Topic: To Mac OS X or not to Mac OS X (Read 9575 times)

BryanC · « **on:** July 27, 2012, 03:58:34 pm »

I think this Verge article does a good job of outlining the problems with developing on OS X.

I remember that historically, the MC developers were wary to port MC to OS X because of Apple's tendency to lock down their products. There was always the nagging view that Apple might eventually ease up on its restrictions due to the success of independent software development on iOS--it looks like this is not going to be the case.

Very few (if any) OS X applications are better than their Apple counterparts in the same niche. MC, as we know it on Windows, could be one of the first real iTunes killers in this regard. I have a hard time seeing Apple willing to "play nice" with such a competitor.

Just a crumb of thought.

JimH · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2012, 06:58:20 pm »

We're committed to releasing a Mac version. What happens next may be up to Apple.

Peter_T · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2012, 05:05:28 am »

I just saw this in your e-newsletter / MC18 promo. Fantastic news. I bought a new code (first since MC14, I think) immediately.

pkehoe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2012, 05:51:30 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 27, 2012, 06:58:20 pm

We're committed to releasing a Mac version. What happens next may be up to Apple.

Will this be a new product? Will our existing licenses work on OS/X? I've been a loyal MC customer since version 11. I run Parallels on my Mac just so I can used Media Center for audio.

I'm ok if this is a new product and would require a new license, but I probably wouldn't bother with the upgrade to 18 if it isn't transferable.

JimH · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2012, 06:49:44 am »

Quote from: pkehoe on July 28, 2012, 05:51:30 am

Will this be a new product? Will our existing licenses work on OS/X?

It will be a different license.

Quote

I've been a loyal MC customer since version 11.

Thank you.

Quote

I run Parallels on my Mac just so I can used Media Center for audio.

Your Windows MC license would continue to work for that.

cncb · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:10:34 am »

I know it's early but do you anticipate that the Mac version will be able to connect as a Library Server Client to a Windows Library Server?

glynor · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2012, 03:26:47 pm »

Quote from: Sparks67 on July 28, 2012, 02:49:37 pm

Well, I have built HTPC hackintosh (Retail Snow leopard) with dual OS Mac OS & Windows 7 in the past. Mac requires you to change the file system, but if the Windows 7 partition is format fat32 on the Windows partition.
Then you can read the files. The problem with FAT32 is that your file size limitation is 4 Gigs. (I am sure you Windows server is NTFS)

Just to confirm, Paragon Software's NTFS for Mac works perfectly. I've been using it since Tiger on OSX, I think.

PS. OSX can read NTFS partitions out of the box, but it is read-only.

PPS. I should also add, if you use both OSX and Windows, I'd actually recommend getting Paragon's NTFS driver and just formatting all of your external volumes as NTFS anyway (or FAT32 for little USB drives, maybe). HFS+ is the worst part of OSX and it is flaky and unreliable. In fact, even though it is a permanent, internal volume in a Mac Pro, I formatted my big RAID at the office to NTFS. It just works better that way. Though certainly not perfect in its own right, NTFS is a better filesystem than HFS+ in most ways.

EDIT: I added a link explaining why I say that HFS+ is the worst thing about OSX. Siracusa explains it better than I could. However, I'd add to what he says that the HFS+ B-Tree system (catalog) seems to be particularly prone to corruption. It seems like HFS+ volumes just accrue problems over time, regardless of the "health" of the drive physically, and is particularly susceptible to trouble after hard-reboots. I've had many instances where a perfectly healthy (physically) disk suddenly develops filesystem integrity problems that cause OSX to fail to boot, or perform absurdly badly. A quick fsck -fy run from single user mode fixes these the vast majority of the time, but I've even had them suddenly develop problems that required Disk Warrior to rebuild the whole volume (which always "loses track" of a bunch of files and dumps them in the lost and found folder).

And, I mean, come-on...

Quote

File system metadata structures in HFS+ have global locks. Only one process can update the file system at a time. This is an embarrassment in an age of preemptive multitasking and 16-core CPUs.

Apple knows it too. They've been searching for a replacement for HFS for a while now, but things keep falling through for whatever reason (the last replacement was to be ZFS, but it was suddenly removed for still-unknown reasons, though we can guess performance). Siracusa also did a whole two episodes of his podcast on filesystems in general, and HFS+ problems in particular. Interestingly, someone wrote in with feedback and said that they were an Apple Store "Genius", and that a very high percentage (I don't remember the exact number, but I believe it was more than half) of his store's total Mac support visits were for problems caused by filesystem corruption, and for most of those, there appeared to be no underlying physical problem. If that was true, and Apple is seeing those kinds of numbers in support visits, then they have to know, and they must be searching for a replacement.

But we got nothing new in Mountain Lion. Maybe next year...

cncb · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2012, 05:59:28 pm »

Ok, but I'm not sure what the server's file system has to do with the client?

glynor · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2012, 10:38:29 pm »

Quote from: cncb on July 28, 2012, 05:59:28 pm

Ok, but I'm not sure what the server's file system has to do with the client?

Nothing, unless you might want to mount it directly.

glynor · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:00:36 am »

Quote from: cncb on July 28, 2012, 11:10:34 am

I know it's early but do you anticipate that the Mac version will be able to connect as a Library Server Client to a Windows Library Server?

I'd like to know the details on this too. Because otherwise it won't be much use to me...

If you want to provide direct access to the files (rather than using MC's streaming functionality) then it would have to do some sort of file path manipulation to be able to locate the files. OSX is UNIX, and so uses a very different path structure from Windows. Without getting information from the user, even though you could mount your media volume directly, MC wouldn't be able to find M:\whatever\ because there are no drive letters. But, it should be possible to convert network paths with relative ease: \\servername\share\path\filename.flac becomes smb://servername/share/path/filename.flac

That might mean I'd need to switch from using Drive letters to UNC paths on my server at home, though (which I haven't wanted to do for other reasons).

It could also convert non-UNC paths if you gave it some more information, though. So, for example, perhaps MC could have a new [Filename (Unix)] field that it uses to store\retrieve pathnames on UNIX. When you open a Library on a Mac for the first time, it builds this field. UNC paths could probably be auto-converted as described above. But for paths where MC finds a drive letter, it would have to ask the user to locate the appropriate volume (it could just pop up a browse dialog where you pick it). After it asked you once per drive letter, it could just remember that M:\ is /Volumes/media/, and could even (potentially) keep the two filename fields in sync if any changes are made.

audioriver · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2012, 06:43:15 am »

Quote from: glynor on July 28, 2012, 03:26:47 pm

Just to confirm, Paragon Software's NTFS for Mac works perfectly. I've been using it since Tiger on OSX, I think.

PS. OSX can read NTFS partitions out of the box, but it is read-only.

Tuxera NTFS works perfectly, too. Tested it out of necessity. Having said that, I've got no interest in Apple's offerings. It won't be easy for MC to take down the iTunes default...

Sparks67 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2012, 09:43:08 am »

Quote from: cncb on July 28, 2012, 11:10:34 am

I know it's early but do you anticipate that the Mac version will be able to connect as a Library Server Client to a Windows Library Server?

My workplace has been able to do that at work, but it is not as simple as people think. The client needs another software called Hummingbird Exceed to connect to the Unix server. Although, we are going from an Unix based server to Windows clients. This same method is still being used now on the next gen systems. My workplace uses multiple clients, including Mac OS X, Sun, SGI, and Window clients. I have used in the past Sun Workstations and I loved all Unix based system. The contractors also tried a Java client. Well, the application is Java based. This was also tried, but I think it is slow.

Glynor,
There is huge difference in working at a small company with Windows servers, and large organization with Unix. Unix runs the country now, and has been reliable for years. HFS+ is Unix. There was talk about ZFS and OS X, but it was cancelled. Although, there is a company that has developed ZFS for Mac OS X.

No, I wouldn't have much use for this feature either.

glynor · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2012, 10:33:14 am »

I'm not sure at all what you are talking about.

HFS+ is the Mac OSX filesystem. It predates OSX itself and is an extension of the original HFS filesystem Apple developed for the old-school MacOS in 1985. HFS+ was first released and used by Apple with MacOS 8.1 in 1998 (well before OSX was even a twinkle in their eye, and while Steve was still off in the wilderness).

It has nothing to do with OSX's BSD underpinnings. In fact, it required a LOT of modifications specifically to allow them to staple UNIX on top of the antiquated HFS filesystem. It has all sorts of problems, mostly due to its old design. For example, it is quite clearly technically optimized for RISC-based PowerPC chips (and not even modern ones), while Apple has been Intel-only for years and years now. Read the page from Siracusa's Lion review I linked above if you want to know more.

Hopefully they make a real effort to replace it with something modern in OSX Wildcat or whatever big cat comes next year.

Sparks67 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2012, 08:30:54 pm »

Quote from: glynor on July 30, 2012, 10:33:14 am

I'm not sure at all what you are talking about.

HFS+ is the Mac OSX filesystem. It predates OSX itself and is an extension of the original HFS filesystem Apple developed for the old-school MacOS in 1985. HFS+ was first released and used by Apple with MacOS 8.1 in 1998 (well before OSX was even a twinkle in their eye, and while Steve was still off in the wilderness).

It has nothing to do with OSX's BSD underpinnings. In fact, it required a LOT of modifications specifically to allow them to staple UNIX on top of the antiquated HFS filesystem. It has all sorts of problems, mostly due to its old design. For example, it is quite clearly technically optimized for RISC-based PowerPC chips (and not even modern ones), while Apple has been Intel-only for years and years now. Read the page from Siracusa's Lion review I linked above if you want to know more.

Hopefully they make a real effort to replace it with something modern in OSX Wildcat or whatever big cat comes next year.

Actually, I am from that era. So I know the history better than the Wiki. Wiki is not really a good source to use, because it can have incorrect information. I have been in computers since 1982, and I did look at the Apple II to buy. Just thought that was too expensive at the time. An Apple computer was always too expensive for me to buy. Actually, my first PC was an Atari 800.

OS X was from Steve's other company called Next Computer. http://news.cnet.com/apple-acquires-next,-jobs/2100-1001_3-256914.html
Apple was looking at acquiring a company called BE, and I saw a video on Cnet with the capabilities of that BE OS back in 1995. BE is what Apple should have bought, but instead Apple acquired Next. The only reason that Apple bought Next was Steve Jobs.

As for the next generation HFS+, there was project at Apple based on Sun's ZFS (Zettabyte File System). Here is the an article about it. http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/31/zfs-comes-to-os-x-courtesy-of-apples-former-chief-zfs-architect/ Then it was sold to this company http://www.getgreenbytes.com/blog/bid/80923/GreenBytes-and-the-Future-of-ZEVO So, soon you can have it free.

We have to wait and see if Apple will develop anything new.

MtnBeachBum · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:19:38 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 27, 2012, 06:58:20 pm

We're committed to releasing a Mac version. What happens next may be up to Apple.

Man, this news just made my day! Came to the forum for the first time in a long time. I switched to Mac a while back and JRiver is only thing i missed about windows. I saw the article on AudioStream, http://www.audiostream.com/content/jriver-apple
couldn't believe it. Thanks Jim for committing to doing a Mac version. The audio player landscape for Mac is bleak. This will be popular I think, especially if it can work with Airplay, Apple tv, iPads, iPhones etc. easily.

Teach

sgomes · « **Reply #15 on:** August 01, 2012, 12:02:46 pm »

This is fantastic news! And it would be absolutely brilliant if it could connect to a remote (Windows) server!

toomanybarts · « **Reply #16 on:** August 01, 2012, 03:31:43 pm »

I too just moved over to mac and like others, the only thing I miss from windows is Media Center!
I only use it for Audio, so the fact that the first version out the gate is Audio only is exactly what I'm waiting for!
All of my music is on a NAS, so I would be wanting connectivity to that...however that were possible.
Thank-you in advance!

twistees · « **Reply #17 on:** August 06, 2012, 09:49:24 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 27, 2012, 06:58:20 pm

We're committed to releasing a Mac version.

Thanks for this fantastic news. Since I switched to a Mac, I have sorely missed MC.

+1 registration...

kiwi · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2012, 03:22:17 am »

Quote from: twistees on August 06, 2012, 09:49:24 am

Thanks for this fantastic news. Since I switched to a Mac, I have sorely missed MC.

+1 registration...

Couldn't agree more. I have the exact same feelings. Love my mac... and love MC. Hell, I've even purchased upgrades thinking I might get back to windows... good luck, I can't wait to see it, particularly with AirPlay mirroring for audio.

MtnBeachBum · « **Reply #19 on:** August 24, 2012, 03:02:47 am »

Just wondering what the latest news was and if there is a tentative timetable for first BETAs?

JimH · « **Reply #20 on:** August 24, 2012, 06:27:44 am »

Sometime around the end of the year. They will be initially audio only and they will probably be a little rough.

MtnBeachBum · « **Reply #21 on:** September 02, 2012, 04:03:36 pm »

Quote from: JimH on August 24, 2012, 06:27:44 am

Sometime around the end of the year. They will be initially audio only and they will probably be a little rough.

Ok, thank you very much. Looking forward to it!

brickf · « **Reply #22 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:34:41 pm »

Wow, I am long time Jukebox/MC user but not since version 10, mainly because of a permanent move to Mac. In that space of time I essentially gave up managing my music with iTunes and would just deal with newer music purchases. In an effort to consolidate and reorganize my library, which has been collecting dust, I just loaded up MC17 a few days ago and upgraded. All I can say is it's so good to be back, and I can't believe you are going to be developing a version for OS X!

I'm really impressed with the development that has continued with the product, was up and running with Gizmo on my android and streaming to my DLNA TV with zero problems and very little setup effort. Also, MC is working great via Fusion.

After importing my new organized library into iTunes I tried to stream with Apple TV and it crashes after playing a few songs:)

Anyway, just want to say thanks for continuing to develop such an awesome product! Looking forward to working with the OS X version when it's available.

JimH · « **Reply #23 on:** September 04, 2012, 04:37:43 am »

Thanks for taking time to say so.

JimH · « **Reply #24 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:52:35 pm »

Progress report on OSX:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=75129.0

JimH · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2013, 02:02:52 pm »

Coming soon. New board here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=31.0

JimH · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2013, 12:27:07 pm »

Early Bird Licenses are available now:
http://www.jriver.com/mac.html

Expect First Look (Still Rough) versions by February 22.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: To Mac OS X or not to Mac OS X (Read 9575 times)