Mac OS X v10.2 Jaguar

Apple products and Mac operating systems. Including discussions on Virtual PC for Mac, Parallels Desktop for Mac, all Apple hardware and everything relating to Apple and Mac!
(MacCentre701)

Moderator: Mandrake

Mac OS X v10.2 Jaguar

Postby Antony » Thu 22 Aug, 2002 10:08 pm

http://www.apple.com/events/instore/

Starts Friday night, 23rd August, at 10:20 pm, sharp (US time).

DJGM? hansh?
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14930
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby DJGM » Fri 30 Aug, 2002 1:03 am

Can't afford it. I'm sticking with Mac OS X 10.1.5 for now.
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Al » Fri 27 Dec, 2002 10:51 pm

I still like Mac OS 9.2.1
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)
User of Firefox :ff: 3.0 on Windows XP
User avatar
Al
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri 20 Dec, 2002 1:08 pm

The Mac os

Postby jfry1985 » Sat 28 Dec, 2002 1:52 pm

Macs suck....... doesn't matter what OS you use :twisted:
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
jfry1985
new member
new member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat 28 Dec, 2002 1:50 pm
Location: Northwood, ohio

Postby DJGM » Sat 28 Dec, 2002 2:26 pm

Have you ever actually used a Macintosh computer ?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Shark Daddy » Sat 28 Dec, 2002 4:22 pm

We need to have a little OS war thread. As far as I'm concerned, MacOS is the AOL 8 of OSs. Add that to the inarguable fat that Apple hardware is vastly inferior to PC hardware, the choice is simple for the power user. :twisted:
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 Phoenix/0.5
Shark Daddy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 11:19 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby DJGM » Sat 28 Dec, 2002 5:14 pm

Shark Daddy wrote:Add that to the inarguable fat that Apple hardware
is vastly inferior to PC hardware, the choice is
simple for the power user . . .



No, you're very wrong. The PowerPC G4 processor, quite simply kicks the arse
of your average Intel Pentium CPU thanks to the inbuilt "velocity engine" . . .

Taken from http://apple.com/imac/processor/ . . .
The Velocity Engine:
Behind the PowerPC G4’s unparalleled performance is its aptly
named Velocity Engine. The Velocity Engine processes data in
huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit
chunks used in traditional processors. The PowerPC G4
with the Velocity Engine can perform complex calculations
two to four times faster than processors found in run-of-the-
mill PCs. The PowerPC G4 processor works with the PowerPC
architecture to accelerate the data-intensive processing required
by next-generation video, voice and graphics applications. These
processing advantages give the PowerPC G4 a significant edge
when it comes to digital video, music, graphics and 3D games.



Effectively, (and inarguably) a PPC G4 processor can run two
to four times than an equivalent Mhz speed Pentium processor.
The only thing that makes Mac hardware less attractive, is that
it costs more. Aside from that, and the speed comparisons, if it
were down to looks alone, Apple computers win hands down!

Now, if I could afford to buy a PowerMac G4, or a flatscreen iMac
then I'd dump this PC quicker than you can say Windows Update!
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Josh » Sun 19 Jan, 2003 10:50 pm

DJGM wrote:Can't afford it. I'm sticking with Mac OS X 10.1.5 for now.


Have you thought of getting 10.2 off of ebay or ordering it from America? The exchange rate is pretty good. Apple.com sells 10.2 for $129.00, which is about £80.13 now.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
Josh
SD701 Moderator
User of Safari 4.0.3 on :tiger:
User avatar
Josh
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Fri 21 Jun, 2002 11:04 am

Postby DJGM » Mon 20 Jan, 2003 1:21 am

I would probably buy it from the Apple Store (US), as you suggest, but only
if I had a credit card, which unfortunately, I don't. As for eBay, I regularly
look on eBay.co.uk, for any decent priced copies of Mac OS X 10.2, but
they're usually out of my price range before the auctions end . . .
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Antony » Mon 20 Jan, 2003 7:34 am

DJGM,
I now start to wonder if your iMac can handle the latest Jaguar.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14930
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby DJGM » Mon 20 Jan, 2003 10:35 am

Well, previous incarnations of Mac OS X have the same system requirements
as the "Jaguar" version. My iMac runs Mac OS X satisfactorily, albeit a little
slow, it's not too slow to be a pain to use. Essentially, Mac OS X 10.2 is
not much more than an incremental update to Mac OS X 10.1.5, with
a bunch of new features and bugfixes. I think Apple do have a bit
of a nerve, charging full whack for this effectively minor update.

Having said that, I will be getting "Jaguar" as soon as I can . . .
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Edward » Mon 20 Jan, 2003 11:57 am

I cannot remember which web site I read this on, but someone had mentioned that OS X is based on one of the Unix/Linux flavors, and the person asked since this was the case, why couldn't OS X be ported over to the x86 platform.

Something like this makes sense, and it could be a strong competitor to Windows.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
SillyDog701 Moderator
debian - SeaMonkey - Sylpheed - Opera
User avatar
Edward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun 01 Dec, 2002 7:15 pm

Postby DJGM » Mon 20 Jan, 2003 12:48 pm

Mac OS X is built on the FreeBSD variant of Unix.

Apple certainly won't port any part of Mac OS X to x86 PC's anytime soon,
even though technically, they could. If they did, there'd be no reason for
anyone to buy Apple Computers, and Apple would lose a lot of money.

IMO, it's too big a risk for Apple to take, and I'm pretty sure they want
to keep their proprietary "Aqua" eye candy GUI, to their own hardware.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Edward » Mon 20 Jan, 2003 1:30 pm

DJGM wrote:Apple certainly won't port any part of Mac OS X to x86 PC's anytime soon, even though technically, they could. If they did, there'd be no reason for anyone to buy Apple Computers, and Apple would lose a lot of money.


This was exactly my thinking. Hardware sales would drop to almost nothing.

I recall a few years back, there had been at least one Mac clone on the market, it looked just like a PC, but with the Mac OS version available at the time.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
SillyDog701 Moderator
debian - SeaMonkey - Sylpheed - Opera
User avatar
Edward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun 01 Dec, 2002 7:15 pm


Return to Mac OS and Apple

Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]