 was designed with Mac OS X 10.1 and Mac OS 9.2.2 in mind. My new "Windtunnel" G4 runs its own Mac OS 9.2.2 hack and cannot boot from the NUM CD. Install NUM's OS X version on your Jaguar system, and it installs a handful of kernel extensions. Restart your computer and wait a very, very long time until (or if) your computer boots. My computer didn't, and there are plenty of other users who've experienced the same thing.

First off, in Mac OS 9, NUM installs a handful of system extensions there, some of which should've been retired long ago as Things That Are Unnecessary And Always Crash a Computer, such as Disklight (stupid and useless) and FileSaver (dangerous, stupid, and useless). NUM's real tools consist of Disk Doctor (its repair tool) and Speed Disk (disk optimizer/defrag tool). The Mac OS X version tries to emulate this extension function by adding kernel extensions in Mac OS X. Symantec obviously doesn't understand that OS X is not OS 9. NO APPLICATIONS should ever install kernel extensions. Yet NUM does, and directly violates Mac OS X's stability as a result. There are certainly better ways to add the functionality needed, Symantec. Pick any one but kernel extensions.

Second, NUM 7 is nearly worthless because I don't know if I can trust it with an OS X volume. There are plenty of reports from users where serious and catastrophic data loss has occurred. The most popular disk repair utilities (TechTool Pro and Drive 10, from Micromat, NUM, and Alsoft's DiskWarrior) all report different problems. All of these utilties are beginning to be mutually incompatible with not only each other but with Mac OS X as well.
I probably shouldn't put DiskWarrior in this list since it repairs file and disk directories, nothing more, but it is very, very good at what it does.

NUM 7 repaired my OS 9 volume as I expected. But do I dare unleach it on Mac OS X? I don't think so. I'll have to review this. My growing suspicion is that, since Mac OS X is UNIX, the features of this OS have removed these companies' ability to write code that really works. Mac OS 9 was quite hackable, but Mac OS X will have no part of that. So, utilties that had carte blanche with disk repair in OS 9 now has to figure out had to circumvent Mac OS X's permissions and privileges in order to repair things. My information indicates that neither Drive 10 (a TechTool-like version for OS X) and NUM aren't very useful and can even be destructive. DiskWarrior fixes directory damage but can't handle other repair needs.

The only tool I respect right now is Disk Utility, which can't run on the startup disk while it's running. So, boot from your OS X disk that came with the computer and go. Heaven help you when you get the new Macs in 2003 that can't boot Mac OS 9 CDs--Apple has not approved or licensed the use of a mini-version of OS X for third-party book disks. This whole move to OS X makes the diagnostic elements for these systems very, very problematic. I know that Mac OS X needs little in terms of maintenance, but still, something will break that fsck or Disk Utility won't handle. What then?

2002-10-06T21:11:00.000-04:00

Interesting Stuff, Red Hat.

Installed it successfully yesterday. One caveat I avoided on my second install attempt from Friday: Don't test the video mode for X Window with Virtual PC. Just pick the settings it selects for the video modes. So long as it detects the S3 video "card" properly, it will provide proper and compatible settings.

Red Hat works great. It is more responsive than Windows XP with the same memory allocation (although that's not saying a lot), and it appears that the GNOME interface has actually simplifed matters for running it. Haven't run OpenOffice (it's installed) or tried WINE (yes, run a Windows emulator within an Linux environment running in a PC hardware emulator), but I will as soon as I can.

Here's a somewhat clueless article on whether Apple will survive, again. The point missed in this article is that Apple isn't going away because their target markets are aimed more at the consumer market, not the business/enterprise market. Sure, it's good to get sales there, and segments of Apple do concentrate on this, but this isn't as important to Apple as home users. Besides, it doesn't seem that computer sales aimed primarily in the business market is helping the sales of any company right now, except for Dell.

And I'll say it again: Forget about the Intel chip move. I'm not against it, but Apple has many advantages to the PowerPC chip that are leveraged in Mac OS X. Apple may prepare for it (and that is a reasonable thing to do), but they won't make that move unless the business model with Motorola and IBM dramatically changes. For now, IBM will likely make the chips if Motorola fails--and since IBM is the creator of the PPC architecture, they'd have no problem getting the chips in the quantity and speeds or power that Apple desires.

The chip/speed issue is the only problem that Apple must face in the coming future. Everything else, from their new systems, Mac OS X, the Switcher campaign, and the about-face in interest with those in the scientific and programming community is working very, very well.

2002-10-04T14:59:00.000-04:00

The Great Linux Experiment Begins Again.

This time, as I write this, I'm installing Red Hat Linux 8.0. What makes this different that most users who are installing it is that I'm installing it in Virtual PC 5 for Mac OS X.

The installer is much cleaner than the last time I touched Red Hat many, many moons ago, and its installer picked up on all the virtual hardware without problem. Red Hat has really, really cleaned up their X Window interface for installation. If the installer looks this clean, I can't wait for KDE to switch on. So far, the cursor remains usuable, unlike my problems with a Lycoris installation I tried a week ago. (It involved a known bug that affects real PCs as well.)

Linux is nice with Virtual PC in so far that it does not really usurp my computer's (a PowerBook FireWire 500MHz) total power nearly as much as Windows 2000 or XP does. And now, with my increased UNIX knowledge from playing with Mac OS X, I expect to get a better appreciation of Linux again and see just how close they have gotten to giving this OS a better fit with the desktop, home users, and Windows compatibility.

The fun part in this is that I'm "racing" a coworker with an actual PC in getting Red Hat up and running. I suspect more success, especially after how much he fought with Linux Mandrake. More later.

2002-10-03T14:26:00.000-04:00

Yet Another Virus that Mac OS X Users Need Not Worry About.

Wired and a handful of other sites has a report on the "Bugbear" e-mail worm. The method of delivery is nothing new, but it tries to record keystrokes and e-mail them to the virus maker.

Mac OS X and OS 9 users may receive messages infected with this worm. However, your systems cannot be infected as Mac OS systems cannot process x86 instructions natively. You can be infected IF you run a PC emulator running Windows, such as Virtual PC. Infection will limit itself to the PC environment, but hey, you should be running antivirus software in Virtual PC just as you would on an actual PC.

If I haven't mentioned this before to new Mac OS X users, you should definitely keep your ears peeled for any vunerability reports for Linux and UNIX, including recent worm reports. While these worms are probably based on x86 and cannot run their payload, a Mac OS X system may be able to act as a "Typhoid Mary"-style carrier. Apple and other companies apparently have found that spitting out security patches within a few days after a vunerability announcement is tres' chic, and you should install these Security Updates as they arrive from Apple if you use Apache, SSL (all secured web sites for purchases use this in some form), or remote logins with SSH.

2002-10-03T11:40:00.000-04:00

Well, I guess that UNIX book review is posted now.

At the time of this writing, it's the most recent and front page article on Slashdot.

You can find it at this location.

2002-10-02T14:51:00.000-04:00

Picked up a copy of O'Reilly's Learning UNIX for Mac OS X a few days ago.

I submitted a review to Slashdot a few days ago, but it is still marked as "pending" in the submit story queue. Since then a review turned up on the site on another upcoming O'Reilly book, Mac OS X for Unix Geeks.

I had saved a copy of the review but it appears I've trashed it this morning while fighting drowsiness. (Mac OS X can't save you from your own stupidity.) Here's the nutshell of the review:

>>Small size (139 pages)
>>Not a lot of depth or coverage on common UNIX tools such as cron or shell scripting
>>Nothing on compiling UNIX code or XDarwin, the X Window application for a XFree86 installation
>>Not as much information on the specialties or differences of Darwin vs. other BSDs
>>Good, basic information for newbies, but more experienced UNIX users should steer clear and get the forthcoming books

2002-10-01T15:20:00.000-04:00

Wired is throwing out FUD today, but don't sweat it.

For more, see this latest article on how Apple isn't supporting GUI hacks for Aqua. Good thing, too. While these things were cool, Mac OS 9 hacks like Kaleidoscope were frequent pains for me in troubleshooting a computer. When I found a computer with problems, Kaleidoscope was the first item I removed.

Just because a Macintosh invites users to dolly it up doesn't mean you should support it in a business environment where a user's overzealous adjustments may cause loss of time and productivity, or even data. Mac OS X's UNIX roots help minimize casual user installations, and Apple knows that hacks like GUI shells were among the offending products that made Mac support a pain sometimes. There's also the obvious interface guidance where the Aqua interface should stay consistent for ease of use. And, trademarks--if bastardized versions of Aqua were turning up, how can Apple prove in court that they didn't let the changes make their Aqua interface "generic features" for any other operating system to use?

In other news, I discovered that Lycoris works for me as it does for many users--there is a big bug in its mouse support where PC users running the OS would--you guessed it--lose cursor control identically to how I experienced it in my Virtual PC implementation. Too bad. I was looking forward to seeing how many emulators I could run within my Mac. While I was toying, I accidentally opened a Windows app, and WINE tried to start up. (WINE is a Windows environment emulator.) Could be fun.

I'm going to try emulator stacking sometime. I know already that you can't run Virtual PC for Windows within an emulated Windows environment running in Virtual PC for Macintosh. Someone tried this on the net and found a bit of humor from the Connectix programmers in the form of a simple error message indicating that you can't do this, and the words, "Nice try."

I really have to find where I read that on the net. It was probably on Slashdot.

2002-09-30T12:47:00.000-04:00

A good article on the Linux/Mac OS X switch wars at The Boston Globe is food for thought for Linux on the desktop. I don't think Mac OS X (in the form of OS X Server) poses a great threat to Linux as a server. Linux is just too freely available and, once configured, rock-solid. Did I mention it was free?

Speaking of Linux, I downloaded and tried installing the Linux distribution known as Lycoris (some may remember this as "Redmond Linux") within Virtual PC 5.0 on my home G4. The installer was available on a s l o w FTP server on a link buried a bit within the main site. Once download (512MB) was complete, I took advantage of one of Virtual PC 5.0's new features: Capture CD from ISO image. This feature allowed me to make a virtual mounting of the CD, where Virtual PC could boot from the CD as if I had burned a disk for it to use. Very cool timesaver.

Lycoris had no initial problem in installing, but, after I returned from placing VPC in the background while setting up a blank virtual floppy (in the same manner that I mounted the ISO image) for a rescue disk, my cursor would not return into the Lycoris workspace. I managed to use the keyboard to navigate a bit, and start up of the OS was fine, but I could not get the cursor to function in the workspace.

So, I created a new image (leaving the original, as it was fine except for the cursor loss) and tried again. This time, Lycoris couldn't properly set up screen resolution and size as before. The mouse functionality was still off, as the cursor moved but only at the top of the screen, submarining along jerkily and uselessly.

From what I did experience of Lycoris, this comes pretty close to what Linux should be on a desktop. It tries very well to pretend its like any version of Windows (specifically XP), and its beauty is very good for any distro I have used before. Lycoris uses a beefed-up and stylized KDE install and appears to have everything a geek or basic user would need. I really want to play with this more, so I need to see if anyone else in VPC land has tried Lycoris. More on this tidbit later on.

Lycoris is not the only Linux distributor that realizes that getting a consistent, friendly interface is key to desktop acceptance. This article about Red Hat's efforts on CNET News.com to make KDE and GNONE desktop interfaces look more alike for consistency. Strange, and not as creative as Lycoris' solution.

Did You Know? ...that crash logs are recorded in Mac OS X 10.2? If you've used other *NIXes, this isn't news. One new feature of the Console application (in the Utilities folder of Applications) is that it also records kernel panic logs. I have to look into this, but I'm sure someone recently documented it. To activate crash logs, open Console's preferences, and, under the Crashes tab, check both boxes you find there.

2002-09-27T15:07:00.000-04:00

...And speaking of levity and joy on a Friday...

Star Wars: Jedi Knight II for Macintosh has reached Final Candidate status! In two to three weeks, my at-work and at-home productivity will drop to all new lows! As the young gamers say, "w00t!"

2002-09-27T10:05:00.000-04:00

Let's play with the light side of IT today, shall we?

The computer world sometimes takes itself far too seriously, but it has quite a few places to visit online for some levity. It is, after all, a Friday. Kick back and live a little.

Some of my favorites:

Mac Hall deals with the collegiate hijinks of some artist/gaming types. Once in a while, someone might mention their computer choice, but usually there's plenty of Star Wars references.

Penny Arcade is arguably one of the most popular online comic with lots of commentary and parody on the gaming life. Don't visit this site if your workplace scans for word content. The language can get a little salty, sometimes.

While the ever-popular and well-written As the Apple Turns un-news site was on hiatus due to a new baby, I discovered the Crazy Apple Rumors Site. Today's rumor says it all about the well-contrived humor: "Apple Open-Sources Its Pants."

One of the best-drawn and very humorous (I think) panel comics with a Mac bent is Geek Culture's Joy of Tech site. I have got to get one of the t-shirts: Tubes Rock! (I'm showing my age...)

Finally, you have to drop by GameSpy's The Daily Victim. Again, gaming humor, but with some absolutely f*****g ingenious tech humor. Need the best laugh of your day (especially if you're a sysadmin)? Start here, here,, and and here.

Mac OS Prose is not responsible for spitakes or nosers. Drink the beverage and swallow first, then read.

2002-09-26T14:25:00.000-04:00

More switcher stuff from a recent Slashdot article on "Flirting with Mac OS X." The tide of interest for Mac OS X, if not outright switching of many Linux desktop users to the operating system, doesn't appear to be slowing down very much.

A new toy is waiting for you if you're interested in Mac OS X but can't run it because you own a PC. Darwin, the core of Mac OS X is available in a new version. Darwin for x86 runs only on a sliver of various PCs (AMD systems are NOT one of these), so read the documentation before losing your mind. It comes as source or as an ISO image. Of course, versions are available for Power Mac systems as well--but why would you run this, really?

Another article from Newsfactor (that bastion of objective reporting) [on OSOpinion] talks of how Linux is doing. I think Linux has a strong, happy future, as do most UNIX operating systems, now that Apple and Linux distributor Lycoris have shown some ways of how UNIX can be tamed for the masses.

2002-09-25T14:27:00.000-04:00

Been working on a project with XDarwin and chewing on a migration-to-PC dilemma.

I've armed a Mac OS X workstation with XDarwin and, with the help of our local sysadmin for several IRIX workstations, pointed the OS X workstation to display the X display of an IRIX box in XDarwin. It works, simply put. Sees the IRIX desktop and manipulates it just fine. Sure, I hadn't updated the window manager so it was using the butt-ugly twm default manager, but it did operate properly.

The reason I'm playing with these gee-whiz things is to prepare information for and against a possible consolidation of computers for my client. They have a mix of Macs and IRIX systems, with a few PCs running Windows 2000 or NT. They're considering reducing the number of workstations so that there's only one workstation per desk.

As a Mac guy, this disturbs me, but I'm trying not to get all zealous about keeping the Macs there. The problem, as you might guess, involves applications. The IRIX boxes run Alias/Wavefront Studio, a powerful 3-D tool. It's available for Windows 2000, Linux, and IRIX, but isn't available for Mac OS X. (Don't confuse Studio with Maya, which is available for OS X, but is designed for animation and isn't the same tool.) The current PCs may also handle a couple of tasks that work only on a Windows platform at the moment.

The common wisdom would be to move to a PC workstation for all functions. I can understand the financial logic, but my experience feels that a move like this would hurt their productivity. PCs are deployed in most businesses with Microsoft Office and left alone. Help Desks for these companies are generally equipped for Office and troubleshooting questions, but not much else. Could my client's help desk handle the "How do I?" as well as the "Why can't I?" questions that will plague them from a W2K user when handling a multitude of graphic applications? Most desks can't--they aren't trained in these applications. Hell--they can't answer the same questions posed by the Macintosh group.

Are they really saving money by using PCs? Load up a PC workstation to the same hardware features that a Macintosh workstation comes with as standard equipment, and you'll have little difference in cost between the two systems. The performance and consistency on the PC, however, will likely differ. Windows 2000/XP is a stronger OS, but it is still Windows and it is still running on hardware prone to conflicts, resource problems, and the like, especially when you load it with hardware that didn't come with the computer.

My worry is that I haven't stronger material to debate against the logic of moving to a PC-only framework for these particular clients. I'll have to think about it more.

2002-09-25T12:44:00.000-04:00

I've got to stop being cheap and update my blog with some links and stuff. I like Blogger, so maybe I'll upgrade to a Blog*Spot account.

Until that time, for more Mac OS related chat, try this site for new switchers to Mac OS X: Forwarding Address: OS X.

2002-09-24T09:53:00.000-04:00

Great link to a Linux switcher article, and a few more non-professional thoughts...

Not that I think Linux is dead on the desktop (just immature and inconsistent, but Windows was that for a time, too), try this article from Byte (I thought this magazine was dead) about a Linux user's decision to move to a PowerBook.

Every good tech needs a break from their work. Try this article from Inside Mac Games on making the switch to OS X and keeping your games working. This is important stuff since moving to OS X can really break most games since they are more tied to the video card in OS 9 and other features that are usurped by Mac OS X's dominance when Classic is in operation.

There have been quite a lot of vunerability reports for UNIX on SSL that could affect any UNIX system, so be sure to update your security patches. While OS X users have less to worry about if they do not use SSL or SSH or Apache, it does pay to run the Security Updates that can be found in your Software Update system preferences.

2002-09-23T14:14:00.000-04:00

Young Padawans of Mac OS X would do good to feel the UNIX forces within Mac OS X.

You'll find quite a few resources on UNIX on the net (duh!), but fewer resources on the Mac OS X specifics of its BSD implementation are online. Still, you'll be far from left out in the cold.

For people that need to carry around a good reference, I'd recommend Learning UNIX for Mac OS X from O'Reilly. Their MacDevCenter site is among the strongest web sites that talk of the hinterlands of OS X, especially in regards to programming.

Curious about using UNIX applications with OS X? Start with The XDarwin project. XDarwin is an application that allows you to run UNIX applications that rely on the X Window graphic engine (that's quite a few apps!). Mac OS X has its own graphic interface engine that's essentially PDF-on-screen, but does support traditional UNIX graphic support. Links on these sites will direct you to information on compiling source code to create your own applications. Here's a link to a site that shows XDarwin at work, running a very popular Photoshop-like UNIX app called GIMP.

Once you get going in the UNIX underpinnings, drop by Mac OS X Hints for great tips on handling every little nuance of the operating system.

2002-09-20T16:13:00.000-04:00

Some general comments regarding some articles.

This article from experienced computer writer Kim Komando left me with an interesting point: Windows users continue to equate speed with power. Her article was fairly written, given that she doesn't seem to use the Macintosh long enough for a sufficiently significant opinion.

She's right. Many aspects of the Windows XP interface are snappier than Mac OS X. But there's a downside to that. Window's graphic interface is no more complex than the UNIX X Window environment. Mac OS 9's interface is as responsive as most versions of Windows, but that's the yardstick now. Consider that Mac OS X's interface is a Display PDF, and you can give Apple credit for making the interface as fast as it is.

Many comments Ms. Komando has are subjective and understandable as people have their own opinions and preferences for how a computer should work and look. The article also misses the target of the Switch campaign and shows it in this comment:

So, if you're struggling with Windows and you think that an iMac will allow you to focus more on your business and not on computer issues, should you switch? I vote no.

Don't get me wrong. The iMac does its job well. But it is no more intuitive than Windows XP.

The iMac is designed for home use, not business, so her test system was not meant for that group. If Kim wanted to judge matters based on stronger performance, she needs to use a PowerBook or Power Mac G4 system, both of which have stronger abilities. I would have to disagree with her on intuitiveness, but it is a small point. There are lots of things to tweak from the Windows 2000 interface, and even more from XP if you switch down its rather ugly primary colors interface. Users can click one menu to activate a program, sure, but ask a user to make changes to computer settings, and they'll get lost, fast. In comparison, the Mac OS (pick one) has tended to be easier for me to help users walk through when making setting changes.

I wonder how the iMac crashed as the article noted. Application crash? Those are common. I've got OS X on about 10 systems that have been running for about a year now. There have been 4 kernel panics (a full system crash that requires a reboot), and all of them hardware related. No kernel panics were reported in the past 8 months. Still, stable is stable, and I have good reports of XP's strengths here, as well.

I think I've talked enough about the differences in cost, and why. Apple doesn't throw commodity crap, but the creame de la creame of commodity hardware. That integration and quality (inside, not out) gives the higher prices. A PC consumer may buy a cheaper machine, and odds are that it will work satisfactorily. But if problems occur, they are going to be significant, and time consuming, if not costly. PCs are not at all easy to troubleshoot for a general user. And that is where a home Macintosh user holds the trump card. The business Macintosh user has a slightly different scenario.

"No floppy drive. I know 3.5-inch floppies aren't used much anymore. But the need does arise occasionally. The iMac should have a floppy drive.

A floppy drive? A floppy drive?! What the heck for on a Macintosh? The last time I've seen any Macintosh software packages with a floppy drive was over 5 years ago. Vendors literally do NOT generate floppy disks for Macintosh software any longer, and this note from the article indicates how infrequently Ms. Komando uses these computers. The only three reasons you would need a floppy drive on a Macintosh are: (1) Swapping files when you don't have any other means between PC and Mac (not sure if Ms. Komando knows that Macs can read PC floppies without additional software, although the reverse is not true), (2) When using Virtual PC, where software installers still arrive on floppies for Windows software, and (3) if you have a Sony Mavica camera that uses floppy disks for film (I own one). That's about it.

And if points are still needed on the confusion that Microsoft causes in its operating systems, try David Coursey's comments on wireless networking on Windows. See his archive on articles about scary uses of other so-called "intuitive" products. In my opinion, about the only intuitive thing that Microsoft has made recently has been their IntelliMouse optical mice. They're great.

2002-09-19T13:00:00.000-04:00

Just installed the 10.2.1 Update, and haven't noticed one change whatsoever.

When your Macintosh was running perfectly before the update, that's typically how updates fare. Otherwise, you'll usually notice how faster/smoother/creamier things are. For some, its a placebo effect.

Come to think of it, there is one thing I've noticed: There was a lag in typing text in 10.2, but, as I type this in, the lag appears to be gone.

Very cool news on my Microsoft Outlook replacement search: Microsoft Entourage's IMAP support for Exchange servers that run it also provide a very good feature called Office Notifications. Essentially, this feature allows appointments and invitations used on the Outlook client to work with messages received with Entourage. The Entourage calendar appears to be a separate beast with no collaborative features from the Outlook calendar, but at least you can keep track of meetings and invite people. So far, things are pretty good, but it needs more testing before I give it the go-ahead for my client.

More on the 10.2.1 experience (or lack thereof) later.

More Bad/Questionable Writing that Ticks Me Off: This annoying article from Newsfactor. Here's one snippet:

"But even though Apple has produced many new technologies that lead the industry, the company still needs to sell its story more effectively to corporate markets, analysts said. If it cannot do so, it will be unable to reclaim market share from rival Microsoft, which now rules the operating system space with Windows."

Why would Apple need to reclaim market share from Microsoft? Isn't there market share that Microsoft does not own? Ah, yes, there is. And that is the whole challenge to running a business--not only targeting your competitors, but reaching for users that neither side owns. The language implies that Apple has to win an OS war. They don't. Apple already lost, long time ago. Now it's just business. I do agree with the first sentence on selling better to businesses--that is, if the businesses found that using Macs for their particular work was appropriate and cost-effective. The article doesn't get the point that, frankly, Macs aren't the best fit everywhere.

The rest of the article, particularly the comments from the analyst from the Yankee Group, is generally on-target. Again, I'm getting sucked in by the inflammatory tone of the headline, I guess.

2002-09-18T19:01:00.000-04:00

You may likely know about the problem that may cause a SuperDrive to go dead if you use high-speed discs for burning. Don't try anything with these disks until Apple presents a fix.

Some goes for the new Mac OS X 10.2.1 Update, just released along with a bug fix for iTunes 3. Early reports indicate that the Mail application may be rendered dead. This might be a case where users have moved the Mail app from its original location, a common problem when updating software in Mac OS X since moving apps in Mac OS 9 wasn't usually a problem. More information about the update can be found at this location.

Here-here to writer Bob Levitus on his take on the Gateway Profile ads.

2002-09-17T12:39:00.000-04:00

Never completely believe the ads, even Apple's. Case in point: This review by the Arizona Central on the Gateway Profile vs. the iMac flat panel. In Gateway's ad, you see the computer doing hops and jumps to show how "flexible" and "powerful" it is. This review points a different picture. The Gateway doesn't completely suck--it just tries to squeeze performance and versatility limitations behind its market spin. It's not that Apple is above the fray--but today, it's Gateway that got caught. To contrast, John Rizzo (of MacWindows fame), wrote a fair and not-too-overly-fawning review of the 17" iMac.

A good read on the stubborness of Mac OS 9 users to moving to Mac OS X comes from fellow author Gene Steinberg's blog, entitled, The Jaguar Report: How Can You Dislike It Without Using It?"

An interesting bit of professional switching comes from France in this article.

[It may be of no surprise that I love MacSurfer as most of my links come from there. I have my own spin to put on the links I select, but attribution should still go to him. Since my site does not (and is not designed to) make me one dime, and his does, I'll plug his site more often to encourage you to make it one of your daily reads. Oh, and click on all the little ads there, too. They'll like that.]

2002-09-17T09:57:00.000-04:00

It's "Xserve Return Day" for me, after spending about 3 weeks with a loaner from Apple.

Overall, the box is a pretty rugged computer. On the other hand, if Apple is serious about placing these in large businesses, they absolutely must have stronger, more technical documentation that's proven, tested, thorough, and ready to use when a customer receives their box. No "our team is working on the documentation" mess.

Even with the Admin Guide, I experienced problems in configuring Workgroup Manager for user accounts with home directories. I could not get the clients (also running 10.2) to connect. Maybe this was a problem on the local end in our test environment, but I cannot be sure.

Mac OS X Server 10.2 is a good OS, and it is far more versatile than its 10.1 counterpart. The problem that 10.1 users will experience is that 10.2 is totally different in terms of system management. What you know is all wrong now. I hope that Apple does not change this Workgroup Manager/Server Settings app combo again, now that they have a stronger directory services model (thus the change; LDAPv3, in the form of Open Directory, replaced NetInfo as the dominant external service if you allow it).

In other news: Here, here for this article on Apple's mice. Sure, you can replace it with something better, but why can't Apple get over this form-over-function thing with the most used piece of hardware on their systems? When Microsoft makes better hardware than Apple, then you have some issues to figure out.

Just got Quake 3 Arena reinstalled and upgraded for OS X. With a GeForce 4 MX card, I have to turn down settings just so my eyes can keep up. I think this will keep my twitchiness to a minimum until Jedi Knight II shows up in a few weeks.

If you like a good laugh, I find The Joy of Tech one of the better geek (and most Macintosh-tilted) comics. I really need to order my "Tubes Rock!" t-shirt...

Looks like our first 10.2 update is almost here, given that Apple's already placed the Read Me for this update on their support site. Mostly bug fixes, but a few support changes, including more 3rd party CD burner support. I would certainly hope so if Apple is selling systems that can accept a 2nd ATAPI CD drive.

Here's one last funny on the future demise of Mac OS 9 booting.

2002-09-16T10:02:00.000-04:00

Just in case you thought about it, building a Mac from scratch isn't all that practical, and certainly not cost effective.

An article on Slashdot talks of some person who has a tutorial on building a Macintosh from spare parts. Basically, the person obtains older or refurbished boards and other components that aren't sold by Apple (or meant to be resold) through third-party vendors.

For a budget hacker, this isn't a bad thing, but I wouldn't trust the thing. For one, building a Macintosh from spare parts seems to me like building a 2002 Thunderbird from scrap parts from cars that have been wrecked. Reburbished parts are definitely a no-no in my book. When a Macintosh has a hardware problem, my experience tells me that the problem is a permanent one--a Mac is either a good system or a lemon, and they can pose very nasty problems that can stymie the most experienced tech. Also, as many posts in this article noted, the cost of assembling this Frankensteinian beast may cost more than buying a new Mac.

Here's an entertaining, provocative (but, in my humble opinion, wrong) article arguing that Mac OS X is not UNIX. I have a simple rebuttal. You may be right, but then neither is Linux or BSD. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Just because OS X isn't UNIX defined doesn't make it (or Linux) or less valuable or powerful, or even better. Unless, of course, you need to run Microsoft Office. Or play a game other than Quake 3 Arena. Sounds like a callage kid that's grousing more about why Linux isn't more popular or getting more airplay at the moment than Mac OS X. It doesn't help his case that he tries to debunk Tim O'Reilly, a person in charge of a company that knows quite well what a UNIX and a Linux is. They also know what works best for them. The latest news I've heard is that O'Reilly and Associates is moving most, if not all, of their computer workstations to Mac OS X.

And speaking of O'Reilly, this is a nice article from MacDevCenter on using PC accessories with your Mac. Not a lot of big news here, but it may answer your burning questions about PocketPC PDA support in Mac OS X, among other things.

2002-09-12T14:26:00.000-04:00

There's increasing flack on the net on Apple's announcement that the next Macintosh systems will not be able to boot Mac OS 9. Here's a good commentary on MacFixIt about this issue.

I'm split about it for professional and personal reasons, since I own a new G4 now and have a sizeable investment of software. For one, at the workplace, getting rid of OS 9 booting helps with system security since Apple does not allow 3rd-parties to make their installer CDs with an Mac OS X install for booting. On the other hand, since there isn't an alternative for CD booting if your computer can't boot OS 9, what becomes of diagnostic CDs such as DiskWarrior and Norton Utilities that must boot from their CD to effectively make repairs?

Another matter: games. Most games built in the past 5 years do not run properly in Classic since the video requirements and implementations use Classic components that are largely ignored or surplanted by OS X. In other words, Mac OS 9 games are out-and-out dead on these new systems, and anyone with an investment of these games have practically zero options.

There are users with Classic apps that must run natively in OS 9 and will likely not be ported for various reasons. What do we do for these users?

I wonder what Apple hardware will gain from no longer supporting OS 9 as a boot medium. Will OS X run better as a result of the change? Or is this just a change designed mostly to push developers more to OS X?

2002-09-12T10:39:00.000-04:00

Been considering ideas for collaboration and better Exchange e-mail support lately. A recent article on Slashdot reflected my thoughts on it.

Microsoft Outlook 2001 was a welcome update to the client. It's previous versions were buggy and incompatible with the new calendar features on the servers. However, the Happy Place I held for this app soon faded when I realized it had a bug that had to show up just for me. I live in Indianapolis, one of the few places in the United States that does not change its clocks at all during moves to and from Daylight Savings Time (Arizona and Hawaii are also holdbacks). So, in the spring, Indianapolis is effectively Central Daylight Time (same as Chicago) although we never move from Eastern Standard Time. Yep, this pisses off the locals rather intensely, but it's how its been for years. Confuses the hell out of vendors who call from out of state.

Outlook runs fine in Mac OS 9. But, when running in Classic, Mac OS X controls the system clock, not Mac OS 9's Date & Time control panel. When Outlook runs in Classic when DST is in effect, meeting times that you accept appear one hour ahead (EDT) in the Calendar, and the text header in the message shows the correct time. So, Outlook cannot see OS X time zone information, and the features are otherwise incompatible. For people who want to do lots of meetings, this is a pretty awful issue. MacWindows has a great report on this problem. There are some workarounds: Run Virtual PC and use Outlook in that environment, use a terminal server like Windows Terminal Server (the new Remote Desktop Connection app looks very, very nice) or Citrix's Metaframe offerings. These aren't the greatest ideas since working with attachments (especially with Citrix) is a pain to manage. A user would have to have Outlook 2001 open for attachments but use the emulation/terminal environments for calendars. Ick.

Since my customer has IMAP working with their Exchange server, this opens a few alternatives. One could use the Entourage e-mail application (part of Office v.X) for the e-mail, and go with Apple's new iCal application for scheduling. That doesn't help the invitation features, which right now requires you to use Apple's Mail app with iCal.

Maybe I should just wait: MacWindows has a terse statement from Microsoft indicating that they are in the early stages of yet another Exchange client, ostensibly for Mac OS X.

2002-09-10T15:56:00.000-04:00

And while I'm at it, avoid forming opinions from Mac-specific web sites, including this one.

Every human has an opinion. And I might be unfair and unethical in saying that some news sites give "bad spin" or "good spin" when it comes to Macintosh news. It's not the point of this site to be a Mac cheerleader. Still, you do get tired of bad writing, and I was just venting because of it. So, maybe avoiding News.com as a whole is better for your blood pressure, no matter what articles they write. For unabashed opinion on tech stuff, my personal favorite is Doc Searls, a Linux guy who also enjoys Mac OS X a great deal.

In any case, don't be a pundit for any computer technology. You can have your personal favorites, sure. (Guess what my favorite computer is.) In a business market, particularly a larger enterprise, IT professionals can't afford to cheer and jeer--a point that I occasionally forget. We must test and determine if a particular technology works best for a particular area. Can Mac OS X make a useful file server for a large group of Windows users? Sure. Would that configuration hold up to support and technical matters in relation to connectivity? Don't know--better test it.

OK...if you really want to avoid bad tech journalism, avoid SpyMac (a.k.a. The URL that Dare Not Show Its Link).

2002-09-10T15:44:00.000-04:00

If there's any computer news site that you can probably avoid when it comes to Macintosh spin, it's CNet's News.com.

This article today on News.com used the headline on the front page of "Apple Harvest In Jeopardy? Mac OS maker boosts emphasis on software and services in a bid to stem slowing sales. " The article itself shows the neutral, less inflammatory headline, "Apple launches latest "i" software," reflecting the introduction of iCal, its calendar application for Mac OS X 10.2.

The problem I've had with News.com is that they write almost all Apple articles in the same, banal way. See if you can find the pattern in my tongue-in-cheek example below.

Apple announced today that CEO Steve Jobs has grown a third eye in the center of his forehead in an effort to gain greater vision for sales strategies for the company. "I think the new eye is quite a change. Already it sees new ways to increase the company's overall sales, and my driving has never been better," Jobs said in a recent interview.

While a third eye is a useful addition to any CEO's arsenal, many analysts believe that the third eye will not aid in increasing market share and will lead to adaption problems with Mac OS X. "Jobs has three eyes now, yet he still does not see that lower priced Macs are a stronger bet in the marketplace," says Joe Schmoe, analyst with Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. "Maybe Jobs should poke out all of his eyes to hear that lower prices are what drive PC sales."

Apple could not be reached for comment.

OK, maybe I'm a little oversensitive about this. I'm just annoyed at the "buts" added to an Apple article that belittle their successes or overly magnify their failures, especially when the article appears geared to simply blabber on, using analysts that may know the stocks, but couldn't distinguish a computer chip from a potato chip.

2002-09-10T12:38:00.000-04:00

Mac OS 9 is not quite dead yet, but a press release from Apple has placed the venerable OS on life support. With new systems arriving in 2003, OS 9 is taken off life support.

To understand this, you have to understand the Dark Side of using Macintosh workstations in terms of operating system support. To a tech like myself, this isn't anything surprising, even during this transition to a new operating system. As Apple introduces new hardware, they always tweak the OS and the hardware (they're integrated, remember?) to run best. That typically means that older versions of the Mac OS cannot run a relatively older version of the operating system. For instance, my recently sold Blue & White Power Macintosh G3 computer arrived with Mac OS 8.5.1, and cannot run Mac OS 8.1 under any circumstances because the hardware cannot understand it. That system can run Mac OS X 10.2, the most recent OS "reference release" (full OS version) and will likely run one or two more reference releases before it becomes impractical or technically impossible.

Same is true for my new dual-processor G4. It can run Mac OS 9.2.2, but only the version that came with the computer in its Classic disk image (other 9.2.2 versions do not boot the system). It also arrived with Mac OS X 10.2 install disks that are slightly tweaked to handle this new hardware.

This move is a Big Thing for some as Mac users are very, very stubborn in what they like to use. Professionally, this means that if you have applications with hardware dependencies (such as scanners, TV tuners, and removeable drives) running on Mac OS 9, you had better get software updates to mech that hardware to run in OS X, stick with your existing computer and never upgrade again, or give up that item and buy something to replace it. I see this OS change really affecting the educators and a few graphic designers who have OS 9 apps that really don't run well or at all as Classic.

Obviously Apple is trying to light a fire under developer's patootie to get these peripheral OS 9 apps ported and to concentrate exclusively with OS X, but I see a lot of resentment building to this move.

2002-09-05T11:56:00.000-04:00

Here's one Mac OS X 10.2 review to read that's typically the Mother of All Reviews.

Go read John Siracusa's no-holds-barred, highly technical review of Jaguar. John has reviewed OS X since the Public Beta and has been one of OS X's strongest supporters and critics. This is a must read.

Part of my Xserve woes certainly involve the peculiar test network. So, bye-bye network. I'll connect the Xserve and my test workstation with a Cat 5 cable. Crossover, did you say? Nay--Macs armed with Gigabit Ethernet don't need one.

2002-09-04T22:01:00.000-04:00

The fight with the Xserve goes, well, weird.

I had enough of a fight with the 10.1 Server operating system and its nonfunctional LDAP components (well, nonfunctional to me, anyway). Today, I installed 10.2 Server and everything I knew became wrong.

Mac OS X Server 10.2 added many new features and switched around a plethora of stuff. In particular, the features of the Server Admin application in 10.1 (which controlled user administration as well as file, print, web, and e-mail services) is now the Server Settings application, which only manages the services but no longer user administration. That job has gone to the Workgroup Manager, an application that reminds me of a couple of Windows 2000 Server tools in terms of its complexity.

Apple's directory services is now more LDAP based but also supports its old NetInfo roots. The result is damned confusing to me, however, until I digest the Administration Guide for 10.2 to get a good grip on it. To put it simply, this Mac OS Server is not particularly easy to understand. I guess that means that Apple has graduated to an enterprise level state. I know that also means that my headache will not subside anytime soon.

2002-09-04T10:19:00.000-04:00

The new G4 is really, really nice. How's that for a technical assessment?

Got a lot on my plate today with my final tests with the Xserve I have from Apple on loan, so posts, rants, and reviews will be at a premium this week.

After the letdown I experienced with LDAP to Active Directory configuration last week, Apple has pulled through again (albeit at the last relative minute) to get me an advance copy of 10.2 Server for these tests. I'm skeptical that it will work any more than the 10.1 LDAP configuration, but at least they promised the help of an Apple system engineer to walk me through the configuration since their documentation on doing this is apparently very, very bad.

Jaguar has some warts, but it is otherwise a very welcome upgrade. This tech note from Apple's Developer Connection details some bugaboos, particularly that point that SMB browsing is limited to your subnet. I figured that out when launching Jaguar for the first time on my client's network. I don't see most of the domains and only a portion of the total servers on my primary domain. That doesn't make SMB useless at all: you can still connect to anything by typing in an SMB connect string, and I'm sure there are other ways to skin a cat on this, so to speak.

Upcoming reviews on the 867 dual G4 I received plus Connectix Virtual PC 5 for Mac OS X. I've used VPC for years, but this is the first time with it on OS X.

2002-08-30T16:43:00.000-04:00

Just in case anyone thinks I'm a complete Mac zealot, I'll say it now: Today, Apple is on my Not list and Hot list at the same time. There's good, bad, and ugly reasons, all of them mostly professional.

The Bad: I received a trial Xserve for tests in authentication and file serving from Apple. Nice of them. Connected it very successfully and uneventfully to a storage area network. Tried out mapping Mac OS X Server 10.1 to a test Windows 2000 Active Directory and it failed, failed, and failed again. LDAP wasn't talking properly at all. The documentation we had from Apple turned out to be worthless. Unfortunately, no one at Apple had returned recent calls.

Attempting to use my 10.2 Jaguar client to directly authenticate to AD (per Apple's claims) blew up as well. I am not particularly happy. LDAP should be LDAP, and in the case of 10.2, it's LDAPv3 in its Open Directory configuration. What went wrong? If any of you have successfully configured a OS X Server to authenticate users in an AFP file server scenario to Active Directory, send me a note telling me how you did it.

The Ugly: involved glitches in Jaguar's SMB browsing and connectivity documented extensively at MacWindows, the preultimate Mac-Windows integration web site (John Rizzo, I do so want to be like you.) Essentially, the Active Directory issues are found here, but strange glitches in file sharing appear not only with SMB, but with MS Services For Macintosh and extensions to it. I saw the "disappearing icons" problem in SMB connections myself today. Weird.

The Good: My new "WindTunnel" G4 and its 17 flat panel are here and ready for pick up. Maybe I should make this "mostly good" since I won't be able to set it up today as I have engagements to attend. Fresh, superspicy BBQ with several beers beats even opening a fresh, new Mac on a day like this.

2002-08-29T14:17:00.000-04:00

Here's another article that just doesn't get it.

This Computer Weekly article talks about very old news (the limitations of the original Mac OS), complete speculation (rumors from an analyst that Apple may switch to Intel processors within 2 years), and the old "Apple is proprietary and locks customers into their choices" argument.

I'll make my rebuttals quick. Mac OS 9 is dying as a viable OS. It will never die, but it will be, and already is a secondary matter in many minds. Rumors are rumors: no one outside of Apple knows what they will choose for a processor model in the future. And finally, this quote from the article--

"What stands in the way is Apple's 1970s-style minicomputer business model. It makes its margins by maximum lock-in, with the ideal customer buying a Mac with all-Apple software and Apple peripherals from an Apple-owned store. Giving its users a choice would lead to the rapid death of the proprietary hardware business on which its survival depends.

--makes the illogic that because Dell makes Intel PCs that I should be able to buy them from HP and Gateway, too. Again, another person that doesn't understand that ALL computers that are manufactured from Dell, Apple, Gateway, Sun, and SGI are proprietary by design to distinguish them from each other for competitive marketing. Apple provides many hardware and OS choices. The significant difference (and the only valid comparison to the computers of the '70s) is that Apple designs the OS specifically to work seemlessly with the hardware. No stuffing-a-V8-engine-in-the body-of-a-VW-beetle-logic that the Intel architecture does.

Apple goes the farthest in this by using their own motherboards and processors and operating systems--all other components, including compatibility elements in the OS itself (in Mac OS X) interoperate with other operating systems. The "all-Apple software" comment really proves that either this person can't write clearly or hasn't a clue what they are talking about and is just repeating something they heard over lunch or between blue-screens-of-death.

OF COURSE Apple wants people to buy their products and "lock you in." So does Dell. They don't want you to choose otherwise if they can help it. Apple has (especially recently) made their hardware and operating system quite compatible with the world's most powerful and popular PCs and operating systems. This article suggests that Apple needs to sell its "soul", the element that differentiates it from the other PC companies. You know what? Apple did do that, once, during the tenure of CEOs Sculley, Spindler, and Amelio. That venture almost cost Apple its life.

A company locking you in to their technology does not prevent you from using or mating to other technologies. Ask any Microsoft Windows user. Oh...wait...

2002-08-28T22:15:00.000-04:00

One thing that's great about Apple is the company's ability to light a fire under idle technologies.

USB was a technology that never took off until the original iMac went forward with it. Multimedia was popularized by QuickTime. DVD authoring and movie editing was something popularized by Apple. And, if go back farther, the Macintosh began the use of 3.5 floppy disks (it never used 5.25 floppies), external hard drives, SCSI, networking...the list goes on.

With Mac OS X, Apple has learned to take a cool but little used technology, ZeroConf, and utilize it to form AppleTalk-like networking using TCP/IP. With the old AppleTalk protocol, very little or no configuration was needed to connect computers, printers, and other devices. Now, Apple repackaged its ZeroConf inplementation as "Rendezvous."

For more information, this article on ZDNet explains ZeroConf excellently.

2002-08-28T17:29:00.000-04:00

Just when you think someone gets it, they don't.

Read up on these articles from the NewsFactor Network on e-Commerce Times and these special series of articles on Business Week Online.

These articles periodically show up from so-called "technology writers." Writing like this perpetuates myths, falsehoods, and irrelevant topics such as:

> Myth:"In order for Apple to survive, they must increase/win back market share." In part, true, but the larger message is false. Apple is a very healthy company. Currently, only Apple and Dell are making money selling computers. In reality, while Apple sells about 5% of the total computers in the U.S. (that's what is popularly known as "market share"), no one has counted the actual number of Macintosh computers currently in use, which are NOT THE SAME as the "market share" number. Given that Macintosh software sales couldn't realistically survive on a 5% market share, it's more likely that Macintosh systems in home and business constitute a much higher percentage of the total computers in use in the U.S. What's the number? I would guess around 15 to 25%. Remember that Macs last a bit longer than their PC counterparts, although recent advances are also improving that number for PCs.

Could Apple use new customers? Of course. Do they have to have an overwhelming market share? No. If Apple's "Switch" campaign only converts 5% of Windows users, Apple has doubled their market share.

> Myth:"Apple must beat Microsoft." That war's been fought in the operating system wars of the 80's. Apple lost. This is the 21st Century. There's a new competition, but it's not a war. There is now a healthy competition between using not only Windows and Mac OS, but Linux and BSD as well. Microsoft may be at a disadvantage in this since they don't make UNIX software. Others do. Apple and Microsoft also have a symbiotic relationship that doesn't support a "war." But that doesn't mean they don't compete for users.

> Falsehood:"Macs aren't used in business and education." There's plenty of information to debunk this lie. Back in Apple's heyday in the late 70's, they owned a 75% market share (that means that three-fourths of all personal computers sold in the U.S. were Apple computers). Most of those computers were in education, where Apple owned a near-monopoly on that market. But things changed, and Apple become very stupid over the years, until co-founder Steve Jobs returned to fix things up. By then, Apple lost its dominance, but still had some footholds in education. Today, Dell and Apple fight for dominance. Apple sells about 35% of their computers to education (educated guess based on recent specs) and Dell has about 40%.

I don't have facts about Apple in businesses, but you can do your own math on this based on logic. Many businesses that create a product such as books have an advertising or sales department. These departments use graphic design software to do this job. My guess (based on my experience) is that 7 out of 10 companies in these businesses use Macintosh systems in whole or in part. I base this reasoning also on the point that many companies that create the product from these businesses' output require or prefer Macintosh-specific file types.

> Irrelevant:"Apple is a niche player." So's BMW. And Honda. And Audi. And even Gateway. If you're in business and you're successful, you're not a "niche" of anything. Volvo may have cornered a "niche" in safe, dependable cars, but that doesn't exclude their products from other uses or make their contributions otherwise irrelvant. Consider that annoying advertising/analyst spin. Some companies would give their gonads to get that so-called "niche." Apple just tries to reinvent what we might call a niche. In this case, its the "digital hub," where Apple shows a commanding mind share lead. Yesteryear, it was multimedia and desktop publishing.

I could go on and on, but, for today, badly-researched articles like these annoy me. Makes my job harder. It could make your job a little harder, too. Don't get evangelical about these problems, but don't let lies, damned lies, and statistics determine a more proper hardware/OS choice where it warrants for your organization.

2002-08-27T17:58:00.000-04:00

OK, OK. Enough stalling. Here's my review of Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar. My review concentrates more on the technical and business-related features that IT professionals need to see. Additional reviews with less technical matters can be found at places like MacSurfer.

Periodically, Apple manages to add something different to their Macintosh operating system software that makes most of us squeal with glee or scratch our heads. A few Mac OS versions, like Mac OS 7.6.1, was a head-scratcher. Mac OS X 10.0 was not only a head-scratcher for some, but a head-banger. Version 10.1 made the OS fairly useable, but the computer lacked the usual flair that Macintosh users appreciate.

The flair is back, boys and girls. The upgrade to Mac OS X is grade-A, with significant features to go with the bells and whistles that, to some, make up the Mac OS experience. What really makes 10.2 shine is the attention that Apple gave the operating system's features under the hood, below the mildly modified Finder and the desktop it partially manages.

The first thing you'll notice is the relative speed increase, even if you aren't using stronger ATI or NVIDIA video support. Startup time is improved--the OS doesn't appear to spend as much time searching for network support. Once you log in, there's no waiting or stall before the Finder is usable. This zippyness is partially from the improved multitasking Finder of 10.2. Anti-aliasing is smoother and can be controlled in System Preferences for those who have problems with the blur effects that anti-aliasing causes.

One of the strongest improvements is Windows networking. To see the available Windows domains on your subnet, just plug your Mac into a network, configure your Network settings (if necessary--if left to "Automatic", your Mac typically picks up itself that you are connected) and open Connect to Server from the Go menu in the Finder. In a few moments, you'll see your Windows domains, where you can click to find the server and share you need. No need for DAVE or Virtual PC to share files. (You'd still need VPC for running Windows applications, however.)

Jaguar lets your computer become a Windows share point, too. To activate it, open the Sharing preferences and check Windows File Sharing. You'll need to create accounts for the users who want to connect. The only other way that another PC user doesn't know you have a Mac is if you don't change the share name to something less Mac-like, like "WIND2353SPEN" or something else indecipherable.

Also in the Sharing preferences are basic controls for Mac OS X's built-in firewall, ipfw. While it won't necessarily replace FireWalk and the first ipfw GUI, BrickHouse, it's good that admins can configure this systems for some level of shielding out of the box. As in typical Apple convention, the firewall and its settings are not switched on by default so it won't preempt the use of the computer with basic dial-up connections. Configuration is pretty simple, but I have one issue with the configuration in that I cannot yet find a way to set "stealth" mode for the ports.

VPN support for PPTP and IPSEC is included. You can use VPN from the Internet Connect application. Sadly, I have not yet been able to get this operating in my initial tests, but hope to have something soon. The company I work for uses many security components to ensure that nothing leaves or enters unless desired.

The OS itself received the FreeBSD 4.4 support, and it appears that the addition of Jordan Hubbard (cofounder of the FreeBSD movement) and other FreeBSD developers is paying off in spades for 10.2, with most of the tools now much closer to being up-to-date in comparison to the other BSDs.

I have found it a little easier to overtax the system, causing me to force quit items more often. Classic loads much faster, but the improved power management features that send the Mac to sleep cause Classic apps like Outlook 2001 to drop their connections. I've had that with other mail apps, but I expected more. I've heard that the power management is much better for 10.2, allowing PowerBooks and iBooks to have much longer battery life on top of their previous time. However, either my battery is damaged and needs to be replaced, or Jaguar is failing to recharge my battery properly. I see 100% charge, but after a few moments use, the system gives an emergency battery power low message and forces itself into a sleep-like coma, where the system can't be revived until placed on AC power. (I'm betting the battery is bad.)

All applications I had used in 10.1 work fine, and some, like MS Office, appear faster. Bugs such as glitches with the user dictionary (prevented me from saving corrected words) don't happen.

Jaguar is designed to directly authenticate to a Windows Active Directory server, forgoing the use of a Mac OS X Server as a middleman for this process with version 10.1. I'll be performing this test over the coming weeks. This feature alone may make so many security admins happier.

Is Jaguar a good upgrade? For business, certainly. Homes will like it too, especially if they want to share files over the Internet to a Windows user. Overall, the speed and high-level features I mentioned make it a valuable and compatible OS with a typical Windows network, which for many Mac admins and desktop technicians, is all one can hope for in comparison with past Mac OS versions. This is the strongest and most platform-compatible Mac OS ever released, and I figure this version begins the "death-knell" for the original Mac OS in business and creative markets. Once QuarkXPress arrives for OS X, the slide to OS X will accelerate.

2002-08-26T13:46:00.000-04:00

The Jaguar buzz continues, and I'm adding a bit to it. No, this isn't that review I promised (still to come) but I've run into quite a lot of new material on what others think.

First off, WebMaster Mac has an exhaustingly detailed comparison of Mac OS X 10.2 and Windows XP's features, performance, and applications, as well as usability. If you read nothing else today, read this. It's a good call-a-spade-a-spade article.

Slashdot members are debating once more on 10.2 in a review of the operating system. Lots of juicy information here.

The retail store I visited on Friday night during their Jaguar party took a few photos. A friend let me in on the fact that they caught me in a photo while trying to find someone to sell me a G4. (2nd photo in the compilation; I'm that black guy to the right). As you can see, the place was packed.

2002-08-24T17:49:00.000-04:00

Looks like the Jaguar Parties around the country were screaming hits.

I took in the Indianapolis party at a local Apple reseller in downtown Indianapolis. My friends and I were blown away. There were at least 100 people awaiting their copy of the operating system. I got mine, then ordered up a Windtunnel G4 for myself. The resellers were pleased with this development.

Many people also grabbed up a bunch of accessories, like iPod MP3 players (arguably the best ones in the industry right now). It was a good day (or should I say night) to be an Apple reseller. Apparently this scene was replayed throughout the country as people snatched up 10.2 Jaguar.

I installed Jaguar on my workplace PowerBook this morning. The responsiveness was definitely apparent. As I said in my previous post, I'll do better justice to Jaguar with a real review later.

2002-08-23T14:30:00.000-04:00

Jaguar: Smells Like Mac Spirit. Or, maybe my deodorant has stopped working.

As you immerse yourself more in the Macintosh culture in your research and decisions, you'll discover that there is a palpable change in the air when something new is forthcoming in the Mac world.

Even my best friend, a Blue & White G4 owner for less than a week, wants to hang out at a local Mac retailer to enjoy the ambiance. At 10:20 PM. That's nighttime, you know. I'm usually sleeping then.

Oh, well, guess I can drop a check down for my new G4 and some software, then.

I could look at this positively and remember that my friend will likely pick up the forthcoming Jedi Knight II, where I will have to show him that I, of course, am the master.

OK, OK...I'm doing that "l33t gam3r with mad skillz" channeling again. This was a Mac professional news and information blog, right? Um...right.

Stay tuned over the next few days while I tear my Jaguar copy a new hole in such a way that most mainstream reviews won't. You'll need to know some of what I discover to give you a little ammo in moving Mac OS X into enterprise or mainstream businesses. I expect to be pleasantly surprised.

2002-08-22T13:43:00.000-04:00

It might be begging the question, but what IS the most versatile and compatible UNIX?

I would say Mac OS X, of course, but I'm biased. A recent rant on Slashdot gives me a slight pause about that issue as well. I know you can do quite a bit with FreeBSD, and make Linux sing as a server.

I guess I could define compatibility in terms of consumer hardware, such as being able to build a system, upgradability, or connectivity with FireWire/1394 or USB devices such as scanners or printers.

Oh, well. I don't have enough close familiarity with Linux or BSD to answer that question. I may have to create a Linux PPC or Yellow Dog install on my new Power Mac just to get a better bearing.

2002-08-22T09:20:00.000-04:00

Apple's sales division came through with an Xserve to try out for my client. Like most businesses with so-called "enterprise" computer systems (if the computer is located at a business, isn't it by definition an enterprise system?), using Apple technology in their datacenters is typically unheard of.

Over the next few weeks, I'm hoping to show how nicely an Xserve can prove that assumption wrong.

The Apple rep who shipped the box warned me that this Xserve looked like it had been "through hell" as it has exchanged hands a lot since the server's introduction. But the computer works fine, he said. I wasn't worried, as I've heard that the Xserve chassis was a bit flimsy. Well, it is a rackmount server, so I didn't expect a lot of heavy reinforcement.

In other news, a recent forum post on the popular Macintosh news site, "The Mac Observer," asked for 10 reasons to use Macs in the workplace. I gave a few solid points to go with the many great responses and mentioned that I created a small Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that provided a cost justification with Macs and PCs. The spreadsheet compared the features-by-cost of a midrange or top-of-the-line Power Mac versus a Compaq workstation for setup costs in digital video as well as use as a general graphics workstation.

In short, the Mac was by far a bargain for digital video, primarily because the Power Mac has all the necessary hardware and software for creating DVD or other movies out of the box--all that's needed was a video camera. The PC would've cost an additional $1,300 or so, mostly for applications and a DVD-R/CD-RW drive--and there was no guarantee that this configuration would work initially, which would also add IT service costs.

The Mac held its own as a general graphics workstation. Once the PC was equipped with necessary standards for this job (apps, memory, and a little hardware), the Macintosh was not appreciably more expensive than a PC. (about $300). Factor in your own or third-party total-cost-of-ownership or return on investment information, and the Mac easily pays for itself in a short period of time.

I offered the worksheet to anyone who wanted it, which garnered a few requests. I'll make the same offer to you. If you want the Excel spreadsheet to give you something to work with (the sheet is based on the recent QuickSilver models, so you may be able to add stronger data on the new "WindTunnel" Power Macs with their dual-processors for an even greater cost contrast), feel free to e-mail me for a copy. Use it as you see fit, and share with friends. Don't try to fudge the numbers, though. Use a good PC for comparison--other IT managers can see through false numbers and know that PCs have the commodity pricing on their side.

More about the Xserve in the coming days, as well as an additional post about some recent news later today.

2002-08-20T13:15:00.000-04:00

The scientific community renews their interest with Macintosh systems, as reportedin this article from the Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray.

UNIX is used lots and often in that field, and a Mac OS X client and workstation appear to strike a balance between a powerful yet less expensive alternative to SGI and Sun workstations.

In the article, neither Sun or SGI believed that Apple is making much impact. Hm. Sun's new 1U LX50 system is competitively priced but, in my opinion, woefully lacking in power. Pentium III systems? Ick. And SGI's website shows impressively designed workstations (great industrial design reminiscent of Apple's) but lacks any pricing, which suggests to me that, "If you have to ask how much it is...you can't afford one."

2002-08-20T12:55:00.000-04:00

Here's one more reason to consider a switch to Macintosh for business use. This article from a person named Chris Faget (nicknamed "Foon") details a significant and unfixable flaw in the Windows operating system (thanks to Macintouch for the link to the link).

I won't dive into the technical details because I'm not a Windows developer and won't try to pawn off the idea that I understand all the nuances of the underlying technology. However, I am a generalist and DO understand the significance. Essentially, the problem involves how Windows and its apps communicate. Nothing, and I mean nothing appears to be able to stop a message from, say, a virus or trojan horse from reaching its destination, which could instruct an application to do Bad Things. There's no ability to authenticate the legitimacy of a message from a source, so instructions to apps can come from anywhere. Appears that this is an implicit design of the Win32 API, which, according to the article, can't be changed by Microsoft. Nasty. Reminds me of a magical curse I read in the most recent "Harry Potter" book--the Cruciatius Curse, or something like that. The curse would allow a user to control the movements of another. Sure, it's fantasy, but this flaw is certainly a curse to some.

In happier news, writer Julio Ojeda-Zapata of Pioneer Press has written a series of articles on installing and using Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar that might be of interest to you. Helpful hint that Julio discovered The Hard Way: When installing any operating system, disconnect all USB and FireWire devices before installing. Most USB installers must know how the system exists before the device is connected, and it has been my experience that devices are never detected properly forevermore (unless the OS is reinstalled fresh) if they are attached as the installer is operating.

And for some cold, hard reality, see some benchmark tests with the Xserve models vs. a dual Power Mac G4 as well as more Pentium benchmarks.The source for this information, MacWindows, is an excellent resource for any IT professional who needs to integrate Macintosh systems into Windows and other computer environments. There are many special reports available on issues and resolutions in the use of server operating systems with Mac OS computers as well as other products like Microsoft Outlook for Macintosh. This is a must-read site if you are serious at working Macs and PCs together.

2002-08-19T17:15:00.000-04:00

At the moment, my best friend owns the faster Macintosh between us. It sucks to feel behind, albeit briefly.

My friend actually now owns a Power Macintosh G3 Blue & White that I bought in February 1999. It was a nice system for its first version (it was revised once before the Power Mac G4s replaced the Blue & White), with a G3 350MHz PowerPC processor, greatly improved system buses, memory, accessibility, and DVD support. It was my happy, happy computer for all that time until recently, when the processor's cache went on the fritz. I was planning on buying a new desktop box when Apple introduced something better than the current G4 line (I knew the new systems were coming...it was a logical wait) sometime this year, so I offered my friend brief indentured servitude (mostly involving copious amounts of beer) in exchange for my old Mac. He's an artist, but owned a lowly old 300MHz PC with next to no real peripheral support. Something had to be done.

The B&W ran Mac OS X very well, and, with some additional RAM, OS X was a winner. Unfortunately I loved to watch TV through my Mac, so I had to stay in OS 9 most of the time to use the now-worthless ixMicro TV tuner card. Ditto for the Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live card--it's rather poor drivers were OS 9 only as well. Nevertheless, I knew my old Mac would be a zinger with a few key upgrades I had added before and just before I handed it off to my friend (by the way, my friend bears such a striking resemblance to a certain film director that he now continually confuses most fans he meets).

Early on, I added the IXMicro TV/FM tuner. That company went belly up less than a year after I bought the card, but at least it was a functional, happy product. Next, an upgrade was needed to take care of a serious bug in the IDE controller of the Rev. 1 B&W that I owned. For that, I turned to Sonnet Technologies, makers of many upgrade products for Macs, who happened to offer a ATA IDE controller card for Macs. That card not only bypassed the problem but also endowed the Mac with the potential for up to 4 IDE drives (not including the DVD-ROM and Zip drive, which were on a separate controller on the logic board). Too bad that the Rev.1 B&Ws can only hold three hard drives, so one of the slaves would remain unused if I packed the system to full.

The SoundBlaster card came last summer at Macworld Expo 2001, with a great offer--buy the card and the 5.1 Cambridge Soundworks 5.1 speakers for half-off. Sweet. With all of these gadgets in place, with a Maxtor 30GB drive handling the show, my old B&W could do it all. It was only last year when the system showed its age as the great 3D pseudo-flight sim combat game Descent 3 required me to turn down a few of its features as my trusty ATI RAGE 128 video card finally sagged to pressure.

Not much was needed for the computer to transfer hands except for the new processor. The B&W has a ZIF socket to make an upgrade a breeze. A little research determined that the PowerLogix PowerForce G4 ZIF upgrade was the way to go. After using some software to remove a block to G4 processor upgrades that Apple placed on the latest firmware of these systems, I dropped the G4 chip in...and nothing happened. I finally figured that the system was flommoxed in its PRAM, so I removed the system battery to clear out the PRAM. A startup chime finally greeted me once more.

I loaded this computer with everything I had from a software standpoint, including all the necessary updates, some apps that I wasn't using as a tech, and a few essentials. My friend needed to add a keyboard and mouse, but that made him happier since the one-button Apple mouse sucks when you're used to a two-button mouse. Microsoft's IntelliMouse optical wheel mice work great out of the box. Tried out a Kensington USB keyboard as well...it was inexpensive, and CompUSA would swap it should it be a lemon (Kensington makes mice, and their keyboards were new stuff to me).

Today, my friend owns a 550MHz G4 Blue & White with 484MB RAM and some serious cold-cranking amps. And, for a little while (I hope) I don't own diddly-squat. I have a PowerBook Firewire system to play with for work, which I do take home, and I do have an EyeTV PVR TV player as well...but it's not the same. I lust for new desktop power. I'll get it soon...just in time for Jedi Knight II...and--er--some important work.

2002-08-19T11:57:00.000-04:00

Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar: Here, Kitty, Kitty.

Recent reviews and quick comments on the Internet (a good place for you to watch for update news without duplicating work on my part is MacSurfer's Headline News) indicate that Jaguar is a robust new operating system update. Mac OS X 10.2 won't be without headaches for some, however, which is not unusual for any Mac OS update. However, since Apple is still finalizing or modifying a few nagging technologies from the 10.1 update (printing, scanning, Windows support, overall performance), some early or weak software drivers may break and fail to operate in Jaguar.

Again, this isn't uncommon when Apple introduces an update, particularly a major update or what Apple calls a "reference release, " which is a complete OS installer with new features that must be purchased. Using Jaguar will be a greater ouchie than in the past because of Mac OS X's relative youth and the challenging time that some software developers have presented users in updating (or failing to update) the drivers or software for their products.

Expect for products such as printer software for Mac OS X, scanner software, a few Classic applications, and applications written for Mac OS X 10.0 to experience minor or major difficulties. Applications that add extensibility to Mac OS X 10.1, such as the Windows networking software DAVE may fail in Jaguar, which has improved (but seemingly incompatible) Windows networking.

Professionally speaking, I look forward to the stronger VPN and Windows networking support in addition to performance tweaks. With 10.2, Mac OS X is likely to entice the remaining 75% of Mac users who have computers that are eligible to make the transition, especially with every major app (except Quark XPress) available for the general creative designer.

In other news, the venerable rumors site Mac OS Rumors suggests that IBM will become Apple's supplier of PowerPC chips over the coming few months. This shouldn't be a big surprise; the previous chip supplier, Motorola, has laid off a sizeable number of people and has lost millions, maybe billions of dollars in the last 2 years. They are likely not interested in creating, much less developing, additional G4 chips for desktops, and have failed to advance the G4 chip line to match performance (not to be confused with MHz) with Intel chips in recent months.

IBM, on the other hand, helped create the PowerPC chip specs from its POWER mainframe chip line. Today, the PowerPC is more akin to the POWER chips that the differences are nearly insignificant. Moving to IBM for chip production isn't a biggie for Apple except for the lack of the AltiVec "Velocity Engine" vector processing from Motorola's G4 design. Apparently, IBM has an AltiVec-compatible technology or has licensed AltiVec for their chip development, so that helps in keeping the PowerPC chips ace-in-the-hole with Power Macs. Moving to IBM chips also may help in the current processor bottleneck that doesn't allow the new G4 systems to crunch the data as fast as the memory and system bus should allow.

Apple appears to be anticipating IBM's chip arrival. Note in this QuickTime VR movie that shows how the processors and heat sink reside directly in front of the system fan for heat dissipation. Mind you that the current G4's are generating a sizeable amount of heat, but the new IBM chips will definitely need extra cooling.

From the "Glad-To-See-You've-Joined-The-Late-Nineties" department, ABC News has grasped the concept that perhaps the floppy drive is dead and should be discontinued. I report this with a drip of sarcasm since Apple dispensed with this technology over four years ago (it should be noted that Apple was the first with 3.5 floppy drives in the original Macintosh system) with the introduction of the original iMac. PC users have had to hold on to the old technology because few PCs could boot from a CD-ROM until relatively recently, which wasn't a good thing if you had to install drivers or reinstall the operating system without a floppy drive.

Oh--the article asked a simple question. "Now that Apple gets a pass on its no-floppy products, the new gripe will be about the way it labels its operating system versions. Do we really need three decimal places?" I say, sure. It's obvious that they haven't seen how the latest version of Linux is numbered.

2002-08-17T09:42:00.000-04:00

System note: Had to switch back to my original Blogger template before you or I turned Japanese due to squinting from the tiny, tiny text of the previous view. Hopefully technical problems don't require me to switch again.

It may take a while for the archives to be fully visible again. Blogger is strange, sometimes. But then, I can't gripe at the price.

2002-08-16T11:02:00.000-04:00

Looking for some more third-party commentary on Mac OS X in an enterprise or business environment?

Then see this article from New Architect magazine. Quite a few architects use Macintosh systems for their work, but the number of software tools available are smaller. Mac OS X's robustness may help change software developer's minds about Mac OS X versions of these applications.

2002-08-16T10:25:00.000-04:00

If you're Joe Tech, what's a good Mac system to have for day-to-day work? And, yes, I'm assuming that your workplace is willing to buy this for you, unless you happen to be independently wealthy. (Honestly, such a system isn't extremely expensive, but coolness and versatility come at a price.)

Personally, I'd recommend what Apple calls unofficially the "universal system." Basically, get yourself a PowerBook G4 and load it with lots of RAM (this is UNIX, after all, and it's performance definitely improves as working space increases).

Next, arm it with the following applications:

- Office v.X for Mac OS X
- Connectix Virtual PC 5.0 for Mac OS X with Windows XP Professional

With this configuration, you'll be able to connect your Mac to any network and do just about anything. Virtual PC is a PC hardware emulator, which means you can use almost any PC operating system. You can save drive images that allow you to use Red Hat Linux (or most other versions), any version of Windows, and a few other sundry operating systems of old (except BeOS, but what is that really useful for?)

What do I mean by "just about anything?" Well, Virtual PC does great in running administrative apps (how much speed does Microsoft Office XP need?), but since it emulates a Pentium II chip, its motherboard, sound card, hardware controllers, Ethernet NIC, and video card, it doesn't have a lot of relative cold-cranking power. So, games like Jedi Knight II are out in Virtual PC. (Don't lose hope, however--as I've noted ad nauseum before, a Mac version is coming that should work great in Mac OS X.)

But wasn't I talking about the professional things you can do with this system? Right...

Say you have a client with a video presentation from a camcorder that has problems in Windows XP with editing. No problem. Take the input, import it into iMovie and handle the job there. Or, Virtual PC might have enough uumph for you to try the same steps on the PowerBook to determine if the PC user has a specific hardware or software problem. Got a VPN problem on a PC network? Duplicate it through Virtual PC (you can store AND run as many PC environments running different operating systems as you have system memory and drive space) or use the VPN abilities in the upcoming 10.2 update.

The two advantages to the PowerBook is that it's mobile and very powerful. Unlike most PC laptops, a PowerBook laptop tends to be very comparable in relative horsepower to the Power Mac G4 professional desktops. The key is in its video support. an ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 on AGP, which gives it a lot of potency over less expensive systems. The plethora of USB and FireWire ports as well as S-Video ports doesn't hurt the PowerBook, either.

I can't say enough for the versatility that Virtual PC gives a Macintosh in a Windows network environment. If you can visit an Apple store, have a sales associate show you.