Ottawaman
04-02-2006, 02:14 PM
Mac OS X: Living Long and Prospering
By Rob Pegoraro
Sunday, April 2, 2006; F07
Yesterday, Apple Computer Inc. turned 30 years old. But an equally significant anniversary occurred two Fridays ago: March 24 marked Mac OS X's fifth birthday.
Four major updates later, that operating system ranks as one of Apple's greatest successes. First, it broke the company's long streak of unfinished operating-system projects. Second, OS X has shown that it's possible to fix three of the worst parts of computing: adding programs, removing them and keeping everything in good working order.
Users and authors of other operating systems might want to ponder that example, not least after Microsoft's March 21 announcement that its already-late replacement to Windows XP, Windows Vista, would be delayed yet again. It's now not scheduled to appear in stores until January.
That Mac OS X would make any kind of dent in the universe was no sure thing when version 10.0 arrived on March 24, 2001. Its mere existence was a minor miracle: Since 1994, Apple had pledged to replace the aging Mac foundation with a multitasking, crash-proof system, then repeatedly failed to ship anything resembling that goal.
The best it could do was crank out lesser upgrades to a code base first released in 1991, with architectural defects dating to the Mac's birth in 1984. The Mac looked great and was easy to use, but it crashed way too often and tripped over its shoelaces when asked to run too many programs at once.
Mac OS X also looks great -- its fluid, shimmering, translucent Aqua interface has been imitated many times, most prominently in Windows Vista's Aero Glass graphics -- but those nifty special effects aren't the most important feature in OS X. Nor is it this operating system's agile multitasking and nearly crash-free stability, or even the processor-independent architecture, that make it at home on both PowerPC and Intel chips.
Instead, it's the way Mac OS X lives by three basic principles, which together make it easier to live with than any competitor.
· The system is separate from everything else. Perhaps scarred by the old Mac OS, which could easily be modified and destabilized by third-party extensions, Apple locked up the core of OS X. Users can look but can't touch at the system's guts without typing an administrator's password, and the same goes for any programs that they install and run.
The immediate benefit of this is security against viruses and other intruders. They can't do nearly as much damage as they could in Windows, where everybody normally has the run of the machine, without a user's express consent.
This policy has also kept OS X free of the rot-from-within that afflicts Windows over time. A Mac's System folder won't clog up with byproducts of software installations, because they usually can't get there in the first place. The programs themselves all land in the same Applications folder (more on that later), and if they must add any system-wide supporting files, they go in a separate, easily inspected Library folder.
· Each user's files are separate from everybody else's. Every file you create or use exists in your own home folder, named after your user name, including any personalized settings and cached files for your programs. This ensures that the users of a Mac can customize their software without affecting each other's experiences and vastly simplifies debugging faulty programs and making backups of data.
If a program starts acting up, just run it in another user's account -- or create a new account. If the problem persists there, you need to look for an updated copy of the program. If it doesn't, you can probably fix things by deleting the applications files from the Library folder in your home directory.
And when it's time to back up your data, you don't need to scour the hard drive. Just copy your home folder to as many CDs or DVDs as it takes to hold everything.
· Each application acts as one, indivisible file. Credit Apple for persuasiveness here: After five years, Apple has convinced the vast majority of programmers to support OS X's optional "application bundle" feature. This lets a developer package a program and its supporting cast-- code libraries, foreign-language translations, plug-in components, help files and so on -- in a special folder that OS X displays and treats as a single file.
It would be hard to make installing an application simpler than it is under this system: After downloading the program, you drag its icon to the Applications folder. There is no step three.
Likewise, "uninstalling" a program consists of dragging its icon to the trash. (Preference and cache files will be left behind, but they won't harm the system and can be deleted easily enough if you want.)
Not all programs work this way. For example, printer drivers and some high-end programs, such as Apple's iLife suite, need the help of an installer. But even then, those programs still generally appear as single files in the Applications folder, which as a result is far easier to read than the Start Menu's All Programs list, much less the Program Files folder.
Some of those three characteristics show up in other operating systems, such as Linux. Some will appear in Windows Vista when that ships.
But they've been present in OS X from the start, giving Apple time to add such outrageously convenient features as the Migration Assistant that automagically whisks your files, settings and applications to a new Mac and the "Archive and Install" system fix that gives you a clean copy of OS X while preserving everything else on the Mac.
This progress has come at a cost, though: To leap this far ahead, Apple had to ditch a lot of old baggage. While OS X can run "Classic" applications written for the old Mac OS, that compatibility has always been a bit awkward in practice. And on Intel-based Macs, it's gone entirely. Even many newer applications have been rendered obsolete by OS X's major updates.
This transition has been rough on developers and on users, but most of them -- and many others who switched from Windows -- have followed Apple's lead.
Could Microsoft, with so many more customers to satisfy, have made the same trade-off with Vista? Probably not. But maybe it should have. In operating systems, a little revolution every now and then isn't just a good thing, sometimes it may be the only way forward.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100185_pf.html[/SIZE] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100185_pf.html)
By Rob Pegoraro
Sunday, April 2, 2006; F07
Yesterday, Apple Computer Inc. turned 30 years old. But an equally significant anniversary occurred two Fridays ago: March 24 marked Mac OS X's fifth birthday.
Four major updates later, that operating system ranks as one of Apple's greatest successes. First, it broke the company's long streak of unfinished operating-system projects. Second, OS X has shown that it's possible to fix three of the worst parts of computing: adding programs, removing them and keeping everything in good working order.
Users and authors of other operating systems might want to ponder that example, not least after Microsoft's March 21 announcement that its already-late replacement to Windows XP, Windows Vista, would be delayed yet again. It's now not scheduled to appear in stores until January.
That Mac OS X would make any kind of dent in the universe was no sure thing when version 10.0 arrived on March 24, 2001. Its mere existence was a minor miracle: Since 1994, Apple had pledged to replace the aging Mac foundation with a multitasking, crash-proof system, then repeatedly failed to ship anything resembling that goal.
The best it could do was crank out lesser upgrades to a code base first released in 1991, with architectural defects dating to the Mac's birth in 1984. The Mac looked great and was easy to use, but it crashed way too often and tripped over its shoelaces when asked to run too many programs at once.
Mac OS X also looks great -- its fluid, shimmering, translucent Aqua interface has been imitated many times, most prominently in Windows Vista's Aero Glass graphics -- but those nifty special effects aren't the most important feature in OS X. Nor is it this operating system's agile multitasking and nearly crash-free stability, or even the processor-independent architecture, that make it at home on both PowerPC and Intel chips.
Instead, it's the way Mac OS X lives by three basic principles, which together make it easier to live with than any competitor.
· The system is separate from everything else. Perhaps scarred by the old Mac OS, which could easily be modified and destabilized by third-party extensions, Apple locked up the core of OS X. Users can look but can't touch at the system's guts without typing an administrator's password, and the same goes for any programs that they install and run.
The immediate benefit of this is security against viruses and other intruders. They can't do nearly as much damage as they could in Windows, where everybody normally has the run of the machine, without a user's express consent.
This policy has also kept OS X free of the rot-from-within that afflicts Windows over time. A Mac's System folder won't clog up with byproducts of software installations, because they usually can't get there in the first place. The programs themselves all land in the same Applications folder (more on that later), and if they must add any system-wide supporting files, they go in a separate, easily inspected Library folder.
· Each user's files are separate from everybody else's. Every file you create or use exists in your own home folder, named after your user name, including any personalized settings and cached files for your programs. This ensures that the users of a Mac can customize their software without affecting each other's experiences and vastly simplifies debugging faulty programs and making backups of data.
If a program starts acting up, just run it in another user's account -- or create a new account. If the problem persists there, you need to look for an updated copy of the program. If it doesn't, you can probably fix things by deleting the applications files from the Library folder in your home directory.
And when it's time to back up your data, you don't need to scour the hard drive. Just copy your home folder to as many CDs or DVDs as it takes to hold everything.
· Each application acts as one, indivisible file. Credit Apple for persuasiveness here: After five years, Apple has convinced the vast majority of programmers to support OS X's optional "application bundle" feature. This lets a developer package a program and its supporting cast-- code libraries, foreign-language translations, plug-in components, help files and so on -- in a special folder that OS X displays and treats as a single file.
It would be hard to make installing an application simpler than it is under this system: After downloading the program, you drag its icon to the Applications folder. There is no step three.
Likewise, "uninstalling" a program consists of dragging its icon to the trash. (Preference and cache files will be left behind, but they won't harm the system and can be deleted easily enough if you want.)
Not all programs work this way. For example, printer drivers and some high-end programs, such as Apple's iLife suite, need the help of an installer. But even then, those programs still generally appear as single files in the Applications folder, which as a result is far easier to read than the Start Menu's All Programs list, much less the Program Files folder.
Some of those three characteristics show up in other operating systems, such as Linux. Some will appear in Windows Vista when that ships.
But they've been present in OS X from the start, giving Apple time to add such outrageously convenient features as the Migration Assistant that automagically whisks your files, settings and applications to a new Mac and the "Archive and Install" system fix that gives you a clean copy of OS X while preserving everything else on the Mac.
This progress has come at a cost, though: To leap this far ahead, Apple had to ditch a lot of old baggage. While OS X can run "Classic" applications written for the old Mac OS, that compatibility has always been a bit awkward in practice. And on Intel-based Macs, it's gone entirely. Even many newer applications have been rendered obsolete by OS X's major updates.
This transition has been rough on developers and on users, but most of them -- and many others who switched from Windows -- have followed Apple's lead.
Could Microsoft, with so many more customers to satisfy, have made the same trade-off with Vista? Probably not. But maybe it should have. In operating systems, a little revolution every now and then isn't just a good thing, sometimes it may be the only way forward.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100185_pf.html[/SIZE] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100185_pf.html)