What release of Mac OS X are you running?

Ask for help regarding any technical issue or report any bug or OS independent issues.

What release of Mac OS X are you running?

OS 10.0 (Cheetah)
0
No votes
OS 10.1 (Puma)
0
No votes
OS 10.2 (Jaguar)
1
8%
OS 10.3 (Panther)
2
17%
OS 10.4 (Tiger)
9
75%
 
Total votes: 12
User avatar
gene
Peon
Peon
Posts: 28
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:35

What release of Mac OS X are you running?

Post by gene » 27 Jun 2005, 12:16

I'd like to get a feel of what you people out there are running.

If you are running more than one release of OS X please select which one you use the most.

No, an option will not be added for other architectures and/or operating systems. This is the Mac Development forum.
User avatar
Talaroc
Novice
Novice
Posts: 429
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 05:23
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Post by Talaroc » 29 Jun 2005, 05:48

Running Panther at the moment, but if anyone wants to randomly send me a copy of Tiger to get us all on the same page, I'm not complaining... :P
User avatar
Verious
Peon
Peon
Posts: 42
Joined: 23 Apr 2005, 20:31
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by Verious » 30 Jun 2005, 00:04

I'm running Tiger, and I must say, I really like the addition of Spotlight.
User avatar
Tenche
Novice
Novice
Posts: 421
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 21:21
Location: Reston
Contact:

Post by Tenche » 02 Jul 2005, 14:33

Tiger its the best ;)
User avatar
Verious
Peon
Peon
Posts: 42
Joined: 23 Apr 2005, 20:31
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by Verious » 03 Jul 2005, 03:20

I still prefer my Windows machine over my Mac mini... the Mac is just too slow by comparison (only a 1.25Ghz Power PC G4 processor).

I guess its not really a fair comparison though, since I run a Dell 1600 PowerEdge server as my desktop computer (with a 2.8Ghz Hyperthreaded Xeon processor). :D

I think its great that Apple has decided to switch to x86 processors.
User avatar
Tenche
Novice
Novice
Posts: 421
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 21:21
Location: Reston
Contact:

Post by Tenche » 03 Jul 2005, 04:06

Verious wrote:I still prefer my Windows machine over my Mac mini... the Mac is just too slow by comparison (only a 1.25Ghz Power PC G4 processor).

I guess its not really a fair comparison though, since I run a Dell 1600 PowerEdge server as my desktop computer (with a 2.8Ghz Hyperthreaded Xeon processor). :D

I think its great that Apple has decided to switch to x86 processors.

are u kidding me 1.25ghz in mac is 2+ in pc so dont give me crap about there to slow We are talking about Intel and powerpc chips there ALOT different
Catfish_Man
Peon
Peon
Posts: 52
Joined: 07 Mar 2005, 04:15
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Post by Catfish_Man » 03 Jul 2005, 05:53

Tenche wrote:
Verious wrote:I still prefer my Windows machine over my Mac mini... the Mac is just too slow by comparison (only a 1.25Ghz Power PC G4 processor).

I guess its not really a fair comparison though, since I run a Dell 1600 PowerEdge server as my desktop computer (with a 2.8Ghz Hyperthreaded Xeon processor). :D

I think its great that Apple has decided to switch to x86 processors.

are u kidding me 1.25ghz in mac is 2+ in pc so dont give me crap about there to slow We are talking about Intel and powerpc chips there ALOT different
I think we'd better keep the platform wars off this forum. If they continue, I'll be forced to get out authoritative benchmarks showing that any architecture is both faster and slower than just about any other architecture :) Or just lock the topic if it gets too flame-war-ish.
User avatar
Verious
Peon
Peon
Posts: 42
Joined: 23 Apr 2005, 20:31
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by Verious » 03 Jul 2005, 15:10

Tenche wrote: are u kidding me 1.25ghz in mac is 2+ in pc so dont give me crap about there to slow We are talking about Intel and powerpc chips there ALOT different
I understand they have different architectures and you cannot do a direct comparison. I simply stated that my 2.8Ghz Xeon with Hyperthreading was faster. The biggest differentiator is that the PowerPC chip is based on a RISC (reduced instruction set) architecture, while the Xeon is based on the standard x86 instruction set.

It's a fact that IBM has missed critical performance milestones several times, which is one of the primary reasons Apple is switching to Intel processors while Windows has traditionally had substantially more software available.
Catfish_man wrote: I think we'd better keep the platform wars off this forum.
Who's trying to start a platform war? I run both platforms and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Mac has a substantially smoother and more graphically rich user interface.
Catfish_Man
Peon
Peon
Posts: 52
Joined: 07 Mar 2005, 04:15
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Post by Catfish_Man » 03 Jul 2005, 20:03

Verious wrote: <snip>
Catfish_man wrote: I think we'd better keep the platform wars off this forum.
Who's trying to start a platform war? I run both platforms and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Mac has a substantially smoother and more graphically rich user interface.
I was responding to Tenche.
User avatar
Jetryl
Novice
Novice
Posts: 113
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 21:55

Post by Jetryl » 06 Aug 2005, 21:19

It's a shame that apple had to give up on PPC, at least for now, seeing as how it was an inherently superior architecture. That it was able to keep up, despite having a fraction of the R&D budget that Intel's chips had was a testament to this fact.

However, there really will be a lot of nice things about the switch:
?Games will be ported slightly faster
?Drivers will be ported quite a bit faster

?This whole "mine is faster" argument, on both sides, will just die.
?Emulation will stop being hardware emulation.

That last point is probably the deal-winner, since a person will be able to do a lot more with their macs as a result, thus needing a pc less. If emulation gets smart enough, we won't even need "Virtual PC" style environments, and won't need a copy of windows to put in them (WINE for example).

It'll be really nice, though, because we really have two problems right now -> situations where someone needs to run a special, custom program for work, and situations where people want to run a game. The resolution of these right now ends up with someone wishing their mac could do more - now it can. Now a mac truly can do *everything* a pc can, and much more.
User avatar
ktm
Novice
Novice
Posts: 201
Joined: 14 Jul 2005, 10:24
Location: Vokietija

Post by ktm » 06 Aug 2005, 23:14

It's a shame that apple had to give up on PPC, at least for now, seeing as how it was an inherently superior architecture.
true dat. maybe if they sold their boxes without macos, (-> at a lower price) so you could just run another *nix flavour on it...
Drivers will be ported quite a bit faster
i dont think so. the cpu architecture is one thing, but still it's a *completely different* os (we *are* talking ports of *windows* drivers, right?)
Emulation will stop being hardware emulation
for x86 progs, yes. but think about all the old mac progs, which'd either need porting, or a ppc emu. and afaik there aren't really any ppc emus to speak of (pearpc is SLOW!)
Catfish_Man
Peon
Peon
Posts: 52
Joined: 07 Mar 2005, 04:15
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Post by Catfish_Man » 06 Aug 2005, 23:20

ktm wrote:
Emulation will stop being hardware emulation
for x86 progs, yes. but think about all the old mac progs, which'd either need porting, or a ppc emu. and afaik there aren't really any ppc emus to speak of (pearpc is SLOW!)
A PowerPC emulator is built into the x86 version of OSX. Reportedly a 3.6GHz P4 runs emulated apps with it at about 80% of the speed of a 2GHz G5, which is really not bad at all.
Blorx2
Peon
Peon
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Mar 2005, 14:10
Location: Florence, SC
Contact:

Post by Blorx2 » 08 Aug 2005, 14:45

Emulation will stop being hardware emulation
Hardware emulation is probably by far the best reason that Windows emus suck, they just can't get it to do it right, but please, please tell me that Macs still won't need sound cards!
?This whole "mine is faster" argument, on both sides, will just die.
I say thank god.
?Games will be ported slightly faster
Not nessicarilly It's more the format of the app working with the code than with the hardware, your hardware tells you wether or not your computer can play a game, coding right or wrong tells you wether or not any computer can play a game
"A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he needs to" - Gandalf
Catfish_Man
Peon
Peon
Posts: 52
Joined: 07 Mar 2005, 04:15
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Post by Catfish_Man » 08 Aug 2005, 18:36

Blorx2 wrote:
Emulation will stop being hardware emulation
Hardware emulation is probably by far the best reason that Windows emus suck, they just can't get it to do it right, but please, please tell me that Macs still won't need sound cards!
nForce motherboards (among others) have onboard sound for PCs, so I see no reason why Apple couldn't do something similar.
Sodki
Peon
Peon
Posts: 7
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 15:48

Post by Sodki » 13 Oct 2005, 17:09

Verious wrote:I still prefer my Windows machine over my Mac mini... the Mac is just too slow by comparison (only a 1.25Ghz Power PC G4 processor).
The Mac Mini has a very slow hard drive. The processor is not to blame.
Post Reply