TR Forums

On 2002-04-06 08:28, BlueDjinn wrote:

...OS X runs on a full FreeBSD core...

BlueDjinn, I couldn't help but notice that you're talking about the same thing that I was. The main difference is that since you're pro-Apple, you don't get flamed like I do. Perhaps you'd like to discuss.

First of all, FreeBSD has proved to be a pretty efficient OS. As I pointed out earlier, I can (and have) put FreeBSD on an old '386 PC, and still have a workable system. Clearly FreeBSD has modest hardware requirements, so why does OSX only work with the newest of the new Macs? And why is it so sluggish, even on the fastest G4?

When I go to the FreeBSD website, I find no mention of FreeBSD using Mach as OSX does. In fact, when I look into Mach, I find that no successful OS uses Mach, mainly because the microkernel design is so inefficient.

So why does Apple still use microkernel, which has proved to be more of a probelm than a benefit? If they lost the proprietary crap, they could run OSX on FreeBSD <i>for real</i>. Maybe then the people who designed the bulk of the OS for OSX would get their rightful credit.

I also hear that the "gee whiz" special effects that the OSX GUI bring are responsible for a lot of the sluggish performance. This would make sense, because it's similar to what's going on with Windows XP. But in XP, you can turn off all the tinsel, and get down to business. Why isn't that being done with OSX?

_________________
You are false data.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speed on 2002-04-06 17:15 ]</font>

Speed--

I'm actually not much of a techie when it comes to all things Unix...I don't really know much about microkernels, etc. My previous statements about Apache, FreeBSD, etc. are pretty much the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

However, I actually do agree with you about the Aqua GUI "eye candy" stuff--personally, I *love* the rock-solid stability of OS X, and the capabilities are fantastic (try some of the features in any of the iApps (iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto or iTunes)), but I actually can't stand Aqua itself. What I personally want is the OS 9 interface, which was near-perfection in my mind, with the OS X stability. In other words, OS X core with an OS 9 GUI...with a modified version of the OS X Dock thrown in for good measure. Personally, I'd prefer the Dock to be half the way it is now and half like the Windows task bar (yes, I said it).

As for why you get flamed while I don't, no offense intended, but perhaps it's because the few times I've posted, I've always made it clear that there was...no offense intended

--BlueDjinn

BlueDjinn, I have to admit that I don't have any strong feelings about visual UI elements. I like the novelty of seeing different stuff from time to time, but that's about it. I'd much rather have a fast, responsive system.

Thanks for the flame advice. The thing is that I don't cave in to terrorists. The last thing that I want to do is to allow censorship through bullying to thrive. If you sacrifice liberty for safety, you will end up with neither.

DiMaestro, Hope you get that better job soon...

While I mostly agree with what Blue Djinn said, if you want to be able to upgrade your machine, the iMac is not really an option. Couple of scenarios...

Get a more recent tower, anything from a blue and white G3, to a more recent G4. Upside is it is more easily upgradable, downside is more expense.

Get an iMac as suggested, if you like the system; sell the iMac, and get a more recent machine with a G4. Upside as the best intro solution, but maybe more expensive in thelong run. (depending on how soon you want to 'upgrade')

Get an old beige G3 tower. They will have to be almost instantly upgraded to a faster G3, or a G4; but at least they can be upgraded. Unfortunately, you will be stuck with the slower bus, etc.

'Course, by the time you can afford it, all of reality may have changed.

hmmm.. content....

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of operating systems have excellent support for legacy hardware. My
example proves that nicely. OSX stands out as the one product that is designed to arbitrarily reject hardware that
isn't all that old. Since that's the lone exception to the rule, I have avery right to ask what's up with that.

I guess that depends on how 'legacy' you want to get. You mention a 386, while some current OS's may be able to handle that, not ones with full GUI implementations, etc. Heck, Win95 would make a 486 crawl. Now, if you want to compare XP's legacy support to OSX legacy support, you may have something, but to bring up a 386 is just inflammatory and misleading.
"designed to arbitrarily reject hardware"
What do you mean by this? How is it arbitrary? OSX runs better on a G4 than a G3, but it runs okay on a moderately fast G3. Most reports from users I have seen, is a G3 400 if fine, assuming enough RAM (It is a RAM hog) It will run on slower machines, but it is personal opinion if it is 'good enough'. But please elaborate as to how it was purposely designed to 'arbitrarily' reject hardware.

Oh, and how old do you consider "not that old"?

Wow! I used to run FreeBSD on a 16MHz '386 box w/8MB of RAM. WTF did Apple do to screw that up?

First of all, FreeBSD has proved to be a pretty efficient OS. As I pointed out earlier, I can (and have) put FreeBSD on
an old '386 PC, and still have a workable system.

Well, the easy answer is BSD != MacOSX. Just like going from WinDOS to Win95 toWinNT to WinXP entailed higher system requirements, so does going from BSD to MacOSX.
While I admittedly don't know much about BSD and its ilk, I would hazzard a guess that the version you had running is not as 'full' of a version as is available, but rather a 'stripped' down version. Likewise, it does not have a GUI, nor complete libraries, nor many of the abilities that one would find in a standard XP or OSX installation. (how is its plug and play, or driver support, or USB and firewire abilities, or its ability to use SSE/altivec type accelerations, or etc. etc...) And, it is interesting that you describe it not as a 'nice' or 'fast' system, but simply 'workable'.

Clearly FreeBSD has modest hardware requirements, so why does
OSX only work with the newest of the new Macs? And why is it so sluggish, even on the fastest G4?

The first part is addressed above, there is an *entirely* different list of abilities. (or are you also totally confused as to the system requirements for Win95-XP ?) But you are making a lot of sweeping statements, without defining anything. Please elaborate as to what defines "newest of the new". Or at least why you think that is a true statement?
Likewise, why do you think it is considered slow on the fastest G4's? While there are a few aspects that are not quite as fast as OS9, I would be interested to hear what exact parts you are refering to; or at least why you think it is slow?

When I go to the FreeBSD website, I find no mention of FreeBSD using Mach as OSX does. In fact, when I look into
Mach, I find that no successful OS uses Mach, mainly because the microkernel design is so inefficient.

Interesting bit of information. I didn't find anything about Mach there either, of course, they say almost nothing about *any* kernel at all, so your info is at best misleading. Maybe you can point out where the website says that using Mach is a bad idea, or where is points out which kernels would be the best idea???
As far as microkernel design, you would be best served going elsewhere for that info; I have heard the debates, and there is pro/con to both sides, but I am not nearly qualified to debate the actual merits of either side.

Maybe then the people who designed the bulk of the OS for
OSX would get their rightful credit.

Sorry, you should look into MacOSX some more, freebsd is *not* the bulk of the OS.

I also hear that the "gee whiz" special effects that the OSX GUI bring are responsible for a lot of the sluggish
performance. This would make sense, because it's similar to what's going on with Windows XP. But in XP, you can
turn off all the tinsel, and get down to business. Why isn't that being done with OSX?

Yes and no. Much of the slow down is from the 'gee whiz' part, but not simply because it is splashy. It is an entirely different way of displaying the desktop. (I am not talking about the interface, but rather the method of display, the Quartz underlayer, not the Aqua display) Quartz is a big deal, and a big change, and is what allows some of the 'gee whiz' things.
For instance, true transparency, instead of just 'copying the desktop'. While you can turn of the transparency, you can't just 'turn off' the engine that allows it.j
Is is more than just adding more colors and tricks, but changing the engine. Sort of like developing a radically new rendering engine for a game. No matter how many 'gee whiz' factors you turn off of DOOM 3, it will not run on a 486.

If you are actually interested in the reality here, there a numerous places you can go to check it out.

I'd much rather have a fast, responsive system.

Understood, but it is a trade-off. What is making it slower, is also allowing new things to be done. Similar to going from a 48x CD-ROM, to a 12X8X24 CDRW, it is a slower CD-ROM drive, but allows new things to be done also.



BTW terrorist comment ==

resteves2 wrote:

I guess that depends on how 'legacy' you want to get. You mention a 386, while some current OS's may be able to handle that, not ones with full GUI implementations, etc. Heck, Win95 would make a 486 crawl. Now, if you want to compare XP's legacy support to OSX legacy support, you may have something, but to bring up a 386 is just inflammatory and misleading.

There's nothing inflammatory about the truth itself, only people who hate truth.

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to go with what I've heard throughout the lifetime of OSX, right up to BlueDjinn's comment -- that OSX was derived from FreeBSD and other 4.4BSD-Lite-derived operating systems. Since all of the 4.4BSD-Lite-derived operating systems have modest hardware requirements, and OSX is derived from them, and OSX has unusually high hardware requirements, my observation is nothing short of the truth. It is 100% valid.

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't like this fact, but that's your personal problem. You are the flamer, take responsibility for your actions. I'm not going to be your scapegoat.

For the record, Windows 95 is quite usable on a '486, but the subject is OSX, not Windows.

resteves2 wrote:

What do you mean by ["designed to arbitrarily reject hardware"]? How is it arbitrary? OSX runs better on a G4 than a G3, but it runs okay on a moderately fast G3. Most reports from users I have seen, is a G3 400 if fine, assuming enough RAM (It is a RAM hog) It will run on slower machines, but it is personal opinion if it is 'good enough'. But please elaborate as to how it was purposely designed to 'arbitrarily' reject hardware.

I'm not the one making these rules, Apple is. OSX has been made to not run on older PPC machines, or even machines with G3 or G4 CPUs of certain types. Since one G3 is going to use the exact same ISA as another G3, there obviously is no technical reason for this. All that is left is the infamous marketeering tactics that Apple is known for. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Apple is imposing an arbitrary limitation on OSX in order to sell more hardware.

Of course Apple is also shooting itself in the foot by doing so, because the high price of admission also locks out potential customers who might buy OSX if they had some way of trying it first. I would have tried out OSX, had it not been for the fact that Apple has made it impossible to use with older PPC boxes, even if they have a fast G4 running inside them.

resteves2 wrote:

Oh, and how old do you consider "not that old"?

Again, I'm not making the rules, Apple is. Apple says that their products are so good that the product life cycle exceeds 5 years. Fine. So how come I can't get OSX onto a 5 year old box?

resteves2 wrote:

Well, the easy answer is BSD != MacOSX. Just like going from WinDOS to Win95 toWinNT to WinXP entailed higher system requirements, so does going from BSD to MacOSX.

That's not an answer, it's an excuse. And it's a straw man argument. Defunct (BSD) or unrelated (Win*) operating systems don't have any bearing on this matter. The question remains -- if FreeBSD performs so well, how come OSX (which uses an OS derived from FreeBSD) doesn't?

resteves2 wrote:

While I admittedly don't know much about BSD and its ilk, I would hazzard [sic] a guess that the version you had running is not as 'full' of a version as is available, but rather a 'stripped' down version...

Well, you guessed wrong.

resteves2 wrote:

And, it is interesting that you describe it not as a 'nice' or 'fast' system, but simply 'workable'.

Yes, it is. Anybody with the requisite knowledge and common sense can see right away why we shouldn't expect a '386 PC to be all that fast. How come a brand-new $3000 Mac running OSX isn't all that fast is something to ponder.

resteves2 wrote:

The first part is addressed above, there is an *entirely* different list of abilities. (or are you also totally confused as to the system requirements for Win95-XP ?)

I'm not confused. Buy why are you trying to confuse the issue by pointing at Windows, over and over? And why don't you mention even one of these mysterious abilities?

resteves2 wrote:

But you are making a lot of sweeping statements, without defining anything.

Pot, kettle, black.

resteves2 wrote:

As far as microkernel design, you would be best served going elsewhere for that info; I have heard the debates, and there is pro/con to both sides, but I am not nearly qualified to debate the actual merits of either side.
...
Sorry, you should look into MacOSX some more, freebsd is *not* the bulk of the OS.

First you say that you're not qualified, then you act as if you know it all when you attack me, the person. Clearly this is a matter of <i>your</i> ignorance, not mine!

resteves2 wrote:

Much of the slow down is from the 'gee whiz' part, but not simply because it is splashy. It is an entirely different way of displaying the desktop. (I am not talking about the interface, but rather the method of display, the Quartz underlayer, not the Aqua display) Quartz is a big deal, and a big change, and is what allows some of the 'gee whiz' things...

So after much bluster, we finally get down to it. So in essence you're saying that Quartz is a pig.

resteves2 wrote:

What is making it slower, is also allowing new things to be done. Similar to going from a 48x CD-ROM, to a 12X8X24 CDRW, it is a slower CD-ROM drive, but allows new things to be done also.

Ah...<i>what</i> new things?

Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to go with what I've heard throughout the lifetime of OSX, right
up to BlueDjinn's comment -- that OSX was derived from FreeBSD and other 4.4BSD-Lite-derived operating
systems.

Well, you can 'go with' anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. I would be very interested in seeing anywhere that says OSX was "derived" from FreeBSD. BlueDjinn never said it, he said it was included in the core.
At the core os OSX is Darwin. Darwin is basically the Apple version of Mach, with an implementation of FreeBSD API's included. But OSX includes API's from *FIVE* sources. BSD is only one of those.

Now, you keep trying to compare OSX to other systems using the BSD API's. But the differences are so vast that there is little to compare. FreeBSD doesn't include the Cocoa (NextStep) API's, nor the Java API's, nor a display engine, nor OpenGL, nor Quicktime, nor Quartz, nor etc. etc. If you want to compare an Apple OS to FreeBSD, you should try Darwin; it is much more comparable. Heck, it is even free, and you can try it yourself.

my observation is nothing
short of the truth. It is 100% valid.

Hmmm... sort-of. Your assertion that MacOSX has a BSD underlayer API set, is true. But your conclusion that they are therefore comparable is definetely not valid.

For the record, Windows 95 is quite usable on a '486, but the subject is OSX, not Windows.

It is called an analogy. As an OS grows and becomes more robust, and includes more layers etc. it also gains higher requirements. I was just demonstrating that with Windows. You implied that MacOSX should be able to run on a 386, I was showing that was ridiculous. I think it is apparent that OSX is much more advanced than Win95, and Win95 can't run on a 386.

No successful OS uses the Mach kernel

(NOTE: that may not be an exact quote, but pretty damn close)
Well, OSX seems pretty successful, and MkLinux did okay considering it was one of a billion Linux distros, and of course NextStep would have to be considered successful. But hey, believe what you want.

I'm not the one making these rules, Apple is. OSX has been made to not run on older PPC machines, or even machines with G3 or G4 CPUs
of certain types

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Apple has done nothing to make OSX not run. It has a recommended and supported list, but has done nothing to stop it from running on other machines. It feels that an older machine or slower chip would not be able to handle running the OS, but I know of many people running OSX on unsupported hardware.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Apple is imposing an arbitrary limitation
on OSX in order to sell more hardware.

Hmmm.. I don't suppose you will ever actually give something to back up your claims...?? What is this arbitrary limitation? How is Apple imposing it??

I would have tried out OSX, had it not been for the fact that Apple has made it
impossible to use with older PPC boxes, even if they have a fast G4 running inside them.

Um, how have they done this? I know people that are running OSX on 8500's. Just what exactly is making impossible for you?

Again, I'm not making the rules, Apple is. Apple says that their products are so good that the product life cycle exceeds 5 years. Fine. So how
come I can't get OSX onto a 5 year old box?

I wasn't asking for the rules, just your definition of "not that old". See, personally, I consider a 5 year old machine pretty old. Even if you consider that the lifetime of a box, that means it is time to replace it, not run a new OS on it. Do you expect to run WinXP acceptably on a 5 year old machine?
Now, OSX has more stricter (realistic) system requirements than XP's (realistic) system requirements, that is true. But that is because of what is does. Mostly due to its "3rd generation" display layer. (vectoring engine)

That's not an answer, it's an excuse. And it's a straw man argument. Defunct (BSD) or unrelated (Win*) operating systems don't have any
bearing on this matter. The question remains -- if FreeBSD performs so well, how come OSX (which uses an OS derived from FreeBSD)
doesn't?

It is not an excuse, it is reality. while OSX includes the FreeBSD API's, to equate them is incorrect. They are *not* the same (hence the !=) I have given you list of differences, hopefully you can see that.

I'm not confused. Buy why are you trying to confuse the issue by pointing at Windows, over and over? And why don't you mention even one
of these mysterious abilities?

Again, mentioning Windows is an analogy. Windows and OSX have *much* more similarity in scope than FreeBSD and OSX. I am comparing Windows requirements and trends with the MacOS requirements and trends.
And I most certainly *did* mention the use of true transparency. Something that is allowed *because* of the Quartz underlayer. The existance of a vectoring engine allows for easy scaling of display objects, without loss of detail.

First you say that you're not qualified, then you act as if you know it all when you attack me, the person. Clearly this is a matter of your
ignorance, not mine!

HAHAHAHA... Just because I am not an expert on Microkernel design, doesn't mean I can't know the obviousness of OSX being much more than FreeBSD, and the error of saying that FreeBSD is the "bulk" of OSX. I *really* wish you would give anything to try and indicate otherwise.

BTW, I have not attacked you the person, and I wish you would stop making that claim.

So after much bluster, we finally get down to it. So in essence you're saying that Quartz is a pig.

Gee, how eloquent.

Quartz does need a lot of resources, especially RAM (at least until they can off-load the work to the GPU). But that does not make it a 'pig'; more advanced technologies usually require more resources. There are many things that increase the requirements of OSX over FreeBSD, Quartz is one of them, but there are *many* differences between the two, and that should be painfully clear by now.


If you want to continue to bash Mac's and MacOS's; you should really do more research into them. Just harping that BSD is the same as OSX is getting old.


.

1. Misquoting. You're chopping up what I wrote and reassembling it out of context. You are afraid to answer what I actually wrote because you can't find anything wrong with my real thoughts. But you still want to fight, knowing full well that you're wrong.

2. Misdirection, part 1. There is no BSD anymore. All references to "BSD" are meaningless. I'm not talking about the long gone Berkeley Systems Distribution, I'm talking about OSX!

3. Misdirection, part 2. You're constantly changing the subject, attacking Windows. But I've been talking about OSX, not Windows. Why do you constantly evade the issue?

4. Misdirection, part 3. API has nothing to do with whether or not an OS will run. All the API BS in the world doesn't mean anything about this subject. It's not what I have been discussing.

5. Half-Truths. Mach is not an operating system. Mach is just a microkernel that hosts an OS server. Mach without any servers does nothing.

6. Outright lies, part 1. Apple did not develop Mach 3. Once more, due credit is being denied the real developers of Mach -- those at Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Utah and the Open Group, nee OSF.

7. Outright lies, part 2. Obviously there is some kind of OS personality server being used by OSX. Apple's own website http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.html credits FreeBSD, as does the source code: http://www.opensource.apple.com/project ... 9.1.tar.gz
To pretend that OSX runs without an operating system is to lie.

Oh well, I'm not surprised that you slipped back to your usual deceitful nature. I suppose that I should be thankful that I finally got my question answered, although it was like pulling teeth. Correction -- it was like being on the other end of the teeth-pulling! Your dishonesty aside, there was no call for all of the abuse.

DiMaestro
I'd strongly recommend you the 12" 600MHz iBook.
Get one while they're still in production!
It's the most cost effective machine from Cupertino.

Stay away from old grey G3's!
just my 2cents