• On BNET: Bill Gates on the iPad
advertisement
September 7, 2004 2:08 AM PDT

mac.column.ted: Mac OS X, UNIX, and the "average" Mac user

by CNET staff

[Also: A word about the iMac G5]

by Ted Landau
September 2004

Apple makes no secret of the fact that "beneath the surface of Mac OS X lies an industrial-strength UNIX foundation." It's touted on an Apple Web page titled, appropriately enough, "Based on UNIX." What is somewhat less clear is exactly what this implies for the typical or average Mac user. By "typical" or "average," I mean the Mac user who is about as interested in delving into UNIX as the average mobile phone user is interested in understanding the "beneath the surface" technologies that allow them to make a call. These are the Mac users who want to use Microsoft Word to write a report or iTunes to download music, without needing to understand much, if anything, about how all of this magic actually happens.

I contend that if these typical Mac users are ever expected or required to work with the UNIX layer of Mac OS X, it represents a failure of the OS. In particular, these Mac users should virtually never be required to launch Terminal (Mac OS X's main window to its UNIX underlayer). Terminal employs a UNIX command-line interface that is the antithesis of what the Mac is all about. Instead of a mouse-driven interface with commands that can be accessed from menus and dialogs, you have to type out all commands. And some commands have so many options that it could take days just to figure out all that a given command can do -- and even longer to remember these options without needing to recheck a manual each time.

Now, none of this would matter if it was never necessary for users to access Terminal unless they wanted to do so. In such a case, to complain about Terminal would be like complaining that the average Mac user could not use most of the software included on the Xcode Tools (Developer) CD. Who cares? It's not intended for the average Mac user.

Given this standard, how does Mac OS X stack up? Overall, very well. I estimate that most Mac users could use a Mac for months (maybe years!) without ever confronting a problem that required Terminal. And this is much more true now than it was when Mac OS X was first released.

There are two major reasons for this welcome evolution:

  • With each Mac OS X revision, Apple has worked to eliminate bugs and quirks that would otherwise require a trip to Terminal to resolve. Apple also continues to add to and improve the Aqua-based utilities that provide alternatives to Terminal, such as Activity Monitor, Network Utility and Printer Setup Utility. The Finder's Get Info windows and Panther's new Authenticate dialog also provide simple interfaces to accomplish tasks that would otherwise require using Terminal.
  • Third-party (primarily shareware and freeware) developers continue to deliver a cornucopia of Aqua-based utilities that provide simple user-friendly interfaces for UNIX-based tasks. Utilities such as FileXaminer, XRay, Cocktail, Xupport, Carbon Copy Cloner, and SharePoints are just some of the more well-known examples.

"But wait a minute," you may be saying at this point, "That typical Mac user you were talking about probably would want to avoid utilities such as Network Utility or SharePoints almost as much as they would want to avoid Terminal." True enough. But if they ever do need to solve a problem that requires changing permissions, for example, it's nice to know that they can do so using the Finder or Mac-like utilities such as FileXaminer, rather than having to master UNIX's chmod command.

Still, it is at this point that I find myself drifting toward another important category of Mac user, the one who would like to do their own troubleshooting, as much as possible, but without having to become a computer "expert." These users have been the main target of the books I have written. It has always been my contention that one of the virtues of the Mac is that even relatively non-technical Mac users could learn to fix almost any software problem with their Mac. All it took was a relatively small collection of basic skills and easy-to-use software. Mac OS X's foundation of UNIX challenges this contention.

For better or worse, and despite the above-mentioned utilities, I believe that effective Mac OS X troubleshooting still requires a familiarity with the basics of UNIX and Terminal. Troubleshooters should at least know the commands for listing and navigating through UNIX directories, as well as deleting and copying files. They should also ideally be familiar with many of the commands that serve as the back end to Mac OS X software. For example, it would be useful to know how to use the ipfw command to expand on the Firewall options available from the Sharing System Preferences pane. Or how to use diskutil to expand on the features available in Disk Utility. The good news is that much of this knowledge can be acquired on a "when you need to know it" basis, and is not nearly as onerous a task as, for example, picking up Mac OS X Unleashed or UNIX Power Tools and trying to master everything contained between their covers. If you want to delve into the depths of UNIX on a Mac, there are certainly benefits to doing so, but you can be an effective Mac OS X troubleshooter without such knowledge.

Despite this overall rosy picture, there are still a few flaws in the canvas. One gripe is that Apple, in its Knowledge Base documents, too often relies on Terminal-based solutions for common problems that even a beginning Mac user might face. Perhaps the most notable example is the procedure Apple describes to change the short name of an account. This is a frequent request (especially from users who did not realize, when they first set up their Mac, that they were choosing a nearly "permanent" name). The procedure to change the name takes 40 steps, some of which involve UNIX's chown command. Come on. Apple can do better than that. Fortunately, my colleague Dan Frakes has provided a better solution: A utility that changes the name in essentially one step. It's what Apple should have done!

Another example is a Knowledge Base article that explains what to do if you "cannot print, use Classic, start file sharing, burn discs, or update software." This is a fairly serious set of symptoms. It turns out the source of all of this trouble is an inadvertently deleted alias (actually a symbolic link, in UNIX-ese) to UNIX's tmp directory. The solution is to create a new link file. Admittedly, most users will never find themselves in this jam, as the symbolic link is normally invisible (and thus difficult to accidentally delete). But if Apple is going to provide a solution, they could do better than telling users to deal with Terminal commands such as ls -la / | grep tmp.

Actually, there are ways to bypass the need for Terminal here: you could use the Finder's Find command to check if the invisible tmp file exists (set the criteria as: Name is tmp, Visibility: invisible items, Kind is alias), and then use a utility such as Cocktail to create the new symbolic link and a utility such as FileXaminer to make it invisible, if needed. But this, too, is a bit awkward. An easier solution would be for Apple to have provided a simple utility to create the missing link. Written in AppleScript, this would have taken hardly any work at all to develop. It's the sort of thing Apple would have been obligated to do for the Classic OS. Now Apple is more willing to use Terminal as a crutch to avoid even the minimal effort needed for such solutions. Apple could still include the Terminal-based solution in its support document, for those who prefer that route, but at least it would not be required.

The most extreme example I have seen of Apple's over-reliance on Terminal was their solution for a situation where you could not get any USB or FireWire devices to work. This symptom first cropped up with some users after updating to Mac OS X 10.3.3. In other words, it could happen to anyone, not just an advanced user mucking around with things they should have better left alone. I won't detail the full extent of Apple's suggested solution, but here is a critical excerpt:

  • Open the Terminal (/Applications/Utilities/).

  • Type: kextstat | grep -v apple

    Some text, or "output," appears.

  • Type this in Terminal, on one line:

    grep -rl {Name from the last section} /System/Library/Extensions

    Instead of "{Name from the last section}," you'd type the text that's before the numbers in parenthesis (in the output).

    For example, substituting com.SuperDuper.driver.HIDDevices for Name from the kextstat output means you'd type:

    grep -rl com.SuperDuper.driver.HIDDevices /System/Library/Extensions

  • What you'll get is an output relevant of .kext files that reside in /System/Library/Extensions, like this:

    /System/Library/Extensions/SuperDuperUSBHIDevices.kext/Contents/Info.plist
    /System/Library/Extensions/SuperDuperUSBHIDevices.kext/Contents/MacOS/SuperDuperUSBHIDevices

    [In case you don't know, here is what these commands are doing: The first typed line results in a search through all of your currently active extensions, displaying the status of those that do not come from Apple (or more accurately those extensions whose "name" does not contain the word "apple"). These are thus files that were installed by third-party software and are the likely candidates for causing the problem. Unfortunately, the output of the command does not include the actual names of these kernel extension (kext) files as found in the Finder. That's what the second command provides.]

    At least one of the identified kext files is the likely culprit. The solution is to remove the culprit from its current location. To do so, you have to do something that Apple generally advises users not to do: remove files from the /System directory. While Apple explains how to do this removal, it only indirectly notes that problems may still remain unless you replace the removed file with an updated one available from the third-party vendor.

  • Whew! If this problem happened to my mother, and she called me for advice, Apple's solution is not what I would want to have to explain -- at least not if I wanted to be off the phone in less than 24 hours. Grep? Kext files? Directly messing with the System folder? Give me a break. Again, Apple should have come up with a small utility that automated all of this. The utility should locate and list all the potentially culprit files after clicking a Check button. You should then be able to select or deselect a checkbox for each kext file, to either remove or return the file from/to its default folder.

    A more global solution would be for Apple to create an extensible utility, perhaps named something like Simple Terminal, that provides commands, selectable via typical Mac OS X menus and dialogs, for all the troubleshooting tasks that would otherwise require using Terminal. Via plug-ins, Apple (or other developers) could expand the utility's repetoire as needed.

    To be fair, Apple eventually provided a better solution to the kext problem: update to Mac OS X 10.3.4. This and later versions of Panther (once they became available) eliminated the symptoms (which is why the above excerpted text is no longer found in the relevant Knowledge Base article). But a similar problem, requiring a Terminal-based solution, could crop up again in a future version of the OS.

    Finally, I have a gripe for which Apple cannot be blamed. This involves those UNIX folk who, failing to recognize the availability of simple Aqua-based solutions, persist in offering Terminal-based solutions instead, even to obviously beginning-level users. Such "helpers" appear to view UNIX as the true Mac OS X, with the Aqua interface as an optional graphical overlay to be accessed only when absolutely necessary. As one example, there was a posting on Apple's own Discussions boards recently that asked how to quit a frozen application when the Finder's Force Quit command does not work. In some cases, it was noted, the only solution is to reboot (because the freeze appears to affect the Finder itself and perhaps all other applications). However, to avoid rebooting and assuming the freeze is limited to just the one application, one respondent suggested launching Terminal and using the ps -aux command to identify the PID (process ID) of the frozen application. Then use the kill command with the PID to quit the process. But wait! Why not instead first give Activity Monitor a try? Select the frozen application from Activity Monitor's list and then select Quit from the Process menu -- a simpler, more Mac-like, and easier to remember solution that effectively does exactly the same thing. Even simpler, in some cases, just force quitting from the Dock works, even when the Finder command does not.

    But I don't want to get too carried away here. Mac OS X's UNIX underpinnings provide numerous well-documented advantages, offering features distinctly lacking in OS 9. And the ability to use Terminal to access those UNIX features provides a more accessible and open window to the OS than ever existed in the Classic Mac OS. If you make the effort to learn how to use Terminal, you will be amply rewarded. Overall, I applaud the way Apple has integrated UNIX into Mac OS X. All I am suggesting is that, for the vast majority of Mac users, Terminal should remain an option, not a requirement.

    A word about the iMac G5

    The design of Apple's new iMac G5 is quite appealing. Harking back a bit to the design of the 20th Anniversary Mac, the entire computer fits into the monitor case. As a troubleshooter, I find one of the iMac's best new design features is its removable back cover. As seen in the photograph below from Apple's iMac site, and confirmed by this Apple Knowledge Base document, you can access (and even replace!) virtually every component of the iMac.

    What a pleasant change from previous iMacs. In those older models, accessing components other than memory and AirPort cards, was not merely difficult -- it was almost impossible for mere mortals to do.

    Removing the iMac G5 back cover also gives you access to a new Mac feature: four diagnostic lights on the main logic board that can "help you to troubleshoot." For example, "LED 1 indicates that trickle voltage from the power supply has been detected. This LED will be ON when the computer is turned off and your power supply is working correctly." Unfortunately, Apple is a bit vague about how you should use these lights. Clearly, they only work when the iMac is plugged in and turned on. However, in instructing you how to remove the cover so you can see these lights, Apple states: "Turn your computer off and disconnect all cables and the power cord from your computer." It never states when it is safe to turn the iMac back on (although I am assuming you do this when all the prior steps have been completed).

    This is the latest in a series of monthly mac.column.ted articles by Ted Landau. To see a list of previous columns, click here. To send comments regarding this column directly to Ted, click here. To get Ted's latest book, Mac OS X Help Line, click here.

    Resources

  • More from Mac Musings
Recent posts from MacFixIt
iTunes 10 user interface sees some minor changes
Apple seeds iOS 4.1 Gold Master to developers
Possible fix for Harman Kardon iSub problems with PowerPC Macs
Precautions to take before installing iTunes 10
A reminder on how to reset your Mac's system password
Mail messages appearing blank
Adobe Lightroom update brings direct Facebook publishing; Camera Raw 6.2 released
Weekly troubleshooting utilities update
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (28 Comments)
by TonyCurtis September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
True.

But it would be nice if someone would make an application to do whatever
you can with Terminal but using menus, buttons and icons. I know there are
applications out there that perform some of such tasks, but I mean all of
them. So it would be like using Terminal, but you never have to type a
command.

Impossible?
Reply to this comment
by Daniel Staal September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by TonyCurtis</i></div></class><br />
Do <em>anything</em> you can do in Terminal? Probably impossible,
and at the very least non-trival. The terminal can run random programs,
using their options, and chain them together... The GUI would be horrible,
even if you figured out a way to handle all the possibilities.

But, do a <em>selected subset</em>, of the most commonly needed
tools, should be fairly easy. You just have to pick which tools you need to
support, and write interfaces to them.
Reply to this comment
by grikdog September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by TonyCurtis</i></div></class><br />
You have to understand the audience <i>Unix</i> is intended for! Most
Unix geeks are comfortable with the command line. Very comfortable. And
most of them write little ad hoc tools that do things like taming
<code>find</code> for specific purposes, such as global search and delete.
It's very true that find's options take hours to grok in sufficient detail that
wisdom emerges. There are other utilities, such as postfix, which is intended
to replace the even more esoteric sendmail, which take literally <i>weeks
</i> to understand. This is what Bash (Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl/Tk, etc.) is for.
In
other words, Unix users are <i>part</i> of the operating sytem, co-opted in
by Unix's fantastic flexibility, and by the elegance of ugly tools like Terminal.
Apple will never conquer Unix with a Midnight Commander-style GUI for
esoterica that are much easier to handle on a command line.
Reply to this comment
by grikdog September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by grikdog</i></div></class><br />
Of course, you can make a strong argument that OS X itself is the gui front
end for Unix. As is KDE. As is Gnome. OS X may be the first contender to
place so much distance between Unix and users, simply because Apple's
infatuation with Unix has lasted so long, since the Lisa. If you look back at
Apple's very first toolkit for developers, you see the beginnings of the
architectures that culminate in OS X.
Reply to this comment
by JKT September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by TonyCurtis</i></div></class><br />
One does have to wonder why Apple haven't developed their own
Maintenance.app which runs commonly used routines that most people would
perform when troubleshooting a problem (e.g. a la Cocktail or OnyX - repair
permissions, clear caches, reset PRAM, etc)? I would have thought it would
have made it far easier for Apple support too - get the end user to run the
Maintenance.app as a starter for solving problems.
Reply to this comment
by boomer0127 September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by JKT</i></div></class><br />
If Apple would just build repairing permissions into the Software Update process it would save me hours of having to reinstall the OS after each security update hoses the machine. I support about 30 users - when Apple sez to do an update well by golly they're gonna do it. "It must be a good thing, it came from Apple!"

At least pop a window/slider/something that says something along the lines of "We strongly recommend you repair your permissions prior to installing this update. If you wish to hose your system, click cancel. Otherwise, click repair permissions."

But Apple might think that this would confuse the non-power users and they would run into the arms of Billy G and Mike Dell. (Not Billy Gibbons).

&lt;BIG sigh&gt;
Reply to this comment
by JScottA44 September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by boomer0127</i></div></class><br />
If you are supporting 30+ uses, then I would suggest that you take over all
updates with ARD2 (Apple Remote Desktop 2). With it you can set up update
routines to repair permissions on each machine and then to run the Software
Update utility. It can even install updates from a package that you download
to your administration machine and thus be much quicker than 30 machines
downloading the patch across the slower internet connection separately.
Reply to this comment
by nate September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by boomer0127</i></div></class><br />
if you have to rebuild machines after a software update, you're not working
efficiently. if you administer 30+ macs and treat them as individual PCs,
you're asking for headaches.

there are lots of different ways to ease administration of multiple macs. if you
haven't already, go to http://www.macosxlabs.org for tips.
Reply to this comment
by 123 September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by boomer0127</i></div></class><br />
I've installed almost every security update, and then pretty much every OS
update (though I usually manage to skip the buggy versions that Apple takes
down). Fixing permissions has never solved any of my problems, and it
shouldn't, ever.

Now, 10.2.8 DID break my keychain, but that was, after lots of chasing
around, fixed with a redo_prebinding.

I have custom permissions (+t on /Applications, stuff is owned by root, go-w,
etc.) and "repairing permissions" is essentially giving unpassworded access to
all admin accounts. I know who I want to be able to write to /Applications.
root (of course, I could make a "root" group, with absolutely no other users,
so it won't bug me).

I may be a minority when I say "I've never had to fix permissions", but you
never should have to. Why should permissions change on their own? Is there
some permissions leprechaun that snoops around and tweaks them? Is there
an app that changes things it shouldn't? Fix the real problem.

And then, if there's a permissions problem, apps should outright tell you
("error! could not write to &lt;filename&gt;"), instead of failing. That's one problem
with OSX's reliance on a GUI, and then, a little bad programming. When I write
quick-and-dirty apps to test things, I assume things won't fail. But when I
write apps I plan to use on a regular basis, I check if things fail, and do the
right thing if they do (namely, print an error message so I can figure out what
went wrong).

In fact, this "general maintainence" is windows-like. Scandisk. Defrag. Reboot.
Fixer of all problems. Computers shouldn't need much maintainence. And
when they do, we should try to figure out what went wrong, instead of crying
"repair permissions all the time!"
Reply to this comment
by mwalker--2008 September 7, 2004 4:44 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by TonyCurtis</i></div></class><br />
Automater might help here. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/
automator.html).
Reply to this comment
by m.diaz1 September 7, 2004 11:46 AM PDT
How true!!! I have been using Mac OS X since it first came out I now use
10.3.5 and have never used the Terminal, frankly I have not needed to do so
and also I am afraid to do so. I consider myself fairly Mac competent. I am on
my fourth Mac.
Reply to this comment
by shane--2008 September 7, 2004 11:46 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by m.diaz1</i></div></class><br />
i came to OS X from linux, and i have no problem using the terminal, but
frankly, even then, i have very little reason to. and i agree with the article, as
little terminal access as i need, less would be better.
Reply to this comment
by Lou Zer September 7, 2004 11:47 AM PDT
I can't say I agree with this paragraph:
<i>
For better or worse, and despite the above-mentioned utilities, I believe that effective Mac OS X troubleshooting still requires a familiarity with the basics of UNIX and Terminal. Troubleshooters should at least know the commands for listing and navigating through UNIX directories, as well as deleting and copying files. They should also ideally be familiar with many of the commands that serve as the back end to Mac OS X software... </i>

First, to go this far basically means you'll need to become a Unix expert in order to do any troubleshooting.

Second, I can't fathom a reason why a would-be trouble-shooter would want to or need to spend time learning the commands and options for the back-end software. That seems more likely for someone who's a tinkerer/player/administrator than a standard trouble-shooter. Even so-called simple tasks as deleting and copying files can be more than simplistic. Does the file have resource forks? Will using rm remove them? What function does one need to copy files with resource forks, or OS X packages?

Of course, I guess I've been lucky. I've been using OS X since 10.1 on my Beige G3 and iBook, and the only time I've HAD to go to the terminal (that I recall) was to install the software for my Beige G3's G4 upgrade card. Then again, I've never had an update fry my OS, or have screwed up permissions, or whacked out inabilities to boot into Classic. Some of us are lucky, I guess...
Reply to this comment
by FrankH2000 September 7, 2004 11:47 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by Lou Zer</i></div></class><br />
Wherever I show up in a MS-Windows dominated environment with my PB-G4
people tend to ask why I use a Mac. My only answer is that I don't want to
know how an operating systems works when I want to write an email.

I am not fanatic about OS X or maybe I am just too much "non-technical" ...
but compared to my WinXP desktop PC at home ... after more than a year of
using my Mac I just hate to type "regedit" or "cmd" in order to troubleshoot
my windows system.

Very often people working next to me tell me they'd like to have a Mac as a
corporate standard because they feel that I am just perfectly happy with OS X
and it's not very often that I complain.

I hope that Apple keeps the current high level of robustness of their OS and I
will never launch "Terminal" on my system ;-)
Reply to this comment
by Lou Zer September 7, 2004 11:47 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by FrankH2000</i></div></class><br />
Wow, what a coincidence. I spent an hour today trying to figure out why a co-
worker's internet was acting so slow on her XP box. Found out it was because
there was no folder selected (supposedly, the registry begged to differ) for
the temp internet files. Had to boot into Safe mode with terminal to delete the
stupid thing (after un-hiding it; nothing like using the good ol' attrib
command, you know). Oddly enough, all users on the machine had the
problem...
Reply to this comment
by bernarda September 7, 2004 11:47 AM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by Lou Zer</i></div></class><br />
Like Mac OS X, you cannot do everything in one single interface, nor would it
work for most users when you need to delve into so many relationships at
once, such then I would expect that Ted could not tell you his complete
opinion in one single paragraph.

You've reinforced his argument.
Reply to this comment
by Aryugaetu September 7, 2004 12:46 PM PDT
Initially, the all-in-one iMac had a CRT, and mucking about on the inside
could be deadly even with the power removed as the high voltage power
supply to the CRT (10,000+ volts) as well as the CRT itself can hold that high
charge for a very long time. (and old CRT in the junkyard CAN kill you if you
do not short ALL of the leads to ground first).

With the latest G4 flat panel iMac (on which I am typing this), they should
have made the components more accessible, but perhaps the revolutionary
design prevented this to be easily done. In design, some sacrifices must be
made, and people were already accustomed to the iMac being tightly
buttoned up.

I am very glad to see that Apple could produce such as innovative design for
the G5 iMac and also make it more user accessible.

My biggest gripe is that everyone needs to be aware (definitely Apple's
marketing department's fault!) that the G5 in the lowly home computer called
iMac is a full 64-bit processor, as is the rest of the G5 chipset design that the
iMac utilizes. It is primed and ready for the next decade(s) of computing
industry's future. More 64-bit software is all it needs.

As a comparison (I tried. I really did try hard), but the closest I could get to
the 17", 1.8 Ghz, G5 (64-bit CPU) iMac Specs was a Dell Precision Workstation
470 with a 17" LCD monitor for $2,083. A similar iMac would be $1,574. I
had to add extra memory to the iMac to make them equal.

Not only is the iMac $500 less, but it is also 23.5 lbs less (18.5 lbs vs 42 lbs,
not including the weight of the Dell 17" monitor). But, to be fair, the added
weight of the Dell may be in part due to a larger power supply to handle extra
PCI cards... but NOT 23 extra pounds worth though.

Initially, the Dell seems to be faster at 3.0 Ghz Xenon vs iMac 1.8 Ghz G5, but
if you surf around the web, you'll find out that the benchmarks are very close
to each other regardless of clock speeds. This is due in part to the G5 being
capable of performing many more simultaneous instructions per cycle.

In short, Apple fails to inform the general population that the iMac is powered
by a CPU that the PC world thinks of as a Server or Workstation class
processor. Imagine completely tossing out all of the Pentium 4 based
computers and using just the Xenon Workstations as home computers. Now,
reduce their weight by half and place them in a thin case attached to the back
of a high quality LCD monitor. THIS is what Apple had done... and no one
noticed this huge leap in home desktop power and price.

The new iMac ain't nothin' like the other computers at Best buy. Go shopping
for Xenon-based computers, and then you'll be in the G5 iMac league.

Apple hit a huge home run out of the park, and no one noticed.
Reply to this comment
by King_TJ September 7, 2004 12:46 PM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by Aryugaetu</i></div></class><br />
Don't get me wrong... I think the new iMac is a BIG improvement, technology-wise, over what they offered people previously in that product line.

But reading your comment, I have to say "Woah... that's a little over the top there!" For starters, most PC users who do buy a Xeon largely do so because of the multiprocessor capabilities. (A standard Pentium 4 CPU doesn't support more than one CPU on a motherboard, so you're "locked in" to the Xeon instead, if you need multiprocessing ability. Well, that or going with something from AMD - which is another option, but one that some corporate types won't accept right now.) The Xeon was never really providing people big/noticeable performance improvements over a similar clock speed Pentium 4. The only area it seemed to be well optimized for (compared to a standard P4) was in database server type applications. Since an iMac physically can't accept more than one G5 CPU inside (and isn't likely being bought to run a big SQL database server on!), you can go back to comparing it to desktop P4 systems - not Xeons.

(I do think the Xeon comparison holds much more validity when you're talking PowerMacs though.)

When you're talking "standard issue Pentium 4 desktop" vs. new iMac G5, I think it all really just comes down to what your personal preferences are. (EG. Do you want an elegant system that's all integrated, or do you prefer some tower you can throw on the floor, and have your choice of monitor displays? Do you run specialized applications that require MS Windows? Are you a big "gamer"? Is your primarily goal getting basics done like typing letters and answering email as inexpensively as possible, or do you believe more in the "you get what you pay for" philosophy, and you're willing to spend a little more?)
Reply to this comment
by Lou Zer September 7, 2004 12:46 PM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by Aryugaetu</i></div></class><br />
Sorry, got to disagree with you. 64-bit computing is basically a workstation
and server market. Its all about memory addressing (and perhaps some high-
end number handling/crunching. There is nothing an everyday user is going
to do on their computer that's going to benefit from a 64-bit processor, and I
think Apple knows it. 64-bits doesn't make things faster, it doesn't make
things better. In most cases, it lets you access more than 4GB of memory.
(Depending on register sizes and such, it may let you more easily do large-
number mathematics). That's it.

BTW, if they did promote this, Apple would get slammed by the PC press for
spreading FUD (which it would be), and probably get their ads pulled in
Britain for saying things that aren't necessarily true.
Reply to this comment
by Aryugaetu September 7, 2004 12:47 PM PDT
<class="merchant"><span>&#62;&#62;</span><div class="datestamp"><i>This is a reply to a previous comment by Lou Zer</i></div></class><br />
"There is nothing an everyday user is going to do on their computer that's
going to benefit from a 64-bit processor, and I think Apple knows it. 64-bits
doesn't make things faster, it doesn't make things better."

I am saddened to read that some Mac users are so shortsighted. As an
electronics technology engineer, I am very well aware of the incredible
differences between 32-bit and 64-bit processors. Given the same speed, do
you really think a 32-bit computer can only do 4 times as much as an 8-bit
computer (Apple IIe)? 64-bit is twice 32-bit as 1,000,000 is merely twice the
size of 1,000, if you only count digits. 64-bit processing can make things
that seem impossible on a 32-bit computer become a reality. Good examples
of this are speech and handwriting recognition as well as better artificial
intelligence. These mathematically intensive comparative analyses would
provide a whole new level of user interface, and 64-bit processing brings
them a major leap closer to being reality. There is much more to better and
faster computing than merely clock speed and teraflops.

The problem today is the woeful use of these processors. It doesn't take 64-
bit CPUs to be able to link them as coprocessors. But, currently, that seems to
be their primary function; a way to cheaply and quickly overstep Ghz barriers.
What they are doing today is just running 32-bit code faster and not doing
what they are really designed for.

The interface and uses of the computers today will be nothing like what they
will be doing in 20 years, and the ONLY way to make computers more
intuitive and user-friendly is by removing the keyboard and mouse. This IS
possible, in fact it is very likely, but it will take innovative algorithms coupled
with serious number-crunching abilities, as well as a staff of designers with
much better foresight and imagination than the naysayers commenting here.

Just as I am amazed by my grandfather's ability to "chat" with someone in
England via Morse Code as easily as I do on an internet chat room. In turn,
your grandkids will ask you how you were able to get anything accomplished
by tapping on a confusing array of 128 keys and being forced to "click here,
then click there, then click here, then click there...". They have spent their
whole life using a simple earphone/microphone that is in constant contact
with their computer regardless where they are and acts as their intelligent
secretary. "Send my current Photoshop project from work to this location and
play my 'Quiet time' playlist on the audio system here. Defer all phone calls
from people not in my addressbook to voicemail. Contact Mike and Judy and
ask if they are busy. If they are, send them the concert tickets I bought
yesterday along with a map from their place to the theater, and tell them I'll
meet them in the lobby." No keyboard. No mouse.

"Star Trek". "Jetsons". Whatever analogy you want to use for technological
dreams, we are much closer to them being a reality.

How do I know this?
I, and my small staff, are currently using Mac G5s to create better AI, both,
understanding and speaking. This is not merely language but also complete
comprehension. To simplify the project and its various components, we
isolated out the speech recognition interface and have just the AI being
tested. To do this we currently have a single Mac (using our most recent
version) "chatting" on 5 various chat rooms simultaneously, each with
distinctly different personalities. It reads the text being typed by others and
responds appropriately. In most replies, we must "dumb down" the response
time to emulate thinking and typing delays. This is much closer to real human
interaction than anything like the early days of the "Elisa" programs. Our AI is
constantly learning and adapting to the people in the conversation. None of
this would be possible using 32-bit code. Although the program coding itself
is rather small, it requires the complex interaction of thousands of variables
to produce a single sentence in a reasonable conversation. But, it does get a
bit disheartening when all of this time and effort results in a "frustrated"
computer responding "Bite me!" [a real computer-generated reply in a real
Yahoo chat room]. Our goal is to produce an adaptive computer user interface
and completely replace the keyboard and mouse. We are very close.

So, for those that believe ""There is nothing an everyday user is going to do
on their computer that's going to benefit from a 64-bit processor... it doesn't
make things better", please, don't bother applying to any innovative company
such as ours. We need dreamers, not followers.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (28 Comments)
advertisement

About MacFixIt

MacFixIt is CNET's troubleshooting resource for all things Mac. The information here helps you navigate the ins-and-outs of Mac ownership with how-tos, troubleshooting information, news, reviews, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader