Considering moving to Mac - questions about Squeak on Mac

How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?
  - fonts
  - stability
  - consistency with OS (mouse, modifier keys, etc.)
  - packages to integrate with OS
  - any others?

Thanks - Sophie

El 1/8/08 10:18 AM, "itsme213" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?
>   - fonts
>   - stability
>   - consistency with OS (mouse, modifier keys, etc.)
>   - packages to integrate with OS
>   - any others?
>
> Thanks - Sophie
>
Sophie:

Squeak is almost OS "don't care" .
But depends on VM and external plugs.

For Mac you have two flavors
John M McIntosh is long time Mac VM expert and one of "Sophie project" guys.
Also he have others interesting things like AppleScript integration.

And the Unix VM from Ian Piumarta.

Right now I count 8 Vm on my Dock


The only bad in Mac is too expensive here for me upgrade computer and OS X.
(See my face when they tell price)
Edgar

On Jan 8, 2008 5:18 AM, itsme213 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?

I find it helpful (but not required) to use a mouse with more than one
button when I'm working with Squeak, but not all Mac mice have more
than one button.

Other than that, the Mac is not much different than any other
Unix-type system running on nice hardware, when it's running Squeak.

Cheers!

--Tom Phoenix

Le 08/01/08, Tom Phoenix <[hidden email]> écrivait :

>On Jan 8, 2008 5:18 AM, itsme213 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?
>
>I find it helpful (but not required) to use a mouse with more than
one
>button when I'm working with Squeak, but not all Mac mice have
more
>than one button.
>


But you can simply use a Microsoft mouse with Mac, I use an optical
USB MS Mouse and everything is fine.

Ray

Tom Phoenix wrote:

On Jan 8, 2008 5:18 AM, itsme213 [hidden email] wrote:

  

How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?
    

I find it helpful (but not required) to use a mouse with more than one
button when I'm working with Squeak, but not all Mac mice have more
than one button.

Other than that, the Mac is not much different than any other
Unix-type system running on nice hardware, when it's running Squeak.

Cheers!

--Tom Phoenix

  

I've used Mac as the primary development and testing platform for our bountifulbaby.com squeak/seaside website for a couple of years now.

The website itself is on Fedora Linux.  But I always develop and test on a Mac.

It's smooth as silk.

Nevin

On 8-Jan-08, at 12:10 PM, Tom Phoenix wrote:

> On Jan 8, 2008 5:18 AM, itsme213 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?
>
> I find it helpful (but not required) to use a mouse with more than one
> button when I'm working with Squeak, but not all Mac mice have more
> than one button.

Modern desktop Macs come with a five button plus scrollball mouse, so  
it's not much of an issue. Not that I can understand how it is  
possible to actually use the two side buttons - I set them to do  
nothing for my own sanity.

Aside from that, its simply a case that using a Mac is a little less  
painful than using Windows for a little more money. All modern  
computer systems can do astonishing things (at least they're  
astonishing to us old crumbleys that grew up with 32Kb of RAM being a  
real manly workstation) and cause astonishing annoyance.

Wouldn't mind one of the new MacPros with 8 cores and 8 30" displays....

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: SDJ: Send all Data to Japan

> Modern desktop Macs come with a five button plus scrollball
> mouse, so it's not much of an issue. Not that I can
> understand how it is possible to actually use the two side
> buttons - I set them to do nothing for my own sanity.

They're for forward and back in your web browser using your thumb, at least,
that's what mine are for.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Tom Phoenix wrote:

> On Jan 8, 2008 5:18 AM, itsme213 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> How does the Squeak on Mac experience compare to Windows?

I *believe* the current carbon vm runs faster because I can abuse  
compiler optimizations which aren't perhaps exploited on
the windows compile because the windows vm has concerns about running  
on 50 types of intel/amd processors, where as on the
mac the number of intel chip sets used is *much* smaller.

Also didn't pc mag say the fastest windows computer they tested last  
year was a macintosh?
Something about Jobs'  arm twisting intel into giving him the best  
chip sets and hardware engineering if he switch from powerpc to intel?
Likely...


--
=
=
=
========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
=
=
=
========================================================================

2008/1/8, John M McIntosh <[hidden email]>:
Yeah right, after he flamed Intel and 386 for years. Sure thing. I bet
that's how it happened.

Cheers
Philippe

John M McIntosh wrote:
Can you post some benchmarks comparing the Mac VM vs. the Windows VM
(under Parallels or Bootcamp) on the same box? I'd be interested to see
the results.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Well some other squeaker will need to come to the rescue.
In check on my 2.33 Ghz intel core 2 duo
I download the 3.9.x windows squeak zip file
with the included image/change files using a mac carbon vm 3.8.12b1U I  
see

10 timesRepeat: [Transcript show: 1 tinyBenchmarks;cr]

525667351 bytecodes/sec; 11754731 sends/sec
523785166 bytecodes/sec; 12165411 sends/sec
522982635 bytecodes/sec; 11845268 sends/sec
525937339 bytecodes/sec; 12254268 sends/sec
524859046 bytecodes/sec; 12278728 sends/sec
526748971 bytecodes/sec; 11860494 sends/sec
523249872 bytecodes/sec; 11860494 sends/sec
524859046 bytecodes/sec; 12125446 sends/sec
525397639 bytecodes/sec; 11665568 sends/sec
526,478,149 bytecodes/sec; 12,385,858 sends/sec


However if I run that under Parallels (current version) using a dusty  
copy of windows 2000 and the 3.9.x VM in the downloaded zip
I get the data below but it's wrong since I noticed on my mac the doit  
takes under a minute to run, but the doit on windows takes
*many* minutes to run, which points to some issue with timing/clock  
interaction which like affects the numbers below.

3,782,086,795 bytecodes/sec; 79,604,764 sends/sec
3526474386 bytecodes/sec; 91001417 sends/sec
2552024922 bytecodes/sec; 88579811 sends/sec
3255961844 bytecodes/sec; 101031925 sends/sec
3212549019 bytecodes/sec; 106654275 sends/sec
3637655417 bytecodes/sec; 71590052 sends/sec
3480033984 bytecodes/sec; 106834434 sends/sec
3599297012 bytecodes/sec; 94186128 sends/sec
3305891848 bytecodes/sec; 108950879 sends/sec
2215251487 bytecodes/sec; 114576060 sends/sec


Likely you need some who has bootcamp that can boot mac or xp/vista  
and see what the numbers are.

On Jan 8, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

--
=
=
=
========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
=
=
=
========================================================================