News Common PC Mac Amiga CUCUG
The November 15 gathering will be one of our split SIG meetings. The Linux SIX will be treated to a presentation of Postgresql, an open source database. Ed Hadley will be demonstrating Sound Edit 16 for the Macintosh SIG. The PC SIG will have Jim Lewis and Kevin Hisel showing the freeware graphics program Irfanview.
We'd also like to thank renewing member Harold Ravlin. Harold is almost always the first member to renew every year. This is only one among his many distinctions. Thanks, Harold.
We welcome any kind of input or feedback from members. Have an article or review you'd like to submit? Send it in. Have a comment? Email any officer you like. Involvement is the driving force of any user group. Welcome to the group.
Four years ago, during one of the dips in the Macintosh industry, the fierce competition for advertising between the two leading Macintosh magazines, Macworld and MacUser, was halted by International Data Group (IDG) and Ziff Davis merging the two (along with Ziff Davis's MacWEEK) into a joint venture called Mac Publishing. MacUser was folded into Macworld immediately after the merger, and MacWEEK struggled to find its place as a weekly print magazine, as eMediaweekly, and as the daily news Web arm for Mac Publishing before finally being merged into the MacCentral news site that Mac Publishing acquired in 1999. Now IDG has bought out Ziff Davis's half of the joint venture, and Mac Publishing has become a wholly owned subsidiary of IDG. At IDG, the U.S. Macworld rejoins both the Macworld Conference & Expo and the other ten international versions of Macworld. The move is a good one for Mac Publishing and the Macintosh industry, since the joint venture made for a bizarre corporate structure confused further by the competition between IDG and Ziff Davis. [ACE]
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/10.macworld.php
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbser=1208
Apple Computer beat analysts' expectations by announcing a $66 million profit (18 cents per share) on $1.45 billion in revenue for its fourth fiscal quarter, despite the weakening U.S. and world economies and the aftermath of the 11-Sep-01 terrorist attacks. However, Apple cautioned that the current quarter - its first of 2002 - will be leaner, with CFO Fred Anderson estimating $1.4 billion in revenue and earnings of 10 cents per share, even though December-ending quarters are typically buoyed by holiday sales. Those estimates would beat Apple's holiday performance last year, however, when Apple lost $247 million in the holiday quarter, not counting one-time investment income. For the 2001 fiscal year, Apple lost $25 million on revenues of $5.36 billion; in 2000, Apple earned $786 million on $7.98 billion in revenue.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/oct/17results.html
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06273
Apple's fundamentals remained relatively strong: the company shipped 850,000 Macs during the quarter (including 250,000 iBooks - iBook sales to education tripled) with gross margins at 30.1 percent, and the company has over $4.3 billion in cash. Approximately 41 percent of the quarter's revenue came from international sales, and Apple is still on track to open its planned 25 retail stores in high-visibility shopping areas by the end of 2001. Anderson also added that while Apple is trying to keep its headcount roughly flat, it doesn't anticipate substantial layoffs. [GD]
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06436
The day before reporting its fourth quarter financial results last week, Apple introduced enhanced models of its hot-selling iBook (Dual USB) and PowerBook G4 Titanium laptops. (For additional details, see "The Incredible Shrinking iBook" in TidBITS-579_, "PowerBook G4 Titanium Burns Bright" in TidBITS-563_, and "iBook or TiBook?" in TidBITS-583_.) The iBook's improved specs include a choice of the original 500 MHz PowerPC G3 processor using a 66 MHz system bus or a new 600 MHz PowerPC G3 processor using a 100 MHz system bus. 128 MB RAM is now standard (but realistically still not enough, and Apple's RAM prices are far more expensive than you can find elsewhere); the 10 GB hard disk is gone in favor of 15 GB, 20 GB, or 30 GB hard disks; and there's a new square power adapter that promises increased ease-of-use. Base pricing remains in the same range, from $1,300 to $1,700, depending on optical drive configuration.
http://www.apple.com/ibook/
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06422
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06269
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06459
The Titanium picks up new processors as well: 550 MHz and 667 MHz PowerPC G4s with 256K of level 2 cache on the chip. The 667 MHz model also sports a 133 MHz system bus (up from 100 MHz in the existing 500 MHz model and the new 550 MHz model). Graphic support in the Titanium has improved with an ATI Mobility Radeon graphics accelerator and 16 MB of DDR video memory enabling full-frame-rate DVD video playback. A slot-loading CD-RW drive joins the DVD-ROM drive as an option, gigabit Ethernet is standard, as is more RAM (using new PC133 RAM, instead of the PC100 used by the original model), and the new square power adapter is included. Apple claims that the new models have improved AirPort access range, which was disappointing in earlier models. Base pricing ranges from $2,200 to $3,300.
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/17.apple.php
http://dealram.com/prices/systems/11/256MB.html
http://www.ramseeker.com/Titanium133.shtml
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/hardware.html
The improvements are especially welcome for the Titanium, which has been in need of additional differentiation from the tremendously popular iBook. It's less clear why Apple chose this moment to beef up the iBook, though it does make the iBook even more attractive for the upcoming holiday buying season (and perhaps the students who realized during the fall semester that they really needed one), which undoubtedly played a part in Apple's recent release of the new low-end iMac as well.
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06580
http://www.apple.com/imac/
Netscape Communications has released Netscape 6.2, bringing full Mac OS X compatibility and fixing bugs. The new version exists as an application package for Mac OS X, which means installation is merely a matter of dragging the Netscape file to your hard disk. A number of problems have been fixed, such as sluggish performance on dual-processor Power Macs and LDAP functionality. Netscape 6.2 requires a PowerPC 604e running at 266 MHz or faster, with at least 64 MB of RAM and Mac OS 8.5 or later. The Mac OS X version is a 16.9 MB download; the Mac OS 9 version remains an active installer that downloads just needed modules, so be prepared for a potentially lengthy installation process. [JLC]
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06522
http://home.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/ns62/relnotes/62.html
http://home.netscape.com/computing/download/
Lemke Software has updated its popular shareware image-editing application, adding support for even more image file formats and incorporating bug fixes. GraphicConverter 4.1 adds support for importing JPEG2000 and Nokia .pict images, and improves TIFF importing. The program also supports ColorSync profiles during printing, adds an unsharp mask (image sharpening) feature, and improves functionality under Mac OS X. GraphicConverter 4.1 is a free upgrade for registered users; the shareware price is $30 for European residents and $35 for users outside Europe. The file is a 3.4 MB download, and is available in Carbon, Classic PowerPC, and 68K versions. [JLC]
Microsoft last week released Windows XP, the first version of the Windows operating system that melds the industrial-strength underpinnings of the Windows NT/2000 line with the more consumer friendly features and interface of the Windows 95/98/Me line. Reactions have been decidedly mixed, with some reviewers enthused over the new interface, built-in tools, and improved reliability, while others have complained that XP feels sloppy and unfinished in places, doesn't support many existing peripherals, and includes troubling links to Microsoft's .NET services.
From the perspective of the Macintosh user forced to use a PC, Windows XP is probably a good thing, given that many of the changes made to the obtuse Windows interface resonate more with a Macintosh approach to human interface design and implementation. Upgrades are available, but realistically, they're probably not worthwhile for machines bought more than a few years ago, given possible problems with older hardware and the low cost of new PCs. As to how Windows XP and Mac OS X compare, well, that will take some time to determine, especially given that Apple has made Mac OS X a fast-moving target, whereas Microsoft tends to release notable operating system revisions less frequently. [ACE]
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1001/118.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2819063,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2809517,00.html
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=05809
Deal restricts company practices; states aren't yet part of pact.
NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - Executives of Microsoft Corp. and government officials said Friday they are hopeful that several states' attorneys general who could stand in its way will sign off on a proposed settlement of the company's long-running antitrust case.
The settlement pact, which Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department reached late Wednesday and presented in court Friday, imposes a broad range of restrictions on Microsoft's business practices, which would be upheld by an independent, on-site, three-member panel of computer experts.
Under the terms of their agreement, Microsoft may not enter into licensing agreements with PC manufacturers that restrict them from working with other software developers, a practice referred to as "exclusive dealing."
It also would require Microsoft to provide other software makers access to elements of its Windows source code, called application programming interfaces, or APIs, which are necessary for them to make their applications work under the Windows operating system.
However, it does not impose any restrictions on the features Microsoft is allowed to incorporate in its Windows operating system, which was at the heart of the government's case against the company, which has been wending its way through the legal system since 1997.
"This is a difficult time for our nation and our economy. While this settlement imposes new rules and regulations, we believe that settling the case now is the right thing to do for our customers, for the technology industry and for the economy," Bill Gates. Microsoft's co-founder and chairman, said in a press conference Friday.
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said the settlement opens the marketplace to competition by requiring Microsoft to disclose information it previously considered proprietary and by permitting other companies to do business with competitors without fear of retribution.
"This settlement brings effective relief to the marketplace and ensures consumers have more choices in working with their computers," Ashcroft said. "A competitive software industry is vital to our economy and effective antitrust enforcement is crucial in a constantly changing high-tech environment."
Ashcroft said he believed the settlement fully addressed all of the anti-competitive concerns outlined by a federal appeals court, which upheld a lower court's decision that Microsoft held a monopoly in computer operating systems but overturned its order that the company be broken in two to prevent it from using that monopoly to squash competition.
States yet to sign off
But the settlement agreement does not necessarily mark the end of Microsoft's antitrust odyssey. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia are pursuing a concurrent anti-competition action against Microsoft.
The U.S. district court judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who approved the settlement Friday, gave the states until Tuesday to decide whether they also would agree to the settlement.
Many expect the states to pursue a tougher course with Microsoft than the proposed DOJ settlement.
Representatives from each state's attorney general's office attended Friday's hearing, including Iowa's Tom Miller, New York's Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal.
"While there have been some promising developments in the mediation over the past few days, the states have not joined today in the settlement agreement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft," Miller said.
"As elected law enforcement officials, we believe that it is imperative that we fully assess the specific language of the agreement. We will complete this evaluation by Tuesday and will communicate our decision at that time to Judge Kollar-Kotelly," he added.
As the case worked its way through the appeals process, Miller was among the most vocal critics of Microsoft's continued integration of functionality and features into its Windows operating system software.
The settlement agreement leaves Microsoft's Windows operating system intact. One of the original goals of the action first brought by the government in 1997 was to unbundle some applications from Windows, specifically its Internet Explorer Web browser.
Miller and other had pointed to Windows XP, Microsoft's newest operating system which integrates streaming Internet media, instant messaging and other multimedia functions, as evidence that Microsoft continues to engage in anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft's competitors were critical of the deal.
The Computer Communications and Industry Association, which had lobbied some of the state attorneys general to ask for court-ordered block of the release of Windows XP, called the agreement ineffective.
The group, which includes key Microsoft foes such as Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Yahoo!, and America Online (a subsidiary of CNNmoney.com parent AOL Time Warner), refuted Microsoft and the Justice Department's claims that it will level the competitive playing field.
"The current settlement proposal will do little to protect consumers, competition, entrepreneurs, and innovation," the CCIA said in a statement.
"It is clear the proposal will not deter Microsoft's illegal behavior or prevent it from leveraging its operating system monopoly into markets for other products and services," the group said.
The 18 state attorneys general who are co-plaintiffs in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit are not expected to sign a settlement agreement--at least in its current form--hammered out between the software giant and the Justice Department, said sources familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department and Microsoft on Friday delivered the proposed settlement in the form of a consent decree to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. But the states asked the judge for more time to review the settlement, which received little input from the attorneys general, said sources familiar with the negotiations.
Lawyers representing the states are scheduled to meet with Kollar-Kotelly at 6 a.m. PT Tuesday to deliberate the matter. During the status hearing, both sides are expected to discuss further proceedings under the Tunney Act. Under that law, a judge must review a settlement to ensure that it is in the public interest and was not politically motivated.
"The states are working intensively to review the settlement," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said Monday. "We will report to the judge on Tuesday."
In chambers on Friday, the judge reiterated her earlier view that settling the case would be in the best interests of the country.
The states appear to be deeply divided over how to proceed with the case, in light of the judge's instructions, possible resistance from the Justice Department and the resources that likely will be required to continue the nearly four-year-old antitrust battle, sources said. The states largely focused their attention on numerous apparent loopholes in the consent decree and the limited scope of the agreement.
"In antitrust doctrine, there is this concept of fencing in the monopolist," said Jonathan Jacobson, an antitrust lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in New York. "You fence them in so that they don't repeat the same behavior. I don't see that's here" in the consent decree.
Antitrust law demands that "remedies should be forward looking," said Emmett Stanton, an antitrust attorney with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, Calif. "That doesn't appear to be the case here."
The proposed consent decree would compel Microsoft to reveal some Windows XP code to make it easier for third-party software to work with the operating system, and make some concessions regarding PC makers. But it steers clear of emerging technologies such as digital rights management and Internet authentication.
A "get-out-of-jail-free card"
The states appeared most worried about possible loopholes that might empower Microsoft rather than restrain its monopoly muscle.
Bob Lande, an antitrust professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, pointed to the 22-page agreement's definition of an operating system and its lack of restrictions on Microsoft's bundling in more features.
"They should be concerned about this," Lande said.
"The agreement says Microsoft can tie (products to Windows) because they can define the operating system any way they want," Lande said. "So conceivably, Microsoft could tie a ham sandwich to the operating system."
One of the case's core issues was the integration of Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser into Windows 95 and 98. "Contractual tying has not really been addressed" in the proposed settlement, Stanton said.
Referring to the board game Monopoly, Lande described many provisions of the proposed settlement as a "get-out-of-jail-free card."
States also are deliberating what role a three-person technical committee would legitimately have to enforce the consent decree. Microsoft apparently considers the committee and its power to regulate the company as a tremendous compromise, said sources familiar with the matter.
If the states sign the settlement, however, the company could announce a compliance officer for enforcing the agreement as early as this week.
The states have gotten an earful from Microsoft competitors, which in recent weeks have complained of a cold reception at the Justice Department. Under the Clinton administration, Joel Klein, assistant attorney general at the time, openly solicited feedback from Microsoft competitors Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
Some Microsoft competitors had expected similar openness from current Assistant Attorney General Charles James, whose former firm, Jones Day, represented Microsoft rival AOL Time Warner. But with the exception of the media giant, James reportedly did not meet directly with Microsoft competitors, choosing to send subordinates instead, said sources familiar with the dialogues.
The attorneys general are expected to continue their discussions Monday, as they hammer out a strategy that some sources indicated might not be unified. Some states were leaning toward going along with the settlement, while others wanted to push ahead without the Justice Department, sources said. The states could also ask for modifications to the agreement.
California and Massachusetts are among the five or six states most resistant to the proposed consent decree, at least in its current form. Should California go along with the settlement, much of the coalition would likely follow, said sources familiar with the situation.
Also involved are Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. In July, New Mexico settled independently with Microsoft.
Concerns about the judge
The states are gravely concerned about Kollar-Kotelly, who is a newcomer to the case, particularly in light of her desire to see the case settled, sources said. In August, Kollar-Kotelly was randomly assigned to the case to replace U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
Lande warned that the states should not take lightly Kollar-Kotelly's comments about striving for a swift settlement.
"You have this judge who doesn't know the facts of the case, doesn't know the games that Microsoft plays and maybe really doesn't want to get into the facts," he said.
If none, or only some, of the states sign the agreement, the original schedule set by Kollar-Kotelly would continue. The non-agreeing parties would file their proposed remedy by Dec. 7, with Microsoft responding by Dec. 12. A remedy hearing is tentatively scheduled for early March.
This could put the court in the position of overseeing two different sets of activities in the case: concluding the settlement by the process established by the Tunney Act, and preparing for a separate remedy hearing.
Before Kollar-Kotelly holds the Tunney Act hearing, there must be a 60-day period of public comment, in part to ensure that the agreement is in the public interest. Under the terms of the proposed deal, the Justice Department is to publish the proposed settlement in the Federal Register on or before Nov. 16.
The Justice Department also "will publish a notice informing the public of the proposed Final Judgment and public comment period in the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News, for seven days over a period of two weeks commencing no later than November 15, 2001," the consent decree states.
Within 30 days after the close of the period for public comment, the Justice Department must publish its response in the Federal Register.
Today, we put http://www.amithlon.net online with a whole bunch of useful info regarding Amithlon.
"Well time moves on, nothing stands still... The Amiga does not make me a living, it hasn't for a long, long time and it doesn't look like it ever will make me a dime. I have moved on in my life and its time that I left the Amiga behind. It has been an interesting time. I still love the concepts and elegance of the Amiga, many of those concepts will move forward through the experiences of all those engineers that have had contact with it. Amiga R.I.P."
In the promotional video Apple created for its new audio player, Apple Vice President of Industrial Design Jonathan Ive says, "Our goal was to design the very very best MP3 player we could." Looking at the iPod, it's obvious that they've succeeded - but at $400 a pop, the big question is whether the iPod will turn into a success story like the iMac or a painful lesson like the G4 Cube.
Open the iPod Bay Doors, HAL
The iPod is a stainless steel, 6.5 ounce portable music player. Thanks to a slim 5 GB hard drive, the device measures only 2.4 inches wide, 4 inches tall, and less than an inch thick. The drive is capable of storing roughly 1,000 MP3-formatted songs (or more, depending on compression rates), transferred to the device over a FireWire connection. Apple claims that the bandwidth provided by FireWire can transfer a CD's worth of music in ten seconds, while one's entire MP3 collection would take between five and ten minutes (provided your collection will fit). The iPod also supports WAV and AIFF formats and has upgradable firmware for adding support for other audio formats.
With its 32 MB memory cache, the device boasts 20 minutes of "skip protection," though the RAM is better thought of as a huge cache that lets the disk spin down, saving battery life. The iPod runs on a built-in lithium polymer battery capable of ten hours of continuous playback. It can be recharged to 80 percent capacity in about an hour, and to full strength in 3 hours. Since it uses FireWire, the pod charges when connected to your Mac; it can also store other data like an ordinary hard disk when the iPod is put into FireWire disk mode.
The iPod isn't by any means the first hard disk-based MP3 player on the market (see "Archos Jukebox 6000 Challenges Nomad Jukebox" in TidBITS-592_ for a comparison of two other models), but it's the best looking and offers support for multiple languages (currently English, French, German, and Japanese). The iPod also includes an AC adapter that connects via FireWire cable (also included) and a set of earbud headphones. Apple is now taking pre-orders for the iPod, which will be available 10-Nov-01.
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06521
Adhering to Apple's minimal design aesthetic, the iPod has a two-inch-square backlit monochrome LCD and a large circular area containing four buttons (Play/Pause, Forward, Reverse, and Menu), a scroll wheel that rotates in both directions, and a button in the center for selecting the highlighted item. A button on top, marked Hold, locks the controls so you don't accidentally switch songs by bumping the unit (which is likely: the iPod doesn't have a belt clip, so it will be living in your pockets).
The interface is truly a gem (and not just because it uses the venerable Chicago typeface). Pressing any button turns the iPod on and displays the top-level list of options. You can choose a playlist, artist, or song; access the device's settings; or select About to view information about the iPod. (This is also where the designers added an Easter egg: with the About screen visible, press and hold the central button for a few seconds to activate a version of the game Breakout.) Use the scroll wheel to highlight items in the list and push the central button to make a selection. To go back up a level in the hierarchy, press the Menu button.
http://www.apple.com/ipod/userinterface.html [QuickTime 5 is required.]
Holding the Menu button for two seconds activates the screen's LED backlight, which is a surprisingly bright white (not the cool blue shown in Apple's promotional video) - the iPod can literally light your way home. While you're playing music, you can view the time remaining in a song by pressing the central button and change the volume by rolling the scroll wheel. If the iPod is not playing, it automatically turns off after two minutes, or you can turn it off manually by pressing and holding the Play/Pause button for two seconds.
Other features in the iPod's software include a sleep timer to stop playing automatically after a user-specified amount of time and the capability to turn off the clicking noise associated with rolling the scroll wheel. I'm surprised the software doesn't include a way to balance the audio manually between left and right headphones, or any type of equalizer presets found in other devices, but I'm willing to be a bit lenient for this 1.0 version.
Syncing Beneath the Sound Waves
If the iPod were just another device to which you copied songs, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. One of the main draws is automatic synchronization between the iPod and iTunes 2 (available in early November as a free download for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X). When the iPod is connected to the Mac for the first time, iTunes can transfer your entire music library; subsequent connections can automatically synchronize the music and playlists on the device and on the Mac. You can also choose to move songs from your Mac to the iPod manually. However, you can't copy songs from the iPod to your Mac in iTunes, according to Apple's iPod FAQ and my own testing (the Show Song File option under the File menu is also disabled when you're browsing the iPod).
http://www.apple.com/ipod/pdf/iPod_FAQ-b.pdf
iTunes uses the serial number of the iPod and identifies your iTunes music library to determine to whom the device belongs. When I plugged it into my PowerBook G4, I got a dialog telling me that my iTunes music library didn't match the one stored in the iPod, which had been loaded by my friend Glenn Fleishman (who's reviewing the iPod for the Seattle Times). My options were to use my music library instead, which would have erased the device and synchronized my songs, or to continue without switching ownership. Since I was only borrowing the iPod briefly, I opted not to synchronize, which displayed the iPod's songs in iTunes locked and grayed-out. To add my own songs, I had to bring up the iPod's preferences in iTunes (by clicking a special button that appears in the lower-right corner of iTunes when the iPod is connected) and switch to manual mode.
From there I was able to add my own songs, which was as speedy as Apple advertises. Copying a CD's worth of music took around 13 seconds (the iPod takes a few seconds to initiate the connection); copying 102 songs (about 398 MB) took a minute and a half; and copying the rest of the songs on my PowerBook, 3 GB worth, took 11 minutes. I wasn't able to max out the drive's total storage capacity, 4.6 GB, but according to the iPod FAQ, iTunes detects that your library won't fit and prompts you to synchronize selected playlists or switch to manual mode.
FireWire Burning in Your Pocket
The iPod uses FireWire to connect to your Mac, so you can mount it as a regular hard disk on your desktop. Apple has kept the audio playing portions separate from the data storage features by storing music files in an invisible folder, so even if you copy MP3 files to the drive via the Finder, the iPod won't play them.
Even though Apple isn't heavily pushing the FireWire disk mode feature, it's an important bonus. You can take your music library with you, sure. But what about tossing a copy of your email folders on the hard disk, or encrypted sensitive documents, or software registrations protected by one of the password-storage utilities? With a 5 GB hard disk in your pocket, you don't need to carry Zip disks or copy large files over the Internet when you need to be in more than one location.
The only minor downside to using FireWire disk mode is that you must manually remove the hard disk from the Finder's desktop (or use the Eject button in iTunes) before unplugging the iPod to avoid potentially losing data.
iTunes 2
The new version of iTunes adds more than iPod compatibility. In addition, iTunes 2 finally incorporates a 10- band equalizer (which was in iTunes's predecessor SoundJam). Users can choose from 22 preset configurations, or manually adjust the settings and create your own presets. You can even associate different EQ presets with individual songs (bring up a song's Get Info dialog box, click the options tab, and select an equalizer preset). EQ boosts may introduce distortion into your music, depending on the music you're playing and how the recording was mastered - if that happens, use the Preamp slider to lower the volume before iTunes applies equalization. iTunes 2 also burns MP3 CDs that store over 150 MP3 files per disk and features a crossfader that overlaps playback of different songs rather than leaving a bit of silence between them. Under Mac OS X, clicking the iTunes icon in the Dock adds controls for repeat and shuffle play to the options for playing tunes.
According to Apple's Web site, iTunes burns audio CDs up to twice as fast as before, but since I don't have a CD-burning Mac, I wasn't able to test this. The program also adds the generically named Sound Enhancer, a slider in the iTunes preferences that veers from low to high. The lowest value seem to disable the feature entirely, but the higher you go, the more separation iTunes introduces into the stereo field, much like the "3D" effects on some portable stereos. Sound Enhancer can introduce some distortion and weird artifacts, but it may make music sound clearer or better defined, particularly over small speakers or at low volume levels.
iPod Mac-only
Apple is taking some flak for the fact that the iPod works only with FireWire-equipped Macs - Windows machines and Linux boxes need not apply. There has been a lot of speculation about this decision, since it would seem suicidal for Apple to ignore the vast Windows market with a product that shouldn't inherently require a Mac. Cross-platform users have already expressed dismay at being left out, though as others have noted, if the Windows machine in question has external speakers, it's no harder to plug those speakers into the iPod than it is to plug the iPod into a computer.
Steve Jobs said that Apple would look into making the iPod Windows-compatible in the future, but he also said that the product took only nine months from conception to completion, and such a short product cycle may simply not have left room for adding Windows compatibility. It's also possible Apple chose to avoid the Windows market to avoid availability problems heading into the holiday season - if the Toshiba 1.8" hard drives inside the iPod are in short supply or if Apple wasn't positive of its ability to meet demand, why not just focus on the core market of Mac users?
It's not as though avoiding the Windows market is unusual for Apple - Apple didn't make it easy for Windows users to use the AirPort Base Station even though the necessary information and software to do so soon became available. I suspect the same will happen with the iPod - someone will figure out how to write to the appropriate spot on the hard disk from any FireWire-enabled Windows or Linux computer and the necessary drivers will then spread widely. And as with the AirPort Base Station, other companies will undoubtedly follow Apple's design lead and undercut Apple's prices, so it makes more sense for Apple to focus on creating the best possible experience for Mac users instead of diluting its efforts across multiple platforms.
I Saw, I Paid, iPod
I honestly think Apple has created the best portable audio player on the market. It's sharp, it's elegant, it makes me wonder why I thought having a Rio 500 with 64 MB of RAM was cool. But it costs $400, which will be the iPod's biggest stumbling block. Granted, you can argue that everything is priced $100 too high, so I'll skip everyone's first fantasy that goes something along the lines of, "If someone were to give me an iPod for free...." The problem with a $400 iPod is that the price is actually justified, yet at the same time too high.
When you look at the iPod's specs, and when you take into consideration its industrial design and size (smaller is almost always more expensive), the price is fairly reasonable. And when you note that just the Toshiba 1.8" hard drive itself costs $400, the iPod is almost a steal. As Marshall Clow noted in TidBITS Talk, you can think of the iPod as a free MP3 player wrapped around an extremely portable hard drive.
http://www.toshiba.com/taecdpd/products/features/MK5002-Over.shtml
http://www.smartdisk.com/Products/Storage%20Products/Hard%20Drives/FWFL.asp
http://www.smartdisk.com/Press%20Releases/5GBHardDrive.asp
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=1500
But you can't ignore the playing field, paying $400 for an MP3 player is on the high side of acceptable, even if it's the best MP3 player ever devised. Most people I've talked to say that at $250 or $300, they'd have already put an order in. But $400 stretches the boundaries of how much to spend on an audio player, especially when Creative's Nomad Jukebox 20 GB player stores 4 times the capacity of the iPod at the same price. People may be more willing to put up with a larger device without the iPod's sleek design, superior interface, and long battery life if it will save them $100 or more.
http://www.nomadworld.com/products/jukebox_20gb/
So what do you think? Check our home page for this week's poll, which asks how much would you seriously consider paying for an iPod.
I'll be interested to see how the iPod fares, especially once there are enough units available so potential customers can see and touch iPods for themselves - Apple's advertisements are enticing, but you can't get a sense of the iPod's tiny size until you actually hold (and operate) it in one hand.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:31:11 -0400, Skal Loret (skal@goes.com) jammed all night, and by sunrise was heard saying:
> On Friday 26 October 2001 19:31, Brian E. Doe regaled all and sundry with: > > > And, although Linux isn't organized enough to take down Microsoft, > > somebody, somewhere, will rise up from obscurity and hand Microsoft their > > asses in a Ziploc bag. > The funny thing is that with adroit moves like this, all someone will have to > do is give them a Ziploc bag. M$ will take care of the rest.Actually, the first folks who figure out how to put Linux on your X-Box will potentially deal a mighty blow to Microsoft. I mean, since these all ship with the 8GB hard drive, Ethernet, fast CPU and fairly normal and fast 3D graphics, and DVD, they should make fine low-end Linux boxes. And Microsoft's basically dumping them at an estimated $100+ below manufacturing cost. So you buy one and don't put X-Box software on it, Microsoft loses, big.
--
Dave Haynie d.haynie@merlancia.com http://www.merlancia.com
Chief Technology Officer, Merlancia Industries
--
"g'o'tz ohnesorge" (gotz@amiga.com) wrote:
Then at the next Linux convention, people will wear one "X" symbol on their jacket per X-Box made useless for M$'s purposes .. :))
Software crackers have reportedly developed a technique that bypasses the complex anti-piracy system protecting Microsoft's new operating system Windows XP.
Engineers at a UK computer security company have tested the method and say they have successfully used it to install the same copy of the operating system on more than one computer, something that Microsoft hopes to prevent with Windows XP.
"It's unbelievable to be honest," says John Safa, chief technical officer of Bit Arts, the company that has tested the crack. "The cracking community appear to have bypassed the product activation altogether."
Safa says that the tools are already available on the Internet. These consist of a number of customised files and an executable software "patch". They deactivate the system that links Windows XP to a particular PC, making it possible to install the software on any number of computers.
Broken windows
Microsoft is still investigating the allegations and has not confirmed that it works. Nevertheless, the company is working to have web sites that provide the files shut down.
The company also stresses the product activation system that comes with Windows XP is not meant to be infallible. "Product activation is not adequate to stop sophisticated piracy," says a spokeswoman.
The product activation system in Windows XP is designed to prevent owners installing multiple operating systems without a license for each. This "casual copying" has been a major piracy problem in the past, says Microsoft.
Casual copying
Once Windows XP is installed on a computer, the new operating system locates unique serial numbers built into different pieces of the hardware and generates a unique key. The next part of the installation is to register this key over the Internet or by telephone with Microsoft. Then, the same version of XP cannot be registered with Microsoft for a different computer.
However, so that corporate customers do not have to distribute thousands of disks and serial numbers, a single "master" key exists that can bypass all this security for a special version of the operating system. Safa says that crackers have apparently obtained a copy of a master key and discovered a way to make it work with consumer editions of Windows XP.
According to one independent security expert, the security protecting Microsoft's software has often been bypassed in the past. David Litchfield of Next Generation Security Software, based in the UK, says: "It wouldn't surprise me if this worked. This has always been the way with Microsoft products."
Motorola has released the latest update to its PowerPC 8500 - aka G5 - processor that ups AltiVec performance and delivers consistent 1GHz and up clock speeds, one of our Apple sources tells us.
Indeed, the source claims, two of the chips in the sample set of CPUs sent to the Mac maker, clocked at 2.4GHz. Most, however, ran at 1GHz, 1.2GHz or 1.4GHz, and some - a "considerable number", says our Deep Throat - operate at 1.6GHz.
Even if some chips run at 2.4GHz, it's clear that the yields of such parts is very small indeed. So don't expect Apple to offer a 2GHz Power Mac G5 any time soon - it's more likely to be rather more conservative about the speed it can deliver. Still, 1.2GHz or 1.4GHz will be very welcome to many Mac users wondering whether we'll see anything higher than 867MHz.
The 8500 update is revision 0.6, and is said to fix the cache coherency bug we reported a little while back. There still appears to be an issue with the G5's AltiVec performance, so while that has been improved with this revision, it's still only around 85 per cent of the third-generation G4-class processor, the PPC 7460 aka Apollo.
Our source suggests that revision 0.6 also features "minor changes with... the positioning of the L1 and L2 cache on the die". We're a little concerned by this. We'd have assumed that would have been too significant a change to be made in a point revision since the positioning of one, large collection of transistors will affect the positioning of all the others. Then again, in these days of computerised chip design tools, perhaps it's not that big a deal. We welcome comments from readers engaged in chip development work to give us some insight into this one.
Looking ahead, G5 revision 0.7 is expected to arrive sometime during the next few weeks. It promises to improve AltiVec performance further.
Its upcoming availability hasn't stopped Apple shipping 1000 prototype G5s to "key developers", according to our source, under plain wrappers - beige ATX cases, in this instance. "There are 500 machines out there, and with this revision the aim is to bring it up to 1500," boasts our source, noting this will be done through a mix of complete systems and upgrade logic boards.
Someone, somewhere out there in developer land must have seen one of these beasts. If you have, feel free to drop us a line about it.
Prelude
The introduction of Mac OS X on March 24th, 2001 was the fulfillment of a promise made over a decade earlier--a promise to Mac users that they would get a brand new operating system, and that it would be insanely great.
The mere existence of an actual shipping product let millions of Mac users breathe a sigh of relief. But when the dust settled, the software itself appeared less than great in many areas, and seemingly insane in others. The honeymoon was over before it even began.
My personal experience with Mac OS X has been rocky. I installed Mac OS X on my Mac at work, a dual G4 450MHz with 256MB RAM, as soon as version 10.0 shipped. But on my home machine, a blue and white G3 400MHz, I stuck with Mac OS 9. I did this for several reasons.
First, not all of my hardware was supported in Mac OS X, including (most importantly) my printer. Second, many of the applications I use every day did not have native OS X versions. Third, and perhaps most troubling, I still felt a lot more productive and happy in the Mac OS 9 user interface. This was partially due to the sluggish performance of the OS X interface on my G3/400 (a problem in its own right), but it was also because I could not set up the OS X user interface to suit my needs the way Mac OS 9 did.
So that's how I've lived for the past six months: spending 40 hours a week using Mac OS X, following it through four updates to version 10.0.4, and then coming home to my Mac OS 9 system. Coming home to Mac OS 9 often felt like coming back to an old friend. My G3/400 felt like a speed deamon, as I scrolled through my email messages, pulled down menus, and launched applications at speeds that made my "faster" dual G4/450 at work seem positively moribund.
On the other hand, the uptime on my Mac at work, which I left on 24 hours a day, was roughly equivalent to the the time between OS updates from Apple (excluding hardware upgrades). I had a total of five system crashes (all of them user interface deaths; no kernel panics), most of them in version 10.0 through 10.0.2.
And so the platforms dueled: stability vs. ease of use; a pretty interface vs. a responsive one; a full suite of Unix tools and services vs. good hardware support and a wide selection of applications. For the most part, things came down on the side of Mac OS 9 for me. Despite the particular features that made it a good fit for my work environment, Mac OS X was still too slow, too awkward, too resource intensive, and too "unfinished" for me to accept as my "new Mac OS."
Many Mac users felt the same way. Some didn't even want to think about Mac OS X until some point in the future--after they'd purchased new hardware, or when the OS matured some more. While the early adopters frolicked, and the part-time geeks experimented with occasional trips into the world of Aqua, the rest of the Mac community waited.
Despite spending five days a week using OS X, I felt like I was waiting with them. Many of OS X's problems were acknowledged by Apple, but some were not. On Apple-run mailing lists, signals crossed and tempers flared on issues ranging from the Dock to the color, shape, and position of the window widgets. Confusion and uncertainty reigned.
But Mac users are nothing if not patient. For the faithful, hope springs eternal in the skies above Cupertino. Mac OS X 10.0.x was not the OS I had hoped it would be, and yet I can see the end of the road for classic Mac OS fast approaching. I want to like Mac OS X. I want to love it. I want it to sweep away any memory of classic Mac OS.
Like Mac users everywhere, I want to believe.
Introduction
Mac OS X 10.1 was released on September 29th, 2001, but that date depends on your definition of "released." Update CDs were handed out for free after Apple's keynote speech at the Seybold publishing conference in San Francisco. People who did not attend Seybold have several ways to get the update. Starting on the 25th, free update CDs are being handed out at Apple stores and some other retail outlets. This free update does not include the developer tools, but those can be downloaded by all ADC online members (free registration required) from Apple's web site. Finally, owners of Mac OS X 10.0 can order a full update containing a Mac OS 9.2.1 CD, a Mac OS X 10.1 update CD, and a developer tools CD through Apple's Mac OS X Up-to-Date program at a cost of $19.95 (plus state tax). The 10.1 update is not available for free download.
So, like I said, "released on September 29th," right? Nothing's ever simple with Apple these days, it seems. Nevertheless, you can be sure that the 10.1 update, repeatedly called "a free update" by Apple, is finding its way into the hands of Mac OS X users everywhere, despite the distribution and pricing confusion.
Mac OS X 10.1 is the first major revision of Mac OS X, Apple's new operating system. Ars Technica has been following Mac OS X since the second developer release in 1999, and this is my tenth (ha!) article in the series. The previous articles are listed below in reverse-chronological order, with the major public releases in bold.
Steve Jobs has described the migration from classic Mac OS to Mac OS X in terms of a clock face. He's called it a 12 month transition, starting with the release of Mac OS X 10.0 six months ago, with each hour on the clock face representing one month. Mac OS X 10.1 marks the half-way point, "six o'clock", in the transition. While version 10.0 was acknowledged by Apple to be an "early adopter's release," version 10.1 is aimed at a larger market. "This is the mainstream release," says Jobs.
There were four minor updates between 10.0 and 10.1. Versions 10.0.1 through 10.0.4 were distributed through Apple's Internet software update mechanism, and through free downloads from Apple's web site. Between 10.0 and 10.0.4, many bugs were squashed, hardware support was increased, and a few minor features were added. But many of the most critical problems in the 10.0 release were not addressed--performance being the most glaring, with user interface a close second for many people.
The word of mouth in the community regarding 10.1 has focused heavily on performance, so much so that casual observers may think that's all there is to 10.1. But there is at least one change in 10.1 that may be even more significant than the performance increase, as we'll see a bit later.
The test systems for this review were the same as those used in many of the earlier articles (more detailed descriptions were requested by readers):
As in the past, the G3/400 was used for the more rigorous benchmarking tasks, and the dual G4/450 was mostly used for subjective performance observations and comparisons. (Faithful readers may notice that both systems got a significant RAM upgrade since the 10.0 review; more on that later.)
Here we go again...
[Many more pages of detailed investigation can be found at http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1.html .]
Stability and Hardware Support
Stability in 10.1 has been comparable to 10.0.4--that is to say, excellent. The same caveats about actual stability vs. perceived stability still apply to 10.1. I haven't run it long enough to know if user interface death is more or less of a problem in 10.1. There is still no way to recover from a total UI crash without another computer from which to connect and kill processes. A hardware-based interrupt system (something like "virtual consoles" on other Unix variants) that was guaranteed to remain accessible during anything short of an actual kernel panic would go a long way towards getting Mac OS X over that final stability hump.
I don't have access to enough hardware to know how much hardware support has improved. My serial printer (attached to an adapter in the G3's internal modem port) is still not supported, nor do I really expect it to be in the future. Networked laser printers accessible from the G4 worked in 10.0.x, and continue to work in 10.1. But 10.1 still does not include the proper PPD files for several of the LaserJet printers on the network.
As mentioned earlier, the Displays preference pane still does not list all of the supported refresh rates for the G4's monitor, forcing me to use a slower refresh rate in OS X than in OS 9.
On the G3, a series of repeating console messages cause delays in both startup and shutdown. They look like this:
Sep 23 14:57:26 localhost mach_kernel: ADPT_OSI_IndicateQueueFrozen: id 5, freeze Sep 23 14:57:26 localhost mach_kernel: ADPT_OSI_IndicateGenerationChange (nop) Sep 23 14:57:26 localhost mach_kernel: ADPT_OSI_IndicateQueueFrozen: id 5, unfreeze [repeat many times]My only guess is that they're related to the G3's cable modem, SCSI card, or ATA/66 card. These messages do not appear at all on the G4.
Enhancing Your 10.1 Experience
Here are a few of the third party applications that I find beneficial to my Mac OS X experience. The first is ASM, an application-switcher menu replacement that also includes an option to change the OS X window layering policy to be per-application (like classic Mac OS) instead of per-window. ASM is implemented as a "Menu Extra" (despite Apple's refusal to make these APIs public--way to go, Frank!) and includes its own preference pane.
(Mercifully, Apple has seen fit to make the preference pane API public. But I'm not sure how the System Preference application plans to handle what is sure to be a flood of new preference panes. There's not a scroll-bar to be found in the System Preferences application, and that window can only get so big...)
DragThing provides an example of what the Dock could have been, allowing an arbitrary number of highly customizable, moveable, anchorable Dock-like palettes. I simply use it to recreate the classic Mac OS application switcher palette, but it is capable of much more.
Classic Menu provides a user-configurable Apple menu for Mac OS X. Unfortunately, it must use the "hack" method of drawing directly on top of the existing Apple menu, and it therefore does not interact with other menus in the expected way. But it's the best option so far for users who miss the functionality it provides. (Bonus points for including an optional rainbow-striped Apple icon :-)
Finally, TinkerTool provides a convenient interface for many of settings that were previously adjustable only from the command line: Dock pinning, Terminal transparency, finer control over font smoothing, etc. It is also implemented as a preference pane. The version that is compatible with Mac OS X 10.1 is still in beta, however.
Miscellaneous
Mac OS X 10.1 includes attractive new transparent overlays that appear in response to the dedicated volume control keys on the new Apple keyboards, then "fade out" when they're done:
Volume control overlay
The F12 key doubles as the dedicated "media eject" key on all Macs running 10.1, not just portables which require this functionality. This means that desktop Macs with one of the new Apple keyboards now have two eject keys on their keyboard. Worse, accidentally hitting the F12 key during, say, a CD burning session can produce coasters in some situations, so be careful. (This is a known bug.)
A "CrashReporter" daemon is running by default in 10.1. Its purpose is to write crash reports to per-user log files. It is controlled through the Console application, and does not create crash logs by default.
On the Unix side of 10.1, the new compiler toolchain has thrown a monkey wrench into the build processes. Traditional Unix applications that once built flawlessly on 10.0.x now require significant tweaking to build on 10.1. The main culprit seems to be the new two-level namespace linking option, which is enabled by default in 10.1. While this new feature stands to enable programs that produced run-time symbol conflicts in 10.0.x to build and run successfully on 10.1, at this early stage in 10.1's life cycle, it is causing more build problems than it solves.
10.1 supports CD-R, CD-RW, and DVD-R burning from the desktop--provided you're using a supported configuration (usually a Mac that shipped from Apple with one of those drives in an internal bay). I do not have a supported configuration (external SCSI CD-RW on the G3, internal DVD-ROM on the G4) so I could not test these features.
AppleScript support has been greatly enhanced in 10.1. Many of the new abilities of AppleScript in 10.1 were demonstrated during the keynote speech at the 2001 Seybold publishing conference. AppleScript has been elevated to first class status among the programming languages available on Mac OS X. Complete Mac OS X native GUI applications can be created using the new AppleScript Studio development environment.
On a slightly personal note (I use Perl in my day job), 10.1 still ships with perl 5.6.0 rather than 5.6.1, which has been the latest stable build of perl since February, 2001). It's understandable that 10.0, released in March 2001, shipped with 5.6.0, but 10.1 should have come with 5.6.1.
Apple is also reported to have a Cocoa-to-Perl bridge functioning in-house, but not released. There is already a petition online asking for the release of this code. If AppleScript can do it, why not Perl too?
Conclusion
I wrote at the start of this article that I want to believe in Mac OS X. I want to believe that it will replace Mac OS 9 in a way that improves upon every aspect of the classic Mac OS user experience. Unfortunately, although this may still come to pass, Mac OS X 10.1 is not that version of Mac OS.
But 10.1 improves on 10.0.x in many important ways. Overall system performance shows the biggest improvement, but it is not as drastic as some reports may lead you to believe. Other areas have stagnated. The user interface has not made significant strides since 10.0.x. Many annoying bugs remain, and many features have yet to be implemented.
Should you purchase Mac OS X 10.1? If you already use and enjoy Mac OS X 10.0, you should run out and pick up a free 10.1 upgrade CD at your local retailer as soon as possible. If you tried 10.0.x and found it somewhat lacking, I recommend at least giving 10.1 a try to see if the improvements are enough to push you over the edge. If you are waiting for the point of no return, where Mac OS X is a a complete no-brainer upgrade from Mac OS 9, you'll have to wait a little longer. If you plan to run Mac OS X full-time, you should consider upgrading your RAM to what were previously through of as obscene levels (512MB or more). It will be the best thing you can do for Mac OS X, short of buying a faster Mac.
If you're not a Mac user at all, but are intrigued by the possibilities of Unix based operating system with friendly user interface (Linux fans, no flames, please), 10.1 is as good a version as any to dip your toe into. Windows users should not expect a feature set remotely comparable to Windows XP, but Mac OS X is different enough that it should still broaden some horizons. And Linux users might want to see how another operating system has chosen to build a GUI on top of a Unix core.
To amend my earlier sentiment, it might be more accurate to say that I want to believe not just in Mac OS X, but in Apple itself. I want to believe that they can produce the next insanely great platform: a powerful, stable OS with an interface every Mac user can love, running on stylish, high performance hardware. Both the software and the hardware end of that dream currently need work. And so the waiting game begins again, as Mac users settle in with 10.1 and prepare for the inevitable 10.1.x updates. Will there be more 10.1 users than there were 10.0.x users? Probably. But it says something about this supposed "mainstream release" of OS X when Apple itself is still selling all its hardware configured to boot into Mac OS 9 by default.
I want to believe. But it looks like I'll have to wait a bit longer.
The weekend of 03-Nov-01 was a bad one for Apple and some early users of iTunes 2. After releasing the new version late Friday night, Apple hastily pulled the Mac OS X installer Saturday morning due to a problem where, in some situations involving multiple volumes named in specific ways, the installer could delete a large number of files. Needless to say, this is a bad thing, and there have been reports of Apple quietly offering to buy file recovery software or even pay for DriveSavers recovery of affected hard disks. A revised installer, with the designation iTunes 2.0.1, was released before the end of the weekend.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/alert/
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06616
http://www.drivesavers.com/
The specifics of how this happened have been discussed at length in TidBITS Talk and similar forums, but roughly speaking, the installer Apple used to install iTunes in Mac OS X apparently relied on a shell script that assumed the previous version of iTunes would be in the Applications folder. Since everyone's disks have different names, the script figured out the name of the disk, appended the path to the iTunes application, and then deleted all the files in the iTunes folder. Unfortunately, the script didn't take into account the fact that people might put spaces in their disk names, particularly that they could put spaces at the beginning of the disk name. Since the space separates arguments in Unix commands, a command that would delete a single file is suddenly broken in the middle, transforming it into a command that can delete an entire disk. The problem can be avoided in Unix merely by enclosing the command in quotes, but that didn't happen initially.
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=1515
It's easy to blame Apple for sloppy work and to bemoan the loss of data by innocent users. But I think this event points out a number of deeper issues that underlie the entire move to Mac OS X, showing precisely where Apple needs to work at a variety of levels, including the cross-pollination of Unix and Macintosh knowledge, the use of appropriate installation technology, and the crying need for backup support.
Mac Plus Unix
Much has been made of the schism between Macintosh and Unix, with Apple saying that you won't need to know any Unix to use Mac OS X and Unix geeks gleeful about getting an operating system that can run both Unix software and mainstream productivity applications. What this installer debacle shows is that Mac OS X developers and experts alike will have to be fluent and comfortable in both the Macintosh and Unix worlds. Look at the mistake that was made in the Mac OS X iTunes installer to see why.
From one point of view, the person who built that installer was clueless about Unix. Anyone with any real Unix experience knows that you have to quote Unix pathnames that contain spaces, but that's something a Macintosh user would never even consider as a concern. However, it's equally easy to surmise that the person responsible for the installer had no idea that normal Mac users are perfectly capable of naming hard disks with spaces - even leading spaces - not to mention untold other troublesome characters like leading hyphens. A Unix person would never consider doing such a thing.
It doesn't really matter which possibility was true in this case - my point is merely that without widespread knowledge of both operating systems, and beyond the operating systems to the usage conventions and opportunities afforded by each, mistakes like this will continue to happen.
Installation Automation
I may be giving too much emphasis to the lack of knowledge on the part of the person who built the installer - it's entirely possible this person is the pinnacle of both Macintosh and Unix knowledge and made a simple, human mistake. It happens to all of us, and it's certainly easy to imagine the omission of a few quote characters. This raises two points.
Why did Apple choose to use its own installer with a hand-written shell script, where there's no pre-tested code and interface that works to avoid simple human errors? Keep in mind that this is the installer that already has several black marks against it (one relating to passwords with unexpected characters, another with blown permissions).
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkmsg=10775
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06415
What's especially ironic here is that Apple used MindVision's Installer VISE for the Mac OS 9 iTunes installer, which would have lowered the effort and costs of building a Mac OS X version of the installer. Installer VISE could even have distributed both the Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X versions as a single installer file, installing appropriately depending on the operating system in use. It's certainly conceivable that someone could have made a similar mistake with Installer VISE, since Installer VISE can pass installation paths to Unix shell scripts, but there wouldn't be any need to write those shell scripts. One way or another, Installer VISE is a long-standing, heavily used installer that's been tested both by MindVision and a veritable army of Macintosh developers while building installers for thousands of products. As all Mac software should, Installer VISE goes out of its way to make sure the right thing happens. The same is certainly true of Aladdin's InstallerMaker, which I used back when I was creating installers for my books.
http://www.mindvision.com/
http://www.aladdinsys.com/installermaker/
I'm sure there are numerous possible reasons Apple chose its own installer, including pride, the dreaded "Not Invented Here" syndrome, the fact that Installer VISE comes from the Mac world instead of the Unix world, and even the laudatory goal of using one's own tools - "eating your own dog food," as it's called in the industry. The specific reason doesn't particularly matter; what matters is that Apple learns to focus primarily on what's important for customers. If it's too easy to cause data loss using the Apple installer, that's a problem. It's possible that the just-released Installer Update 1.0 (available last Thursday, via Software Update) will help, since it "delivers improved support for installing software updates and is required for any future Mac OS X updates." Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, since the phrase I quoted above is the sum total of what Apple's saying about the improvements. And, not that it really matters for this discussion, why didn't Apple release iTunes 2 via Software Update?
Where's Your Backup?
Perhaps the most commonly uttered platitude in the computer industry is, "Make sure you have a backup, then..." We've said it innumerable times in TidBITS, and it's standard advice when installing new software. Of course, no one should be making a backup specifically to prepare for installing software - you should have a backup strategy that ensures you're adequately protected at any given time.
The big problem is that you still cannot back up a Macintosh running Mac OS X easily, reliably, and automatically in such a fashion that you can restore the entire machine to working order in the time it takes to read the files from your backup media. Yes, there are some ways of copying important files to another hard disk or machine over the Internet. But there is no way to implement a real backup strategy right now, which involves automated backups that run on a regular schedule, copy only changed files, preserve all permissions and file attributes, and keep different versions of the files. Backup software running in Mac OS 9 or under Classic cannot back up all Mac OS X files such that they can be restored properly, and even the public beta of Dantz Development's Retrospect Client for Mac OS X has troubles under Mac OS X 10.1.
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=1510
http://www.dantz.com/index.php3?SCREEN=osx
Apple simply hasn't devoted the resources necessary to making it possible to perform backups because backups aren't sexy, don't sell boxes, and imply that data loss is likely. Realistically, though, data loss isn't a question of _if_, it's a question of _when_ - at this point, the main reason I refuse to install Mac OS X 10.1 on my primary Mac is that I can't back it up acceptably. Those who lost data because of the poorly written iTunes installer would have been annoyed at the loss even if they'd had backups, but the damage wouldn't have been nearly as great. These people didn't have backups (or at least good backups), and this time it's not just a case of the user being lazy or tempting fate. This time Apple deserves the lion's share of the blame for creating an operating system that can't be backed up and restored reliably many months after the initial release. For this reason alone, Mac OS X cannot be considered acceptable for serious use in many situations.
Lessons
In the end, it's worth remembering that getting everything right all the time is near-impossible, and Apple at least reacted quickly to the problem, pulling the Mac OS X iTunes installer and posting a warning. What's most important is that Apple learns from this mistake so something similar doesn't happen again. Can you imagine the fallout if this particular problem had been on all the Mac OS X 10.1 CD-ROMs?
For Apple, then, I'd recommend the following:
For the rest of us, I recommend waiting a few days before installing any updates. Others will always be more brave (or foolhardy), and the more patient among us should learn from their experiences.
For anyone interested in exploring the Unix dimension of OS X, there are some step-by-step instructions for installing X Window, Enlightenment, and GIMP at the site:
http://hometown.aol.com/tg3907/osx.html
Thanks to something called "The FINK Project," there are now over 400 Unix packages available for installation on OS X in fairly automated fashion.
For immediate release
ItÕs nearly November and the AmigaOne is due to go on sale at the WoA-SE in London, England on November 3rd 201 - right? No, weÕre sorry but the AmigaOne wont be on sale until the New Year. Is this the ultimate disaster to befall the Amiga community? Is the AmigaOne another Boxer? Is this the real end of Amiga as we know it? Certainly not.
Before you rush out and declare that Nostradamus was right in his predictions about the Amiga all along please take a few minutes to read the inside story of what has really been going on behind the scenes with the AmigaOne and OS4.0 development and why, despite all the odds, it is actually all going to happen very soon.
Amiga Inc took over the Amiga intellectual property (IP) in December 1999, at the very height of the dot.com boom - and Amiga Inc, although not a dot.com company themselves, were very much part of the technology sector. They easily got their first round of funding - but when they needed more cash 8 months later - and as predicted in their original business plan - technology companies were about as fashionable as British beef. Even the most sensible conservative business plans failed to raise any significant cash. What is more, not only were the venture capitalists unwilling to invest but, in many cases they themselves were also fighting for survival (and this included one of AmigaÕs and TAOÕs main backers). And since then things have only got worse.
To their enormous credit Amiga Inc have not only managed to survive the last 14 months on not much more than fresh air, but they have managed to deliver some - though not all - of what they intended in terms of technology and some high profile contracts. Remarkably they have also managed to befriend some significant new investors - AmigaÕs future is now looking very positive. But in order to survive on so little finance something has had to slip - in todays financial climate potential investors are only interested in very lean companies that think at least 20 time before committing to any expenditure. That something was OS4.0. And OS4.0 is fundamental to the AmigaOne.
Unlike Amiga, Eyetech is privately financed. That means that our resources are based on past profits, and we are not set up to raise funding from venture capitalists or the public. On the plus side it means that we can take decisions quickly without investors painstakingly examining every facet of our business. The downside is that one big mistake could be disastrous for the company and our employees. Our funding of the development of the AmigaOne project was a calculated risk, but one we believed would pay us an adequate return in the medium term. It was however dependant on two main factors, both to a greater or lesser extent outside our control. The first was EscenaÕs ability to develop the custom chipsets needed for the AmigaOne. And the second was Amiga IncÕs ability to deliver OS4.0 by the time the hardware was ready to go into production.
It is true that we had some early setbacks with the hardware development. This was mainly with the AmigaOneÕs PCB layout, which was not strictly speaking within EscenaÕs field of expertise, but which was so inextricably linked with the custom chip design that putting it out to subcontract would have been both counterproductive and very expensive. And why, whilst we are on the subject, did we decide a custom chipset was necessary in the first place? There were, and are still, three compelling reasons.
However in May this year it became clear that Amiga Inc could not afford to pay its subcontractors the amount it had budgeted - and agreed - for the development of OS4.0. Hope was still high that funding would be imminent, but venture capitalists do not make investment decisions lightly or quickly in the wake of a tech stock melt down. Without a guaranteed delivery time we, Eyetech, effectively suspended the development of the AmigaOne pending a resolution of the OS4.0 developments. Escena in the meantime undertook some mission-critical (and far better paid) contract work for some internationally renowned blue chip companies.
Since then we have been working hard with Amiga Inc to seek a practical resolution to the development of OS4.0. After many months, and more than a few dead ends we have finally worked out a tripartite agreement between ourselves, Amiga Inc and Hyperion. This allows the development of OS4.0 to start immediately - and at no upfront cost to Amiga Inc - whilst allowing them to build on the work done on OS4.0 for the development of OS4.2 and beyond. As well as guaranteeing a path to allow the AmigaOne development to be finished and for it to go into production, it also gives an absolute guarantee of the development of the operating system for the AmigaOne beyond OS4.0. And as part of this agreement Hyperion will also be releasing OS4.0 for the CyberStormPPC accelerator for the A3/4000, which must be this years best news for owners of these Big Box Amigas.
Of course Hyperion are not developing OS4.0 alone, rather they are heading a consortium of well known and respected Amiga developers, including Haage & Partner, the Picasso96 team, Matay, Olaf Barthel and many others.
So the best news of all is that this agreement - which will finally and unequivocally fix the path forward for Classic Amiga owners everywhere - will be signed this weekend at the London-based WoA-SE show on 3rd November. It has taken many hours of negotiation to sort out the details, but now it is in place the last major hurdle to the Next Generation Amiga has been overcome. All parties are now working flat out once more to ensure that OS4.0 and the AmigaOne can now be launched in tandem early in the New Year.
Thank you all for your patience and understanding.
Alan M Redhouse
Managing Director, Eyetech Group Ltd.
October 18, 2001 - President Jim Lewis began the meeting with the traditional introuction of officers.
As the first order of business, Jim noted that IGLU, the Illinois GNU/Linux Users, had decided to join with CUCUG and that beginning next month they would hold their meeting before the regular CUCUG meeting. For now, they'll meet at 6:00 PM on the third Thursday of the month. There was a discussion of what they would be addressing in their meetings.
President Lewis then asked Kris Klindworth to give us an overview of Linux news for the last month. Kris said AMD has announced further Linux support. He said IBM has sold it's 1000th mainframe with Linux on it. He noted Progeny has dropped their Linux distribution, but then no one has ever heard of them anyway, so it's no big deal. Kris said HP will have its own distribution of Linux. And finally, he reported that the European Union is suing Microsoft for its business practices.
Using that as a segue, President Lewis asked Kevin Hisel for the report of PC News. Kevin said that AOL version 7 is now set. Jim said "Give me my Anthrax letter." Kevin reported that on October 25 Microsoft will roll out Windows XP. The upgrade will cost $99. It's an upgrade from Windows 98 or ME. The consensus was that upgrading from any version of a Microsoft product is flirting with disaster. A clean install just eliminates so many problems.
There was a discussion of Microsoft's activation and registration procedure of Windows XP. In some circles, this licensing scheme is vastly unpopular. However, Kevin Hisel said that most people won't even run across it. There was a discussion of Microsoft dropping support for their products after about 4 years and setting the boundaries of a product's lifespan. In the discussion of XP's stability, several people noted that most of the problems are with Internet Explorer. Kevin Hisel felt that IE is blackening the reputation of XP.
Turning to Mac News, Jack Melby reported that Apple will be releasing some new digital device on October 25. There was speculation as to whether is would be a PDA or some sort of music device.
Jack said that CD burning from the Finder is nice. In the discussion that followed on the methods used in burning CDs, the comment was made that packet writing sucks on the PC; that ISO is like night and day.
Norris Hansel had some questions about a story he'd heard about the Usenet, the news part of the Internet. He said he heard a report about a group of hackers, called the Hong Kong Virgins, attacking a bank in Sudan and getting its customer list. This lead to more conversation about false credit card charges.
Kevin Hisel reported about a site he had found - web.archive.org - which is a huge archive of the entire World Wide Web, going back to 1996. He had explored it enough to find copies of the CUCUG site represented there. He said it was very impressive.
Rich Hall reported that the government is going to be constructing a separate network for themselves called Gov.net. There is a certain irony in that since the Internet grew out of the government's original old ARPANET.
Someone noted that yesterday (Oct. 17) was the anniversary of the first email ever sent over a network back in 1971.
President Lewis introduced our visitor for the evening, Brett Peugh.
Quentin Barnes said that the entire source code for the BE OS had been posted on the net.
Mike Latinovich noted that Dave Haynie has been selling his Amiga stuff on Ebay.
This evening, the Macintosh SIG was to have an rather informal Question and Answer - Show and Tell type of get together and that's exactly what transpired. After Jack Melby called the meeting into session, people quickly moved into separate discussions and spent a pleasant evening talking among friends. Yours truly brought in the new club G4 Macintsoh for everyone to look at and was treated to an impromptu demonstration of iTunes by Emil Cobb. (Thanks Emil.)
The October meeting of the CUCUG executive board took place on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 7PM, at Kevin Hisel's house. (For anyone wishing to attend - which is encouraged, by the way - the address and phone number are both in the book). Present at the meeting were: Jim Lewis, Emil Cobb, Kris Klindworth, Jack Melby, Kevin Hopkins, and Kevin Hisel.
Jim Lewis: Jim began by that the last meeting was interesting. Multiple issues were covered. The Linux SIG was incorporated into CUCUG. They will be meeting at 6PM on the third Thursday of the month at the ITC. That is, just prior to the main CUCUG meeting. Their first "official" meeting will be November 15. And, just as a reminder to all, the last meeting of the year will be on December 20.
Jim noted that there is an election coming up. He expressed again his desire to see someone else run to fill the President's slot.
Jim said there was a need for a program for the PC SIG. In later discussions it was decided to show Irfanview.
Emil Cobb: Emil reported that there were 21 members in attendance at the last meeting; 14 of them in the Mac SIG.
Kris Klindworth: Kris was welcomed to the Board meeting and was then asked what the Linux SIG would be discussing at their next meeting. Kris said that a Kinux firewalling program was a probable candidate. Jack Melby suggested showing XWindows on MacOS X. After some other offerings, Kris settled on showing Postgresql, an open source database, for the November meeting.
Jack Melby: Jack expressed his weariness at carrying the ball for coming up with programs for the Mac SIG. He would really like some help and suggestions from the membership. Jack asked Kevin Hopkins to think about doing a "newbies" look at OS X, but Kevin said time commitments and the demands of producing the newsletter would prevent that for a while.
In discussing some of the problems of moving over to the new club hardware, the topic of a SCSI to Firewire adapter was raised. Jack said he had purchased such a device and also used the software VueScan by Ed Hamrick when he bought his scanner to his new machine. Jack spoke very highly of VueScan and noted that after the $40 shareware price, you get perpetual free upgrades.
Jack reported on ther new "mystery" revolutionary device from Apple - the iPod - a stylish MP3 player.
Kevin Hopkins: Kevin had no new business.
Kevin Hisel: Kevin began by saying "I have nothing." However, he then noted that WebRX is going under. He also reported that @Home has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. He said AT7T has expressed interest in purchasing @Home, but has so "low balled" the purchase price that Excite has refused the offer and has threatened to just shut down the service. Everyone agrees this is a hollow threat and merely a negotiating tactic.
Kevin went on to say that the freeware program Irfanview is great and in the discussion that followed it was decided to show this "slicing and dicing" graphics program at the next PC SIG meeting.
I. Offices available
A. The President - basically, the coordinator for the entire club. Appoints
committee chairs and presides over the general meetings.
B. The Vice President - performs the President's duties in his absence.
C. Treasurer - in charge of the financial affairs of the club. He/she pays
the bills.
D. Secretary - in charge of keeping all of the procedural documentation,
e.g., meeting minutes, as well as correspondence with members,
non-members and other clubs.
E. Corporation Agent - in charge of all matters dealing with CUCUG's
corporation status.
II. Candidates
A. Potential candidates should contact the chairman of the Election
Committee prior to the November meeting so that they may coordinate
the forum, etc. Kevin Hisel 217-406-948-1999
B. Nominations will be accepted from the floor at the November meeting.
C. Candidates will be given equal time in a forum to express their views
or present their platforms at the November meeting.
D. The Nominating Committee will verify that anyone nominated is a
member in good standing. Otherwise, they will not be allowed a forum.
E. Candidates' names will be published in the December newsletter.
III. Voting
A. Who can vote
1. Every member in good standing (i.e., dues paid) may vote.
2. Must have and present the current (2000) membership card.
B. Voting at the general meeting in December
1. Secret ballots will be distributed to each member that presents a
valid membership card at the December meeting.
2. The Secretary will prepare the official ballot forms. No candidates'
names will appear on the ballots themselves. Candidates' names and
the offices they seek will be posted at the meeting place by office
and then alphabetically by candidate.
C. Proxy voting
1. If you cannot attend the December meeting, you may request a
special proxy ballot from Kevin Hisel (217-406-948-1999) no later than
December 10, 2001 (the Monday of the week prior to the week of the meeting).
2. Place filled-in ballot in a blank, sealed envelope.
3. Place blank envelope along with your valid membership card in
another envelope.
4. Address this envelope to: CUCUG, 912 Stratford Dr., Champaign, IL
61821, clearly print the word BALLOT on the front and mail it.
5. These proxy votes will be opened and verified only by the Tellers at
the December meeting and counted along with the general ballots.
6. All proxy ballots must be received at the CUCUG post office box
no later than December 20, 2001 (the day of the meeting).
D. Who you may vote for
1. You may vote for anyone. Write-in (non-nominated) votes will be
accepted and counted. The candidate with the most votes for a
particular position wins that position. In the event of a tie, the
Tellers will require a recasting for that position only.
2. To assume office, a candidate must be a member in good standing
both in 2001 and in 2002. If a winning candidate cannot be verified,
the office goes to the next verifiable candidate with the most votes.
If there are no verifiable winners, a second balloting will take place.
Proxy ballots will be counted each time.
IV. Chronology
A. October meeting
1. Announce protocol to general membership.
2. Solicit candidates.
B. November newsletter
1. Re-cap the election protocol.
C. November meeting
1. The membership will appoint a Nominating Committee.
2. Accept nominations from the floor.
3. Nominations will close.
4. Candidates will be given equal time in a forum to express their
views or present their platforms.
D. December newsletter
1. Candidates' names will be published in alphabetical order with the
offices they seek.
E. December meeting
1. Nominated candidates names and the offices they seek will be
posted in alphabetical order.
2. The President will appoint 2 or more Tellers to distribute ballots and
count the votes.
3. Votes will be taken and counted by the Tellers. Winners names will
be announced by the President.
F. January newsletter
1. Winners names will be published.
G. January meeting
1. New club officers will be installed.
ToC
President: (open) Vice-President: Emil Cobb (e-cobb@uiuc.edu) Secretary: Kevin Hopkins (kh2@uiuc.edu) Treasurer: Richard Hall (rjhall1@uiuc.edu) Corporate Agent: Jim Lewis (jlewis@computers4life.com)ToC
Meetings are held the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the Illinois Technology Center. The Center is located at 7101 Tomaras Ave in Savoy. To get to the Illinois Technology Center from Champaign or Urbana, take Neil Street (Rt 45) south. Setting the trip meter in your car to zero at the McDonalds on the corner of Kirby/Florida and Neil in Champaign, you only go 2.4 miles south. Windsor will be at the one mile mark. Curtis will be at the two mile mark. Go past the Paradise Inn/Best Western motel to the next street, Tomaras Ave. on the west (right) side. Tomaras is at the 2.4 mile mark. Turn west (right) on Tomaras Ave. The parking lot entrance is immediately on the south (left) side of Tomaras Ave. Enter the building by the front door under the three flags facing Rt 45. A map can be found on the CUCUG website at http://www.cucug.org/meeting.html . The Illinois Technology Center is also on the web at www.IL-Tech-Ctr.com .
Membership dues for individuals are $20 annually; prorated to $10 at mid year.
Our monthly newsletter, the Status Register, is delivered by email. All recent editions are available on our WWW site. To initiate a user group exchange, just send us your newsletter or contact our editor via email. As a matter of CUCUG policy, an exchange partner will be dropped after three months of no contact.
For further information, please attend the next meeting as our guest, or contact one of our officers (all at area code 217):
President/WinSIG: Jim Lewis 359-1342 jlewis@computers4life.com Vice-President: Emil Cobb 398-0149 e-cobb@uiuc.edu Secretary/Editor: Kevin Hopkins 356-5026 kh2@uiuc.edu Treasurer: Richard Hall 344-8687 rjhall1@uiuc.edu Corporate Agent: Jim Lewis 359-1342 jlewis@computers4life.com Board Advisor: Richard Rollins 469-2616 Webmaster: Kevin Hisel 406-948-1999 khisel @ kevinhisel.com Mac SIG Co-Chair: John Melby 352-3638 jbmelby@home.com Mac SIG Co-Chair: Charles Melby-Thompson 352-3638 charlesmt@home.com
Surf our web site at http://www.cucug.org/