We’ve made the switch from Outlook for Exchange to the new Entourage with Exchange support and it works well with the exception of calendars in the public folder which they claim to be fixing.
I’ve heard stories about OS X Mail and iCal adding Exchange support too. In the meantime, you can make a reasonable approximation of such by using Mail as an IMAP client of Exchange and using Groupcal and AddressX.
That’s incorrect.
Kind-of correct. Although now that the Exchange Update for OfficeX has been posted you won’t need to use Exchange server with Outlook anymore. (Outstanding Calendar issues will be fixed and posted soon).
You do if you want a G5.
This is a rather broad generalization, no? This article is only talking about RPC and how NT 4.0 is too antiquated to properly deal with fixing the hang to a single port - 135. You make it seem like Microsoft has made a sweeping public announcement that NT 4.0 is “too flawed to fix” and won’t be supporting it at all, ever again, which is not the case.
AHunter3, I wouldn’t use that hack if I were you - Panther dropped a great deal of hardware accelerator support under Panther for older machines, most notably OpenGL which was switched to software only. Any OpenGL apps you run on your Wallstreet (Rev-A and Rev-B iMacs and iBook clamshells also to name a few) are going to be dog slow.
OK. What the fuck does a 10 year old Atari have to do with Apple now anyways?
[sub]nevermind…[/sub]
G5s currently run on 10.2.7 and while there is no doubt that Panther will greatly improve the performace of the G5 processor, I haven’t heard that it was necessary to upgrade.
Early G5s ran on a custom version of the OS which they called 10.2.7 (6S85) which were really a mocked-up OS version that only existed on those early models that ran before Panther’s GM. Newer G5s now ship with 10.2.8 (6S90) which is a later version of the same mocked-up OS. It is basically Blackrider with a Panther kernel that can handle the AGP 8X architecture.
You cannot run Jaguar nor Blackrider (6R65) nor any incarnations in between on a G5, although you would be “downgrading” rather than upgrading if you tried to do so.
I don’t have the issue in front of me, but Mac Addict’s website says it features in the Sept '03 issue:
“why Internet Explorer is going bye-bye.”
mac central states that
"…Microsoft said it would continue to support Internet Explorer 5 for the Mac for the foreseeable future, but development of the browser has been discontinued. Any future updates to the browser will only contain maintenance or security fixes, no new features…
…Microsoft is discontinuing development for Internet Explorer in part because of Apple’s new Web browser, Safari. Apple is in a unique position of having unfettered access to the operating system that no other developer has."
So yes, you are correct in regards to the support. However, I wouldn’t count on it lasting for long.
Unofficially Mac Addict and Mac Central are both wrong in regards to support and development of a new version of Mac IE. Check my Profile for a Cite for this. 
Well I am really glad to hear that that is the case, Dooku.
I have recently switched over to Safari in an attempt to get used to that vs. Internet Explorer. To be honest, I haven’t been too thrilled with Safari.
If you ever need any beta testers, let me know.
Again, thanks for the info. See? the pit can be informative!
To the OP,
First, I followed the Mac world pretty closely when OS X came out, and I don’t recall any mind-blowing claims of stability until late in the 10.1 game, and they certainly weren’t confirmed until Jaguar.
I have recently upgraded 15 Macs (G4s and mid- to late- G3 iMacs) from OS 9.2 to OS X. I will not entirely validate you, but OS X is a great, beautiful OS, but if something doesn’t work, it can be a real bitch and make the computer horribly unstable. I find that it is much more sensitive to slight hardware problems than OS 9. Computers which were great under OS 9 can become unstable; computers unstable under OS 9 become a nightmare.
For instance, we had a “problem” computer in the lab – this was a computer that would not run for more than an hour or two without crashing on OS 9.2. I did the low-level format and OS X installation, and it wouldn’t even boot. Replaced the hard drive and it is rock steady.
Three other machines that were perfectly fine with 9.2 became squirrely with OS X. Two proved to be minor RAM problems – I had installed 3rd party RAM two years ago and they always ran fine with them. But OS X didn’t like them, and going back to Apple RAM has seemed to fix the problem. The third had an idiot who didn’t know how to force-quit whose solution to every problem was to unplug the computer from the wall and within a few weeks acquired some hard drive errors which could not be repaired using Disk Utility or any other repair program. A good low-level format and reinstall fixed everything. Hopefully the reeducation I gave the user will prevent it from happening again.
So before tossing that TiBook, here’s some reasonable troubleshooting:
We won’t buy Panther for the lab, but hopefully we will start to get some new iMacs and eMacs in which will come preloaded. I’m pushing for this – I’m running a 400 MHz G4 running a bunch of homemade perl large scale genome analysis tools. As a geneticist, I make no illusions that my programs are optimized, but they work. Everything I do means letting the computer crank for 20 minutes. I could use a G5, but I don’t think my boss would go for that. Yet.
I find Safari much faster. I love the tabs. And it handles passwords much better. There are a few things that I miss from Explorer, but overall I like Safari a lot better.
The NY Times just reviewed Panther and they gave it excellent marks. Anyone who is considering Apple, or upgrading to Panther, should give it a read.
** AHunter3** Thanks, I learned something new today and it is only 12:46, hmmm, I wonder if I can go home then?
Here’s another nice article on Mac security from the Wall Street Journal.
I should point out that the reason there are no viruses are not b/c this OS is bulletproof - indeed, it would be just as simple to create one for the Mac* - it’s b/c there aren’t enough people using them, so the jackoff hacker that creates them doesn’t get as much exposure if he creates one.
IOW, if millions of business and users start using OS X regularly, rest assured the hackers will find it worthy of their attention.
*[sub]For obvious reasons I’m not going into detail about how one would go about this[/sub]
Dooku: Actually, the crackers would have a more difficult time in creating a true worm that works on MacOS X because X actually protects files that the user doesn’t own. If the user is exercising reasonable precautions (that is, not running as root and not making the important system files and programs owned by a nonroot user), a worm would be hard-pressed to be any more than an annoyance (“Oh, look, it’s trying to reformat my hard drive. Innat cute? kill -9.”).
Second, X users aren’t forced into using broken software. In Windows, IE is so integrated into the OS you can’t avoid having it on your machine and running. IE is also the buggiest browser ever to escape the testing phase, and (due to the insecurities above) can wreak real havoc if it’s subverted. There’s nothing like IE on X, in either brokenness or influence. (In fact, Microsoft either has already killed IE for X or will soon. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.)
And I should point out that the “Mac is secure only because it’s obscure” argument is largely a myth – almost all of the vulnerabilities of BSD Unix have long been uncovered and patched, and the default installation of MacOS X has vulnerable services and ports disabled (you can’t hack root if it doesn’t exist, buddy ). Furthermore, Apple’s software has various safeguards that warn users before doing anything truly dangerous, such as requiring an administrator’s password before any attempt to install low-level system software.
In short, “if millions of business and users start using OS X regularly, rest assured the hackers will find it worthy of their attention” is IMO a fairy tale told by Windows users to soothe the sting of their poor choice of operating systems. 
Aside from MacOS X being more stringent about its RAM(*), I am not aware of it being super-fussy regarding other hardware.
(* = which makes sense, since, as a Unix-based OS, MacOS X will use every smidgen of RAM you give it. Unused RAM is wasted RAM…)
Derleth - see Page 1 for info on Mac IE. BTW, you horribly insulted my coworkers w/o knowing it, but IE wasn’t my baby so I won’t comment.
rjung - It ain’t impossible to create a virus under BSD or OS X. I’ll grant that it would be more difficult to create one, but it ain’t impossible. I have no allegiance that would make be spin fairy tales.
What’s weird is that not only is the crappy IE been made so integral to Windows, the Mac version of Explorer is a helluva lot better than the Windows version.
It’s not impossible, but your post made it seem that should Macs become more popular they would suddenly experience the same troubles as Windows users, but that simply is not true. It is not “just as simple to create one for the Mac.”