OS X More Efficient than Linux, Snow Leopard and PowerPC Macs, and Eudora Woes

• Mac OS X vs. Linux
• Snow Leopard and PowerPC Macs
• Eudora Woes

Mac OS X vs. Linux

From Jeffrey in response to Apple Could Buy Dell, and Linux Is No Threat to Mac OS X:

Charles,

It is my impression that there are two approaches to the ultra portable computer: those who emphasize high capability that's highly portable, and those who emphasize a highly portable cordless companion to their desktop Mac. The difference, as I see it, is that the first camp is more interested in having enough processing power and I/O ports for it to be a responsive desktop replacement. The second camp emphasizes long battery life in a highly portable package and is content with reduced capabilities when away from the desk. Apple clearly favors the "highly capable" approach. But some netbooks favor the later approach.

I think Mac OS X is a great operating system for such systems, even with Via C7 and Intel Atom processors. Why? Because the Mac OS X is more efficient and less demanding than any of its peers. For example, a popular operating system for portables is Novell's SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED). It is offered as an OS alternative to Windows by manufacturers such as Lenovo, HP, and others. On a recent vintage laptop, I'm sure it provides an excellent alternative. On my Quicksilver with two 800 MHz G4s, I have three OS installed on three separate hard drives: Leopard, Jaguar, and openSUSE ver 11.0 with the Gnome Desktop. Leopard boots from my 15K RPM drive in 1:15 from the chime. Jaguar boots from a 7200 RPM drive in 1:05 from the chime. openSUSE boots from a 7200 RPM drive in 2:10 from the chime.

For the most part, responsiveness with openSUSE is noticeably less than when running Leopard on the same machine, and that is with Gnome configured to run without any of the optional 3D effects. There are a few pleasant surprises running openSUSE. For example, OpenOffice.org launches in half the time on openSUSE than NeoOffice launches under Leopard. But for most other tasks, Leopard is the more responsive of the two.

Immediately after first launch, Leopard is using slightly more memory than openSUSE, but if one uses both to browse, write, and do spreadsheets for a while, then the reverse becomes true: Leopard has much more memory free than openSUSE.

openSUSE provides strong evidence that Linux is ready for prime time, but my experience with it would not cause me to choose it over Mac OS X, even on slower and resource constrained hardware. Mac OS X has convinced me that it is very efficient at what it does. Hence, I would agree that netbooks are crying for Mac OS X . . . even those with ultra-low power processors and long battery life.

Although openSUSE and I will soon be parting ways, I plan to continue my Linux adventures with Yellow Dog Linux 6.1 when it becomes available for download in Dec 2008.

Cheers,
Jeffrey

Hi Jeffrey,

I agree with your analysis of the dichotomy of subnotebook user priorities, except for that netbooks typically come with a lot more I/O support than smaller Mac notebooks do these days, notwithstanding that the Macs offer a lot better processor performance, full sized keyboards, and larger displays.

The old 12" PowerBook hit a sweet spot synthesis of capability, connectivity, upgradability, and size that made it a viable desktop replacement for users who could live with the smallish display. No Apple laptop today satisfactorily replaces it, although the Unibody MacBook comes closest, but then there's the egregious absence of FireWire.

Thanks for the report on Open SuSE. I installed a more primitive version of SuSE on my old WallStreet back on the cusp of Y2K, then replaced it with YDL, but I never used either much. The Mac OS Finder was so far superior in those days to anything Gnome or KDE had available. Nice to hear that desktop Linux is becoming more sophisticated and refined.

Charles

Snow Leopard and PowerPC Macs

From Alexander:

Charles,

First, after reading articles on LEM for over two years now, I still get enjoy every article (except the rumors, which always seem to be true most of the time!).

Second, it would be an outrage for Apple to drop PowerPC Macs in Leopard. My great uncle still uses PowerPC Macs, only recently adding an Intel Mac to his collection. I still use PowerPC Macs at home - my mom's G3 iMac recently died, and I've just about permanently lent her my Sawtooth G4. Not surprisingly, after a graphics card upgrade (to a Radeon Mac Edition) and some new RAM, the thing runs like a blast under Tiger, with only some minor stuttering under heavy iPhoto usage.

But what concerns me is that Apple is saying that Snow Leopard "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos." If it is true that Snow Leopard will run a little bit faster than Leopard currently does (and I can't personally tell, because I'm still using Tiger at home), then Apple really should cut G4 and G5 users slack. I guess we did learn that the G3's days were numbered for Leopard support, especially since most G3 Macs had no support for Quartz Extreme and no support for Core Image whatsoever, but I still wish even those machines received Leopard support. But thankfully, eMacs are now at a better price point, so that is a bit of comfort to me.

More confusing is that Apple is saying "With Snow Leopard, the next major version of the world's most advanced operating system, Mac OS X changes more than its spots, it changes focus." Could this focus be on simply making OS X run smoother? I 100% agree with Simon Royal's article [Will Snow Leopard Support Some PowerPC Macs?].

I recently purchased a G4 FW800 machine on eBay for $160, and I am enamored in the machine, and plan to put a small bit of cash to make it better. (If only I can figure out why it likes to freeze at random times while importing CDs in iTunes!)

But I do say that if Apple does plan to drop all PowerPC support, they better be prepared to deal with how to deal with a) angry customers who bought a PowerPC Mac late in '05 only to find that they cannot upgrade to the latest Mac OS, b) how Apple plans to explain tons of eMacs in educational settings from 2004 and 2005 and even 2006 with new machines, and c) how Apple plans to replace those machines for those who dearly rely on those older Macs.

But this wouldn't be the first time in history that this happened: in 1998 or so when Apple released 8.5, they dropped support for the 680x0 machines entirely. Would Apple be doing something similar about 10 years later?

I guess I can say I love my Mac more than I love the people who make the decision of which machines get to run OS X.

Best wishes,
Alexander

Hi Alexander,

Your great uncle is ahead of me. I still haven't added an Intel Mac to my fleet, although the Black Friday sale last week had me thinking hard about a Unibody MacBook. However, in the end I didn't pull the trigger. I 'm not prepared to give up FireWire and Target Disk Mode, and I've become spoiled a bit by the 17" display on this G4 PowerBook. I'm thinking now that I may try to hold out until Unibody MacBook Pros hit the Apple Certified Refurbished Channel at a respectably discounted price and hopefully loaded up with Snow Leopard.

As for OS X 10.6, I'm skeptical that there will be PowerPC support. The betas don't have it, and it's hard to imagine that they would launch a PowerPC version without putting it through the beta cycle. My LEM colleague Andrew Fishkin agrees with you, though, so we'll have to see.

I too like my Macs more than I like the company that makes them.

Charles

Eudora Woes

From Serafina:

Hi,

I hope you can help me sort out my email dilemma.

I recently was forced to replace my G4 PowerBase because the screen frame broke. So now I have a MacBook that it looks like I'm going to be very happy with. But one thing I'm not happy with is my email situation. I'm not a computer expert, but I've been using Eudora since around when it came out (switched from Elm and Pine) and am very happy with it, as I do a lot of emailing and have a large archive with many, many well organized mailboxes and several filters to help me manage everything.

But with this new operating system, I started having problems - not being able to get mail most of the time for my primary account (I have accounts with 3 different providers), though I can still send messages for that account and can send and receive mail for my other accounts. Every now and then (I can't figure out why) it does work, but most of the time it gets hung up, and there's no error message associated with it. I tried turning off all the sounds in the settings, but there's still one sound that happens when I unsuccessfully try to send a message. I don't know if that matters

At this point I'm experimenting with different email clients trying to see which will work for me. So I did a bit of Googling and found a couple of your 'Ramblings' on the subject, and since you seemed to have a similar appreciation for Eudora, I was interested in your opinion.

I was excited to try the Odysseus beta, but it seems to be unavailable to download right now. Though it's listed in version tracker as recently as Nov. 19, so I must have just missed it. Is there a way to get a copy of that to try out?

And I am finding the new Eudora 8 from Mozilla just as troublesome as the 6.2.4 has now become, with difficulty getting mail. And now it keeps crashing when I try to launch it.

And I'm not that happy with Apple Mail in terms of filter/rules, searching, and no labels. Also, I had 5 personalities set up in Eudora, and I'm having trouble getting that to work in Apple Mail.

I need a solution I can use today while I wait on possible better solutions in the future. I was thinking of toughing it out with Mail for a few months, but I feel the lack of good filtering.

So I was wondering if you could offer any advice? It would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Serafina

Hi Serafina,

Yes, Eudora Classic is not a happy camper in OS X 10.5 Leopard, although the problems you're having with downloading mail and crashing in Eudora 8 make me wonder if you are not also experiencing some ISP compatibility issues.

I just tried the link to download the latest beta of Odysseus, and it seems to be working. Go here, scroll to the bottom of the page, and use the Mac OS X Intel download link.

http://www.infinitydatasystems.com/odysseus/index.html

I'll be interested to hear how you find it works for you.

Charles

Go to the Miscellaneous Ramblings Mailbag index.