Apple's new butterfly keyboard

[Muirium]

[quote="zts" post_id=216326]both hardware and OS are to a large extent a personal preference. But ... yes, buy Mac now:



Ah, *the* MacBook! And without cracks in the case too. I hear that was less of a problem with the black ones.

You're definitely better off running something besides Lion on it. (My least favourite version of OS X, and rapidly losing 3rd party web browser support now too.) All 32 bit EFI Macs fell off the update train several years ago now. Including my Mac Pro. But unlike a MacBook, I could upgrade the graphics card to something that is supported, and run an EFI hack to load Yosemite just nicely.

[abhibeckert]

Ah, *the* MacBook! And without cracks in the case too. I hear that was less of a problem with the black ones.

My white MacBook doesn't have any cracks either. I think Apple quietly fixed the issue in more recent models.

My battery is gone however, and the LCD backlight has dropped out a few times which leaves me reluctant to replace the battery.

You're definitely better off running something besides Lion on it.

Mine's a 2009 model, so it runs Yosemite fine without any EFI hacks.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Now if only that MacBook were black-dyed anodised aluminium!

[Muirium]

Mine's a 2009 model, so it runs Yosemite fine without any EFI hacks.

The "Unibody" (but still white plastic) one? I never did know anyone with one of those. The MacBook's time in the sun was until the two MacBook Airs of the apocalypse came a riding and everyone went metal.

This 15" Retina is my first Intel Mac laptop. My 12" PowerBook — original 2003 version — kept on running all that time. Still does now. I was on it only yesterday, as I still like the tight 12" form factor and I'm nostalgic! Its screen is dim and waxy, but it was always that way. I've seen many a newer laptop die before its time.

[abhibeckert]

Mine's a 2009 model, so it runs Yosemite fine without any EFI hacks.

The "Unibody" (but still white plastic) one? I never did know anyone with one of those. The MacBook's time in the sun was until the two MacBook Airs of the apocalypse came a riding and everyone went metal.

No it was the last non-unibody model. Looking at the model history, they updated the MacBook three times in 2009!

Totally agree the aluminium ones were better to buy, but I found my MacBook secondhand for a stupidly low price.

[andrewjoy]

You're definitely better off running something besides Lion on it.

run snow leo that's the version i have had the least issues with over the years but its not supported now unfortunately

and yeh the later plastic models ( even none unibody) run 10.10 just fine , mine has a 32bit EFI but its perfectly capable of running 10.10 possibly the intel graphics are a bit weak. March of time i guess have to move on from 32 bit some time.


EDIT

I think you all know my favourite macbook.

MB766*/A

with the 512 meg of v ram and the high res screen in all its AG coating glory. Whack an SSD in it and 6gb of ram and you are good to go

[Muirium]

possibly the intel graphics are a bit weak. March of time i guess have to move on from 32 bit some time.

A bit weak? I've heard they're just not worth it at all. Might not even boot, to be honest. My Mac Pro's stock graphics card doesn't.

I tried running 10.8 on a Sandy Bridge Hackintosh for a while — the original reason I bought the Radeon which wound up in this Mac Pro — but OS X didn't get drivers for the HD 7xxx series until after I gave up and gifted the machine to a gamer friend of mine. Anyway, the short while I had it, I had to fall back to non-accelerated (software rendered?) graphics. Think Windows 95-XP before you installed a graphics driver! Well, maybe not quite that bad but pretty desperate. Some apps just wouldn't render at all. Horrible!

So I took it over a friend's place. He was about to upgrade his machine anyway. To quote his eyebrows: "16 gigs of RAM!!??!!" Yeah, it was a server before it landed in my hands. He threw his moneys at a high end Nvidia which he put in it and never looked back.

Compared to that thing, this Mac Pro's been a synch.

[bhtooefr]

Running anything older than 2 versions prior to current is downright irresponsible, IMO.

That's how long Apple usually keeps security updates going.

(I typically stay much closer to current, waiting until 10.current.2 or so before upgrading. Just downloaded Yosemite tonight...)

[Muirium]

I was on Yosemite DP and then Beta. Couldn't help it. Helvetica!

Meanwhile, my PowerBook's all the way back on Tiger because Leopard really slowed down on PowerPC around 10.5.2 and I can goof around with Classic on Tiger as well. My iMac G4 is on Leopard as I didn't mind pegging its CPU the whole time, since its fan was always on anyway. But they might as well be on OS 9 as far as security is concerned. TenFourFox is a nice effort (and arguably more secure than even current Safari and Chrome in a few spots) but it's so slow without a modern JavaScript uh… virtual machine/compiler/whatever the name is for them now, that when you add G4 slowness to that and a 2 GB memory ceiling you can guess what browsing's like. I wish TenFourFox could simply refuse to load pages when memory runs out, like Safari on my old iPad, instead of opening up gigs of swap and ruining the session!

But yeah, running Lion or Snowy on an Intel Mac is a bad idea. Either take them to Yosemite or put them out to Linux pasture. They can run that quite well. Much better than PowerPC, which has almost zero support there either.

[bhtooefr]

Actually, OS 9 is far better for security than outdated OS X, simply because it isn't anything resembling a modern OS, and what there is to attack is so different from the normal exploit targets. And, it helps that there's no external attack surface either.

I mean, I've heard of, in modern times, a NeXTSTEP VM's sendmail getting used as the open relay that it was and spewing spam. Why? Because it's a *nix, and everything's in the place you'd expect it to be on a modern *nix, even if it's ancient, and because it was all servery, it did servery things.

Now consider that OS X is just a newer version of the exact same OS. It's got all those services hanging around, not being patched, actively being exploited.

Really, OS X prior to 2 versions back from current is just as dangerous as XP. That means if you're running even Lion on a network connected machine, you're running a huge risk. And, I don't care if you have to run it to use your G5 or late G4, don't network connect it except when absolutely necessary. (You could always use Linux, too.)

[stratokaster]

I'd say today you are almost safe even if you're running something as outdated as Windows 2000 or OS X 10.4. Almost all home routers by default are configured to completely hide anything behind them from the outside world. It's not like in late 1990s and early 2000s when most people got on the internet via dial-up and their machines were directly exposed to all the dangers of the internet. I remember back in 2001 or 2002 there was a particularly nasty virus exploiting an RPC vulnerability in Windows NT/2000/XP, and the moment you connected to the internet your machine immediately got infected unless you were running some kind of firewall locally.

[abhibeckert]

possibly the intel graphics are a bit weak. March of time i guess have to move on from 32 bit some time.

A bit weak? I've heard they're just not worth it at all. Might not even boot, to be honest. My Mac Pro's stock graphics card doesn't.

In my experience, Yosemite runs better on slow hardware than any previous version of OS X.

Apple has done amazing work to increase battery life by making the CPU and GPU stay idle as much as possible. A side affect of that, is older hardware also ends up having better performance.

[abhibeckert]

Now consider that OS X is just a newer version of the exact same OS. It's got all those services hanging around, not being patched, actively being exploited.

Really, OS X prior to 2 versions back from current is just as dangerous as XP. That means if you're running even Lion on a network connected machine, you're running a huge risk. And, I don't care if you have to run it to use your G5 or late G4, don't network connect it except when absolutely necessary. (You could always use Linux, too.)

I couldn't disagree more.

First of all, services are irrelevant assuming you're behind a NAT router, which you probably are.

Secondly, a G5/G4 isn't going to be able to execute the x64 attack code any malware will send your way.

[jacobolus]

The peak of OS X was somewhere around 10.6. Since then, it’s been a steady decline, from an interface/end user perspective, and the latest version is ugly as sin (though sure, at the basic API level, there are some improvements, and they’ve done a great job with power efficiency).

[stratokaster]

The peak of OS X was somewhere around 10.6. Since then, it’s been a steady decline, from an interface/end user perspective, and the latest version is ugly as sin (though sure, at the basic API level, there are some improvements, and they’ve done a great job with power efficiency).

The one thing that irks me is the steady removal of features for power users / technical people. For example, I'm a web developer of sorts and I really liked the way you could start/stop Apache directly from System Preferences. Now I have to manage these things via Terminal. It's not difficult, just not as convenient as it used to be.

BTW, Yosemite only looks ugly on standard screens, on Retina screens it's fabulous. I actually think they did this on purpose to encourage people to ditch their laptops in favor of Retina versions.

[zts]

I think Apple spends lots of time making things look beautiful, including Mac OS X. But, underneath, there is a certain amount of dumbing down Mac OS X in favor of meeting iOS more fully. Simplicity and minimalism have their place but when pushed too far they impose austerity and limitations on every aspect but the basics. I think Apple may have enough insight to figure those things out, but you never know for sure.

[jacobolus]

No, it looks bad on Retina screens too.

[abhibeckert]

The peak of OS X was somewhere around 10.6. Since then, it’s been a steady decline, from an interface/end user perspective, and the latest version is ugly as sin (though sure, at the basic API level, there are some improvements, and they’ve done a great job with power efficiency).

The one thing that irks me is the steady removal of features for power users / technical people. For example, I'm a web developer of sorts and I really liked the way you could start/stop Apache directly from System Preferences. Now I have to manage these things via Terminal. It's not difficult, just not as convenient as it used to be.

BTW, Yosemite only looks ugly on standard screens, on Retina screens it's fabulous. I actually think they did this on purpose to encourage people to ditch their laptops in favor of Retina versions.

You can still start/stop apache with a GUI.

That's why they moved OS X server to the app store and made it $20 instead of $500.

Or, install MAMP. I own OS X server (the $500 version and the $20 one) but prefer MAMP (free version, not MAMP Pro).

I don't find Yosemite ugly, I prefer it on my non-retina mac- especially in "increase contrast" mode. Personal taste I guess.

[andrewjoy]

possibly the intel graphics are a bit weak. March of time i guess have to move on from 32 bit some time.

A bit weak? I've heard they're just not worth it at all. Might not even boot, to be honest. My Mac Pro's stock graphics card doesn't.

In my experience, Yosemite runs better on slow hardware than any previous version of OS X.

Apple has done amazing work to increase battery life by making the CPU and GPU stay idle as much as possible. A side affect of that, is older hardware also ends up having better performance.

Some of our older kit is still on 10.6 and you know what ? It connect to the server faster it logs on faster and general has less issues with afp and nfs.

Now i admit 10.10 is the best since 10.6 it runs way faster is more stable and looks way better.

But the reliability of 10.6 in my limited mac experience is unmatched .

Still want that MBP

[Findecanor]

BTW, Google has just announced its Chromebook Pixel 2 - which has a USB Type C port on the left and on the right side, and you can plug in the charging cable on either side.

Very reminiscent of how an Apple ADB keyboard is done, right? Silly Apple ...

[Muirium]

That's exactly what I thought this MacBook did, until I saw the effing headphone jack on the right.

FYI. YOU BOUGHT BEATS, APPLE! You know, those guys who make Bluetooth headphones that you sell now? JUST CHECKING OKAY.

[pietergen]

...OS X ......the latest version is ugly as sin

Lots of things are ugly and cheesy in both OSX and iOS. Which is strange, because Apple's hardware is beautiful. By the way, most people know that much of Apple's design language was stolen from inspired by Dieter Rams , the chief designer of Braun.

But OSX and iOS....cheesy !

To me, the most 'modern' looking desktop environments are:
- Gnome 3. The default of Fedora (Linux)
- Unity. The default of Ubuntu (Linux)
- Metro. The default of Windows 8 and up (MS Windows)

For mobile devices, what looks most "sharp" to me are newer Android versions (4 and up) and also Windows Phone.

[andrewjoy]

- Gnome 3. The default of Fedora (Linux)
- Unity. The default of Ubuntu (Linux)

they do look nice but i prefer a simpler interface on linux like i3 or openbox

[pietergen]

- Gnome 3. The default of Fedora (Linux)
- Unity. The default of Ubuntu (Linux)

they do look nice but i prefer a simpler interface on linux like i3 or openbox

Hey! Nice to hear that! I do to, as it happens Openbox and i3wm (and herbstluftwm) are my favorites

[Muirium]

Tasteless clods.

I actually like the Tiger look more than Leopard through Mavericks. But not on a Retina display!



Yosemite's my favourite. Dark mode is where I'm at! Okay on my shitey old Dell screen, but perfect on the Retina MacBook Pro.

[andrewjoy]

when i use i3, i think hmm i really should be using DWM, but then i compare the documentation of i3 and DWM ( does it even have any) and its like , yeh sticking with i3

[pietergen]

Tasteless clods.
I actually like the Tiger look more than Leopard through Mavericks. But not on a Retina display!

I have to say I love the high resolution retina screens. Laptops that would otherwise be too small for work become very usable with those ultra sharp screens.

But do all applications work well on the screen? I understand that not all programs look fine on it.......

[matt3o]

always liked the cover image i3 chose for their homepage but everytime I try to install those tiled WMs it takes like 3 days to configure them... and anyway something it is not going to work anyway

[Muirium]

@Pierergen: Microsoft and Adobe are incompetent dipshits who have been slow to bother including 2X graphics assets for their apps. I use zero software from either of them, but that's always their way. They took years to recompile for x86 when Apple ditched PowerPC as well.

I VNC into non-retina Macs with my 15", so I see the same effect. 4 retina pixels all acting in unison do indeed look a little odd compared to 1 old fashioned pixel showing the same thing. It's pretty subtle though. My guess is many people wouldn't even notice.

[bhtooefr]

First of all, services are irrelevant assuming you're behind a NAT router, which you probably are.

Unless the exploit is in an end user program that you're using... or you're using a laptop on wireless (especially in an untrusted environment)...

Secondly, a G5/G4 isn't going to be able to execute the x64 attack code any malware will send your way.

...and then attacks the service from userspace in platform-independent code (shell scripts, anyone?)