http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/index
This website preserves and showcases Graphical User Interfaces, with a featured interface of the day, featured component, and featured icon. News, a featured site, and contact information round out the home page. This is a good way to compare the look, if not the feel, of different OS without having to install them on disk partitions, and should find a place in many teachers' toolbox.
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
I had not realized what a spectator sport unsuccessfully predicting the demise of Apple Computers has become. This site provides links to over 30 such pronouncements over the years [or a bit more than 1/year of Apple existence], along with commentaries.
Of course, probably by blogging this site, I have ensured that Apple will go belly-up tomorrow.....
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114418,tk,dn012304X,00.asp
Weaning oneself off Windows and migrating to another operating system [Linux, in the case of the indexed URL] is not something to be contemplated by the technologically faint of heart. Face it, people don't want to have to learn something different, even if in the end, it is also better. The problems and rewards are discussed here, and could serve as a source for internal position papers for organizations who would rather switch than fight.
For a more in-depth look at migrations, check out this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20040329/index.html
which promises to be the first in a multipart series, and which provides checklists for use during actual migrations.
IBM has already provided a 9-part roadmap to moving from Windows to Linux:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-roadmap.html
A similar take on OS X [made more similar, of course, by the BSD-UNIX roots of the latter operating system] can be found here:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114464,tk,wb020204x,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1540556,00.asp
The Apple Filing Protocol used in the 'Panther' version of OS X was revealed to have a security weakness allowing a malefactor to steal passwords or data. I have remarked before about Mac enthusiasts chortling about their relative immunity to vulnerabilities. Once again, we see that no operating system is perfect [even though a variety of circumstances may make OS X less vulnerable, the difference is one of degree and not of kind.] The indexed article discusses the problem at some length.
http://www.nwfusion.com/best/2004/0223os.html?fsrc=rss-microsoft
Benchmarking and comparative testing are one of the most hotly disputed topics in IT -- it have been ever thus. The authors of the indexed article effectively admit that in their introduction, which pittedWindows Server 2003 against Novell NetWare, Red Hat Linux, Apple's OS X, and SUsE Linux. The result found that Server 2003 was the best performer.
Naturally, this result will be disputed by all the losing parties, often quite vigorously. It is, however, an interesting case study to assign to students, since they should read the report, look for any evidence of bias, and be able to give some estimate of how reliable the reported outcome really is.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/oshistory/
The history of an operating system can be an interesting subject of itself, and the histories of Linux and Windows are fairly well publicized. Apple, being Apple, is a little different, so here is an excellent and thorough discussion of Apple OS development, up to and including OS X.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2004/tc20040225_7351_tc056.htm
No matter how successful it has been on the desktop [and the available evidence suggests that the success is really a matter of addressing niche markets effectively], Apple Computers has never been able to make major inroads into the server space. This in spite of the fact that there has been a strong corporate intitiative to raise Apple's presence in the server room, that the latest Apple servers are quite cost-competitive, and that in OS/X Apple has produced an extremely robust and attractive OS.
This article reviews Apple's history in its attempt to penetrate the server market discussing what has worked and what has not, and what Apple has to do in the future to have a chance of success. Without penetration into the server workspace, Apple educational programs can never gain much traction in the applied IT area.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=3877&t=marketing&nl=y
As a company, Apple Computers has much more impact than its miniscule market share (< 5%) would seem to justify. This inerview article with a Harvard business school professor explains why [Apple is excellent at industrial design, which is hard to do, and devotes significantly greater percentages of its budget to R&D]. It aslo explains why Apple has failed to grow as a company -- even when 'successful' after the return of Steve Jobs, it has declined in market share.
The Steve Jobs model is BMW pricing in a market which may not support it. How viable this is depends on how valuable what BMW delivers is [as a BMW driver, I can state without fail that no other car in its price range or below it delivers the driving experience a BMW does, and I value this sufficiently to pay the premium on a BMW as opposed to some other brand]. It is less clear that Apple has this sort of advantage, although ease of use, lack of problems, and relative immunity from viruses are all elements in Apple's favour. But ultimately, both BMW and non-BMW drivers have the same roads available, whereas even with OS X, the Apple user's software choice is limited.
The article discusses several alternatives Apple can follow, and is interesting as a teaching business case as well as a technology discussion.
One of the common responses to a lack of discussion of Macintosh issues is the response that Macs are so easy to use and so reliable that the sorts of complex trouble-shooting which are such a feature of the IBM PC world simply are not needed. This site might persuade you that the truth, while out there, is not quite so starkly black and white.
And if that does not convince you, perhaps this will:
Actually, given the minority status of Macintosh systems, and the fact that they tend to be concentrated in professional niches, having some trouble-shooting sources is in fact quite valuable for any organization teaching about them.
While I mention Apple issues in this blog from time to time, nobody has stepped froward to donate the dual-processor G5 system with 23" Cinema display that I need to get hands-on experience, so Apples don't get much sauce from me. This URL indexes a blog which takes many bites at the Apple universe pie.
Like any good blog, it offers recommended readings, sources, and software links.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/
A detailed look at the Macintosh OS X, covering its history, architecture, and features. Programming for the OS and a discussion of the available software running under the OS are covered, and other sections discuss what's good about the OS and hacking tools available for working with it.
Certainly worth looking at as an independent [and positive] description of what's up with this OS.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/12/16/cx_el_1217macmoments.html
While it is hard to believe that 20 years have passed since the introduction of the first Apple Macintosh [where does the time go?], I can well remember the first Mac's introduction and thinking "that's about half the computer I want for about twice the price" -- this at a time when the same capability for IBM clones was nowhere in sight. Alas, my initial though remained true for those 20 years too -- it always seems like Apples cost more than I want to pay for the performance I am getting -- when I look at the current Apple of my eye, the dual-processor G5 with the 23" Cinema display, I am facing a charge of some $6,000 when to buy the equivalent IBM machine would cost me about half that [apart from the display], and a much more muscular system would be the result for $6,000.
On the other hand, to be able to compute without driver issues, without crashes, without being able to go to MicroCenter and spending all my money on doodads which then stay safely packed away in their boxes because I never have time to install them, and without the same degree of attack through InterNet connections, well that has to be worth something. Still, however much I review the issue, I doubt there is a Mac in my future -- but desktop Linux looks very possible indeed.
At any rate, and to the point, the URL indexes a set of articles on the 20th anniversary of the Macintosh, and recounts key moments in the life of this technology and that of its parent company.
Here is another retrospective on the Macintosh's birthday:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114418,tk,dn012304X,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1408953,00.asp
An article taking a gleeful chortle over the revelation of a serious security vulnerability [which would allow a Mac system to be taken over remotely] in the Macintosh OS/X Jaguar/Panther release. Mac enthisasts have been echoed by remote observers like yours truly in the assumption that the reduced vulnerablity of Macintosh systems could justify their higher purchase price.
Say it ain't so, Steve! Well, in fact, there is somewhat less to this, I think, than flashes on the screen. It may well be that protection through minority status has resulted in this flaw not being exploited as yet, but I consider it a completely valid assumption that OS/X, with its UNIX roots, is inherently less susceptible to security flaws, and the degree of OS implementation has little to do with this. This is not the same as saying the OS has no flaws, just fewer flaws, and a better way of reducing such exploits when and as they happen.
But never let it be said I was hostile to exposing opinions which differ from mine, no matter how wrong they might be....
A blog which serves as an OS tweaking site with help on a wide variety of operating systems, plus some resources for imaging and Visual Basic. Searchable with news articles and downloads. Well laid-out, with an interesting block showing the IP address you are using to contact the site, the browser being used, and what language is set in the browser.
The range of Ziff-Davis/EWeek topic centers is certainly comprehensive, and each features news, reviews, opinions, and analysis, in the following categories:
Database http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3850-1
Desktop http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3853-1
Developer & Web Services http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3856-1
Enterprise Applications http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3859-1
Linux and Open Source http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3862-1
Macintosh http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3865-1
Messaging & Collaboration http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3868-1
Mobile Devices http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3871-1
Networking http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3874-1
Security http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3877-1
Storage http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3880-1
Windows http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3883-1
Wireless http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-95-1-1-618817-3886-1
With this cornucopia, there should be little reason for an assignment or a research paper to lack content.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20031105S0011
The Virginia Tech supercomputer based on 1,100 Apple MacIntosh G5 linked systems, mentioned previously, bids fair to become the fourth most powerful supercomputer in the world, at a cost of 2% of the world's fastest [which can handle about twice the processing load]. What is interesting in this article is that the university plans to release a "kit" so others can produce their own supercomputer.
With a sticker price of some $5.2 million, you should start saving your pennies now....
A rather glowing description of the power and additional security capabilities offered by the new Apple Macintosh OS X version called "Panther". There is no doubt this is an impressive OS release, although there is some doubt that continually sticking out its metaphorical chest of virus immunity is a good thing -- I would think that some of the top virus writers would consider this a bit of a thrown gauntlet.
The OS is attractive, the proprietary nature of the hardware is not [although I do concede it also has advantages in terms of simplicity for users]. If some really in-depth true ROI costing were to be done here, the results would be most interesting for both organizational and individual users, although the practical barriers to producing such an analysis in a vendor-nneutral and credible manner are so immense as to virtually preclude it.
A number of links to sources, resources, and additional articles are also provided.
A site article which is continually updated [available as a downloadable .PDF file as well] comparing Windows XP against Apple's OS/X. While the author admits that the criteria weights are not pellucidly watertight, they do give readers some insight into what works with each operating system, and what does not. The overall score puts OS/X into a solid lead.
Now if the hardware was not so blamed expensive....
http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd1/cts?d=75-85-1-1-618817-3487-1
A 'special report' on the 'Panther' version of Apples OS/X, covering developer issues, its potential for enterprise use, patches, security, and the overall quality of this release [which is regarded as being high].
http://www.newsforge.com/os/03/10/30/0537250.shtml
Article on the 'Panther' upgrade of the Apple OS/X, describing its features and comparing it with Linux. Appended commentary gives some other information and opinion about this latest OS upgrade.
http://businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc20031029_8670_tc056.htm
Article evaluating the latest ['Panther'] upgrade of the MAC OS/X, suggesting that the new version's ease of use and additional speed make it worth the asking price. Most interesting is the fact that the upgrade is incremental -- it is not like having to relearn the OS basics, in the way one often has to do when confronted with a Microsoft upgrade.
http://www.computing.vt.edu/research_computing/terascale/
An entire Web site section devoted to the Terascale Cluster Project at Virginia Tech university, which is using 1,100 G5 Macintosh computers to provide a supercomputer at a bargain basement price. The site includes a discussion forum for sharing thoughts and critiques, and provides a good learning example of large-scale clustering.
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,112749,00.asp
Article which explores several important aspects of 64-bitness, including which hardware systems are ready, which operating systems are ready, the limited state of play with available applications, and what the future is likely to bring. What struck me so forceably is the reminder that it took 15 years between the introduction of the first 32-bit capable Intel processor and the rollout of a 32-bit operating system.
A number of factors suggests the delay in moving to 64-bits will be much less, and just like the 386 chips, the overall performance of the 64-bit chip even on 32-bit software may be sufficiently attractive in itself to guarantee it a market.
The other item worth remark in this article -- in a [admittedly crude] faceoff between Athlon-64s using the FX technology [the high end Athlon] and the Apple G5, the Athlon-64 boxes wielded a tin of the proverbial substance on most tests, and were 10% cheaper to boot.
http://www.theregister.com/content/56/33226.html
A common riposte to the continuint vulnerability of Windows to viruses is the claim that if other OS represented the same sized "target" as Windows, they too would be infested. This article suggests otherwise: the basic structure of OS X and Linux help make them more resistant to viruses from the get-go. There is considerable resonance, mentioned here, with the "monoculture" problem, which does not exist for either of these other OS.
If true, then this is another cost factor which needs to be evaluated when looking at the practicality of replacing Windows in an organization.
The main article referenced is about the problems, perils, and pleasures of using a Macintosh computer in an PC-networked workplace, and is interesting enough, but the added commentary to the article takes it into whole other dimension of what is possible and reasonable on a network. Oddly enough, I strongly suspect if Apple were to dump their hardware exclusivity so as to make their prices "competitive", I think they would face a window of opportunity for replacing the faltering Wintel standard. As it is, they stand to reap the worst of both worlds -- never gaining critical mass, and eventually being hammered under.
Still, even at their rather jaw-dropping prices, the 17" Powerbook and the dual processor G5 [with the inevitable 23" Cinema display] are extremely attractive machines in their own right. In fact I would happily accept donations of slightly used ones, or the equivalent of in-store credit....
http://www.knowledgestorm.com/info/user_newsletter/092003_APPLE/article_4.jsp
The reason why we don't teach about Apple products in IT is straightforward: Macs are so simple you don't need to teach people how to use/service them. However true this bit of folk wisdom may be, there are solid reasons to consider a Mac, and it may even be cost effective.
A quick overview of the niceness of the G5 is here:
http://www.knowledgestorm.com/info/user_newsletter/092003_APPLE/article_2.jsp
and the degree to which Apple has made advances in the server market are here:
http://www.knowledgestorm.com/info/user_newsletter/092003_APPLE/article_3.jsp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274182,00.asp
A comprehensive review of the new Apple Power Mac G5, equipped with dual 2 GHz procesors, 2GB RAM, and a 160GB hard drive, all of which drive the price up from the merely unsettling to the positively deterring, if you are an individual buyer. The article suggests that the G5 delivers on its promises, and is quite competitve in performance and price with Wintel machines configured around the same price point.
Although I would like a hardware RAID SCSI array for a machine of this price and quality....
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2003/tc20030820_5175_tc056.htm
Discontent in Apple-land brews over the fact that the new G5 processor is only available in desktop machines. This article explains that the G5 is a smokin' CPU -- literally, and puts out too much heat for use in laptops. Cooler heads and chips will prevail.
The revelation of the fact that it takes 9 cooling fans to keep a G5 from emulating Mount Etna makes me wonder: what sort of warning do you get when a fan is failing or actually fails?
Using your PC as a space heater might be a benefit Apple could tout in colder climes.....
http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5064990.html
Because they are so easy to use and service that there is no market for teaching people about them, Apple computers aren't much mentioned in this blog. But the announcement of the new G5, along with an explanation of how the Mac OS/X can act in an evolutionary manner to bridge between 32- and 64-bit CPUs, mandates some mention here.
On a pure price basis Apple systems are not competitive with Wintel boxes, but this adaptability to the 64-bit environment may give them an additional leg up. Certainly if someone was to buy a twin CPU G5 with a 23" Cinema display for whatever reason, I would gratefully accept it!
I am not, however, holding my breath.....
AMD and Intel Ship 64-bit Chips: http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd/cts?d=75-28-1-1-618817-1171-1
Red Hat, Dell and Others Support Intel's 64-bit Madison: http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd/cts?d=75-28-1-1-618817-1171-1
Does the G5 Really Matter: http://eletters.wnn.ziffdavis.com/zd/cts?d=75-28-1-1-618817-1174-1
The whole bandwagon towards 64-bit computing seems to have sprouted afterburners. In part this results from the ease with which Linux/UNIX variants can support 64-bit processors [they've been doing it for years], and Apple's venture results from the fact that OS X has BSD UNIX roots. Given all that, Intel simply could not afford to hold back from the fray, and the more progress and support that is given to hardware and software developments relating to this, the sooner we all will have supercomputers on our desktops.
Then the question to answer will be: "What do we need these for?" -- which, when you think about it, is really a pleasant position in which to be.
A neatly arranged searchable message board site covering tips for Windows, Linux, and Apple OS, plus miscellaneous issues. Comprehensive with archives, downloads, FAQ, fora, news with archive, a glossary, reviews, surveys, tips, and web links, this looks to be a useful site for a wide variety of computer users.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1134825,00.asp
With its announcement of 64-bit hardware [easily compatible with the BSD-based OS X], 64-bit computing has moved from mainframe status to a technology which anyone can use [because Apples, of course, are so easy to use that there are no training courses needed for them...]. The dual pinch here is on Windows and Intel, which have 64-bit versions, but with upgrade paths much less attractive than with AMD's OPTERON on the hardware side or with Linux on the software side.
When we first got 32-bit computing on the desktop a bit less than a decade ago, it looked remarkbly like hardware all dressed up with nowhere to go -- and now it is simply essential. The same, no doubt, will ensue with 64-bit hardware, with results impossible to forecast now.