I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
What do you think of Apple/Mac OS X?
Archived thread 320499 from Mac OSX. Markdown source: Mac_OSX/thread_320499_What_do_you_think_of_AppleMac_OS_X.md
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft.
This is news to me :confused:
Edit:
Oh. Is this some kind of parody/ joke thread?
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
Yeah, never heard about this too.
I think Apple has some bad and some good sides. I prefer Free software though.
But, I do not hate them in any way, it's not like MS that they are forcing their products on me.
I am very surprised about this poll, too. I do not hate apple at all. I actually like their products very much, even though they are not open-source.
What the hell is this heeho? I don't hate Apple; I've got an iPod and am quite pleased with it thus far.
The only time i have used an apple computer is at school. Apple computers own for graphic works, atleast for others :p
'tis a flawed question. I know people have problems with iPod, and the proprietary music format, but for the most part, if anything, linux users are FANS of Apple, because of the unix-base of OS X
I might hate MS but I am happy to see people using apple instead. OSX is a very cool piece of kit, built on on the Darwin BSD derivative. Darwin itself is Open Source, and indeed there is a few Darwin projects going on out there. It's only the desktop/GUI system that is closed. Apple have got some wierd Ideas about DRM though, and I would support them more if they relaxed their stance a bit on it.
Apple wants the whole pie, not just a slice. They want to glean riches by controlling the hardware and the software; the content and the players. They hide behind this false creation of this puffed up image of coolness but they're really just a bunch of greedy opportunists looking to exploit people and make shortcuts where they can just like any other corporation. Apple is just like Microsoft in my book.
it's not like MS that they are forcing their products on me.Please forgive me, but that's extremely naive of you to think. Microsoft does it's level best to dominate the market and get your money. Bottom line. They want their products to be unavoidable in as many aspects of life as possible, and have even released press statements to this effect. This equates to an attempt to force their products on you.
You got it the wrong way around.
Back when I was a Windows using computer geek I did see Apple as a sad joke even though I had never actually tried any of their products. For the simple reason that every single other Windows using geek I've ever talked about Apple with hated them and said Macs where not real computers, they where just unusable toys and the PC's evil twin.
After switching to Linux and talking to other Linux using geeks on the net I'm getting more interested in Apple's stuff and wish I could afford a Mac to dual boot OSX plus Ubuntu.
That's a nice story, but it doesn't have much to do with the current market and apple's highly questionable buisness practices.
Please forgive me, but that's extremely naive of you to think. Microsoft does it's level best to dominate the market and get your money. Bottom line. They want their products to be unavoidable in as many aspects of life as possible, and have even released press statements to this effect. This equates to an attempt to force their products on you.
Actually, I think he/she was saying that unlike MIcrosoft, Apple doesn't try to control you or force their products on you. ;)
OSX looks cool. Noone can dispute that...
But they are the reigning kings of DRM!
at the time, a mac-mini was not in our budget (bought a house) so i installed linux instead (bored with ME, microsoft's best product ever). since then, i have been to the apple store a few times and have always been disappointed by the sluggishness of the machines. otherwise, i think a mac would be interesting to have. i wonder if osx could be stripped down to more of the bsd elements and make use of a smaller wm.
Actually, I think he/she was saying that unlike MIcrosoft, Apple doesn't try to control you or force their products on you. ;)
If it's not control then what do they do with their braindead iTunes-software then? ... I don't say that Apple is evil on the whole, but I do think that they are quite good at preventing you from using songs that you do not have stored on your PC.
Actually, I think he/she was saying that unlike MIcrosoft, Apple doesn't try to control you or force their products on you.Oh, gotcha. I dissagree though.
The most effective buisness model is one in which it's true intent is masked. For example, when you see an iPod commercial, you see the image apple wants to project, they don't just come out and say, "everyone buy this now so we can get your money". They wouldn't really be too successful that way; packaging is 90% of success. The purpose is still the same and the image is a merely means to an end. Apple dominates the sale of online music and the player market and so the net effect is the same. They use DRM, and cool packaging. It amounts to a psychological campaign to get people to mass their money into one area, an area that apple wants to continually control to keep the cashflow coming in to one central location. It's an old game.
If it's not control then what do they do with their braindead iTunes-software then?
It's the most popular because users chose it.
other reason:
Apple is even more committed to proprietary solutions and vendor lock-in than Microsoft; this is one of the reasons, ironically, that my family went for IBM-Compatibles running MS-DOS over Apple computers back when we were buying our first computer back in '86 or '87.
Apple promises a universe where stylish people carry elegant, tightly-sealed Apple hardware, living in a kind of digital utopia where there are no hardware conflicts, driver issues or competing standards. There is only Apple, and Apple's elegant solutions. Anyone else wanting anything different, or, indeed, merely curious to find the workings of the hardware, never mind the software, will be brutally smacked down.
Of course, the iPod-wearing, dancing citizens of Apple's Alphaville are blissfully unaware of their total lack of freedom (in the GNU sense), because they are held in thrall by the overarching power of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field.
The very nature of their business model is anti-GNU.
It's the most popular because users chose it.That's only half of the story though.
I was having a debate with a friend of mine the other day about persuasiveness and how it works. Basicly, we equated it to knowing certain rules and characteristics of people and being able to manipulate them with this knowledge, much like a chemist knows certain physical laws and characteristics and manipulates them to produce a chemical reaction. They are the same in the sense that to carry out a chemical reaction, one doesn't need to manipulate all conditions but just certain key ones, just as to persuade people one must know the key conditions required to carry the desired reaction and does not need to completely control all of them.
They are both involve science and people study both and practice both every day.
OSX looks cool. Noone can dispute that...
But they are the reigning kings of DRM!
I can. I think OSX looks god awful! I'm all for eye-candy, but brushed metal and aqua are ugly :-#
I want the option in the poll that says I could care less one way or another. I have no problem with there being more competition in the world.
Oh. Is this some kind of parody/ joke thread? Even though I'm sure the question was serious, this thread is still a joke.
I like Apple. I plan on getting one when I get around to a new computer.
I don't hate apple.
I would like a free and open source computer that looks as cool or cooler than a mac, and an even better gui than macOS, with the full power of linux.
Neat thing is...any of us (probably?) can build a sweet computer with style and certainly more individuality than a mac, and all of us ubuntu lovers are working on the gui right?
I think that macs, and the macOS, are important references for the future of open source computing.
Now if we can just figure out different interfaces (besides the keyboard and mouse) and all hitch a ride on a Virgin Galactic flight to the moon....(or anywhere in space for that matter... :)
hal? hal? are you there hal? (I think the reality of the future will be MUCH better than HAL.
This poll's existence surprises me, frankly.
I'd be more curious as to why the Linux community generally *likes* Apple (while disliking Microsoft).
Apple is extremely proprietary/closed source, etc., but most Linux users seem to not have the same disdain for Apple that they have for Microsoft.
Can you point to a few threads or posts on these forums that indicate Linux users seem to hate Apple or at least hate Apple more than Microsoft?
at the time, a mac-mini was not in our budget (bought a house) so i installed linux instead (bored with ME, microsoft's best product ever). since then, i have been to the apple store a few times and have always been disappointed by the sluggishness of the machines. otherwise, i think a mac would be interesting to have. i wonder if osx could be stripped down to more of the bsd elements and make use of a smaller wm.
I'm assuming by "best product" you mean best example of why they suck?
What about the option i don´t hate apple?
I personally will never buy a MAC , because i´m not willing to pay a small fortune for a PC harder to upgrade , with DRM in the future , and that cost´s a small fortune , besides , i already use a Unix based OS , so i´m not interested in Mac OS X just because has some cool graphic´s (Gnome is fine for me).
I hate m$ because they almost put a gun at my head to force me to use their crappy stuff , since Apple does not do that , i personally don´t see a reason to hate them , in spite off i don´t exactly like them either.
I hate Apple.
They are worse than Microsoft.
They don't want to sell their OS on other computers than the ones THEY make. They want to promote THEIR filetypes and standards WITHOUT leaving space for other formats (i.e. Ipod and .ogg files for exemple).
For now everything is acceptable in the eyes of most users because Apple is not #1 but they are using business practices that I do not endorse.
The linux market is much better and open to competition. All competitors (distributions) can fight each other without much compatibility problems. Same things with the other softwares.
Apple is too self centered and they are trying to get users addicted to their formats in the same way Microsoft did 10 years ago.
So I hate Apple, I hate Microsoft, and I hate any company that can't compete fairly.
Getting the users addicted to your software so they get stuck with it 10 years from now is just plain wrong.
I'm assuming by "best product" you mean best example of why they suck?
i fully enjoyed my five years with windows ME. i just needed a change.
i fully enjoyed my five years with windows ME. i just needed a change. you must be a masochist.
What about the option i don´t hate apple?
I personally will never buy a MAC , because i´m not willing to pay a small fortune for a PC harder to upgrade , with DRM in the future , and that cost´s a small fortune , besides , i already use a Unix based OS , so i´m not interested in Mac OS X just because has some cool graphic´s (Gnome is fine for me).
I hate m$ because they almost put a gun at my head to force me to use their crappy stuff , since Apple does not do that , i personally don´t see a reason to hate them , in spite off i don´t exactly like them either. but they are forcing you to buy their stuff. To use their hardware, you must run their software, and vice versa....if anything, their lock-in is much more secure than Microsoft's.
the linux community hates apple? where the hell did this come from? its news to me.
The real question is "why would someone actually like how Apple is acting".
This is why linux users tend to "hate" Apple
I switched to Apple 10 years ago, and I'm glad I did. The hardware and software seemed much better - smarter. It was a 5 minute job to add RAM to an older Mac even back then. PC hardware is put together better now.
Sometimes even little things in the Apple software suggest that the designers are looking for a better way to do things. Sometimes big things in MS software suggest that the MS engineers are thinking, "That's good enough for the likes of our customers."
I like Ubuntu, too, of course.
AFAIK, Linux users generally don't hate Apple. I don't know where you grabbed that "news", but it ain't correct, if you ask me. I do own Macs and Linux boxes. I don't hate Macs (they are actually some nice piece of hardware/software). The only thing I don't like with Macs is that they are so extremely expensive...
Given a lot of the responses here in this very thread, wouldn't it make sense for there to be an option that says, "I don't hate Apple, actually, and I have no idea where you're getting this Linux community hating Apple thing"? > **GeneralZod]This is news to me
Edit:
Oh. Is this some kind of parody/ joke thread?
Yeah, never heard about this too.
I think Apple has some bad and some good sides. I prefer Free software though.
But, I do not hate them in any way, it's not like MS that they are forcing their products on me.
I am very surprised about this poll, too. I do not hate apple at all. I actually like their products very much, even though they are not open-source.
What the hell is this heeho? I don't hate Apple said:**
I might hate MS but I am happy to see people using apple instead.
You got it the wrong way around.
After switching to Linux and talking to other Linux using geeks on the net I'm getting more interested in Apple's stuff and wish I could afford a Mac to dual boot OSX plus Ubuntu.
I like Apple. I plan on getting one when I get around to a new computer.
I don't hate apple.
What about the option i don´t hate apple?
the linux community hates apple? where the hell did this come from? its news to me.
AFAIK, Linux users generally don't hate Apple. I don't know where you grabbed that "news", but it ain't correct, if you ask me.
I don't hate Apple. I don't use it because it's expensive and I like free software (both as in speech and as in beer)
I can't stand Apple and I don't know if that qualifies as hate so I'll just say this, I wish Steve Jobs and his Lemmings would go off a cliff. :twisted:
Now I don't mean that personally to any individual person I'm refering to the whole scary cult of Jobs. So no thanks Apple I prefer to think for myself and not destruct when the comet flies overhead.
Well I'm surprised it seems I'm the only one who have a problem with Apple's attitude.
I don't really understand why one wouldn't like Microsoft but like the more self centered and less cooperative Apple company.
Oh well...
tseliot has it right.
The working quote here is "Macs are for hippies who want to look rich, and rich guys who want to look like hippies."
Apple is even more committed to proprietary solutions and vendor lock-in than Microsoft; That sums it up nicely. However I still don't hate Apple (although I don't buy their products either), because with a four(?) percent marketshare you just aren't *that* successful with vendor lock-ins.
And could somebody please remove the poll or replace it with something serious?
This poll would work if there were only two types of people, the "Apple hating" Linux Community and Apple - oh and the people care enough to poll them, plus those who do not belong to those three groups, and here I am wasting valuable time - wait - that puts me in the fourth group ! I want my own poll ! (long time listener - first time caller)
I didn't see the "Why would I hate Apple?" option, so I didn't vote.
I don't hate Apple, I don't hate that easily. Besides they make a damn fine operating system and have some really nice hardware. Neither do I hate Windows for that matter, even though I generally dislike their software.
That sums it up nicely. However I still don't hate Apple (although I don't buy their products either), because with a four(?) percent marketshare you just aren't *that* successful with vendor lock-ins. Exactly. I'm basically indifferent to Apple, although I think the iPod and iTunes are massively overrated and that there's better alternatives available. And I wish people would stop using the Quicktime file format.
I don't hate Apple. I cannot imagine myself ever buying Apple hardware though, because quite frankly it's kinda out of the reach of my budget.
I do own an iPod (Shuffle) though, which was a gift and serves me nicely.
As for Apple software, well some of it works very well for me.. some doesn't.
I don't hate Apple, I have three Macs in this place. When I bought my first one it was because I didn't like Windows, 3.11 at that moment, it looked stupid and it acted stupid. I didn't hate Bill Gates. Besides, I'm a graphic designer, technician by origin. What I sometimes do dislike is the mass hysteria about a bunch of ones and zeros and calling it digital lifestyle, the wishful thinking that the human race has outgrown the middle ages... We're still sticking together, fighting our little religious wars, and it's always the others who receive the blames. Nobody can force me to buy things or even 'think (buy) different'. I see myself as a computer user, not as a platform evangelist. I like my Ubuntu PC very much as well, I enjoy fiddling with LaTeX e.g. with it. But it has to be said that it is easier to get f**cking MySQL running with Mac OS X :rolleyes:
Were is the option for none?
This smells like a thread destined for the backyard.
This poll's existence surprises me, frankly.
I'd be more curious as to why the Linux community generally *likes* Apple (while disliking Microsoft).
Apple is extremely proprietary/closed source, etc., but most Linux users seem to not have the same disdain for Apple that they have for Microsoft.
Can you point to a few threads or posts on these forums that indicate Linux users seem to hate Apple or at least hate Apple more than Microsoft?
The linux culture is just blindly anti-MS.
Its obvious from reading these forums that alot of the anti-MS sentiments are just blind hate.
People saying things like Me was MS's best OS. People talking about BSODs in XP (I've used XP for 4 years and only experienced 2 BSOD and both were because of hardware failure as opposed to about 10,000 BSODs with 95/98).
It makes me wonder if some people here have used modern MS software.
Ever wonder why Apple computers usually NEVER have hardware issues with the hardware they build?
Think of it this way, Maximum compatiblity.
People saying things like Me was MS's best OS.
'people'? i think i'm the only one whoever said that here.
It makes me wonder if some people here have used modern MS software.
ME is the only os i have ever had besides linux. i had it for five years and enjoyed my computer quite a bit. one could hardly blame me for exaggerating slightly.
People saying things like Me was MS's best OS. You realise that this is sarcasm?
The linux culture is just blindly anti-MS.
Its obvious from reading these forums that alot of the anti-MS sentiments are just blind hate. I agree. We have two threads about this, actually: Why is everyone so anti-Microsoft? and Windows sucks? ... change attitude please
People saying things like Me was MS's best OS. I believe only one person said that (fuscia...?), and I don't think it was intended to be a slight against Microsoft.
People talking about BSODs in XP (I've used XP for 4 years and only experienced 2 BSOD and both were because of hardware failure as opposed to about 10,000 BSODs with 95/98). I've read that a lot, too (personally, I've never experienced a BSOD on 2000 or XP), but it doesn't happen as much on the Ubuntu Forums as on Linux Questions.
Ever wonder why Apple computers usually NEVER have hardware issues with the hardware they build?
Think of it this way, Maximum compatiblity. equals total control, equals vendor lock-in.
Historically Apple hardware has been more expensive than x86 hardware, too. Why? because x86 hardware commodified faster, and Apple kept a tight grip on hardware specs.
Apple are the anti-GNU; Microsoft are merely irritations.
I would actually be quite happy if I could get my hands on a new Mac laptop, just a bit pricey.
Solid OS and I can use BSD apps on it, even Linux although slower.
You realise that this is sarcasm?
According to fuscia it wasn't.
Not to knock you fuscia, but if you dislike MS and have only used Me then you should give XP a try. Its way more stable and secure with SP2.
I for one LOVE what Macs can do. Of course every OS has there good and bad sides, but if you want a more secure mainstream system that has good 3rd party software support, go with a Mac.
As far as MS goes... XP to me is the only decent OS they they have made.
I don't really hate Apple. I don't like it either. I am content to admire the interface (though I got Ubuntu looking like it for free) and its products (though I don't have an Ipod, as my creative zen micro does everything i need), from a distance. However, as regards DRM, Apple certainly gets on my nerves. Also, I think lots of its products are overrated (style over substance).
Just because it has got UNIX code in its kernel doesn't mean we have to like it. They are eager for profit, too.
And don't make out Bill Gates to be the villain and Jobs to be the martyr, or the hero. Gates donates more money than Jobs. Whether it is for PR or not is another matter, but the end result is the same.
Gates donates more money than Jobs.
first of all, you don't know that. just because you see or hear about gates donating more than you do jobs. do you know them personally? do you moniter their funds?
second, even if it were true, the simple fact is *gates has more money than jobs,* he should donate more.
The whole reason I started using Linux was because Apple was way too expensive. I had a nice computer (used) that had a ton of viruses. I had resolved to go and buy a Mac, but the one I could afford was the eMac (by all accounts, the ME of MACrosoft)
So I downloaded Knoppix in an attempt to back up my data before wiping windows, saw how great Linux was and haven't looked back.
I couldn't give up the package managment, choice of desktops and community of Linux and Ubuntu just for a pretty GUI.
I choose OTHER.. I dont hate Apple or Mac's, I think they are fine systems. They are just not what I am looking for. Cheers, Joey
According to fuscia it wasn't.
Not to knock you fuscia, but if you dislike MS and have only used Me then you should give XP a try. Its way more stable and secure with SP2.
Actually fuscia was being dead serious. She loved her Windows ME and likes to make it known. I personally think ME was the biggest POS that MSFT ever put out. I am not a MSFT hater/basher but I take great delight in bashing ME because it was the only OS system I ever dealt with that was a huge dissapointment. I like 2000 and XP and believe they were excellent products.
lub apple...
I was not aware that Linux community hates Apple. I think most people have a misguided opinion of Apple. Because it's an underdog most people think of it as a good company. The reality is that Apple is ALOT more closed than MS even with switching to Intel they are not allowing us to run their OS on anything other than Macs. Just because they are not on top doesn't make them any better than the leader.
I don't hate Apple, I just think their computers are ridiculously overpriced. I bought an eMac and will never buy another Apple computer. OS X is a pretty cool OS, but Linux is so much better. Plus on the eMac I have, OS X is pretty sluggish and it has a 1Ghz G4 processor. Plus you can't really upgrade a Mac unless you get a PowerMac, and even then you have to use Apple compatiple hardware which is often more expensive than its PC counterparts. Just too expensive, plus I can do a helluva lot mroe with Ubuntu than I can OS X or Windows. From multiple desktops, to a HUGE amount of free software Linux has it all.
BTW, the iPod is SO overrrated.
As a Mac user, I love Apple.
As a Linux user, I hate Apple because they benefit from open source so much and give back so little. (or they are at least minimally cooperative)
Well I come from the Personal Computer community andlove n hate em all equally.
Does that make me freak ?
I don't hate Apple, but I don't own any of their products either. I will admit to *looking down* on Apple, but I think that's because I have a heavy Windows background, and some of that was probably jealousy. :???:
But again, I have to use XP and Apples (usually OS 9.1 or 9.2) at work and try to avoid the Apples, just because everything is in the "wrong" place and it takes me longer to get things done. It's fear of change, fear of something different. ... You know the score.
But hate? Nah.
Aw crap, can somebody put in the "I don't hate Apple" option in the poll? :D
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused: Stealable? Is that how you see it? Go and learn a wee bit more about OSS and the GPL.
Apple doesn't scare me as much as Microsoft because: I've not heard of them pulling anything overtly monopolistic (feel free to send me links which speak to the opposite!). Microsoft, however... just look at what they did to DR-DOS, or Go Corporation. Look at their actions when they came under federal investigation. They clearly care only about owning the market, and will do anything to win it. Apple seems to actually play fairly and legally.
I hate apples!!! But i really like oranges:)
Apple doesn't scare me as much as Microsoft because: I've not heard of them pulling anything overtly monopolistic (feel free to send me links which speak to the opposite!)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/07/apple_itunes_antitrust_suit/
There are other alligations out there of a similar topic. A company may not be a monopoly to practice in an overtly monopolistic manner (ie. unfairly competitve business practices). In fact any company that produces a product that is not supportive of common formats (when adding support would be a minimal effort) is acting with an anti-competitve practice, and is greedy and anti-consumer. I don't see apple as coming off like some kind of saint here. The fact that are not an monopoly, doesn't mean that if they had the chance to overthrow M$ and rule all in the very same way, if not worse that M$, that they wouldn't.
No really, I don't hate apple, but thats because I don't have a long history with a mac and over the 3 years I did, it didn't piss me off like my experience with windoze.
But, I'm alittle baffled at the response of the tenured members of this forum that respond indifferent or pro mac. The confuses me, as there are many reasons the OSS crowd would object to the philosophy and business practices of apple. Prove me wrong, I double dog dare you!!!
Excuse my rant earlier, it's the whisky speaking.
I don't hate Apple (I'm writing this on Ubuntu PPC) but I do think OS X is an extremely disappointing operating system. Interface-wise, it's inconsistant, inconveniant, and Windows-y. Speed-wise, it's shocking. And OS X is probably the only BSD-based operating system which can actually give entire control of the processor to a misbehaving program.
I'm also annoyed that you can't load MP3s onto an iPod through normal plug 'n' play drivers. Sure... no other HD-based ones do that, and many other flash-based ones are the same; but Apple was the company that practically INVENTED plug 'n' play and drag 'n' drop!
And Apple moving to Intel was a bit of a silly idea too. AMD's chips run cooler, faster, and more power efficient than Intel's. They're cheaper too. How could Apple have lost with *that* deal, especially considering their fascination with making computers without fans? Also, Intel are branching out into making actual computers too. When this happens, expect Intel to have "supply problems" just like IBM.
But I don't hate Apple. I just think they've gone astray.
Apple or Microsoft, I don't hate either I simply prefer Linux.
Both OS's have good and bad points (and I could say the same about Linux), however I prefer the free and open-source philosophy which neither of these two companies demonstrate.
:cool:
My wife uses a Mac and I have Ubuntu. We both couldn't be happier. All the spyware, viruses, reboots, crashes, etc... are just something I read about, but have not experienced in quite a few years. Mac is a great OS if you need better multimedia support. Plus there a few apps such as Quicken that we still need and Mac provides. The Mac keeps me from having a certain other kind of machine around.
And I really do not get why people are so anti-mac? For some it seems that success is somehow wrong. Its not its a given that Apple will make it as a company. They own basically nothing in the market except the Ipod and now everyone is so weird about that there seems to be this conspiracy to crush that business. Apple could easily go out of business. I think its great that they know who their customers are and cater to them.
I certainly don't hate them, I just think Apple's a joke. Sure, it's easy to make your OS look real l33t when it only has to work one (absurdly overpriced) architecture.
I am conviced that it's quite the opposite. :) I mean, all the Mac users I know are pretty inclined to try new paths. Linux included.
Just read around and you'll that that Apple is more self centered than Microsoft.
If you hate companies that try to force people to be dependent on them, Apple is the worst.
If you would like to work in a company, most of the time, u'd need MAC and not Linux !! ;)
The softwares are much better in MAC os than under Linux !
An example: If you are an expert in this subject: If you compare Adobe Illustrator and the Inkscape for Instance .... The conclusion is very easy : Illustrator is sooo good & so far away from Inkscape
Softwares softwares ... Depends what u wanna do with your Tower ....
Linux, Mac, Windows, ... the choice depends on what u wanna do with it .
For sure, softwares are much better and more adapted to professional with a MAC than a LINUX (and it's like KDE thousand Crashes for instance) ;)
Greetings,
========== (Please you'd have to try everthg & know everthg in details before judging sthg and make a wise and well-founded judgemnet... )
we hate apple? .... No vote for me cuz i dont hate apple
I hate apple so much I'd like to have an ibook?
we hate apple?Yes apparently some of us do.
Certainly not the entire Linux community though. The topic title is a bit misleading. Take any group and you'll find that some of them like and some dislike pretty much anything thing you pull out of the air.
BTW, my position is: I dislike apple a great deal. But that should already be obvious, heh.
I hate apples!!! But i really like oranges:)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/07/apple_itunes_antitrust_suit/ Eh, that case sounds lame to me.
Oranges are yummy, especially while backpacking :).
Yes apparently some of us do.
Certainly not the entire Linux community though. The topic title is a bit misleading. Take any group and you'll find that some of them like and some dislike pretty much anything thing you pull out of the air.
BTW, my position is: I dislike apple a great deal. But that should already be obvious, heh.
I really think that since I can read replies and Posts of you, guys, the poll & thread is maybe exagerating ... Most Linux users do not hate Apple... Hate is a strong word. Apple has a very good OS, and that has been always known.
Greetz
It's not about hating Mac OS (which is good) or the way Macs look (they are cute).
It's about Apple the company and business model.
This is news to me :confused:
Edit:
Oh. Is this some kind of parody/ joke thread?
35 PM
Bragador It's not about hating Mac OS (which is good) or the way Macs look (they are cute).
It's about Apple the company and business model.
Not every one understood this way, I think ...
i fully enjoyed my five years with windows ME. i just needed a change.
Is it just me, but wasn't WinME widely recognized as the most bloated, crashy, I love the blue screen of death products to ever come out of Redmond?
It seems like everybody wanted to go from Win98 to XP...? (I know IT guys with large deployments of MS products, that did so...)
The best thing about a forum is that, while I never used ME, I can sure put in my 2 cents.:rolleyes:
What a crazy poll!!:confused:
I'd concider it if I had the money. I have the osx86, going to try that some day. But whenever I have to help my housemate who doesn't know * about his machine except fom making music on it, I find it kind of boring and difficult to work with. Because it's supposed to do everything for you. And it does'nt. So when you get into trouble, there's nowhere to look. Ahhh, it's just a bit boring. Maybe 'cause I haven't tried it enough. But all proprietary software tries to take control over your machine, quicktime wants to be your default video player. I don't like that. I hate that. They should ** off. And try to make som user friendly shit instead.
because I ripped 110 cd's just to find that my ipod can't play open formats
I don't hate Apple. But I don't like it as well.
Two reasons:
- I don't think, Apple software is customizable (speaking of function, not of look...). I have to admit: The only Apple software I really know is iTunes on windows *(which should be sort of a commercial produkt I think...)*, and in this case I have to say: I really can't stand this piece of software, I nearly hate it! It is so slow and unflexible!
OK, I got an iPod, too *(mainly because it was the only music device with a 60GB harddrive at that time...)*, but I never used it with that "look, I got an iPod" silly white earplugs. *[Earplugs suck anyway. I only use headphones. Sennheiser rules! :)]*
- I don't like the attitude of the apple-users: Oh, look at my stylish hardware! They are snobs!
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft.
Huh? I haven't seen Linux-users "hating" Apple. Sure, there propably are some Linux-users who dislike them (for various reasons). But there's propably Linux-users who hate coffee, does that mean that "Linux-users dislike coffee"? No it does not. Different people have different likes and dislikes.
I'd be more curious as to why the Linux community generally *likes* Apple (while disliking Microsoft).
Apple is extremely proprietary/closed source, etc., but most Linux users seem to not have the same disdain for Apple that they have for Microsoft.
Few reasons:
a) people like to root for the underdog b) Microsoft actively tries to kill Linux, Apple does not c) In addition to B, Apple actively supports several open-source projects. GCC, CUPS, Samba and KHTML for example. Microsoft does not do any of this.
Sure, their OS has closed and proprietary parts. But when compared to many other OS'es out there, they are quite open. Not as open as Linux in general, but A LOT more open that Windows for example.
No, I don't use OS X. I do love the hardware though.
They don't want to sell their OS on other computers than the ones THEY make.
Do you think that Dell and others have some God-given right to sell machines with OS X preinstalled? Apple is a HARDWARE-company. If they license their OS, they would be undermining their hardware-sales.
They want to promote THEIR filetypes and standards WITHOUT leaving space for other formats (i.e. Ipod and .ogg files for exemple).
it does support mp3's, and that is not Apple's "filetype".
For now everything is acceptable in the eyes of most users because Apple is not #1 but they are using business practices that I do not endorse.
Such as?
The linux market is much better and open to competition. All competitors (distributions) can fight each other without much compatibility problems.
Yep.
Same things with the other softwares.
like Windows?
Apple is too self centered and they are trying to get users addicted to their formats in the same way Microsoft did 10 years ago.
Uh, Apple isn't doing anything different that they haven't been doing for 30 years already.
So I hate Apple, I hate Microsoft, and I hate any company that can't compete fairly.
How exactly does Apple not "compete fairly"? Examples please.
but they are forcing you to buy their stuff.
No they are not. I haven't been "forced" to buy a Mac. I wasn't "forced" to buy an iPod. I did buy a Mac Mini (which I'm now selling) because I wanted to check out OS X, and because I liked the hardware. I also bought an iPod Mini because it was the best mp3-player on the market.
To use their hardware, you must run their software, and vice versa
There are LOTS of people running Linux on Macs you know. And just few weeks ago Apple released software that lets you run Windows (or Linux) on Intel-Mac. So how exactly are you forced to run their software, when they give you the possibility to use some other OS instead?
I don't hate any company. Not Apple, not Microsoft. The only thing I hate are the bad results of the MS-monopoly(less Hardware-support,less Software for other OS, IE-only sites, MS Office as document "standard"). But personally I believe that that is more the fault of the customers than of MS.
because I ripped 110 cd's just to find that my ipod can't play open formats If you have a 4G or 5G iPod, you might want to consider putting Rockbox on it. I've done it and it has great *.ogg support.
Do you think that Dell and others have some God-given right to sell machines with OS X preinstalled? Apple is a HARDWARE-company. If they license their OS, they would be undermining their hardware-sales. That's not what he said though, is it? Why should it be unreasonable for a potential customer to not choose Apple because he/she doesn't want to be stuck with an OS that only runs on one brand of hardware?
it does support mp3's, and that is not Apple's "filetype". I don't think that's the issue here. Apple is clearly trying to use the ipod to push their own music service and vice versa. They do this by makin it impossible for other to sell music for the ipod, as mp3 is not a format people can use to, at least, sell mainstream music, as they simply will not get a license for a non-drmed format.
That's not what he said though, is it?
Yes it is. He complained that OS X only works (legally that is) on machines that they make & sell (Macs).
Why should it be unreasonable for a potential customer to not choose Apple because he/she doesn't want to be stuck with an OS that only runs on one brand of hardware?
Did I say it's unreasonable? Some people choose to buy a Mac, someone else decides to buy a Dell. Each have their own reasons for their choice. Nowhere did I say that "It's unreasonable to NOT buy a Mac!". What I said that it's dumb to whine about OS X only working on Macs. Macs are a total package. Same company makes the hardware and the OS. That fact has some downsides and it has it's benefits. Some people are not confortable with that scheme, whereas others love it. Don't like that scheme? Fine, then don't buy a Mac. Problem solved.
Why aren't people whining because the OS on Nokia Communicator only works on the Communicator? In many ways the Communicator IS a computer.
I don't think that's the issue here. Apple is clearly trying to use the ipod to push their own music service and vice versa.
Yep. So? I have an iPod, and I have NEVER bought anything from ITMS. I'm in no shape or form forced to buy anything from there. Hell, I don't even use iTunes anymore!
Apple is doing the smart thing here. They have a positive feedback-loop here. More and more people are buying iPods, and because of that, there's more and more people using ITMS. And because of that, there are more and more people buying iPods. And along the way, some of those iPod/iTunes-users turn in to Mac-users as well. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. No-one is being forced to do anything, they just choose to do (or not do) something.
They do this by makin it impossible for other to sell music for the ipod, as mp3 is not a format people can use to, at least, sell mainstream music, as they simply will not get a license for a non-drmed format.
You can thank the record-labels for that DRM. And if some independent band wants to sell DRM-free songs for the iPod, there's NOTHING preventing them from doing so. They can sell normal mp3's through their website, and they would work just fine on the iPod. What exactly is the problem here?
I don't understand that everyone is crying that microsoft puts IE and a messenger and Mediaplayer in its OS. And Apple does one step more and sells its hardware with it. Both sell a total package. Apple get away with it because it looks trendy and cool. And its cool to bash MS.
Btw i hate none, all have good and bad points, Linux gives some more freedom of choose ( only some extreem users try to decide whats good for the rest ).
Yes it is. He complained that OS X only works (legally that is) on machines that they make & sell (Macs). And this is equal to saying that Dell has a right to sell PCs with OSX exactly how?
Did I say it's unreasonable? Yes, by taking a reasonable complaint and then acting like it meant something else and attacking this something else that nobody said.
Why aren't people whining because the OS on Nokia Communicator only works on the Communicator? In many ways the Communicator IS a computer. First off, who is whining? Second, the Communicator is not only in many ways a computer, it simply is a computer, but it's an embedded system, which makes this a whole different ball game. Third, Symbian is available on many devices, not only on the Communicator.
Yep. So? I have an iPod, and I have NEVER bought anything from ITMS. I'm in no shape or form forced to buy anything from there. Hell, I don't even use iTunes anymore! So? The problem is not that they can force you to buy music, the issue is that if you want to buy music online, which millions do, your only chance is ITMS.
Apple is doing the smart thing here. They have a positive feedback-loop here. More and more people are buying iPods, and because of that, there's more and more people using ITMS. And because of that, there are more and more people buying iPods. And along the way, some of those iPod/iTunes-users turn in to Mac-users as well. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. No-one is being forced to do anything, they just choose to do (or not do) something. Again, the issue is not that somebody is being forced, the issue is that this is anti-competetive behavior and I strongly believe that the lack of competition ultimately hurts consumers, so I would never, ever even consider buying an ipod.
You can thank the record-labels for that DRM. And if some independent band wants to sell DRM-free songs for the iPod, there's NOTHING preventing them from doing so. They can sell normal mp3's through their website, and they would work just fine on the iPod. What exactly is the problem here? For the third time, the problem is that Apple is not allowing competition for commercial vendors who want to sell music for the ipod. That some indy band might not care, or even some small alternative labels sell their music as mp3s does not change this fact. Tell me again why I shouldn't have problems with a company that doesn't let me freely choose where I want to buy my music online by denying competitors the possibility to license their propietary DRM technique?
I don't understand that everyone is crying that microsoft puts IE and a messenger and Mediaplayer in its OS. And Apple does one step more and sells its hardware with it. Both sell a total package. Apple get away with it because it looks trendy and cool. And its cool to bash MS. No, Apple gets away with it because it is not a monopoly. This has probably been explained a thousand times on this forum alone, but abusing a monopoly in one area to get market share in an other is illegal and that's exactly what MS is accused of doing.
I don't understand that everyone is crying that microsoft puts IE and a messenger and Mediaplayer in its OS. And Apple does one step more and sells its hardware with it. Both sell a total package. Apple get away with it because it looks trendy and cool. And its cool to bash MS.
There is a difference: Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not. Microsoft can't do things that some other company could do. THAT is the reason why Apple can do it, while Microsoft can't. When Microsoft bundled IE with Windows, they basically killed NEtscape, because everyone got IE by default, and it gave Microsoft easy method of saturating over 90% of the market with their product. That is something Apple can't do.
There is a difference: Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not. Microsoft can't do things that some other company could do. THAT is the reason why Apple can do it, while Microsoft can't. When Microsoft bundled IE with Windows, they basically killed NEtscape, because everyone got IE by default, and it gave Microsoft easy method of saturating over 90% of the market with their product. That is something Apple can't do. Doesn't matter if someone has a monoply, if MS can't do because of laws then it applys to apple to.
Is it just me, but wasn't WinME widely recognized as the most bloated, crashy, I love the blue screen of death products to ever come out of Redmond?
I just want to point out that my parents' computer is still using WinME and it's completely useable. The OS came with the computer, which is quite old by today's standard, so there's never a desire to upgrade now that I have my own laptop. They only use it to check emails, surf the web, print documents and do the tax. I've tweaked it so it actually boots faster than my XP and Ubuntu partitons and I check for spyware/virus regularly for them (and there are none). The only time I see the BSOD is when I have 10 apps opened at once...so my parents didn't have that problem. Of course, there's occasional problems like networking with XP, but normal users wouldn't have these headaches at all.
This is just based on my own experience of course.
And to be on topic:
I've never used an Apple product other than old mac during elementary school. I don't hate Apple though, I just like to have more freedom over both my hardware and software.
Doesn't matter if someone has a monoply, if MS can't do because of laws then it applys to apple to. No, it doesn't as there are laws against abusing a monopoly that by their very definition can only apply to those who have a monopoly.
And this is equal to saying that Dell has a right to sell PCs with OSX exactly how?
*sigh*.... the original poster whined that Apple only allows their OS to run on their hardware. I merely pointed out that other computer-manufacturers have no God-given right to OS X. OS X is Apple's OS, and they can do whatever they want to do with it. And since Apple is a hardware-company, it's sensible for them so limit their OS to their hardware, since the OS is one of the major competetive advantages Apple has over the likes of Dell and others. If someone doesn't like the fact that OS X only works on Macs, he's free to buy some other computer instead. But if he wants to use OS X, he has to buy a Mac, period.
Yes, by taking a reasonable complaint and then acting like it meant something else and attacking this something else that nobody said.
Again, the poster whined about the fact that OS X only runs on Macs. I merely pointed out that whining about that is pretty dumb. I did not distort his words in the slightest.
First off, who is whining?
The original poster
Second, the Communicator is not only in many ways a computer, it simply is a computer, but it's an embedded system, which makes this a whole different ball game.
To Apple, computer is an appliance. And they have every right to that viewpoint. And if you want to, you can replace their OS with some other OS.
Third, Symbian is available on many devices, not only on the Communicator.
Yes it is. And Darwin (more or less equivalent to Symbian in this example) runs on non-Macs as well. So what is the problem here? Sure, Darwin doesn't give you all the bells and whistles OS X has, but Symbian doesn't give you all the bells and whistles of Series 80 either.
So? The problem is not that they can force you to buy music, the issue is that if you want to buy music online, which millions do, your only chance is ITMS.
You can buy non-DRM'ed music as well if you want to. If you don't want ITMS, then buy some other player. Yes, I would love to have system that is interoperable. But I have hard time supporting a scheme that is tied to Windows Media as well.
Again, the issue is not that somebody is being forced, the issue is that this is anti-competetive behavior and I strongly believe that the lack of competition ultimately hurts consumers, so I would never, ever even consider buying an ipod.
There's plenty of competition in here. There are several music stores, and the market is FULL of mp3-players. And you are free to choose among them. maybe those other stores/players are just too crappy to be really competetive?
For the third time, the problem is that Apple is not allowing competition for commercial vendors who want to sell music for the ipod. That some indy band might not care, or even some small alternative labels sell their music as mp3s does not change this fact. Tell me again why I shouldn't have problems with a company that doesn't let me freely choose where I want to buy my music online by denying competitors the possibility to license their propietary DRM technique?
If I were you, I wouldn't buy ANY music online. Why is Apple-DRM bad, whereas Microsoft-backed Windows Media-DRM (which is used by the other music-stores) is good? I have said no to DRM, and I haven't bough ANY DRM-encumbered music online, from ITMS or elsewhere. My iPod is still perfectly good mp3-player, and it plays my mp3-collection just fine.
Doesn't matter if someone has a monoply, if MS can't do because of laws then it applys to apple to.
No it does not. There is no point in arguing about this, since the law clearly says that it's illegal to leverage one monopoly to gain dominance in another market. MS used their OS-monopoly to gain dominance of the browser-market, and that is ILLEGAL. But that limitation does NOT apply to Apple, because Apple does NOT have a monopoly, so there is no monopoly for them to leverage.
*sigh*.... the original poster whined that Apple only allows their OS to run on their hardware. I merely pointed out that other computer-manufacturers have no God-given right to OS X. Indeed, sigh. Complaining that OSX only runs on Macs is not the same as saying "other computer-manufacturers have no God-given right to OS X".
Again, the poster whined about the fact that OS X only runs on Macs. I merely pointed out that whining about that is pretty dumb. I did not distort his words in the slightest. See above.
To Apple, computer is an appliance. And they have every right to that viewpoint. And if you want to, you can replace their OS with some other OS. That's nice, but doesn't address the point I made. Embedded systems are different from multi purpose normal PCs.
Yes it is. And Darwin (more or less equivalent to Symbian in this example) runs on non-Macs as well. You can probably say a lot of things about Darwin, but that is in any way equivalent to Symbian, least of all in this example, is simply hilarious.
You can buy non-DRM'ed music as well if you want to. If you don't want ITMS, then buy some other player. Yes, I would love to have system that is interoperable. But I have hard time supporting a scheme that is tied to Windows Media as well. Me too. However that doesn't make me any more sympathetic towards what Apple are doing.
There's plenty of competition in here. There are several music stores, and the market is FULL of mp3-players. And you are free to choose among them. maybe those other stores/players are just too crappy to be really competetive? Nobody denied that there is competition on the whole market, the issue is that there is no competiton if you buy an ipod and that there is no competition if you want to use ITMS.
If I were you, I wouldn't buy ANY music online. Why is Apple-DRM bad, whereas Microsoft-backed Windows Media-DRM (which is used by the other music-stores) is good? Please stop making up new strawman arguments in any reply. That someone doesn't like Apple's anti-competitve strategy does in no way mean or even imply that the person has to think that Windos Media-DRM is good.
I have said no to DRM, and I haven't bough ANY DRM-encumbered music online, from ITMS or elsewhere. My iPod is still perfectly good mp3-player, and it plays my mp3-collection just fine. Fine and I'm glad you are satisfied with you ipod.
Apple is worse them microsoft in many ways. Cheap thirdparty hardware? No buy from apple. Sowftware ? Buy from apple. I would rather see apple bakrupt then microsoft. And i realy dont see any advantages of apple computers.
Indeed, sigh. Complaining that OSX only runs on Macs is not the same as saying "other computer-manufacturers have no God-given right to OS X".
In a way, it is. Who makes those other computers the user wants to run OS X on? Other computer-makers. And is the whole core of your argument my choice of words?
And isn't it a bit strange that people who apparently value freedom whine because Apple doesn't let them run their proprietary closed-source OS on hardware of their choosing? I would assume that to Linux-users, it's completely irrelevant on which platform Mac OS runs on (or doesn't), since Mac OS is just another proprietary OS. So why the whining?
I might understand the whining if Apple actively prevented others from running some other OS (like Linux) on their hardware. But they are not, quite the contrary in fact.
That's nice, but doesn't address the point I made. Embedded systems are different from multi purpose normal PCs.
Sez who? Who are you to say that "Apple is wrong when they consider computers to be appliances"? Many appliances are starting to resemble "multi purpose PC's", where do you draw the line? I can make phone-calls from my Communicator. I can play games with it. I can write texts with it, I can view presentations with it, I can send and receive emails with it, I can surf the web with it, I can make SSH-connections from it. Where do you draw the line between "embedded system" and "multipurpose computer"?
And like I said, you are free to run some other OS on their computer if you want to.
You can probably say a lot of things about Darwin, but that is in any way equivalent to Symbian, least of all in this example, is simply hilarious.
Darwin is the core upon which OS X is built upon. Symbian is the core upon which Series 80 is built upon. What exactly is the difference here? Or is there a difference because you say that there is a difference?
Please stop making up new strawman arguments in any reply. That someone doesn't like Apple's anti-competitve strategy does in no way mean or even imply that the person has to think that Windos Media-DRM is good.
You are whining that you can't those other DRM-encumbered music-stores with the iPod. Well, excuse me, but I have little sympathy for you, since I don't want ANY DRM, by Apple or by anyone else. I like my music with no DRM, and the iPod plays that content just fine.
Apple is worse them microsoft in many ways. Cheap thirdparty hardware? No buy from apple.
Third-party hardware works just fine with Macs. Vid-cards and the like are an issue though. I bought a external HD for my Mac and it "Just Worked".
Sowftware ? Buy from apple.
Are you saying that ALL software that is available for the Mac is made by Apple???? Clearly, you have ZERO clue what you are talking about.
And i realy dont see any advantages of apple computers.
I own (for now) a Mac Mini. And I have fiddled around with PowerBooks. And both pieces of hardware are simply superior to their PC-counterparts. Of course, yuo could quote some specs that "prove" how the PC is better. But I'm talking about the overall "feel" of the machine. No annoying stickers, no "Designed for Windows XP"-crap. Just smooth aluminium, VERY uncluttered design that for some reason is STILL eluding the PC-OEM's. The machines feel very.... serene. I have occasionally seen vaguely similar PC's, but they carry a huge price-premium with them. And no, Macs aren't THAT expensive when compared to PC's.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, i can do that myself.
In a way, it is. No, it isn't, not even in any way.
User A makes a reasonable argument: I don't like that Apple are tying their OS exclusively to their hardware as that doesn't allow me to for example build my own machine or buy a machine from some other vendor and put the OS on this machine. That's why I won't buy Apple.
Sushi: OMG! Stop y0ur Wh1n1ng!!!11!!! Dell hasn't got a god-given right to put OSX on their machines.
Pretty silly and a typical strawman argument.
Btw., did you even notice that you changed your argument and now try to defend something you in previous posts claimed you hadn't done at all?
And isn't it a bit strange that people who apparently value freedom whine because Apple doesn't let them run their proprietary closed-source OS on hardware of their choosing? Who says that people who post here value freedom when it comes to computers and if they do, who says they define it the way the free software foundation does?
And just for future reference. Calling everything critical someone else says which you don't agree with whining is only a very poor substitute for a well thought out argument.
Sez who? Basic logic. Embedded machines != PCs
Who are you to say that "Apple is wrong when they consider computers to be appliances"? First off, believe it or not, but I consider it my right to disagree with Apple. Second, don't attack the messanger, attack the message. Third, I did not say that what you claim Apple says is wrong, I pointed out that embedded systems are different from PCs.
Darwin is the core upon which OS X is built upon. Symbian is the core upon which Series 80 is built upon. So now you want me to agree that the core of an OS is the same as the OS itself on an other system? Silly.
You are whining that you can't those other DRM-encumbered music-stores with the iPod. I'm not whining and I made my critizism very clear the first 10 times around. No need to repeat it here to answer yet an other strawman argument from you.
Well, excuse me, but I have little sympathy for you, since I don't want ANY DRM, by Apple or by anyone else. I like my music with no DRM, and the iPod plays that content just fine. I also don't want any DRM, but that's not the issue here, no matter how much you try to spin it.
Seriously, if you can't come up with at least one halfway sane reply to what people actually said, I don't think there is any need to continue out little conversation here.
User A makes a reasonable argument: I don't like that Apple are tying their OS exclusively to their hardware as that doesn't allow me to for example build my own machine or buy a machine from some other vendor and put the OS on this machine. That's why I won't buy Apple.
For the record, this is the quote that started it all:
They don't want to sell their OS on other computers than the ones THEY make.
And I merely pointed out that other computer-makers have no God-given right to OS X and that Apple can do whatever they want with their OS. Don't like it? don't buy it. You are in no shape or form forced to buy Mac. I did buy a Mac, but I'm selling it.
Pretty silly and a typical strawman argument.
Not exactly. The original poster whined (yes, whined) that Apple only sells OS X for their own hardware. And (again) I merely pointed out that other OEM's have no god-given right to OS X, and whining about MacOS X only being available for Macs is pretty dumb. And there's nothing "strawman" about that. I did not distort the original comments in any way (but you DID distort my comments).
there are LOTS of devices that come with hardware and software bundled together. The two are a coherent whole where you can't replace one half with something else. But that is not acceptable when we talk about computers? Why? And even in this case, you are free to replace the Mac OS with some other OS. What you can't do it to run OS X in some other system. And I see no problem with that, since Mac OS is really meant for just one class of computers: Macs. Just because Windows, Linux and other OS'es were designed to run just about everywhere, it does not mean that ALL OS'es should be like that.
Apple sells computers. They also sell operating system to go with those computers. And they have that right. And if they want to limit that OS to their hardware, they have that right as well. And you have the right to not to buy their computers.
Btw., did you even notice that you changed your argument and now try to defend something you in previous posts claimed you hadn't done at all?
How exactly did I "change my argument"?
Who says that people who post here value freedom when it comes to computers and if they do, who says they define it the way the free software foundation does?
Maybe they should then just buy Macs and be done with it? If they want to run OS X, all they have to do to buy a Mac.
And just for future reference. Calling everything critical someone else says which you don't agree with whining is only a very poor substitute for a well thought out argument.
I called the original comments whining because that what they were.
Basic logic. Embedded machines != PCs
Uh-huh. And if those embedded machines do everything PC's do?
First off, believe it or not, but I consider it my right to disagree with Apple.
Sure, go right ahead. It's not like I worship the ground Steve Jobs stand upon.
Second, don't attack the messanger, attack the message.
What makes your "message" more correct than Apples message? Especially when we are talking about Apple's hardware?
Third, I did not say that what you claim Apple says is wrong, I pointed out that embedded systems are different from PCs.
And there are lots of "embedded systems" that do very same things as PC's do. No matter how much you pout and shout does not change that fact. So the question remains: What is an embedded system and what is a computer?
So now you want me to agree that the core of an OS is the same as the OS itself on an other system?
Silly.
You said that Darwin and Symbian are two totally different things. But they are in many ways quite similar. True, they are meant for different things and they are two different products, but they are both platforms upon which someone else built a total OS. Apple built OS X on top of Darwin. Nokia built (among others) Series 80 on top of Symbian. You then said that Symbian runs on other devices besides the Communicator. Well, Darwin runs on other hardware besides Macs. OS X does not, but Darwin does. Series 80 only runs on Communicators, but Symbian runs on other devices as well. What is the difference here?
I also don't want any DRM, but that's not the issue here, no matter how much you try to spin it.
DRM is not the issue, when you complain that other DRM'ed stores wont work with iPod? DRM is at the very core of this issue. Why don't those other stores work with iPod? Because of DRM. And yet you claim that "DRM has nothing to do with this"?
So you want "competition" so we could choose from different flavors of DRM? Whooppee, let's hear it for "competition"! isn't competition great? Not only can I choose to get screwed in one way, I can choose to get screwed in several different ways!
Seriously, if you can't come up with at least one halfway sane reply to what people actually said, I don't think there is any need to continue out little conversation here.
EDIT: I admit, I was being annoying here. So I removed the offending parts. My apologies.
I think that we should just agree to disagree here.
Have always wanted a nice Apple, can't afford one. Probably end up installing linux on it though!
i don't thiink people do hate apple. its more that mac fanboys hate linux, despite knowing jack about linux. a very strange and illogical breed indeed.
here you can read about the qualities that make up the different groups
[B]
Some interesting observations [/B] Apple Macintosh users fell into two categories. The first involved company loyalty which I expected. The other group wanted the applications available on Microsoft Windows including Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop.
The Apple Macintosh users also had little knowledge of Linux but indicated extreme prejudice against it. I also observed that Mac users fell into more vertical categories such as graphics, music and film editing and journalism. It appears Apple has lost its traditional education market.
Windows users voiced dissatisfaction with Windows and said they primarily "put up" with Windows to use Microsoft Office productivity tools. Primary use of Microsoft's productivity suite followed a pattern I anticipated. Of those surveyed approximately 80% used Microsoft Word, 10% used Excel and 3% used Access and the remainder used a variety of other tools such as Project.
Windows users overwhelmingly used Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer while Media Player has wide spread use among home users and modest use in organizations. Windows users were subject to panic disorder, anxiety attacks and depression consistent with those in the general population. read the rest here.
... a lot of bla bla bla... And no, Macs aren't THAT expensive when compared to PC's.
I realy dont see your point here , are you trying to sell me an apple computer? I dont hate them i just dont want to support them. (apple , dell ,a.s.o. )
outsourcing beeing the main reson for not supporting dell.
in my own personal opinion i actually put apple macs higher up than anything created/rehashed by MikeWrong $hafted because they did a better job at reselling/rebranding/recoding unix than M$.
if you speak to any one who has moved from M$ WindBlows to *nix they feel quite lost at first, but when you ask the same question to someone who moved from Apple to *nix they still feel at home and recognise the similarities.
Basicly winblows is a marketing scam gone wild & became the norm because there were to many people out there that did not recognise what a bad idea it was to let billy do what he wants, hence the reason why he's now in court every 5 minutes with acusations of monopolising and expoliting every niche,nook,cranny & Granny in the OS market.
sorry to offend with such a generalisation but i feel my IT knowledge has been adversly affected by billy
i don't thiink people do hate apple. its more that mac fanboys hate linux, despite knowing jack about linux. a very strange and illogical breed indeed.
This is how it is in my experiences as well. Mac fanaticals just love spouting the same ol' lines they've heard for years, mostly against Windows, but also against Linux.
There was a previous post in this thread where a Mac user was impressed that he could plug a USB hard drive into his Mac and that it "just works." I hear this phrase a lot :rolleyes: Try plugging the same drive into an XP or Linux box. OMG! Incredible! It also just worked. A number of Mac users simply haven't tried Windows regularly (or tried Linux at all) to realize stuff like this is not some magical benefit of OSX.
As far as design goes, I would agree with those that say Macs are generally better looking that Dell/HP/Whatever desktops/laptops. You're still getting the same type of parts on the inside, but generally with a abetter looking case. Something like the Mac Mini is quite impressive; even though it's essentially a laptop-sans screen/keyboard component wise, it's compact and also quiet. I am considering one to dual-boot XP and Ubuntu (not impressed with OSX, but that's another story).
Mac fanaticals just love spouting the same ol' lines they've heard for years, mostly against Windows, but also against Linux. that may well be because, traditionally, there was apple and there was microsoft. apple had one corner of the market, and MS had the rest. despite linux coming up through the ranks, its been like that a while with apple and MS. and because apple is very niche, this has helped to strengthen and solidify their *cult* belief in apple so much so that they can no longer be pragmatic about it.
on linux, things are almost at the 'just work' stage. but they never used to be like that. in a few years time, maybe linux fanatics will be exactly the same as mac fanatics.
I didn't vote because I don't hate apple.
I'm happy with Ubuntu because the high degree of configurabilty and because it's open source. But I've adviced my dad and others who are less "geeky" than me to try a mac with OS X.
OS X is unix The major part of the OS X kernel is open source There's more commericial software available for OS X than for linux(for example games) OS X has better hardware support than linux and windows (because they sell hardware and there's less configurability)
I hope Apple goes more open source though.
Apple is worse them microsoft in many ways. Cheap thirdparty hardware? No buy from apple. Sowftware ? Buy from apple. I would rather see apple bakrupt then microsoft. And i realy dont see any advantages of apple computers.
Cheap third party hardware? I have 3rd party RAM, a 3rd party HDD, and a 3rd party DVD burner thank you very much. No fiddling with the OS required.
Are you suggesting that all of the software titles on the Mac come from Apple alone? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. And let's not forget that you can run OS X, OS 9, CLI, GNOME, and KDE apps (although the latter two are quite slow).
I have my reasons for disliking Apple's policies even as a Mac/Ubuntu user, but I would rather see OS X proliferate than Windows, even if Apple sticks by its policy of security through obscurity (further reading).
Good job, guys. Great gag thread. Laughed my *** completely off. :D
OS X has better hardware support than linux and windows My printer would like to disagree here.
My printer would like to disagree here. well maybe not for printers (I don't know) but AFAIK more there are at least as much 3d party hardware manufacturers supporting OS X as there are supporting linux .. probably a lot more. If you already own a mac before buying a printer it's very easy to select a printer which is supported (probably easier than for Ubuntu). And if you buy a new mac the machine perfectly supported out of the box ofcourse.
Ubuntu has good hardware support and it is improving but it is not good enough yet for some new users.
Ever since Apple introduced OS X, the Linux community started liking them a lot more than MS.
Personally, I don't really like their closed-source policies and "you must buy our hardware to run our OS" attitude. It's their right though, and they're a fairly cool company.
I was going to write this in a Mac forum but there are so many idiotic apple fanboys that lack any technical skills and worship at the altar of Steve Jobs testicles, that I would just be flamed into oblivion. So I am presenting my experiences to you, let it serve as a warning, the grass is not greener and hype means little.
I bought myself a Macbook, 2ghz 1gb ram intel, these things are considered fast by the apple fanboys used to PPC. I will dismiss that straight away, the hardware may be fast, but OS X is the slowest OS I have yet used, which is Linux and Windows. A bit like windows, it boots fast and displays the desktop but kinda cheats, you aint getting anything done for another 10seconds.
If its an Apple application like Safari is loads fast, if its not, like Firefox jeez, it takes 40seconds to load. Apps like google earth run slower than the Linux version (and the linux version leaves some to be desired)
The inbuilt applications *suck*, you have to get Firefox to replace safari, VLC to replace quicktime. iTunes is complete crap compared to Amarok, the terminal is pathetic compared to Konsole or Gnome Terminal. iWeb is web design for the retarded, seriously if you cant figure out dreamweaver you shouldn't be exposing us to your crappy webpages.
Every so often you see a beach-ball mouse cursor that stops you doing anything, I remember when I used windows 95, maybe it was even 3.1 with the hourglass... its like that..
You get strange errors every so often, the usual advice is to 'repair' permissions, which usually works, but the fact that the unix underbelly is getting screwed up that much is disturbing.
Clearly there are some good points.. I would still take it over Windows. Things do 'just work', WPA wireless,bluetooth, all do work (with some minors flaws). I also use it to burn CDs since my CD burning broke in dapper.
OS X is often considered to be the pinnacle, its not, its quite good but no more!, I'd recommend it for a senile grandparent to learn with.
oh and my 60gb disk came 50gb full... 10gb to play with, nice =/
well, at least you can install something better onto that :)
Apple's usability conventions are what turned me off from OSX: it's no more simpler or user friendly then any other desktop, only the icons are larger. In fact I found the lack of cross-OS interoperability most frustrating; for example: DRM, limited-life proprietary formats, strange filing system (thumbnails.db x 100), etc.
And the way they try to make certain things simpler on the surface (yet more complex internally) only makes it more difficult to get out of a bad situation (iMovie crashed, only thing left were a couple of hundred, oddly named MOV files that weren't really MOV files)
But it's shiny, I guess.
re: 'things just working'. Isn't all that hardware produced or certified by Apple in the first place? What a hard job that must have been
Forgot to mention, Finder is the worst filemanager ever, not a patch on the KDE and Gnome managers.
But ^^ it is indeed shiney :).
stimpack, are you a long time *nix user before trying OS X? I have been in the market for an new laptop and becuase of the discussions on this forum I picked up a Macbook with specs similar to yours (80GB insead of 60). I did this to take a new operating system for a spin and so far I'm quite impressed. Regarding your comments on application speeds, I have read a few articles regarding "Rosetta" and the fact that a lot to the code is less than optimized for the new intel processor, as much of it was borrowed from the PPC versions. http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/macintel-only-25-faster-than-g5-when-jobs-lies-macbooks-fry-150292.php
I am amazed at the boot time and impressed with the preformance of Ubuntu running in Parallels.
My system came with only 18GB of used space. I wonder why you had so much used space.
Appoligies to the forum for this post, as it's not really all that linux related. Did I mention I'm running virtualized ubuntu on the macbook. :)
My wife's laptop is running fine enough, with no errors so far, over a period of 4 months.
Linux user since RH7, dont know if thats long time or not, I can certainly be and frequently am, a noob still.
I was very impressed at first, and still am impressed with the hardware, the macbook is a sexy thing. I don't mean to put OS X down too much, rather bring it down to earth, it is in no way the pinnacle of operating systems, it is quite ordinary imo.
I am switcher.
Except I gave up on OS X last year. I just didn't see the point anymore. With the transition to Intel, Apple has very few native applications.
I found many Mac users use OS X simply for the sake of not using Microsoft. Well, there is Linux for that.
With the transition to Intel, Apple can no longer clame hardware superiority. I mean there are just making the box. And now, they are making boxes that whine, overheat, and stain a yellowish tint.
Additionally, it is amazing that Apple claims their Intel machines are 2-5 times faster than the flagship G5s. This basically means their claims previously about the PPC superiority were nothing but lies. Now I get to see those annoying commercials all day.
If you wanna "Think Different", use Linux. And save yourself the time of getting a decent notebook that won't whine.
Add...and at least with Linux I don't get that spinning beach ball of death. Stable??? My Windows XP Pro partition is more stable than OS X.
I've been thinking of getting a Mac Mini from freepay. I have to admit it right here and now, before I even was thinking about it I tried to install OS X on my 'vanilla' PC, only testing it, deleted it. I have to say, OS X is 'Shiny', but it does leave a lot to be desired for long-time power-user & linux-user people. The Terminal app is a JOKE, and the HOME/END keys don't work like they should. OS X is about the eye candy, hell, I got AI/XGL. Even though I am still considering getting the mac through freepay 'cause I need a new PC, OS X probably wouldn't be my primary OS(I do like iTunes though, bought two songs off of it.)
netkid91 said: I've been thinking of getting a Mac Mini from freepay. I have to admit it right here and now, before I even was thinking about it I tried to install OS X on my 'vanilla' PC, only testing it, deleted it. I have to say, OS X is 'Shiny', but it does leave a lot to be desired for long-time power-user & linux-user people. The Terminal app is a JOKE, and the HOME/END keys don't work like they should. OS X is about the eye candy, hell, I got AI/XGL. Even though I am still considering getting the mac through freepay 'cause I need a new PC, OS X probably wouldn't be my primary OS(I do like iTunes though, bought two songs off of it.)
If you need a new PC, and your not primarly running OS X, why get a Mac Mini? :-k Your just going to have to go through the trouble of running bootcamp to even get Linux up and running. You can install a copy of Windows 2000 Pro (because there is no activation) to run iTunes. You can build a better PC, for less than the Mac Mini.
Fry's Electronics, iBuyPower, TigerDirect, etc...
ArizonaKid said: If you need a new PC, and your not primarly running OS X, why get a Mac Mini? :-k Your just going to have to go through the trouble of running bootcamp to even get Linux up and running. You can install a copy of Windows 2000 Pro (because there is no activation) to run iTunes. You can build a better PC, for less than the Mac Mini.
Fry's Electronics, iBuyPower, TigerDirect, etc... Ehhh....why you think I'm getting it from FreePay? Besides, I'm primarily getting an OS X PC because I have fallen in love with TextMate for Ruby on Rails work, and I have friends who use OS X so it's a pain to help them troubleshoot their systems without making the open a terminal...That...and...it's pretty........
stimpack said: oh and my 60gb disk came 50gb full... 10gb to play with, nice =/
im surprised that im the first person to say this...but i dont believe that.
Ditto...considering a BASE OS X install with iTunes, and a few other things should be at MOST 10 gigs. I don't think even iLife takes up much space.
A lot of negative reviews of Mac ..
I can't refute any of this, I've never owned a Mac, and don't really plan on owning one in the future.
I'm not bedazzled by the eye-candy, rather, I've always thought of Mac's as 'Cute' rather than 'Stunning'.
I don't like the interface very much, the OSX bar at the bottom just has a bunch of pretty icons, and I've never been able to believe that it actually offers much of anything in *functionality*. I used engage before, but tossed it, as it was a pretty, but useless tool.
The menu bar up top *is *actually pretty functional, and I'm sure if I used it alot I would start to like it, but I can get that bar in KDE aswell anyway. And I choose to not use it.
The biggest detterent though, usability and looks aside, is the whole fanclub attitude towards a fiercely proprietary company, headed by a fanatical lunatic who only aspires to have the market control that Microsoft does.
I know I'm rehashing things already said in this thread, but I've already got an alternative to Microsoft. And when linux fanboys go off on a tangent about 'stickin it to the man' and doing something original, what they're saying is at least partly genuine. It's not some half-baked marketing trend, through which people can look 'hip' and be 'individuals' by putting a Mac sticker on their rear-windshield.
Dear lord, are the commericals stupid too... Yeah, Mac's are invulnerable to malware, and PC's are inherently susceptible to the common cold.
That said, I would probably use a Mac if it was given to me, and just install linux on it.
I prefer to see Macintosh solely as a computer manufacturer.
starting before i used linux, i have considered getting a mac on a number of occassions. but, whenever i would go to the apple store to play with their stuff, i would leave disappointed. i've not seen the macbooks, but the ppc models were slow as hell and the ibooks were fairly fuzzy (i love the wsxga screen that i got on my system76). the apple store itself reminds me of that old show with patrick macgoohan, called *the prisoner*. whenever i'd leave the store, i'd worry about getting chased across the parking lot by some giant white bubble.
the apple store itself reminds me of that old show with patrick macgoohan, called *the prisoner*. whenever i'd leave the store, i'd worry about getting chased across the parking lot by some giant white bubble. HAHAHA
jeez man, that's one to remember
..
netkid91 said: ... The Terminal app is a JOKE,...
Whats funny about the terminal? Seems fine to me.
Good Things So Far... 35-40sec to boot and access the gui terminal app.
The best program for UI I have ever used is the program Expose. Drag mouse to corner of screen and all windows become visible in a shrund down tiled manner. It think there is something in xgl/compiz that does this?? VERY functional eyecandy.
Bad Things... I'm having a hell of a time understanding the BSD, or possibly bastardized BSD filesystem structure. I also hate that when I try to execute/open an app, I have to give it the full path preceeded by the command "open" to launch. This is crazy. Installed system-wide apps not in my path, and using "open" is driving me nuts.
There is no apt-get variation, and I'm getting tired of searching for apps on the web, and having to wade thru shareware and trialware. However, there is a project called Fink, which installs apps using apt-get and can install ported linux programs. Quite nice.
Final Statement... The macbook is so far the perfect notebook/computer that just works. Allows me to surf the web at starbucks (and look cool doing it), edit openoffice files and do other fun stuff. But, I don't feel all that powerful when using OS X, I feel very constrained. Finding software (esp opensource apps) is extreemly difficult. And I feel like OS X won't give me control without a fight. So what do I do when I'm unhappy with the OS X interface and software. Well just click one button and start ubuntu in parallels. Hell, maybe there is a program I want to run in windows. ClickClick. Now I'm running OSX, Ubuntu, and XP all at the same time. This freakin kicks ***.
Yes, I bought a MAC to run all these OS's simultanously, not because it makes sense, but because I can.
I think OSX is just hype. It's a pita to navigate, I don't know wtf the Mac fanboys are talking about with OSX having better workflow. I can't even browse thumbnails in Finder because only about a dozen icons load thumbnails, if there are more photos than that in the dir they don't show up as thumbnails. Also there is no apt, so installing any software that has dependencies can be a pita. Who has time to search the net for software these days? Synaptic ownz! I honestly prefer Ubuntu, I think it is easier to use (once set up). I have a 3 year old ibook and a 3 year old PC and the PC is 150X faster than the ibook, which is a pig, and probably cost double what my PC did. The only advantage Mac has is commercial software support. I can't run Pro-Tools or Reason on Linux.
Looks - 10/10 Usability - 5/10 Cost - 1/10
aysiu; Cost - 1/10
I picked up a macbook 2GHz Intel Core Duo L2 Cache 2MB System bus 667MHz 1GB RAM 80GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA DVD±RW/CD-RW Video camera Built-in iSight Display 13.3-inch (diagonal) glossy TFT widescreen display, 1280 x 800 resolution Ports One FireWire 400 port (8 watts); Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps); Mini-DVI port with support for DVI, VGA, S-video and composite video output (requires adapters, sold separately) Audio Built-in stereo speakers, built-in omnidirectional microphone, combined optical digital audio input/audio line in, combined optical digital audio output/headphone out Networking Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T (Gigabit) Wireless Built-in 54 Mbps AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi (802.11g)3; built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (Enhanced Data Rate) module. AND a IR remote for media playback Ohh, and weighs 5.2lbs
For $1450.00
Can you find a similar or comparable system for much cheaper. I couldn't. I was suprised too, because I thought Apple overcharged for everything, but this system was quite reasonably priced for the hardware.
Looks - 8/10 Usability - 7/10 Cost - 8/10
ArizonaKid said: I am switcher.
Except I gave up on OS X last year. I just didn't see the point anymore. With the transition to Intel, Apple has very few native applications.
Truth. And with MS and Adobe sitting on their respective application suites, what does that say about their commitment to the platform? No one is going to bend over backwards for 2% of the desktop market.
I found many Mac users use OS X simply for the sake of not using Microsoft. Well, there is Linux for that.
I was also one of them until I installed Breezy on my girlfriend's Dell in January. Then I figured, why not do the same for my PowerBook? It has been a challenge, but I finally have a fully functional dual-boot system with wireless and (almost) everything. And I'm still learning something new every day.
With the transition to Intel, Apple can no longer clame hardware superiority. I mean there are just making the box. And now, they are making boxes that whine, overheat, and stain a yellowish tint.
And there are many more issues as documented both at Apple Defects and Rixstep (see Industry Watch and Learning Curve).
Additionally, it is amazing that Apple claims their Intel machines are 2-5 times faster than the flagship G5s. This basically means their claims previously about the PPC superiority were nothing but lies. Now I get to see those annoying commercials all day.
How is Apple going to explain to professionals the Intel's superiority when they release the Mac Pro? Intel doesn't do 64-bit computing. Apple have literally traded Ferrari engines for Fords.
When Apple pitched promos to the scientific community to choose a Mac, the G5's superiority was frequently cited especially with regards to 64-bit.
Apple has been lying all along to keep what is left of their 2%. The PowerPC claims. Free e-mail that is "yours to keep" (iTools before the bait and switch to .Mac). "Optimized for G3s" (OS X Cheetah). I could go on and on.
If you wanna "Think Different", use Linux. And save yourself the time of getting a decent notebook that won't whine.
OS X is not even UNIX anymore. Apple have turned it into a beige box nightmare to appease to the rabid fanboys who wanted their OS 9 bits back. Then you have the likes of Goober (Daring Fireball) spearheading the zealotry and war cries over Mark Pilgrim and Cory Doctorow's departures from OS X to Ubuntu.
Add...and at least with Linux I don't get that spinning beach ball of death. Stable??? My Windows XP Pro partition is more stable than OS X.
Linux runs circles around OS X on the same hardware. I replaced Panther on my clamshell with Breezy and literally breathed new life into it - a 6 year old (quickly approaching 7) laptop that was supposed to optimally run 10.0. We all know how that one turned out. :evil:
alphasubzero949 said:
OS X is not even UNIX anymore. Apple have turned it into a beige box nightmare to appease to the rabid fanboys who wanted their OS 9 bits back.
I have to disagree with this bit. (the rest of the post was spot-on). The rabid fanboys are the ones who immediately proclaimed that OS X was the best thing since sliced bread. The long-time, down-to-earth users were the ones who wanted the interface a bit more friendly to people who were familiar with OS 9. Apple did nothing to appease OS 9 users. Quite simply, OS X encourages disorganisation, which was the bane of the professionals who continued to use OS 9 even after the end of its support, and who now use Windows.
And how balloonin' slow is OS X? I know it's a microkernel, I know the PPC chips are no longer as good as x86, I know it uses a kinda high-level programming language, I know it uses a fair bit of legacy 1990s code, I know it has eye-candy... but its lack of speed is absolutely ridiculous.
You're spot on, but OS X wasn't always crap. NeXTSTEP was brilliant - as was OpenStep. Clean interface with the Unix underbody and nothing in between. And it was very portable, running on Solaris, Windows NT (with an occasional wince or two) as well as x86, Motorola, PPC, HP-UX, and so forth.
What you used was a pale corrupted copy of NS/OpenStep. OS X has been increasingly a mess since before it came out. The peak - where OpenStep was prominent and the 'junk' didn't yet overtake it - was right at the end of the 'Jaguar' cycle. By 10.2.8 quality control was going out the door and the 'Apple enhancements' were really bringing the thing down.
NS/OpenStep come with a pedigree from Alan Kay's Smalltalk-80. As such they're unsurpassed even today for systems development and ease of use.
In fact, despite the GNOME die-hards, they would make a great alternative for Ubuntu which could really push Ubuntu out in front of the pack - including Windoze.
To this day there is no real counterpart anywhere. GNUstep won't do it, even with Window Maker. What Avie accomplished at NeXT and in the first years at Apple was good stuff. After that the fanboys started taking over and it was just a question of time. Today OS X is a royal mess and it's only getting worse.
OS X slow? You bet. There are so many middlemen in the code it's not funny. You don't have a clean interface like GNOME to the Linux kernel - or like NS to FreeBSD in the 'good old days'. And NS threading was never particularly good or sophisticated. That part of the game came after their initial work in Redwood City as I understand it and they never caught up, obsessed as Apple management have been with more and more silly bells and whistles.
So while OS X is truly starting to smell bad, the technology used to build this hodgepodge once upon a time was as clean and well designed as anything you've ever seen, fully on a par with what you're using today and in many respects still way out in front where you can't catch it with the technology you have available today.
3rdalbum said: I have to disagree with this bit. (the rest of the post was spot-on). The rabid fanboys are the ones who immediately proclaimed that OS X was the best thing since sliced bread.
And I have to disagree with your bit.
The rabid fanboys were against Jobs and NeXT from the get-go. They literally booed Steve Jobs on stage when he previewed FileViewer. (What did they get? The same program with the name 'Finder'. And that appeased them.)
It took Apple YEARS to get a completely turnkey system out the door in Cupertino. OpenStep was running All Over The Place. Back in 1997 Amelio wanted Rubinstein and Tevanian to each do their thing and produce the best h/w and s/w to run on anyone's h/w and s/w no exceptions. OpenStep didn't need more work.
And back then MS had not yet come out with Windows 98. Think about it: Apple finally released a usable version of OS X on 24 August 2002. But the 'merger' took place in January 1997 - over five years earlier.
What did they do for those five and one half years? Improve OpenStep? Really? Haha. How?
No: they backtracked - continually. They ran into violent opposition from fanboys and fanboy ISVs. They decided (and history will condemn) to wire in a Carbon 'toolbox' (which is reason #1 for bad performance to this day). That took a LOT of work: all the NS code had to be yanked out of those pristine classes and put in procedural form so fanboy ISVs didn't have to spend three hours to learn Objective-C. [True.]
And they missed what? They missed MS coming out with (count 'em) Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows 2K, and Windows XP. Talk about mismanaging marketing opportunities. They should all be fired.
And what for?
So don't say fanboys applauded OS X because they didn't, and looking back at what was written at the time (and how David Pogue and Chris Stone have had to knock heads to get them to listen) it's pretty obvious they were resistant - violently so.
As any NeXT programmer will tell you, the only things wrong with OS X today are what the fanboys whined and stomped to get pushed through. Had they not made such a childish stink, OS X would have been out Q2 1997 and preempted Microsoft completely.
professor_chaos said: Regarding your comments on application speeds, I have read a few articles regarding "Rosetta" and the fact that a lot to the code is less than optimized for the new intel processor, as much of it was borrowed from the PPC versions.
It's not a question of optimisation. The code has to be recompiled. But even that doesn't tell much of the story.
Intel CPU architecture is vastly different from PPC architecture. Intel is old as in 'long gray whiskers' and PPC is cutting edge as in 'tomorrow' and 'Cell' and Xbox, Sony, the rest. The PPC houses dozens of on board registers, meaning code's brought in and just runs. Intel has to be doing switcheroos all the time, and even if they have RAM access down to one clock cycle it still takes time - a lot of silly extra clock cycles for nothing.
Meaning 'optimised' code has to take this into account. You can't have wandering temporary (not automatic) variables all over the place. Your Intel will have to do switcheroos all the time. Seemingly unrelated instructions become related. Intel programming is a nightmare.
Moving on an Apple box to a 'universal' build means using another version of the GCC as well and some old snippets won't work.
Running PPC code through an ABI is never going to be as fast. And code running on an Intel is never going to be as good.
professor_chaos said:
Final Statement... The macbook is so far the perfect notebook/computer that just works. Allows me to surf the web at starbucks (and look cool doing it), edit openoffice files and do other fun stuff. But, I don't feel all that powerful when using OS X, I feel very constrained. Finding software (esp opensource apps) is extreemly difficult. And I feel like OS X won't give me control without a fight. So what do I do when I'm unhappy with the OS X interface and software. Well just click one button and start ubuntu in parallels. Hell, maybe there is a program I want to run in windows. ClickClick. Now I'm running OSX, Ubuntu, and XP all at the same time. This freakin kicks ***.
To start off with, it's rather amusing to see one rabid post dissing other rabid posters :P I'm not calling the original poster a fanboy, or saying they're a lunatic, but there's probably a... calmer... way of saying what he or she wanted to say.
Anyway, I'd like to relate my macbook pro experience. I bought it in March, and with a bundled iPod and education discount it didnt cost me /that/ much, seeing as it's dual core and all it was reasonably comparable to pc laptops- reasonably, for god's sake I'm not saying that's a surefire $1000 saving fact here :)
It's performed remarkably well, runs windows and mac os x without flaw, and is really, really fast. It makes a nice addition to my kubuntu/windows box and my sid box. I have had none of the whining or exploding or falling spaceships or whatever else people complain about on apple forums (jesus, that's a scary place).
Overall, I agree with professor chaos in his summary. The OS does constrain you a little, but that's its job in a certain sense- apple does have a whole range of applications for you to buy :/ So, how do we go about starting to fix this? Why, Open Source of course! http://www.opensourcemac.org/ showcases the best and brightest application offerings for the mac, and fink allows a world of software at your fingertips, just like apt. And yes, god damn does parallels kick some serious booty.
A few other points- It's been brought up firefox is as slow as a slug. Well, the vast majority of people I know don't use firefox, they use camino, which has been designed with the mac in mind in all aspects- looks, performance, UI integration, etc. Finder has been bashed around a bit, perhaps deservedly so... but for god's sake, don't use finder! Use QuickSilver! It's katapult, but more advanced! **amaroK beats iTunes hands down. Unfortunately, iTunes just ties in too nicely with the mac os to be using anything else... once again, good ol' quicksilver to the fore.
So please, from a person who uses all three major OSes (even though linux remains a favourite), give the mac a bit of a chance here. It might seem weak at first glance, but if you're a user you soon wonder why the heck you were thinking that in the first place.
Anyway, my two cents.
f1dave said: I bought it in March, and with a bundled iPod ...
Nice to see that Apple are locking you into their iTunes service already.
Why would you have to buy Quicktime just to get full-screen, even though you paid loads for the computer in the first place? Of course, the solution is just to install VLC.
I had to use a Mac last semester. I hated it. It randomly crashed just after i had imported all my footage into iMovie, so i had to do it again. There is nothing intuitive about only having one mouse button or hiding all the USB ports and power button at the back of the monitor. OS X's eye candy is quite nice, but it doesn't beat Compiz. The effect of all the eye candy is the RAM gets choked. Seriously OS X is a one ap at a time OS and i'm all about having lots of programs running at once.
The link between the 'i' series of programs is a joke, the first time i burned my project somehow between going from imovie to idvd the sound was lost. I had to reimport and re-render which frankly takes ages, i'm only burning a DVD for crist sakes. Safari is the slowest browser ever, i swear, and its really clunky with it.
And to finish my project i had to bring my laptop with ubuntu on it in anyways so i could rip some films but oh wait iMovie can't handle .vob. Thanks, Mr Jobs, guess i'll use VLC to do what quicktime and iMovie can't.
Mac OS X is a big fat shiney joke.
bruce89 said: Nice to see that Apple are locking you into their iTunes service already.
Why would you have to buy Quicktime just to get full-screen, even though you paid loads for the computer in the first place? Of course, the solution is just to install VLC.
VLC is installed, funnily enough.
iTunes is great- but I have yet to find something on there that is good enough to warrant me buying it as opposed to grabbing a cd from my local music store or an archive of free, live concerts.
I think people can take the whole mac marketing thing a little too seriously, in a number of ways- either becoming obsessive with the mac and not seeing flaws, or totally dismissing it in the first place on the assumption that a person buys a mac for the reasons mac proclaims. I hardly ever use frontrow- even though its a good program, I just don't use it. Does this mean I've wasted my money though? Of course not.
f1dave said: I think people can take the whole mac marketing thing a little too seriously, in a number of ways- either becoming obsessive with the mac and not seeing flaws, or totally dismissing it in the first place on the assumption that a person buys a mac for the reasons mac proclaims.
I don't like the way they call "Windows" a "PC". There is nothing wrong with the hardware, provided it runs Linux.
f1dave said: ...archive of free, live concerts...
There was a large concert on near Kinross (Scotland though!) over the weekend.
From 1991-2005 I used windows of different kinds (and am still using). Since 2005 I am using aslo Mac OSX (PowerBook). Since a month ago I use Ubuntu as well. Here are some points to counter the nagging of the original post: 1) in Mac OSX I never ever needed to open termina and type there any sudo's and similar crap (excuse my French) 2) in all environments where I worked OsX during this year of intensive everyday usage around the globe connected flawlessly to anything. (which is not the case with Ubuntu which constantly require some sudo-grooming)
Now, this said, I think the current version of Ubuntu is nice too, but still it is not for 'human beings' yet, considered that 'human beings' don't come with innate knowledge of command lines. MacOSX on the contrary does not require any of such knowledge and most of the tasks can be performed intuitively. For those who think that computing IS command-line, of course Ubuntu and any other Linux is the perfect choice. But I think that Ubuntu is going rapidly away from the terminal-experience-as-computing.
Concerning speed... I dont think Ubuntu is the definite leader here either. I know my desktop where I run it is not the fastest, but windows seems to perform many (especially multiple windows) tasks much better. I still have Windows XP for one reason only on my machine: I need it to watch internet TV (which has the digital rights management thing in it and therefore wouldnt play under Ubuntu). Otherwise I would delete it promptly.
bruce89 said: I don't like the way they call Windows a PC. There is nothing wrong with the hardware, provided it runs Linux.
There was a large concert on near Kinross (Scotland though!) over the weekend.
Och! Aye, me friend from England was nearby... :P
And I completely agree with you about the way they call windows a pc... but this is marketing- I generally dislike marketers, I find them to be evil prophets of propaganda and ruiners of the truth. Except social marketers, those people actually do consider what they're doing.
That said, if my marketing mates from uni ever read this, sorry guys!
f1dave said: **It's been brought up firefox is as slow as a slug. Well, the vast majority of people I know don't use firefox, they use camino, which has been designed with the mac in mind in all aspects- looks, performance, UI integration, etc.
Firefox, Camino - same diff. They both use the Gecko engine. Firefox is not as slow as a slug once it's started but that Gecko engine takes forever to load.
DIY: go to disk and see how big a Gecko executable is. You're talking 10-15 MB. Now compare with Safari. About 1 MB. Now check the dependencies. Be sure to count all the stuff in the Camino/Firefox package ALL of it: the dependencies, the graphics, the whole ball of wax.
The Gecko engine is very good - it just takes a while to load. What the danged thing was designed for platform wise has no bearing.
Rick 1 said: Firefox, Camino - same diff. They both use the Gecko engine. Firefox is not as slow as a slug once it's started but that Gecko engine takes forever to load.
Camino is to MacOS X as Epiphany is to GNOME. (In other words, it uses the native widget set for the UI)
bruce89 said: Camino is to MacOS X as Epiphany is to GNOME. (In other words, it uses the native widget set for the UI)
Somewhat but what I can see not completely. But it still has zip to do with speed.
Rick 1 said: Somewhat but what I can see not completely. But it still has zip to do with speed.
No, but it looks nicer. The UI elements in Camino/Epiphany are faster although. The actual gecko bit is the same.
bruce89 said: No, but it looks nicer. The UI elements in Camino/Epiphany are faster although. The actual gecko bit is the same.
Fine. Great. Wonderful. But I thought this thread was about performance. Gee, my bad I guess. :grin:
Camino still makes a lot of bloopers. Not as many as Firefox, but still and all. Part of this is due to the fact those developers have only worked with Windoze, GNOME, KDE, things like that. They've never seen a true OO environment before.
Witness their slaughter of sheets. A royal mess.
Hey thanks, for what was a little late night rant, it spawned some very interesting comments.
As for hard drive space free, I will get an exact figure later (on ubuntu now prepping for a WoW raid), 50/60 was a guestimate, it definatly was more than half full, in fact I read numerous posts on macrumors discussing why the disks are so full and how to free up some of that space.
As for camino, I guess I will try it, though I like firefox because it is cross-platform /boggle
Bezvardis said:
Now, this said, I think the current version of Ubuntu is nice too, but still it is not for 'human beings' yet, considered that 'human beings' don't come with innate knowledge of command lines.
Last time I checked human beings came with the innate ability to learn.
Human beings don't come with an innate knowledge of how to speak sentences or wear clothes, either.
I guess those, like the command-line, aren't worth learning.
The terminal is just like any other language--it's powerful if learned, but it needs to be learned. I can cross my legs and jump up and down every time I want to tell someone I want to go to the bathroom, or I can take the time to learn language and say, "Excuse me. I have to to go the bathroom. I'll be right back."
I prefer speaking and writing to charades.
aysiu said: Human beings don't come with an innate knowledge of how to speak sentences or wear clothes, either.
I guess those, like the command-line, aren't worth learning.
The terminal is just like any other language--it's powerful if learned, but it needs to be learned. I can cross my legs and jump up and down every time I want to tell someone I want to go to the bathroom, or I can take the time to learn language and say, "Excuse me. I have to to go the bathroom. I'll be right back."
I prefer speaking and writing to charades.
Nice image ;)
And BTW when I tried (for 2-3 minutes a Mac a few days ago) I expected to lauch programs and open folders with a double click but it didn't work (ok, shame on me).
Of course then I used the equivalent of Beagle to launch apps.
kabus said: Last time I checked human beings came with the innate ability to learn.
that's a gross generalization.
I think the main point of OS X is too be nice and shiny, pleasing to the eye. If you actually want to get some work done, well, your screwed. I was in Futureshop a while ago and I saw a demo Mac running OS X. It looked beautiful, I love who the windows minimized. After that I got bored, it had NOTHING! Things were slow to load, slow to close. It was just a general pain in the a$$.
metaltailz said: I think the main point of OS X is too be nice and shiny, pleasing to the eye. If you actually want to get some work done, well, your screwed. I was in Futureshop a while ago and I saw a demo Mac running OS X. It looked beautiful, I love who the windows minimized. After that I got bored, it had NOTHING! Things were slow to load, slow to close. It was just a general pain in the a$$.
Care to elaborate a bit? Some specific examples might be constructive and help others understand why you feel the way you do.
metaltailz said: I think the main point of OS X is too be nice and shiny, pleasing to the eye. If you actually want to get some work done, well, your screwed. I was in Futureshop a while ago and I saw a demo Mac running OS X. It looked beautiful, I love who the windows minimized. After that I got bored, it had NOTHING! Things were slow to load, slow to close. It was just a general pain in the a$$.
Demo machines, at least where I am, are notoriously bad examples of hardware in action. They never have the best software installed (if any software at all bar the OS), they've been thumped and hammered and played with for eternity, and have probably been left running for god knows how long, with a stack of applications in the background to make memory paging oh so fun. What's more, they don't have the extra RAM that makes say a macbook pro turn from an alright machine into an absolute bullet.
I would advise if you really want to see a mac in action, talk to someone who owns one. Even better, talk to a linux/unix enthusiast who owns one. I'm sure they'll be happy to show you their machine, no doubt decked out with the best gear, customised apps and extra bits that make it so attractive to them. Then you'll start to see some of the attraction of OS X and Apple computers in general.
Remember, a base linux install (even with a DE installed) doesn't always look fantastic or have all the applications you want either. A friend of mine for example is a gnome user, but cannot stand to use his machine until he has amaroK, Opera and gdesklets installed. If you spend a bit of time and think about what you want, there's always going to be something that can fufill those objectives.
I haven't been using Apple products for a while, so I can't judge of the speed and such, but I can't agree with your critics related to the software that comes with MacOSX.
stimpack said: iTunes is complete crap compared to AmarokAnd i think that iTunes is a masterpiece, probably the best music player ever created! And I'm dreaming of it's Linux port though I doubt it will happen. All your decisions are so personal and not all of us think the way you do.
stimpack said: iWeb is web design for the retarded, seriously if you cant figure out dreamweaver you shouldn't be exposing us to your crappy webpages.Dreamweaver is a *professional* software my friend, and it costs pretty penny. Do you critisize VW Golf because it's not as fast as Lamborgini Diablo? I doubt that 'cause you understand that these two cars are for different things and for different people really.
PryGuy said: Do you critisize VW Golf because it's not as fast as Lamborgini Diablo? I doubt that 'cause you understand that these two cars are for different things and for different people really.
Yes, and a tractor is a beautiful piece of machinery, it has lots of possibilities and zillion horsepowers but if one would come to a person who needs a car and try selling the tractor to him (her)... :) In short MacOSX is ready for mainstream usage. It does not require lots of learning to work flawlessly on it. Same with Windows. The result: millions of people are ready to open their vallets for OSX and Windows exactly because of this feature. There is no need to argue that a tuned up Linux works like God. That's true. But there is also no need to pick on people who don't possess the knowledge to do the tuning or downplay OS's that allow them doing that. I applaud Ubuntu project exactly because it has left the arrogance of 'if you cannot learn the command-line you are not worth a computer' (well - or on the way to leaving it :) )
Concerning speed - a relative thing. Right now I am writing this message on my PB (which after a week of pain I managed to hook-up wirelessly with my Ubuntu desktop, because I had to 'learn' a lot, i.e., copy-paste lots of command lines from forums) and on the Ubuntu desktop the nice screen-saver is crawling like a snail. In this situation my speed test is definately in favour of the PowerBook
Bezvardis said: I applaud Ubuntu project exactly because it has left the arrogance of 'if you cannot learn the command-line you are not worth a computer' (well - or on the way to leaving it :) )I applaud it too, but it's still not ready to hit the shelves so far IMHO though it gets closer and closer release after release. You still neet to tweak your xorg.conf manually in most cases to release the power of your graphic card for instance! I really want Ubuntu could install with the OpenGL acceleration enabled out of the box! Yet it would be nice if xorg could do a reconfiguration on the fly if user would swap his graphic card for another one. Yet I'd love to see Grub and Samba frontends that would allow to configure their .conf files without necessity to edit them with gedit or mc.
Yet, I want all the folders but home to be hidden by default for all not root accounts. There's no use in them 'cause user can't write/modify their contents and their quantity will scare an ordinary user (read: switcher) IMHO.
Bezvardis said: and on the Ubuntu desktop the nice screen-saver is crawling like a snail.That's a nice confirmation to the words that I've said above, you have to enable OpenGL acceleration in xorg.conf to make it fly like a breeze!:)
fuscia said: that's a gross generalization.
[IMG]http://www.elizabethbear.com/moodtheme/amused.jpg[/IMG]
Well played.
As a Ubuntu and Mac user I can not leave this uncommented.
If its an Apple application like Safari is loads fast, if its not, like Firefox jeez, it takes 40seconds to load.
This is not normal. I bet you there is something wrong with that machine. There is no way on earth that a healthy Mac Os X system needs that kind of time to start Firefox.
The inbuilt applications *suck*, you have to get Firefox to replace safari, VLC to replace quicktime. iTunes is complete crap compared to Amarok, the terminal is pathetic compared to Konsole or Gnome Terminal.
Your opinion. The mac apps are really basic and for the novice user, I give you that (let me exclude iTunes which is a great music player). But you know.. if you buy a Mac, you have a Mac. If you try to make a linux system out of it, you will run into problems. VLC on mac is crap. I never could get it to work right.
oh and my 60gb disk came 50gb full... 10gb to play with, nice
There we have the proof. There is definitely something wrong with that computer. There is no way on earth they ship this system with 50GB of used harddrive.
I admit it, Mac Os X is slower than Linux. You have to have powerful hardware to have it running smooth, but it's not that bad.
PS: With all due respect: If I EVER heard a "Fanboy" in my life ... it's you. Sorry :rolleyes:
NNxD said: VLC on mac is crap. I never could get it to work right.
Your opinion!
NNxD said: PS: With all due respect: If I EVER heard a "Fanboy" in my life ... it's you. Sorry :rolleyes:
Yeah, I doubt that Firefox can start 40 seconds too... Yet, I love iTunes as well, it's a nice and a well designed app and I've never seen something like this in Linux so far... It is strange how the guy could use Linux if he can't even tweak his MacOSX system or understand why it takes 50Gb on his hard drive!!!
bruce89 said: Your opinion!
VLC on Mac is fine until you try to watch a bootleg anime or a porn video that uses a codec that VLC for Mac doesn't support. Then you're screwed.
Firefox starts on my 2 year old PowerBook in 10 seconds or less... As for opinions - I like iTunes as well and did not like Amarok when I opened it for the first time. Indeed - a matter of habit and opinion.
Stormy Eyes said: VLC on Mac is fine until you try to watch a bootleg anime or a porn video that uses a codec that VLC for Mac doesn't support. Then you're screwed.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html
Bezvardis said: Firefox starts on my 2 year old PowerBook in 10 seconds or less...
As for opinions - I like iTunes as well and did not like Amarok when I opened it for the first time. Indeed - a matter of habit and opinion.
I'll say it again, Camino might work better, as it uses native MacOS X widgets.
It's completely unfair to say "iTunes is crap because Amarok is better".
Amarok is better because it's the most feature-packed program of its genre. I don't even think Apple would argue with that ;-)
(Note: I don't use Amarok, so don't flame me :-)
Same here! But the most important thing is not how many features program has but how many *useful* features it has! I mean the features that can and will be used by users.
bruce89 said: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html
I checked that. Guess what; a lot of the anime and porn I've downloaded lately is in WMV3 format. Quicktime doesn't handle that shit either, so I have to look into making mplayer work on Mac.
PryGuy said:
you have to enable OpenGL acceleration in xorg.conf to make it fly like a breeze!:)
can you hint me how to do that?
Stormy Eyes said: VLC on Mac is fine until you try to watch a bootleg anime or a porn video that uses a codec that VLC for Mac doesn't support. Then you're screwed.
Or if you try to stream music from your desktop in the basement over wireless, then it sucks. Dropped packets everywhere. :(
Anyway, I own a MacBook, it's my first Mac. (Sorta) -- I love it, it's fast and everything does infact work. I am not a fanboy of anything nor do I rub one off for Steve Jobs but it is a nice machine. I'm happy. OS X is nice, you just have to get used to it...
My two cents.
Greg
Bezvardis said: can you hint me how to do that?
Yup, what graphic card do you have? Thank God if you've got nVidia. If it's so you only have to do execute the lines below and restart gdm or reboot.``` sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx nvidia-kernel-common sudo nvidia-glx-config enable
Driver "vesa"It's a bit different with the graphic cards from other manufacturers, Intel drivers seem to be bundled with Ubuntu 6.06 and it worked for me when I changed "vesa" to "i810" on my notebook.
P.S. You better install mc 'cause it all may lead you to the X failure and text mode and mc will help. Forgive me, the Linux gurus but I think that the Midnight Commander is easier than the command line...:)
PryGuy said: Yup, what graphic card do you have? Thank God if you've got nVidia. If it's so you only have to do execute the lines below and restart gdm or reboot.```
sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx nvidia-kernel-common sudo nvidia-glx-config enable
nvidia-glx-config enable is broken
You can follow my guide (Method 1):
[http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=139264](http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=139264)ah, that explains it... I really shouldn't have given information that didn't work for me for some reason, sorry...
Thanks, yesterday I did this: opened Synaptic Package manager and followed instructions there for installing nvidia legacy drivers. There was some mistake in automatic installation and I had to change manually the driver name to 'nvidia'. After rebooting the screensavers are smooth. Is the method I used OK or actually differ from what you suggest? I am also still trying to find if the redrawing of windows can be somehow optimized. At the moment they are redrawing very slowly if more than one window is open (i.e., if moved they get smeared around the screen for a second or two)
netkid91 said: Ditto...considering a BASE OS X install with iTunes, and a few other things should be at MOST 10 gigs. I don't think even iLife takes up much space.
10GB is still a lot for an operating system though... imagine how many applications you could fit inside GNU/Linux, whilst still keeping under 10GB.
Bezvardis said: Thanks, yesterday I did this: opened Synaptic Package manager and followed instructions there for installing nvidia legacy drivers. There was some mistake in automatic installation and I had to change manually the driver name to 'nvidia'. After rebooting the screensavers are smooth. Is the method I used OK or actually differ from what you suggest? I am also still trying to find if the redrawing of windows can be somehow optimized. At the moment they are redrawing very slowly if more than one window is open (i.e., if moved they get smeared around the screen for a second or two)
That's strange... You say that your OpenGL screensaver runs smooth now but it takes much time for your system to redraw windows? Am I right? That's really strange 'cause if you install the proper driver for your video card it accelerates 2D as well...
PryGuy said: Am I right? That's really strange 'cause if you install the proper driver for your video card it accelerates 2D as well...
well, I hoped that it would, but this window redrawing stayed the same,.ie., it was slow before as well. Only the 3d changed.
curtis said: 10GB is still a lot for an operating system though... imagine how many applications you could fit inside GNU/Linux, whilst still keeping under 10GB.
I agree, I have on my desktop 10 GB disk space in totall and there I have put an Ubuntu, a Windows XP and still some space left :-) I think the lots of disk space OSX is taking is partly due to the fact that there you have also integrated that OS9 (classic) part
Bezvardis said: well, I hoped that it would, but this window redrawing stayed the same,.ie., it was slow before as well. Only the 3d changed.Tell us your system specs please.
PryGuy said: Tell us your system specs please.
A good question... is there a way I can get them listed?
Bezvardis said: A good question... is there a way I can get them listed?Do you dualboot with Windows? You can watch there. I can't remember any sysinfo program in Ubuntu so far.
The thing is that probably your processor is too slow to handle not accelerated 2D. Or your video card is not compatible with the drivers you've installed. How old is your PC?
PryGuy said: Do you dualboot with Windows? You can watch there. I can't remember any sysinfo program in Ubuntu so far.
The thing is that probably your processor is too slow to handle not accelerated 2D. Or your video card is not compatible with the drivers you've installed. How old is your PC?
OK, here I got something: AMD Duron 700 memory: 256MB video card, nVidia Riva TNT2 with 32Mb memory It's an older PC but I got it from a place where it was used (back in 2000) as a gaming PC :-)
Well, it's an old machine of course but well, I can't evaluate how slow the GUI on your machine actually works. It's a problem if it's *really* slow... I have no such experience everything works smooth for me... Hope that more experienced people here will give you a helping hand.:)
Know what? You better start a new topic in the appropriate sub-forum and tell the people that visit it of your problem. Guess they'll help you.
So, resurecting an old topic (or beating a dead horse), here's a question for those who are more experienced than I. If I have an Apple laptop- what ever the G4 one is called (that's the powerbook?)- how is the performance vs Intel vs AMD? I mean that, assuming the same hardware (video card, RAM, etc) and OS (Dapper for example), how does the PPC-powered mac compare to a Pentium-powered/Athlon-powered PC of the same speed? I'm also assuming that same hardware and OS is for general (mostly multimedia) tasks like watching DVDs, listening to music, ripping/editing/encoding both, administrative stuff (if it would really make a difference), perhaps a game or two, and the like. My Google-fu is a bit rusty; if benchmarks have already been posted, can someone point me in the right direction? Otherwise, what's the general consensus?
According to Apple's website, the Intel processors are 2-3 times faster.
According to Apple's website, the Intel processors are 2-3 times faster.
I've heard that, but given that Apple use to say the same thing about it's G5 (i.e. it's faster, better, etc), I was hoping for a second opinion. My question was if, assuming equal hardware and software, the PPC performs better than the x86 for the same GHZ.
Maybe at the time they introduced G5, it *was* faster and better. Likewise, when they moved to PowerPC, maybe that was faster and better at the time, too.
Now, though, Intel Core Duo is faster and better.
Maybe at the time they introduced G5, it was faster and better. Likewise, when they moved to PowerPC, maybe that was faster and better at the time, too.
Now, though, Intel Core Duo is faster and better.
Ok, that's what I figured. The thing is though, is that I'm asking because of a chance of getting a G4 or G5- probably used, but new ones are still sold here :shock: . So, my question has to do with if it's worth it to buy one, or if I should stick to a regular laptop- which here means an Intel ~2GHZ. More or less the same as the G5, but is it worth the extra cash?
As far as I'm concerned, the Macbooks are very pretty. But I wouldn't buy one. A: I've learned the hard way that the hardware isn't stable. B: I discovered the reason why (Acer makes Macbooks, Acer outsources to bottom of the pile component manufacture ECS (EliteGroup Systems) which makes Fry's PCs, "Great Quality" PCs.) That last one is enough to turn me off permanently. I was considering it until I learned about ECS.
BTW: For those who know about ECS, they will soon be manufacturing Fujitsu :(
I've worked on the Macbooks for the last few months, along with G3/G4s/Powerbooks. They are alot faster than it's predecessors, and that display is gorgeous. Easier to work on than the old ones too. Poor design has caused alot of issues, including a gap between palmrest and basecover, discolorization (reason for recall) and random shut downs caused by every issue under the sun, from OS to RAM to possibly heatsink sensors, to the "main logic board" (MLB for short), and the SOD (Super Optical Drive). Even the newest Revision (10.4.7) could be the cause.
I think the main things I like about the Macbook is A: You can load OSX on any Macbook from firewire drive and create OS images, and re-image the main drive as well (as well as diagnose the hardware) I want to try this on Linux/WinXP, not sure if I can on Linux, but Ghost should do it with WinXP.
B: Target mode: Linking two computers, using one as a firewire drive could be very handy for fast transfers and troubleshooting.
C: Airport card's ability to extend the wireless network.
D: Is it the OS or the Display that causes everything to be so nice looking?
I also like how the GUI loads from the get go, no text while loading, just a simple Apple with a loading indicator. This would be nicer if you did have the ability to switch to the text mode for troubleshooting.
Everytime I worked on one I couldn't help but to get engrossed on some of the design decisions, then I'd have to remember the lack of intake ports, overheating, random shut downs, almost impossible to fix gaps, etc..
Actually, I'd have to say that seeing OSX and realizing it was a FreeBSD port, made me check out FreeBSD, which led me to Ubuntu after realizing that not alot is supported in FreeBSD.
Ok, I am tired and rambling. Good night.
Lucho said: Ok, that's what I figured. The thing is though, is that I'm asking
because of a chance of getting a G4 or G5- probably used, but new ones are still sold here :shock: . So, my question has to do with if it's worth it to buy one, or if I should stick to a regular laptop- which here means an Intel ~2GHZ. More or less the same as the G5, but is it worth the extra cash?
The G4 chips (as used in Apple laptops pre-Intel) are badly dated; they simply don't deliver bang for the buck like they did quite a few years ago.
If you're thinking of getting a G5 desktop Mac, be aware that Ubuntu doesn't have fan control with them. You might have more success with Gentoo... possibly. But once again, the G5s are dated. And to make things worse, Mac OS X was built more for rapid development than for actual performance.
If the price is right for one of these machines, buy it, because they'll work for years after they're obselete. But if you want performance at the right price, your only real decision is which x86-based computer to buy.
Stormy Eyes said: I checked that. Guess what; a lot of the anime and porn I've downloaded lately is in WMV3 format. Quicktime doesn't handle that shit either, so I have to look into making mplayer work on Mac.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/wmcomponents.mspx might be what you're looking for ?
stimpack said: I was going to write this in a Mac forum but there are so many idiotic apple fanboys that lack any technical skills and worship at the altar of Steve Jobs testicles, that I would just be flamed into oblivion. So I am presenting my experiences to you, let it serve as a warning, the grass is not greener and hype means little.
I bought myself a Macbook, 2ghz 1gb ram intel, these things are considered fast by the apple fanboys used to PPC. I will dismiss that straight away, the hardware may be fast, but OS X is the slowest OS I have yet used, which is Linux and Windows. A bit like windows, it boots fast and displays the desktop but kinda cheats, you aint getting anything done for another 10seconds.
If its an Apple application like Safari is loads fast, if its not, like Firefox jeez, it takes 40seconds to load. Apps like google earth run slower than the Linux version (and the linux version leaves some to be desired)
The inbuilt applications *suck*, you have to get Firefox to replace safari, VLC to replace quicktime. iTunes is complete crap compared to Amarok, the terminal is pathetic compared to Konsole or Gnome Terminal. iWeb is web design for the retarded, seriously if you cant figure out dreamweaver you shouldn't be exposing us to your crappy webpages.
Every so often you see a beach-ball mouse cursor that stops you doing anything, I remember when I used windows 95, maybe it was even 3.1 with the hourglass... its like that..
You get strange errors every so often, the usual advice is to 'repair' permissions, which usually works, but the fact that the unix underbelly is getting screwed up that much is disturbing.
Clearly there are some good points.. I would still take it over Windows. Things do 'just work', WPA wireless,bluetooth, all do work (with some minors flaws). I also use it to burn CDs since my CD burning broke in dapper.
OS X is often considered to be the pinnacle, its not, its quite good but no more!, I'd recommend it for a senile grandparent to learn with.
oh and my 60gb disk came 50gb full... 10gb to play with, nice =/
Overall I have found OS X a great disappointment, OS X is great for X-windows users for the most part...
as many OS-X users are discovering Linux. It is all part of an symbiotic evulotionary process:
windows>OS X>Linux
(and all correlations interweaved, respectively8-))
[COLOR="Purple"]I am not disappointed with Mac OS X at all, because we have two Macs in our household. I use the Mac mainly for graphics and web stuff.
The forthcoming Mac OS X Leopard is really going to let Windows Vista have it, and that I am looking forward to very much. It's going to be so lovely to see Microsoft squirm when Apple unleashes 10.5 early next year.[/COLOR]
I just hate Mac OS X, this is my feeling. For various reasons; please don't ask me to elaborate with some offensive post... ;) pleeeaaseee...!!!:mrgreen:
For someone who has never used Mac OSX, this thread is a complete shock. I have always thought Macs were divine products that out-shined any existing operating system, in almost all areas.
I can't believe some of this stuff! I always thought Mac's Quartz was lightning fast and everything, as claimed by Apple's website. I believe aysiu (a forum member) said Quartz is easily superior to our (Linux) Xorg.
Remarkable! I was even telling my sister Macs are high-end products that are nothing but quality, and explained that is why they're as expensive as they are. I've always thought Macs were from the future, and we (Linux and Windows) are ancient operating systems that should model after OSX.
Thanks for the wake-up, you all.
H.E. Pennypacker said: For someone who has never used Mac OSX, this thread is a complete shock. I have always thought Macs were divine products that out-shined any existing operating system, in almost all areas.
I can't believe some of this stuff! I always thought Mac's Quartz was lightning fast and everything, as claimed by Apple's website. I believe aysiu (a forum member) said Quartz is easily superior to our (Linux) Xorg.
Remarkable! I was even telling my sister Macs are high-end products that are nothing but quality, and explained that is why they're as expensive as they are. I've always thought Macs were from the future, and we (Linux and Windows) are ancient operating systems that should model after OSX.
Thanks for the wake-up, you all.
Hey, I can undestand you, believe me!! I thought the same thing until...
... this damn day when my flatmate bought a PPC G5 and I got to live with Mac Os X for a long time. I was seeing him all the time using it and I also used it some times and I really got sick of it. What a perfomance-killer OS this is!! I hate the GUI conventions of it. The bar, I don't know how to call it, the small targets you have to hit with the pointer (my opinion), the ball as you said etc., the whole feeling of it. I just don't like it.
No apps to get install easily, OK there is *fink* but again you have a small number of free apps. You have to do the same as with Windows, scour the net for freeware and shareware apps, that you hope you'll be able to crack.
Speed? Two processors and not as speedy as I expected to be. On the contrary, I was utterly dissapointed.
And of course you have to pay as a sucker for EVERY new version of the OS, which upgrades much more frequently than Windows; with Windows you can justify the money for an upgrade every 5 years or so. But for Mas OS X???!!!
In general, I don't have the courage to be more specific about what I disliked but believe me I had a full experience with it, so my opinion is not from *google images* and *imagination*.
Thus, as a recap, I say I had good feelings about apple and Mac OS X, but after that day I saw the truth and it wasn't so pretty, unfortunately. As a example, I thought apple is good with open-source, but even from only my practical experience with the system, I saw this was not the case.
My heart was broken after that day... (hahahaha!!!! very emotional ending!!)
;) ;) ;) ;)
First, I use both Ubuntu and OS X on a daily basis. I prefer OS X for its polish and for the apps to which I have access there -- and, in general, ease of use. Ubuntu is the easiest to install, configure, and use Linux I've yet seen, and I'm sure it's only going to improve, but for my money it still lags behind OS X on some important points, especially on a laptop.
Just a few bits in defense of OS X, since more than a couple incorrect points are raised above:
- iTunes and iPod don't lock you into any DRM at all if you're primarily interested in ripping your own CDs, or in downloading from a non-DRM online vendor like eMusic. For simple management of music and playlists, iTunes is pretty nice. It's probably not the best ever, but because I use an iPod, it's the one I'll keep using. I don't do DRM if I can avoid it, though, which means that when I decide to move my music to something else I'll have essentially zero trouble.
- The original poster's brand new Macbook probably had two major apparent speed issues brewing.
a. First, Apple is darn near criminal in their willingness to ship machines with the bare minimum of RAM. OS X will *run* in 256MB, but you sure won't be happy. A gig is probably the functional minimum. (Looking back, I see he has a gig, so that's probably not it.)
b. Since we're in the first year of the Intel transition, many applications aren't yet Intel native and are therefore running in emulation. I expect Apple's are native, but I don't know about things like Firefox (e.g.). That's definitely going to hurt apparent speed, but that's also going to get much better.
- It is somewhat unfortunate that the Finder is the only file browser that ships with OS X, but there are others available (free and nonfree). I find I'm pretty happy with it for minor tasks, but I end up at a bash prompt for bigger jobs.
- iWeb is probably crap. Some pros may use Dreamweaver, but most of the good ones I know use a text editor. No pros use iWeb. It's for your mom to put up vacation pix.
- Terminal's ok, but iTerm has lots of OS X geek types pretty happy. I haven't switched, but keep considering it.
- TextMate uber alles.
- The O.P. complains of boot times, but I can't imagine why. My experience with OS X laptops is that a reboot isn't really required more than about once a month (if that). Boot time is a bit of a red herring.
- The inbuilts probably aren't best of breed, but I use Mail, Address Book, and iCal because of their easy integration, both on my desktop and with my Treo. That's hard to beat. (I'm fond of saying that Mail is the worst mail program I've ever used -- except for all the other ones.)
- Can you say more about the "strange errors?" I've used OS X daily since launch on at least one of my boxes, and haven't had much experience with weird failures or errors.
- I'm glad you backed off your disk usage "estimate". I've got a new-ish G4 Powerbook (Dec 05) that still has 29 GB available of 100GB, but I've also got 40GB of MP3s on it. I think it's safe to say Apple leaves you with plenty of room.
Kostkon has more recent gripes, most of them personal in nature. I'll note that the Dock you seem to have trouble hitting is in fact adjustable, but most high-power OS X folks eschew it for most tasks and use the excellent Quicksilver launcher/butler/kitchen-sink tool. Beachballing is typically due to an errant task (when the ball is confined to a single app context) or disk swapping (when it's not); if the latter, check your RAM total and see above in re: suggested real-world minimums.
I'm glad you mention fink, since the presence of a good package manager seems to make Linux types happier. I use it often, and find it generally good.
As for OS revs, well, yes. They cost a shocking $100 or so, but come out relatively infrequently. OS X 10.1 (the first real usable version) was released in 2001, ISTR, and in 5 years we've had .2, .3, and .4, so fewer than one a year. We won't see .5 until spring, I believe.) Not everyone upgrades, though the increased performance and additional features are enticing enough that folks who live and work in OS X are generally hard pressed to find a reason NOT to.
Sure, OS X isn't for everyone. You can't please everyone, nor should Apple try. Ubuntu isn't for everyone, either; I can't imagine trying to get my mother or my CEO to use it full time. However, if you need *nix power and flexibility while retaining compatibility with your poor Windows-bound colleagues, it's probably a good place to go. That's doubly true for laptop folks. Linux is still kind of a pain to make work on a laptop -- not just boot, but hibernate, use full screen rez, etc. OS X on Apple hardware just works, right out of the box, and you're on your way.
best, C
Unfortunately, OS X is fundamentally low-performance. Darwin is derived from a kernel which has performance problems (hybrid-microkernel), parts of the system were written in the 1990s for NextStep, and the preferred programming language for it is Objective-C (performance-wise, not up there with C or even C++). There are so many layers to OS X as well that I'm sure eat up a fair bit of memory.
I'm sure it's very easy to hack around on OS X, and that explains why Apple have such a frequent update cycle with many many new features each time. But the fact is, OS X is a bit of a slouch when it comes to speed.
OS X is a bit of a slouch when it comes to speed. they did some tests to compare some time ago and found that linux is,overall, 5 times faster than mac OS X.
H.E. Pennypacker said: I've always thought Macs were from the future, and we (Linux and Windows) are ancient operating systems that should model after OSX.
Thanks for the wake-up, you all.
Don't be fooled. I am convinced that the couple of people that complain here about Mac OSX are a tiny tiny minority. As a person who works both on Mac OSX and on Ubuntu I can say that (sorry, guys) Ubuntu cannot even be compared. I don't know what kind of speed some people are talking here about or what kind of performance because Ubuntu (and probably other Linux distributives) first and foremost simply doesn't work. In order to make them work you have to work hard to optimise, personalise and update. In comparison to that - Mac OSX (just like Windows) works out of the box. Plug-and-play so to say. Now, it is a very nice thing to be able to custom-build a car in one's own garage and then boast that it outperforms every single factory made Toyota or Ford. But just don't tell me that I should buy a container of spare parts and then be happy about this purchase of a 'car'. Ubunutu is a bit more than just a pile of spare parts, but it needs serious mending before it can work.
In comparison to this crap MacOSX is just heavens - imagine this: :D it works out of the box! :D In 99% of cases there is no hacking needed, and no command line has to be messed with! :D Programs can be installed via simple installer or by drag and drop! (compare with synaptic, building pains and dependency issues that you get when you try installing a program in Ubuntu, not to mention that you cannot install most of programms that are not in depositories without extensive knowledge of English and at least basic command-line skills+hours on internet search) :D Applications can be deleted and re-installed by simple click.
And if somebody tells me that MacOSX is made by use of some older programming language - I don't care (and I am sure - nobody does except some programming snobs) I need it to work and that is what it does brilliantly. If anybody does that on Ubuntu (make it work out of box) only then one can argue about speed and performance.
[COLOR=Purple]Yesterday, I installed Mac OS X 10.4.7 (Tiger) on my Power Mac G4 (dual 1.25 GHz, mirror drives) computer that had 10.3.9 (Panther) on it. What a difference - it is like night and day!
My boot up time to the Desktop is less than 30 seconds now! Shutting down takes less than 15 seconds! Very impressive! One thing for sure, Apple has made the OS function more quickly IMO. It is like I have a whole brand new computer again. :)
I am really looking forward to purchasing a new Mac Pro tower in Spring 2007 with Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard). [/COLOR]
I am convinced that the couple of people that complain here about Mac OSX are a tiny tiny minority.
i keep on hearing/reading so many stories about all these people getting fed up with OS X and looking for an alternative (usually linux). this highlight some of the many problems that people are having. [COLOR=Purple][/COLOR]
kostkon said:
No apps to get install easily, OK there is *fink* but again you have a small number of free apps. You have to do the same as with Windows, scour the net for freeware and shareware apps, that you hope you'll be able to crack.
If you mean that there are no repositories and the associated system - yes, you are right. But you shurely have forgotten that most (all that I have seen so far) apps for Mac OSX can be installed either by drag-and-drop (i.e. the user does not perceive it as an installation at all) or with a simple installer. And believe me - none of the freeware needs to be cracked.
don't get me wrong - Ubuntu's great but it is raw. Only a minority of computer users can use it without specialised help. None of this minority can use it without spending lots of time customising essential things. That is why I am sure that people who are praising Linux over MacOSX are tiny minority.
ComplexNumber said: i keep on hearing/reading so many stories about all these people getting fed up with OS X and looking for an alternative (usually linux).
this highlight some of the many problems that people are having.
[COLOR=Purple]There are imbecile fanboys everywhere in this world, even in the large Ubuntu forums. I try to avoid people like that, because to me a computer is a tool to get your work done. I can't stand it when computer users with any platform start yelling, "I am better than you are." That just makes me want to leave, and leave very quickly.
I like Mac OS X... I have been a Mac user since the *AMIGA* platform died when Commodore went bankrupt. At the time, it was the natural route for me to take, because I could not stand Windows at all. I run Windows XP now, but only for all my gaming. i.e. especially Day of Defeat: Source. ;)
I also run Ubuntu, but I don't think Linux is anywhere as productive as Mac OS X. I simply get more work done on my Mac. Mac OS X just feels more natural too, because of the relatively strict Apple User Interface Guidelines. Linux comes close, but I find the GUIs for GNOME and KDE leave a lot to be desired. Windows XP? Garbage GUI.
The Macintosh market is growing and growing very fast. This is good IMHO... More Windows users are leaving for the Mac, and some are leaving for Linux. On the whole, I see more Windows users wanting Mac OS X than Linux. Apple now has 12% of the entire notebook market in the USA. That is no small feat for one single company. With the recent introduction of the Mac Pro computers, Apple has hit a huge home run. Few were expecting Apple to use Intel Xeon (dual core) processors, and two of them too! Personally, I was expecting them to go the Core 2 (dual core) route. This new Mac Pro will walk circles around my Power Mac G4 (dual 1.25 GHz), and my G4 is fast with Mac OS X 10.4.7.
I ignored the Mac platform completely since the introduction of 10.3 (Panther), because of all the Mac fanboys. I have learned something though over the last couple of years. Fanboys are everywhere, like a sickening disease. They were with the *AMIGA* platform. They are also in the Macintosh platform, Windows platform, and yes, even the Linux platform. Just ignore them...
Don't get me wrong... I love using Linux, because it is something new for me, since last summer. I just find I am way more productive on my Mac. [/COLOR]
There are imbecile fanboys everywhere in this world, even in the large Ubuntu forums.the subject of that link was a previous mac software developer who became disgusted and disillusioned with quality of mac software, the whole culture surrounding the mac, and apple in general.
yup, fanboys exist for all OS's.
Bezvardis said: In order to make them work you have to work hard to optimise, personalise and update. In comparison to that - Mac OSX (just like Windows) works out of the box. Plug-and-play so to say.
Well, when all the hardware is controlled by the makers of the software, it's not too hard to make it work out-of-the-box. Having said that, my Ubuntu worked virtually perfectly from the beginning - only thing I needed to do was install the ATI proprietry driver. No biggie, and I know the same happens on most Ubuntu-running computers.
No optimising necessary, either, but I have optimised a little.
Bezvardis said: Programs can be installed via simple installer or by drag and drop!
There are heaps of Linux programs which can be installed by a simple installer or drag and drop. Most .debs are easier to install than a drag and a drop. Many other programs like Google Earth and Songbird are installed using a Windowsy-Maccy installer. Nexuiz is a drag and drop application.
The only time installing is difficult is when the developer has been a bit too lazy to create a binary, and only distributes source.
Bezvardis said: :D Applications can be deleted and re-installed by simple click.
When? And where's the one place you go to update all your programs?
Bezvardis said: And if somebody tells me that MacOSX is made by use of some older programming language - I don't care (and I am sure - nobody does except some programming snobs). If anybody does that on Ubuntu (make it work out of box) only then one can argue about speed and performance.
Well, Objective-C is a newer programming language, rather than an older one. It's designed so that Apple's engineers can easily write additions to the OS; but it doesn't give the raw speed you need. Most parts of a Linux distro are written in C or C++, which execute much faster than Obj-C.
We all live within the limitations of our means. Ubuntu worked out-of-the-box for me. If I tried to install OS X on this computer, I bet my sound card, CD burner and possibly my Firewire port wouldn't work and couldn't be made to work. "Ahh, but OS X wasn't designed for your computer", I hear you say. Yes, but neither was Ubuntu.
I know this is no excuse, but I only got through reading most of the 1st page of this thread. So excuse me if I am repeating what others have said.
My brother and I are long time linux users, since Slackware was first released. Heck, used slackware until 10.2 and then I decided to use Ubuntu. Anyways, different story.
My brother bought a MacBook about 2 months ago. Because he wanted OSX and a Dual Core laptop. At the time a PC version Dual Core laptop was the same cost or higher.
Granted, he loves OSX over Windows XP. And both of use won't switch to Linux for our daily laptops and daily desktop units because of commercial driver support. Different story.
The main thing we both don't like about OSX is that there is no "maximize window" function in OSX... only a "Maximize height" function. Lame. And a few other things that mostly revolve around the transitioning stage from PPC to Intel x86 arch.
For anyone looking at Mac hardware, if you are not going to use OSX and just want to replace it with Linux or Windows, don't waste your money on Mac hardware. Now that it's x86 arch, there is no argument about which hardware is faster or better, etc. So unless the Mac "look" and attention is your main goal, then save your money and get a Dual Core laptop from Dell for $650 shipped and put linux on it. And there are plenty of other x86 laptop and desktop solutions that are cheaper than the Mac x86 solutions.
It's really only worth the cost if you want OSX. Which for me, OSX is the only Commercial "linux" flavor that I would use on a daily basis. Since then I can be assured that when I go into a computer store that the hardware will more than likely be supported and pretested for OSX. And until another flavor of Linux gets that same level of support of 3rd party vendors, I will have to use OSX. (but note, I am actually a big windows XP and soon Vista user on my main machines.) I use Linux where Linux excels; my LAMP webserver and cluster rendering farm for blender (which I am in the middle of completing using Xubuntu 6.06)
Umm... yeah, whoever started this is right in a couple points, Safari should be replaced with firefox or camino, and quicktime should be replaced with vlc, but it does not boot up slow at all, and all the applications boot fine also, and linux does not have all the games you may want, and also itunes is awesome. All the Os's do have there disadvantages and advantages, but only the disadvantages of mac os x and the advantages of linux were stated.
I've got 3 computers on this table: 900mHz Duron 768MB ram with Ubuntu Dell Inspiron laptop 2.8Ghz 512MB ram with XP home Imac G5 (PPC) with osx. Guess which one always booted faster...
- Imac G5 boots 3 times faster then Ubuntu...
- XP home, well.. even Ubuntu doesn't need that long...
I know the specs of each are not comparable. But I do not think that it is that important. It is how the booting is set up that makes the difference. And with XP there is that Anti-virus crap that slows it down.
My children (9 and 11) both prefer ubuntu and OSX to play with on the internet (flash games..). And they are a bit annoyed that they can only play really good games on XP...
As for myself: I do like my mac because it is 'a truelly well made and polished package' Ubuntu still needs allot of tinkering and terminal-stuff to make it work. And most of the times somewhere allong the HOWTO's there is some glitch... the hours of frustration I had with linux... But there is some sence of releaf and joy when I finally managed to get something working...
Anyway, lets face it: Ubuntu is NOT ready for the main users who just want it to work out of the box. OSX is...
But someday perhaps...
paullinux said:
Dell Inspiron laptop 2.8Ghz 512MB ram with XP home
- XP home, well.. even Ubuntu doesn't need that long...
Anyway, lets face it: Ubuntu is NOT ready for the main users who just want it to work out of the box. OSX is...
But someday perhaps...
One of my laptops is an AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ with 512MB ram and the same factory XP Home install from about 4+ years ago and it boots quite fast compared to Ubuntu with 1Gig ram and 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 HT. So you might want to check out your Dell for spyware and even legit apps starting up at boot time.
Though no matter how fast any of my Windows, XP, or Intel Macs take to boot... doesn't matter much to me because they are rarely fully shutdown. Usually in sleep or hibernation. But even my Pentium-III 500Mhz 256MB compaq laptop with XP Pro boots very fast. Much faster than it's original Windows 95 install.
As for OSX, I agree... All distros of Linux are behind the commercial times compared to OSX Linux. The interesting part is that Darwin Linux is free and open source... it's the "desktop" and support of OSX that Apple has created that is the successful part.
ArizonaKid said:
I found many Mac users use OS X simply for the sake of not using Microsoft. Well, there is Linux for that.
...
If you wanna "Think Different", use Linux. And save yourself the time of getting a decent notebook that won't whine.
ArizonaKid, you are my new hero. I don't think I've ever heard a better Linux / Mac argument - well put!
Trying to wrap this discussion up:
- OS X ain't Linux
- Linux ain't OS X
- Looks are somewhat important
- Price is somewhat important
- Speed is somewhat important
- Items 3--5 are not all that important
Geez.
I like OS X in just about two weeks of usage.
When I received the macbook, the default install occupied about 20GB disk space. I upgraded the RAM myself to 2GB, and the system is now flying like a dragon.
Bootup time: My bootup time is a little less than 50 seconds... thats' when the desktop shows up. I have a lot of apps added to the startup (Mail, yahoo messenger, skype, about a dozen automator actions, and things like that) which takes another 20 seconds... so I have a fully functional desktop in just about 70 seconds, which is nice by all comparisons.
The interface: Well... umm.... I didn't like OS X in the beginning... but I recall my first experience with computers 12 years ago, and I didn't like windows on first use either. I didn't like Ubuntu on first use either. However, each interface has its own pros and cons, and it's a matter of adjustability. Only if you remember the furore on these forums that was caused by changing the desktop looks from breezy to dapper :)
Ubuntu on macbook: My external firewire hard drive arrived today morning. I believe macbook can boot up from a firewire HD... so I'm planning to install Ubuntu on that the coming weekend. I hope I don't have to hack Ubuntu much...! And I also hope the iSight camera will work with Ubuntu.
anil_robo said:
Ubuntu on macbook: My external firewire hard drive arrived today morning. I believe macbook can boot up from a firewire HD... so I'm planning to install Ubuntu on that the coming weekend. I hope I don't have to hack Ubuntu much...! And I also hope the iSight camera will work with Ubuntu.
The intel Macbooks are standard Intel hardware and will work fine with XP and linux. As for firewire and USB booting, that is dependant on the bios and not the hardware as it's standard current Intel hardware. As for booting from Firewire on a PC or Mac, I am not sure I have personally used any x86 bios that allowed booting from Firewire.
As for installing Ubuntu, it has to work, it's an x86 computer with a standard Intel cpu and board. Now as for drivers, that is a different story. You may or may not have sound, or accelerated video drivers, etc. USB, firewire will work for sure. Ethernet will most likely work or has drivers available. Etc. As for the iSight camera built in... I am sure it's on the USB bus internally, but may or may not use general USB cam drivers.
I'm very late in chiming in on this thread I realize. I love linux and have used it since Mandrake 5.x. I started on KDE 1.x desktop and it took me three weeks to configure my first modem. However, after climbing the intially steep curve (all but gone these days), I loved it. After leaving Mandrake (way too unstable for me) and going through a Gentoo phase (great learning tool, but too much work), I settled on Ubuntu and love it. So far I can do anything I want to with it.
I also have the highest end MacBook Pro they make. The hardware is exquisite and it runs like the wind. It boots faster than my Quadmac, dual processor, dual core towered Mac. It actually runs some applications faster. Why do I mess with a Mac when I dearly love linux so much? Well, I love video and audio also. Nothing can touch them in these areas - period. I'm not using them because I don't like Windows (although I really don't), I'm using them because it is the best platform.
Linux still lacks the high end professional applications like this. When it gets them, I'm outta here on anything else but linux. For now, Mac is still king in those areas.
One thing I hate about the Mac is the terminal, where I spend oodles of time in Linux. The Mac terminal key mapping is BAD. I have no pagedn or pageup, no end of line, etc. It drives me mad. So if I need to interface with a server, I grab my Ubuntu laptop and boot it just to have a great termainal.
That is just my two cents worth.
To original poster : I think your probs with it were beacuse of the hardware and not necesserilly the OS.I've heard a number of people have some probs with the Macbook.
Anyways you can't really use "inbuilt software sucks" in a debate unless you justify yourself.From my experience Safari is better than Firefox in a Apple machine.As far as options are concerned the inbuilt Apple software is very good imo.
I just bought a macbook earlier this month and i love. i switched over from windows and boy what a difference. its easy to use and i dont have any problems, Safari works fine, the finder could be better, but hey, its a big step up from windows explorer. Macs can do tons of stuff Linux and windows can;t. But I always say, theres room for everyone.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who can endlessly debate/discuss the virtues and limitations of various Linux distributions, recite their Linux history better than their family members' names, and be able to tell you how to restart serviceX or daemonY on any given distribution they've used, and yet not grasp the concept that OSX is fantastic for certain uses.
I'd hardly consider myself a Mac fanboy (then again how many fanboys recognize their status?), as I left Mac in the 90s in favor of Windows. (I had quite a list of reasons, and participated in many Mac debates. (I have been exposed to Linux since my brother started installing it on his 486 with floppies. It wasn't then nor is it over a decade later a viable solution for me, professionally.)
But OSX (Panther and beyond) changed my mind. The stability of a *nix backend and not only a pretty but perfectly usable GUI really turned my head. Combine that with full support from Adobe and I'm on board 100%. (Someone here said that Adobe isn't going to bend over backward for 2% of the desktop market. You really don't understand the market on this one. Even if your number was accurate, a very large percentage of Adobe's users are on OSX, particularly the paying ones. And most companies are more than willing to bend over backwards for the bulk of their market.)
There have been many great responses here. I'd like to either add or re-emphasize a few points:
- I've tried 3x tonight to install Ubuntu on a system that I know is 100% supported. It keeps hanging, with no indication why. I'm faced with swapping devices until I figure out which one isn't working. (I suspect the hard drive, but that's for another forum.) I can do a full install of OSX in less than half an hour, with every option turned on. And that's on a PowerBook fast approaching its second birthday.
- 10 Gigs MP3s. 25 Gigs of photos. (I'm a photographer; this is just 2 current shoots; everything else is on the samba server.) 5 gigs of personal documents and such. The full Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustrator, Bridge, InDesign, Acrobat), Dreamweaver, Flash, iLife, and numerous other utilities and widgets installed. 5 gigs available space on the hard drive. 60 gig drive. Explain to me again how OSX takes 50 of your 60 gigs? I'm calling BS on this one.
- I'm currently running Camino, Mail, iTunes (playing from my library), Photoshop (batch processing 12 mp RAW photos into JPGs; not an easy task, especially considering how resource-hungry Photoshop is anyway), and Bridge (used to organize and queue Photoshop's workload), and yet I can get FireFox to launch and sit waiting for input in exactly 8 seconds. Again, this computer is nearly 2 years old. What in the world are you doing wrong that it takes 45 seconds to get it to work on your brand new macbook? Seriously, I'm practically trying to slow it down and I can't come close to your numbers. And I haven't restarted my computer in weeks. I close the lid when I'm not working on it, I open it when I want to again, and it just keeps on working. The only time I ever restart is when I know Photoshop is screwing with scratch disk space and hasn't relinquished it as it should.
- iWeb is for people who can barely type to get a blog online. And it's a hell of a program for the price. Same for iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, etc. I don't care for the naming scheme (the iMac made sense; a computer that you could take out of the box and get on the _i_nternet in 10 minutes), but the programs work for their intended audience. Video professionals often find iPhoto great for organizing family photos. But they wouldn't use iMovie or iDVD for their professional work. I love iMovie and iDVD for my home videos, but I haven't launched iPhoto since the week I bought the computer. It's not meant for me. Still the overall package is a great value. Why does this logic escape so many people? This same logic applies to the Finder and Terminal. They're more than sufficient for most users. Nearly all Mac users, and more than most Windows users could ever dream of using. Just because it isn't enough for a hardcore CLI guy doesn't mean the entire OS is a failure.
- Much like #3 above, I'm trying to understand the "OSX is a one program at a time OS" comment earlier in the thread. I consistently run Bridge, Photoshop, Illustrator, Mail, iTunes, and Camino together. Sometimes I even get crazy and throw Limewire or VLC into the mix. No, it doesn't run like it would with only Photoshop or Camino open, but that's true of any operating system. Yet it works well enough that I have no problem doing it on a daily basis, and I still get everything done during my workday.
- When the PowerPC chips were introduced they were certainly faster than their x86 counterparts. But Apple doesn't make processors. They never have. That's not their business. So when R&D failed year after year on the part of the chips' actual manufacturer they were forced to switch to something else. PPC development slowed way down while x86 development at least kept its own pace, if not actually speeding up. So now Apple compares the current lineup of PPC chips with the current x86 chips and the PPCs fall short. This doesn't mean they were lying the whole time (although if you believe any word of any paid advertisement without questioning it I'd advise you to reconsider your belief system).
- Apple advertising is embarrassing to most Mac fans, regardless of how die-hard they are. Why the hell do they show the power cord instead of the OS? I find them humorous enough to watch, mostly because I like the interaction of the actors in the current round, but if I were advertising Macs I'd have an entirely different approach.
- It really baffles me that there are people in this world who spend so much of their time installing programs that apt-get (and similar) is the only viable solution. I'm not saying that people who are annoyed that OSX doesn't have that functionality are lying, just that I don't understand it. When I do an install of an OS I have a list of programs that I need and then I'm done. And the programs that I install aren't ever going to be available through a command line. That's why OSX is a good choice for people like me. If it's not for you, why are you so dead-set on berating others? Why the personal insults and general hatred? Use your favorite distro and get over it.
I love OSX for its sheer simplicity and functionality. The looks are nice (the overall enclosure as well), but that's not why I bought it. I bought it so I could get my work done without fighting with windows or spending a single second recompiling or tweaking or executing a single command line instruction. It's there if I want to use it (I regularly use it for ftp and ssh), but I don't have to. (Nevermind that even if I wanted to spend my time getting a Linux distro to work as well as OSX does out of the box, I still couldn't run Photoshop or Illustrator or InDesign or Lightroom. None of the programs that I use daily. Gimp is nice. More than cute, but far less than functional for a working professional dealing with thousands upon thousands of photos and real world deadlines.)
But I wouldn't use it for a fileserver. I wouldn't use it for a web server. And I don't play computer games (I prefer movies). I have Linux fileserver on a Pentium-MMX 366 and it's great. It would take a much better machine before I felt a noteworthy difference in performance. Anyone who claims Linux is anything but efficient and lightweight is likely just ignorant. Windows is bloated, and OSX is far from svelte.
The day I can install Linux in under 30 minutes and have native support for the applications I actually use I will switch completely.
- Jon
Sorry for the novel. This is what happens when A) you come to a thread late in the game; and B) you're installing Linux and have a lot of time on your hands.
http://imachate.tripod.com/ <-- Extreme Apple hate site
Your Mac computer crashes often and you recieve powerful viruses
Wow this is amazing We are getting such a boom of people coming to this website. I love it I have been getting such a boom of people its making me happy. We have been getting so many emails saying how they switched back to Pcs. The latest request I have gotten in our email is to open up a page for reviews and also a page for inventions in the Pc comunity. I also got a email asking for all the best freeware links and reviews. So this website will be expanding. A lot. I will be expamding our software section so that Pc users will have more stuff to bragg about. Feel free to send emails of how to expand our website.
Can you say, "Trying too hard"?
I love it when people tell me that because I like my Mac I must be lying to make myself feel better. Such incredible irony. Textbook case of a displacement coping mechanism.
Now if I said my Mac was perfect and that Steve Jobs could do no wrong, then you'd have yourself a lie.
That site is beyond lame. Poor design, awkward navigation, and too busy being hateful to have involved any actual thought. As soon as it spawned 3 or 4 popups I knew something was wrong.
Can someone explain to me what has to happen to someone for them to become that angry? I mean I hate Microsoft but that's the extent of it. I don't dwell on it. I certainly don't spend time making hateful websites. I just move on and use something(s) else. I guess I just don't get it.
- Jon
after using OS X at my work for a while now, I have come to dislike it. honestly I would rather use windows then OS X.
but I don't use windows, at home I have two computers, on one I use Ubuntu on the other my primary computer, I use Sabayon as my primary OS.
nalmeth said: A lot of negative reviews of Mac ..
I don't like the interface very much, the OSX bar at the bottom just has a bunch of pretty icons, and I've never been able to believe that it actually offers much of anything in *functionality*. I used engage before, but tossed it, as it was a pretty, but useless tool.
The menu bar up top *is *actually pretty functional, and I'm sure if I used it alot I would start to like it, but I can get that bar in KDE aswell anyway. And I choose to not use it.
I prefer to see Macintosh solely as a computer manufacturer.
The dock doesn't have to be at the bottom; in fact I always keep it on the right side. Since the screen is wider than tall, it wastes less space that way. Also turn off the genie effect & magnification and you may start to like it.
A lot has been written about the Mac's menu bar vs. Windows' menus in each window. The big advantage is you can reach the menu bar without looking since items tend to remain more or less in the same place (at least within a single application & the first 3 menus in almost all applications) and it's easier to just push the mouse all the ways to the top of the screen rather than having to stop to look & think where the window menu is.
I'd like to see Mac OS X running on other systems. For me the OS is what's special, not the machine.
Bezvardis said: If you mean that there are no repositories and the associated system - yes, you are right. But you shurely have forgotten that most (all that I have seen so far) apps for Mac OSX can be installed either by drag-and-drop (i.e. the user does not perceive it as an installation at all) or with a simple installer. And believe me - none of the freeware needs to be cracked.
don't get me wrong - Ubuntu's great but it is raw. Only a minority of computer users can use it without specialised help. None of this minority can use it without spending lots of time customising essential things. That is why I am sure that people who are praising Linux over MacOSX are tiny minority.
DarwinPorts (which I think was just renamed MacPorts when OpenDarwin.org shut down) is a lot better than Fink. It has many more packages which are much more up to date. It works sort of like Gentoo's emerge by downloading the original source, applying patches, and building it.
The nice thing about Fink is it uses apt-get & dpkg.
professor_chaos said:
...
For $1450.00
Can you find a similar or comparable system for much cheaper. I couldn't. I was suprised too, because I thought Apple overcharged for everything, but this system was quite reasonably priced for the hardware.
Looks - 8/10 Usability - 7/10 Cost - 8/10
See, the thing is, you can get the exact same hardware on a Dell for half the cost. Check below - the only thing different is the Dell's DVD writer burns twice as fast, and the Macbook Pro has an X1600 vs. the Dell's X1400.
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7532/screenshotup3.png http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5300/screenshot1rw6.png
And what is this about paying for a new revision of OSX each time it comes out? Anyone who bought OSX (and had OS 9 originally) had to pay like 400 dollars for it, and if they want to stay updated, it's another $70 for each increment. You'd have payed $680 now just to be at 10.4!
Oh, and what if you want another charger or other replacement parts (another power supply, or a battery, say)? Expect to pay about $30-$100 more than you would for an equivalent part for the PC.
And what is this bull about .mac accounts? People actually fork over $100 a year for it? Or paying an extra $200 for a black macbook instead of a white one?
Mac users is they think their stuff is reasonably priced because Apple's forced proprietary-ness prevents them from realizing that they can get equivalent stuff for the PC at half the cost. Yes, a price with specs like that is good... if you are buying a mac.
If there's only one thing I could convey to Mac haters, it's this:
A Mac user's choice to pay more for OSX rarely has anything to do with ignorance. Commercially supported software on a stable system is worth a lot more than what we pay.
People who don't use their computers for a living almost never understand this. Those who use their computers for a living, and use software that is available on Linux only sometimes understand this.
And just because we buy Macs doesn't mean we buy .mac accounts. In fact I personally know a couple dozen Mac owners and only one .mac user. And I think he only has a Mac because he likes how it looks. He doesn't have a clue how to use it.
Also, I don't know very many users who purchase every release of OSX. Many skipped 10.3. I personally skipped 10.4. And very few jumped in at 10.0 anyway. Most didn't join (because it was essentially beta and not yet supported by our commercial apps) until 10.2. Then there's the fact that a copy of OSX is $130, not $70. All-in-all I'd say your math is faulty at best.
Again, just because you don't understand the value doesn't mean it's a rip-off to those of us who do.
- Jon
Can you make the dock less square at the edges and more rounded. Also is Osx themeable.
OS X is completely unthemable. I believe that, unlike OS 9, you can't even get extensions to make it themable.
(I had the Mac OS 8 theme on my computer when it was running System 7.1... those were the days!)
People who buy Macs aren't chumps; they know the value of having an operating system and hardware that are designed specifically for eachother. Music professionals know how good the Mac OS is for audio and MIDI work... Windows can't touch it for that, and Linux will never come close.
xenon2000 said: The intel Macbooks are standard Intel hardware and will work fine with XP and linux. As for firewire and USB booting, that is dependant on the bios and not the hardware as it's standard current Intel hardware. As for booting from Firewire on a PC or Mac, I am not sure I have personally used any x86 bios that allowed booting from Firewire.
As for installing Ubuntu, it has to work, it's an x86 computer with a standard Intel cpu and board. Now as for drivers, that is a different story. You may or may not have sound, or accelerated video drivers, etc. USB, firewire will work for sure. Ethernet will most likely work or has drivers available. Etc. As for the iSight camera built in... I am sure it's on the USB bus internally, but may or may not use general USB cam drivers.
Do some research. Macs don't have a BIOS. Firewire booting has been possible on Macs for years though OpenFirmware and now EFI, regardless of whether it's been possible on any machine with a BIOS.
Installing Ubuntu doesn't always work, but it seems to on Macbooks. They are not "standard Intel hardware"; if they were, OS X would've been hacked to work on beige boxes 9 months ago.
netkid91 said: I'm primarily getting an OS X PC because I have fallen in love with TextMate for Ruby on Rails work, and I have friends who use OS X so it's a pain to help them troubleshoot their systems without making the open a terminal...That...and...it's pretty........
That brings up one of my biggest OS X gripes, which the parent poster also brought up: I end up installing a metric f**kton of 3rd-party apps to get things where I want it. On my work machine:
- I disabled Dashboard and installed Yahoo! Widgets.
- I installed Quicksilver.
- I installed FontExplorer X to manage fonts.
- I have TextWrangler and Emacs for text editing, because TextEdit is too automagic.
- I installed iTerm because I couldn't handle Terminal.app
- I installed Desktop Manager to have virtual desktops (Exposé? Oh puh-leeze...)
- I installed BurnX Free because burning CDs in Finder sucks.
- I had to get Disk Warrior because fsck doesn't fix everything every time.
- I installed HardwareGrowler because having a removable disk icon disappear from the desktop doesn't necessarily mean the disk is unmounted.
- I installed VLC because QuickTime just doesn't quite cut it.
- I installed Stuffit Deluxe 10.0 because the version of Expander that shipped with Tiger was broken.
- I installed Firefox because some of the websites I regularly visit (work-related sites, at that) choke on Safari.
- I installed Xee because Preview.app sucks for previewing large number of photos. Ditto for the Photoshop file browser.
- Carbon Copy Cloner for those jobs that the Migration Assistant can't handle.
- GPG extensions for Mail.app because Visa demands PGP.
- Hey Folders! for properly labeled folder icons.
- Shadow Killer because shadows on an older G4 are a performance-killer, even with an Nvidia card.
- OnyX for periodic routine maintenance tasks, including the repair-permissions-after-installing-software-in-case-the-installer-left-the-system-borked problem.
- AppleJack, so I can do routine maintenance with a minimum of fuss, by booting in single-user mode and typing 'applejack AUTO restart' from the command-line.
- Fink for Ruby, because Apple's Ruby package tends to be broken in odd ways, and on a couple of system updates ended up being re-borken for me
- AmaroK from Fink, because Apple still doesn't support Ogg Vorbis, despite the fact that it'd cost them little to nothing to do so. But they keep improving their DRM support.
- tun/tap kernel drivers for Hamachi. Why weren't tun/tap drivers shipped with the system?
- The UNO theme (yes, you can get themes for OS X, or at least one) so that Finder, iTunes (when I run it), Mail, and other apps look like they were written for the same operating system
- Mail Stamps so I get the classic mail toolbar icons
- Lingon for a semi-nice GUI for launchd
- An anacron launchd item so periodic jobs run on schedule on my periodically-running machine. Would you believe one of the most common items in 3rd-party repair utilities is 'run cron jobs'?
And I'd use Path Finder if it integrated in with everything else well.
Why fawn over a system on which I replace and supplement most the standard system apps, and would replace the rest if I could?
regeya said:
Why fawn over a system on which I replace and supplement most the standard system apps, and would replace the rest if I could?
That's a good question. Why are you using a Mac if there's something out there that'll better fit your needs? I'd imagine that the people who actually like and get good use out of their Macs don't have experiences similar to yours.
GarethMB said: There is nothing intuitive about only having one mouse button or hiding all the USB ports and power button at the back of the monitor.`
Macs come with a 4-button mouse you know... And putting the USB ports on the back of the monitor reduces desktop clutter
GarethMB said: Seriously OS X is a one ap at a time OS and i'm all about having lots of programs running at once.
Well Mac OS X beats Linux and Windows in this area... just try it out...
GarethMB said: Safari is the slowest browser ever, i swear, and its really clunky with it.
Slow?? I would call firefox slow, not Safari, and firefox takes much more screen space than Safari, and it increases desktop clutter.
GarethMB said: Mac OS X is a big fat shiney joke.
Really?? What's the OS that has the stupid-and-unusefull windows like UI??? Let me think..mmm Linux? (KDE & Gnome)
curtis said: 10GB is still a lot for an operating system though... imagine how many applications you could fit inside GNU/Linux, whilst still keeping under 10GB.
Actually, about 3 gig is taken by the Printer Drivers, and if you choose no to install this and other few minor part of OS X, you can keep it at about 5,5 Gigs..:)
Stormy Eyes said: I have to look into making mplayer work on Mac.
You can try to use MPlayerOSX ;)
Alfa989 said: Macs come with a 4-button mouse you know
How many buttons are there on Apple-laptops? hint: not four.
Well Mac OS X beats Linux and Windows in this area... just try it out...
Years ago I tried to bring my SuSE-box to it's knees by running around 50 apps at once. It worked like it should. Are you now saying that things are worse today? OS X handles multiple apps just fine. But I can't see it handling multitasking any better than Linux does.
Really?? What's the OS that has the stupid-and-unusefull windows like UI??? Let me think..mmm Linux? (KDE & Gnome)
I have used both KDE, Gnome and OS X extensively. And I don't think that the Linux-GUI's are "stupid and un-usefull". What makes you think that they are "stupid" and "windoslike"? There are plenty of retarded things in OS X GUI.
tofuconfetti said: Linux still lacks the high end professional applications like this.
Like what? Shake runs on Linux, Blender runs on Linux, Maya runs on Linux, 3ds Max runs on Linux, Flint runs on Linux, Smoke runs on Linux, Inferno run on Linux, Flame runs on Linux... There are lots of VERY hi-end apps that run on Linux.
Mac os users always says Mac os X is better. Windows user says that Windows Is the best, GNU/Linux Say GNU/Linux is better
But i prefer mac os. Unlike windows xp its more stable than windows xp
Alfa989 said: Macs come with a 4-button mouse you know... And putting the USB ports on the back of the monitor reduces desktop clutter
Well Mac OS X beats Linux and Windows in this area... just try it out...
Slow?? I would call firefox slow, not Safari, and firefox takes much more screen space than Safari, and it increases desktop clutter.
Really?? What's the OS that has the stupid-and-unusefull windows like UI??? Let me think..mmm Linux? (KDE & Gnome)
Sushi said: Like what? Shake runs on Linux, Blender runs on Linux, Maya runs on Linux, 3ds Max runs on Linux, Flint runs on Linux, Smoke runs on Linux, Inferno run on Linux, Flame runs on Linux... There are lots of VERY hi-end apps that run on Linux.
Ok. Now, tell me: what alternatives do I have for Aperture or Lightroom? F-Spot? Come on. ](*,)
zAo said: Ok. Now, tell me: what alternatives do I have for Aperture or Lightroom? F-Spot? Come on. ](*,)
So, because there might not be a suitable Linux-app for some particular OS X-app, it means that there are no hi-end apps for Linux? And besides, since Photoshop can run through Wine, maybe Lightroom can run through it as well \\:D/
Sushi said: So, because there might not be a suitable Linux-app for some particular OS X-app, it means that there are no hi-end apps for Linux? And besides, since Photoshop can run through Wine, maybe Lightroom can run through it as well \\:D/
I won't say there aren't Pro apps for Linux. But there are no pro photo libary apps for Linux.
Through wine? Well, even on Windows/OSX Photoshop is really heavy, so please; no emulation ;)
Alfa989 said: and firefox takes much more screen space than Safari, and it increases desktop clutter.
just resize the window, chief. (am i missing the point here?)
fuscia said: just resize the window, chief. (am i missing the point here?)
...and set small icons.
zAo said: I won't say there aren't Pro apps for Linux. But there are no pro photo libary apps for Linux.
Such apps are a very new phenomena. Basically Lightroom (still in beta) and Aperture (still unfinished, basically) are the only ones.
Sushi said: Such apps are a very new phenomena. Basically Lightroom (still in beta) and Aperture (still unfinished, basically) are the only ones.
Aperture unfinished? omg. Ever tried it?
zAo said: Aperture unfinished? omg. Ever tried it?
The first released version was utter crap. 1.1 (IIRC) made it barely usable. Don't know yet what 1.5 is like
fuscia said: just resize the window, chief. (am i missing the point here?)
I am talking about the toolbar...;)
Alfa989 said: I am talking about the toolbar...;)
Right click the toolbar and Customize. There's checkbox for 'small icons' and you can remove excessive icons. Try it
e. weird, seems to lock menus after your done :-k restarting firefox fixed it
Reshin said: Right click the toolbar and Customize. There's checkbox for 'small icons' and you can remove excessive icons. Try it
e. weird, seems to lock menus after your done :-k restarting firefox fixed it
[[IMG]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3383/svsfvf4.th.png[/IMG]](http://img413.imageshack.us/my.php?image=svsfvf4.png)
It still takes a bit of screen space, besides, it's ugly, and no theme can fix that, no native (aqua) widgets, it doesn't follow the interface guidelines... ](*,)
Alfa989 said: [[IMG]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3383/svsfvf4.th.png[/IMG]](http://img413.imageshack.us/my.php?image=svsfvf4.png)
It still takes a bit of screen space, besides, it's ugly, and no theme can fix that, no native (aqua) widgets, it doesn't follow the interface guidelines... ](*,)
If you use one of the GrApple themes (I use UNO 'coz I use UNO for everything else) the bar doesn't use any more room than Safari. Well, not *much* more. ;)
I agree on the widgets, though. Then again, does Firefox use native widgets or follow interface guidelines on *any* of the platforms it runs on?
billT said: That's a good question. Why are you using a Mac if there's something out there that'll better fit your needs? I'd imagine that the people who actually like and get good use out of their Macs don't have experiences similar to yours.
Good idea, chief. I'll just call up the IT department and tell them I need to use a different operating system from everyone else in the company. I'm sure I'll be loved for that. Oh, and I can't be bothered to work with others because my system of choice won't handle either AFP or resource forks (yes, we still use AFP, and it's not negotiable.)
What is interesting about reading this post is seeing just how subjective using an OS can be. If someone was to read this forum alone they would come away with the idea that Linux slays OSX, but for me thats simply not true.
I am experimenting with Ubuntu to breath new life into a fairly old PC which is currently running loads of anti spyware/virus protection just to get it online, but theres no way I could use any linux distro as my main OS, there just isnt the appropriate software available for my needs. You can tell me the advantages of Linux until you are blue in the face but if I wanna record music in my bedroom then until you have an open source alternative to Garageband then Linux just doesnt meet my needs.
I'd also say that you Linux guys sometimes forget what the level of most computer users are at. I am pretty up with my computers and Im struggling to get my head around all the issues attached to Linux. Theres no way in hell some of the people I know who can just about use MSN messanger and Minesweeper could use Linux as it stands today, and this is a painful reality which Linux people forgot.
So I guess I must be an idiot to want to use something which runs all the software I need, and does so in an easy to use way?
Of course not, it just means I have different needs to some of you guys.
...Which I find a really uplifting thought. ...The idea that we are all different and have different needs from our computers. Isnt that ultimately what is going to make Open Source win out in the long term? The idea that a larger and more varied selection of peoples needs can be met by software because people are free to change it to suit their needs as and when they need to?
50 GIGABYTES, WHAT THE **** I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT, that sounds like an exagguration.
Linux is superior.
Why? Because it doesn't tie me down to a particular hardware platform. It actually INSTALLS on my machine.
belovedmonster said: What is interesting about reading this post is seeing just how subjective using an OS can be..
I'd also say that you Linux guys sometimes forget what the level of most computer users are at. I am pretty up with my computers and Im struggling to get my head around all the issues attached to Linux. Theres no way in hell some of the people I know who can just about use MSN messanger and Minesweeper could use Linux as it stands today
Yes. Using an operating system is subjective. It's subjective because you get used to doing things a certain way. When you switch to another operating system, things don't work the way you expect, and you struggle.
I took my switch from OS 9 to Ubuntu quite slowly, so I gradually got comfortable with it. Then I bought my first Windows PC. It's been 5 months and I'm still not comfortable with it. I'm quite good at Linux, yet I suck at Windows.
"I've been using computers since 1992 yet I can't figure out how to xyz in Windows. Windows sucks, I'm going back to Linux". My Mac and Ubuntu knowledge is working against me on Windows. Someone who can barely use MSN will probably be no worse on Ubuntu, as long as it's installed by someone who knows what they're doing.
My personal opinion is that Windows is difficult. My opinion is coloured by my lack of experience in Windows.
What are people's opinions on macs? I don't like windows so I have been trying to use ubuntu for the past, maybe 3 months now? After spending probably now hundreds of hours trying to get things to work I am honestly fed up of not being able to burn CDs at least half the time, various online audio/video crashing the system or not being able to listen/view it. And hibernate doesn't work perhaps 30% of the time (and even when it does work it causes problems often anyway - apparently due to the programs being unstable some people said here?).
So I am trying to work out what is a good alternative? Macs? What do you think? Thanks
Honestly I have never had good experiences with any of the 5 laptops I have owned over the years using any OS. My conclusion, laptops are just flaky technology. So my suggestion is go with a Desktop P.C. And see if your experience changes then. Honestly I have had none of the issues you mentioned on a desktop system running Ubuntu.
Not sure what your CD burning problems are, but try invoking your burning program with gksudo.
Hibernation/suspend is something that has differing implementations on different machines, so it's a known problem. I agree with the above poster; either live without it or try a desktop PC.
If you want a fairly cheap but good desktop PC, get a Compaq Presario. The only thing that doesn't work is either hibernate or suspend, I forget which because I have no need to use it. I've absolutely no complaints here.
Answering your actual question:
I have good experiences with Macs. Getting a Mac made me see an alternative to Windows, and from there I went on to Linux.
If you want a computer with hardly any hassle then I'd recommend a Mac, however it doesn't encourage you to tinker and almost no freedom compared to Linux.
Give a Mac to someone who doesn't 'get' computers. However if I were you I'd make enquiries regarding which are the most linux friendly laptops.
Yup as the Mac zealots like to say 'it just works', which of course it should seeing as it run on their own hardware of limited configurations.
I have a Macbook and yes it does do things with minimum of hassle. It however is *very* much aimed at people without technical skills, it will drive you up the wall if you are even vaguely competent. OS X is also the slowest OS out of the big 3, and get ready for the worst and most basic filemanager in computing history.
macs SUCK! :evil: theyre expensive. theyre even more expensive if one hardware component fails and you wish to replace it.
it falsely claims that it is "good for artwork". it's not good for hardcore graphics design work such as 3d art generation. shrek 2 wasnt created using macs after all.
did i mention they weigh a ton? and that they have more security issues than windows?
woodlandjustin said: So I am trying to work out what is a good alternative? Macs? What do you think?
Thanks
Mac: are good, expecially now that it is possible to install ubuntu to a mac-laptop.. the biggest problem I have with mac-laptops is the 1-button mouse...
ProjectGod said: did i mention they weigh a ton? and that they have more security issues than windows?
Do you have any proof showing that Macs are heavier than their equivalent PC counterparts or documentation that shows the current number of unfixed vulnerabilities in OSX to exceed that of Windows?
I bet you don't.
i considered getting a mac laptop, but whenever i'd go to their store to play with them, i was disappointed, especially with the speed. this, of course, was with the ppcs. (i hear now that the intel macs are one fourth as slow as the ppcs.) i got a system76, with ubuntu, that 'just works', especially when using automatix.
I think I can ;)
iBook G4/800:
12" weight and size: 4.9 lbs, 11.2(width) by 9.1(depth) by 1.35(thickness) inches
Sony VAIO VGN-S170P
13" Weight 4.2 lb
The hardware difference makes it even more interesting ATI 9700 and Pentium M 1.7Ghz VS the mac..., and I could come up with several subnotebooks half the weight of the lightest mac at that time. :twisted:
I dislike Mac computers and the company that markets them (they don't even make the damn things, Foxconn and Asus do).
At least back when they used PPC CPU's there was some differentiation in the hardware. Sure PPC's were inferior in many ways to x86 (at least in the past 2-3 years) but they also had some advantages especially since Mac OS was optimized for that hardware and could basically be an embedded system. Now we are on to Intel Macs that are no more optimized for the hardware then either Windows or Linux is (probably less so than Gentoo can be).
There are things beyond just the specs that make Apple suck. All of the Intel Macs are more expensive than their PC counterparts with the same exact specifications. When I was in the Apple store (friend dragged me) last a top of the line 15.4 widescreen MacBook Pro (Core Duo) cost $2500US while a ThinkPad my friend has with the same exact specs (well actually with more RAM) was around $2000. Then you got the black Mac that costs $200 extra for nothing but the paint.
Then there is their marketing, "when you get a Mac you don't get a highly versatile and universal tool that can do real useful work you get a life style" (b*tch please).
As you can tell I really dislike Apple and not just for the reasons stated above but I also think they are a stupid company, if they were to take OS X out of Mac and start offering it with 3rd party PC's they would easily have a 20% market share.
and that they have more security issues than windows?
you're having a giraffe
do i have proof that MACS weigh more than PCs?
uhhh actually you can ask anybody. try lifting a G3 or G4 Mac system box and get someone to lift a PC system box. Macs weigh about twice as much. not good if youre made to move them up and down and up the stairs again.
The primary reason why MS windows gets whacked by viruses is because theres a huge user base. if a fraction of that user base were to start using MACs... the same issues would start popping up for mac users.
Not quite. OS X uses the sudo mechanism that Ubuntu uses.
However, Apple has approximately 0 years experience with security design, so if crackers could get around the remaining bits of its BSD core, they could well write viruses for OS X.
if a fraction of that user base were to start using MACs... the same issues would start popping up for mac users.
And why not for Linux users? No os is completely safe. I'm pretty sure Linux has it's flaws and probably quite a lot of them. I would never buy a mac for the same reason I would hesitate to buy a branded pc. It's not as easy to customise the hardware. You can only use apple hardware in a Mac and that means you have less choice of what you put in it. If something breaks or you want to upgrade have to buy the parts from an apple vendor. Apple use their monopoly in Macs to try and control how people use or upgrade thie computers even worse than Microsoft (hardware & software).My final reasons for not liking Apple are that they ripped of the Beatles and some of their components are made in sweatshops. But I guess if you want to become a slave to apple just like many people are a slave to Microsfot then that's up to you :-)
I think apple deliberately make up rumors that Macs are better at some things. They're advertising campaign is too "image based" so I wouldn't be surprised if they are just creating an image for themselves by saying stuff like "Apples are better for multimedia". What can an apple do that a pc can't?
I've never used a MAC, but all I hear from people who have is that once you use one, you'll never want to use a PC again. Kind of like the worm guys in Men In Black. . .Once you go MAC, you'll never go back!! :-)
And why not for Linux users? No os is completely safe. I'm pretty sure Linux has it's flaws and probably quite a lot of them.
The biggest security hole of any computer is the user. Apple tends to be used by the least technical user who would not know much about security and since it doesn't get many viruses (there are actually a few in the wild for OS X and they do go around) the users feel safer and don't bother learning. Windows users are actually better in that respect as there is alot of publicity going on.
I've never used a MAC, but all I hear from people who have is that once you use one, you'll never want to use a PC again. Kind of like the worm guys in Men In Black. . .Once you go MAC, you'll never go back!
I don't think it's true, I used Macs from time to time and hated it everytime. They are the slowest of any other machine (even the Core Duo's are, haven't had a chance to destroy a Core 2 Duo yet). The laptops don't have tapping at all, not even just off by default it's plain not there. I also hung OS X on a Core Duo by opening all of the programs in the dock at once. I'm sorry but even Windows can handle that, it will be slow as hell trying to do it and might need a restart to clear the RAM after you are done with them but it will not die. Linux wouldn't even slow down (all from experience).
I think the issue, honestly, is less which OS is "best" and more which OS is best -for you-.
The obvious case of Windows vs Linux... if you're a hard core gamer, you've gotta have serious balls to try a full switch to Linux right now.
Personally, I don't like Macs. The key word in there being "personally." One of the huge things that's important to me about an OS is "are the buttons in the places that make sense." To Windows and KDE, no, the buttons are never where they make sense. To Mac, the buttons on the screen make me feel like I'm wandering through a maze, and I spend all my time on a Mac FINDING the buttons and not getting anything done. And I say this spending a decent amount of time on my roommate's mac, having broken nearly every piece of hardware in my linux box.
Macs just don't make sense -to me-. But then again, neither does KDE, and KDE users stare at me like I've got some mental retardation when I fiddle around on their computer, and think I must be lying when I say I've used ubuntu for over a year.
That weird, undescribable feature is VERY important to me, and a Mac just doesn't have it.
Unfortunately for Macs, you can't try it out for free. I have a spoiled rich *** roommate with a Mac, so I get to use her's all the time I want (never). Do you attend a college with a Mac lab? Both of the colleges I've gone to had one. Do you live in a rich town that might have a Mac in the library? Do you have a friend who has a Mac? Most alternate OS users like to let people use their OS to get them to "switch"... whether it be mac or linux.
To try it out, don't just fiddle. Bring some work, photos, and music on a thumb drive. What would you do on the computer? Are you going to make a website? Make a website. Do you do homework? Research a random topic, take notes, and type up a mini paper to yourself, trying to format it. That's when you're going to see if the "buttons" are in the right place for YOU
And remember... EVERY Distro is different. Red Hat is different from Mac is different from Ubuntu. (they're all similarly based...) So if Ubuntu died, maybe another Distro, including mac, will do fine. Try it out on a live cd. :) But don't just pop in the cd and go "Hey it's on!" Do WORK on it! Some people just completely run their computers off of the cd when their harddrive is broken, so you can do a lot on it.
Oh... and good luck getting a loan for your designer electronic!
prizrak said: if they were to take OS X out of Mac and start offering it with 3rd party PC's they would easily have a 20% market share.This is a valid point.
I don't much like Apple because they do not give me choice, and they hate it when people try to change it by running their operating system on hardware that is not Apple hardware.
I have never understood why people complain at Windows' tiny amount of preloaded software harming competition when a mac is exponentially worse for it. Lots of people like the 'easiness' of macs, because they come with a billion programs already installed (and polluting that dock thing with hundreds of quick launch buttons, thus rendering the thing unusable); there's an the unfairly DRM'd iTunes, iPhoto, another audio program, that web site program... the list goes on! Effectively, if you are just looking for simple software, your wishes are accounted for; anyone looking for simple photo management software is immediately content with Apple's stuff before seeing any of the (superior or not!) competition.
Of course, if you're like me and you don't like Apple's stuff, you then have to hunt around through the menus and get rid of it.
There's other stuff that's a bit anti-competitive, too: Hardware. Has anyone else noticed how Apple's Airport routers are given their own configuration, and that their configuration is clearly more prominent than the regular wireless configuration? I was hunting for 30 minutes trying to find the configuration tool for wireless. I eventually found it buried somewhere (okay, I admit, it was in the menu bar!), somehow separate from the Airport configuration which had been taunting me with its presence for the whole time. This happened with initial setup, as well. It hated my router. I forget the exact message now, but I am pretty sure now that the only router it wanted me to have in the setup phase was an Airport router. It found my SSID, then it asked for a single thing: "password". No Static/Dynamic IP checkbox, no DNS entry... just Password. Of course, I entered my WEP key (assuming that's what they mean by "password") and I got a rather simple error telling me that it couldn't connect. No explanation, no reasoning... just that *It doesn't work!!* Okay, I can't expect everything to give me explanations (especially with wireless), but this could have been a bit better. That's one thing I've noted and been displeased by: Unhelpful error messages. Presumably they are supposed to make the system seem more user-friendly to those who are afraid of technical words. Anyhow, configuring my wireless network in the setup program was impossible; it turned out later that the thing was undoubtedly supposed to be Airport setup and only Airport setup, because the real wireless setup (for every single other wireless router out there!), surprisingly, gives me all the options I need.
How is this user friendly? It's only user friendly if I give in and buy every piece of Apple hardware I can find! What if I don't want Apple's router?
Locked down hardware is not friendly.
I also much dislike their ads, which have resulted in various imbeciles calling Windows boxes personal computers and Apple boxes Macs. Macs are personal computers, are they not? (Even with my experience with anti-competition in there, I would expect that they at least try to make Macs personalizeable...) Linux runs on both Apple boxes and everyone else's boxes ("PCs"), does it not?
All I can say is: Macs are pretty fine computers in the "just works" department, since the hardware and software are so tightly integrated.
Just don't buy their cheaper computers- I've found that those tend to have a useful lifetime of a year or perhaps two, tops.
Iandefor said: All I can say is: Macs are pretty fine computers in the "just works" department, since the hardware and software are so tightly integrated.
Just don't buy their cheaper computers- I've found that those tend to have a useful lifetime of a year or perhaps two, tops.
Mac is not a computer it is an embedded appliance. And yes it does just work same way my cell phone just works without any configuration on my part so long as I stick to Verizon and not try to use it on Sprint.
The primary reason why MS windows gets whacked by viruses is because theres a huge user base. if a fraction of that user base were to start using MACs... the same issues would start popping up for mac users.
wrong, wrong, wrong.... absolutely brimming over with wrongability
if that was the case, explain why the majority of servers run apache, yet the majority of weaknesses are in IIS?
i dont know the specific stats but its pretty staggering
I'm a recent OS X -> Ubuntu switcher (well, several months ago).
I have been with Macs for nearly 10 years prior to the switch. What made me bail from the ship?
- The Intel switch. PowerPCs were much more efficient than their Intel counterparts at the time. The PPC 970 was a promising processor but IBM dumped Apple in order to focus on the console gaming market. With the switch to x86, I would have to re-buy all of my software titles should I ever upgrade to a Macintel. Uhm, no thanks. Considering that I have been using FOSS alternatives in lieu of upgrading my commercial apps, it didn't make sense for me to continue using OS X. (I still do whenever I need to surf Flash-based sites via MOL).
Maccies like to look at their computers as 'BMWs;' I have a different stance. The proper car analogy to describe Apples to Wal-Mart PCs nowadays would be Jaguar to Ford. In both cases one is overpriced despite having similar internals. Heaven knows why Jaguar is still around today. I see them as an irrelevant company.
Jaguar used to sport V12s under their bonnets (e.g. PowerPC chips) until Ford came along and took over the company (Jobs). Although (A) the parts were expensive, (B) only experienced and well-qualified shops could touch them (e.g. dealers and specialty mom and pop shops - much like Apple retail and Mac-oriented shops), and (C) the packages as a whole were loose cannons despite having high price tags (e.g. Mac OS), Jaguar was a brand name for the elite (e.g. fanboys with too much money) and sales were minuscule (e.g. Apple's marketshare).
Once Ford came along and took over the company (e.g. Jobs), Jaguars no longer had the mighty V12s (e.g. PowerPC chips) but began to run on Ford-built V8s (e.g. Intel chips). With the new internals, there really merited no distinction between a mass-produced Ford (e.g. bargain basement PC) and a Jaguar (e.g. Apple) except for the price tag and form factor.
- QA. Apple's QA has significantly gone down the crapper with the switch. The MacBooks and MacBook Pros have had all sorts of problems - whining, random shutdowns, excessive thermal paste, overheating - the list goes on. Apple have historically treated their paying customers like shit. They deny issues with (especially Revision A) products only to later come up with a fix or open a repair program under the threat of lawsuits from digruntled owners (e.g. iBook G3 logic board issues, PowerBook G4 "white spots," etc.).
- Cost. As pointed out by others on this board, there is absolutely no difference in components anymore. With the other issues I discussed previously, there is no incentive or justification to upgrade from an older PowerPC Mac. I still have my Macs and I'll keep using them until the hardware fails or the need to repair them is no longer cost-effective (I already replaced a buckled case on my PowerBook G4 that recently saw $400 in upgrades to the HDD and optical drives).
Also consider this: If a common PC, such as a Dell, breaks, you take it to the corner shop and you can easily get replacement parts. On my girlfriend's laptop (Dell Inspiron 4100), we were able to easy obtain a replacement battery and new DVD-ROM/CD-R(W) combo drive. With a Mac? You'll have to find a specialty shop around town or even an Apple store. Replacement parts are *expensive.*
woodlandjustin said: What are people's opinions on macs?
So I am trying to work out what is a good alternative? Macs? What do you think? Thanks [COLOR=Blue]I think you would be quite surprised at how fast the new Intel-based Macs actually are. With Parallels software for Mac OS X, you can run Windows and Linux quite nicely. Soon, Parallels is also supposed to support 3D applications. :)
Soon, I am going to be purchasing a new Mac Pro - four core (two dual core Xeon processors @ 3.00 GHz). Also, there is supposed to be an update coming soon that will bring eight cores (two quad core Xeon processors @ 2.66 GHz) to the Mac Pro. I am trying to decide if I should wait or just get the 3.00 GHz (quad core) one.
Anyway, once I get it I can run Linux and Windows XP along with Mac OS X. Coupled with my new Viewsonic G225fb 21" monitor, I will have a kick a@@ system.[/COLOR]
stimpack said: Yup as the Mac zealots like to say 'it just works', which of course it should seeing as it run on their own hardware of limited configurations.
I have a Macbook and yes it does do things with minimum of hassle. It however is *very* much aimed at people without technical skills, it will drive you up the wall if you are even vaguely competent. OS X is also the slowest OS out of the big 3, and get ready for the worst and most basic filemanager in computing history. [COLOR=Blue]How is the Mac Pro "hardware of limited configurations?" Please... I can put four 750 GB SATA HDs in the Mac Pro, 16 GB of RAM, and add an eSATA card for more SATA storage/backup outside of the Mac Pro tower. I would hardly call that limited... The Mac Pro will run circles around anything out there in PC land. Also, Mac OS X is not slow. Power on to Desktop in less than 20 seconds is not what I call slow.[/COLOR]
anaconda said: Mac: are good, expecially now that it is possible to install ubuntu to a mac-laptop.. the biggest problem I have with mac-laptops is the 1-button mouse...
[COLOR=Blue]Buy a two button mouse then. I use Microsoft mice with my Mac and Linux/Windows computer. Not hard to do... :rolleyes:[/COLOR]
prizrak said: Mac is not a computer it is an embedded appliance. And yes it does just work same way my cell phone just works without any configuration on my part so long as I stick to Verizon and not try to use it on Sprint.
[COLOR=Blue]Uhhh... Yeah OK. :rolleyes: I can make my Mac do way more in Mac OS X than I could ever do in Linux/Windows, and I am a Computer Analyst/Programmer.[/COLOR]
fuscia said: i considered getting a mac laptop, but whenever i'd go to their store to play with them, i was disappointed, especially with the speed. this, of course, was with the ppcs. (i hear now that the intel macs are one fourth as slow as the ppcs.) i got a system76, with ubuntu, that 'just works', especially when using automatix.
[COLOR=Blue]Well, you heard wrong. Do your research before making such a claim... Look at this comparison of the new 3.00 GHz dual Xeon Mac Pro with other Macs and then tell me that it is slow. :rolleyes:
[/COLOR]http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firstlooks/macpro3ghzbench/index.php
Johnsie said: I think apple deliberately make up rumors that Macs are better at some things. They're advertising campaign is too "image based" so I wouldn't be surprised if they are just creating an image for themselves by saying stuff like "Apples are better for multimedia". What can an apple do that a pc can't?
[COLOR=Blue]Yeah OK... What a load of crap! :rolleyes:
Apple's Macintosh can run circles around a Windows PC for multimedia - please. I will put the iLife/iWork software packages against anything out there in Windows land. You will not find the same functionality and ease of use. Apple's pro apps are even better than the consumer-oriented iApps.
What can an Apple do that a PC can't? I will give you the answer since you asked - you can actually be on the Internet for a very long time without being infected with spyware and virii. In five years, there has not been one instance of a Mac OS X virus. :p [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]An interesting stat here... 50% of Apple's Mac hardware sales are going to Windows users. That is incredible IMO... [/COLOR]
Iandefor said: All I can say is: Macs are pretty fine computers in the "just works" department, since the hardware and software are so tightly integrated.
Just don't buy their cheaper computers- I've found that those tend to have a useful lifetime of a year or perhaps two, tops. [COLOR=Blue]You should tell that to my in-laws who have a flat panel G4 iMac that is mainly used for the Internet and iApps. Works fine for them, and they have had it for over three years now. BTW, it is running Mac OS X 10.3.9 Panther - fast.[/COLOR]
PenguinMan said: [COLOR=Blue]In five years, there has not been one instance of a Mac OS X virus. :p[/COLOR]*Cough*!
You should tell that to my in-laws who have a flat panel G4 iMac that is mainly used for the Internet and iApps. Works fine for them, and they have had it for over three years now. BTW, it is running Mac OS X 10.3.9 Panther - fast. No thanks; I was speaking from personal experience and probably should have tossed in a YMMV.
Moving to the MAC OS X forum with a 2 hour redirect
I rather like OS X, it's easy to administer and X serves are just a pleasure to work with in my experience especially when coupled with remote desktop 3
Chayak said: I rather like OS X, it's easy to administer and X serves are just a pleasure to work with in my experience especially when coupled with remote desktop 3
[COLOR=Blue]I have never tried Remote Desktop 3 - how is it from your experience?[/COLOR]
ArizonaKid said: I am switcher.
Except I gave up on OS X last year. I just didn't see the point anymore. With the transition to Intel, Apple has very few native applications.
I found many Mac users use OS X simply for the sake of not using Microsoft. Well, there is Linux for that.
With the transition to Intel, Apple can no longer clame hardware superiority. I mean there are just making the box. And now, they are making boxes that whine, overheat, and stain a yellowish tint.
Additionally, it is amazing that Apple claims their Intel machines are 2-5 times faster than the flagship G5s. This basically means their claims previously about the PPC superiority were nothing but lies. Now I get to see those annoying commercials all day.
If you wanna "Think Different", use Linux. And save yourself the time of getting a decent notebook that won't whine.
Add...and at least with Linux I don't get that spinning beach ball of death. Stable??? My Windows XP Pro partition is more stable than OS X.
'Think differenter' should be a linux slogan I've been using osX again just for java and flash stuff but wow is flash crappy in osX, safari even crashed on me playing a flash vid, granted i'm using Tiger still but thats because I refuse to pay again for what amounts to an upgrade/bug fixes. Ya the hardware is still nice but i can get a couple of pc's going for the same price.... ex apple fan.
ProjectGod said: macs SUCK! :evil:
theyre expensive. theyre even more expensive if one hardware component fails and you wish to replace it.
Lol
A PC is expensive, all the time replacing components because they fail...:???:
Kateikyoushi said: I think I can ;)
The hardware difference makes it even more interesting ATI 9700 and Pentium M 1.7Ghz VS the mac..., and I could come up with several subnotebooks half the weight of the lightest mac at that time. :twisted:
It is interesting how you compare a 3-year old iBook with a recent VAIO :twisted:
I'm probably a bit late to chime in but I have a view on OSX. I now run exclusive ubuntu 6.10 on an Apple Mac Mini Solo. It runs faster than OSX, uses less disk, is fully functional on my local network talking with a windows laptop, printer, scanner, camera, memory sticks. MacOSX was no better and it was 'strange' to look at and to operate. The advantage of Apple is the hardware: small, quiet, low power - 20W (and only plug in power-hungry peripherals when you need them). If you don't care about energy use then it won't appeal so much.
I don't think this is a question anyone here can really answer. My wife used a Mac in school and when we got married had to share my PC. She gripped all the time. I got her a Mac, and she was going to put Ubuntu on it, as she does like it. I asked her to jsut use OSX, as I wanted one of each OS (OSX, Linux, Windows) in the house. I have used her Mac and I don't like it. It is okay, but I really can't see why she is so in love with it. It does look really pretty though.
Hi there people!. I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots!. Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!.
Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'.
I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please...
I'm *NOT* a celebrity, but PLEASE.... GET ME OUTA HERE!!!! :(
Out of ALL the new experiences I have had with 'New Wave' OS', I am going to have to show myself up, and say I 'enjoyed' Vista the most!!. I prefer diff OS' for diff reasons and tasks, but if I had to make a *new* OS purchase today, Vista would be it I think. Not that I would do, just if I *had* to!.
Well, that is the point of OS X- UNIX underneath a bubbly UI.
3rdalbum said: Yes. Using an operating system is subjective. It's subjective because you get used to doing things a certain way. When you switch to another operating system, things don't work the way you expect, and you struggle.
I took my switch from OS 9 to Ubuntu quite slowly, so I gradually got comfortable with it. Then I bought my first Windows PC. It's been 5 months and I'm still not comfortable with it. I'm quite good at Linux, yet I suck at Windows.
"I've been using computers since 1992 yet I can't figure out how to xyz in Windows. Windows sucks, I'm going back to Linux". My Mac and Ubuntu knowledge is working against me on Windows. Someone who can barely use MSN will probably be no worse on Ubuntu, as long as it's installed by someone who knows what they're doing.
My personal opinion is that Windows is difficult. My opinion is coloured by my lack of experience in Windows.
I Find ubuntu to be more confuseing then windows, with windows its just double click and then it fires up,plus i am also used to getting seperate drivers for the graphics card, etc etc, but in ubuntu thats where i got confused.
max - I am well aware of the 'point' of the OS - I was making a personal observation and stating my opinion of it!. I have to say, that when comparing the 'evils' of OS developers, can we step back for a second, and look at what is said of Mr Gates himself.
People moan and groan about windows, and yes it CAN be a pain in the back side, and there are numerous moral shortfalls within it, but let us look at it this way;
(A)M$ make an OS which works on 99% of IBM compatible PCs (B)Apple make an OS which is designed to work *only* on their hardware, and charge an arm and a leg for this 'priveledge'(?)because their boxes are shiny and white and "elite".
Having deliberated on this subject and digested the facts, I find myself detesting Apple the most for their part in making an OS which *only* fits in a niche market, with ONE hardware manufacturer. I am not here as a fanboy of any ONE OS, but this is a simple and *individual* opinion, based upon MY experiences.
Mac OS just does not "feel right". It feels too shiny, too "let me do it for you" and if this is what people are paying for, then I shall keep my £££ safely in my pocket, for a custom PC build, thanks all the same. I am venting my spleen here - I am not ranting in order to annoy anyone in particular. I have been open minded and tried all the OS' I could think of, that are currently available on the market.
To summarise:
If Mac OS X is good for video editing, then that is all well and good. People go on and on about Apple's market share. I am NOT surprised it is so small, and it is small for DIFFERENT reasons than the ones Linux is small for - their hardware is TOO EXPENSIVE!!.
At first glance, I find Mac OS X stunning. Beautiful hardware, beautiful interface, tight OS. But like I said - that's only at first glance. Macs just aren't for me. I know people who desperately need big funky icons on a shiny white computer. That's their target audience.
If you think about it, they're big, loud DRM machines. EXTREMELY closed OS, closed hardware, and let's not even get into iTunes (which I like even though).
Showoff machines with nothing inside them worth all those £££/$$$. DRM... baddd!!!!.
Linux can and DOES do the same job a whole heap better, and FREE!! :D :D
holylucifer said: I Find ubuntu to be more confuseing then windows, with windows its just double click and then it fires up,plus i am also used to getting seperate drivers for the graphics card, etc etc, but in ubuntu thats where i got confused.
yeah, but that double click on microsoft windows can often fire up a trojan.
But remember mac os x is one of the most stable os' on the market today (being based on bsd) Simplicity does destroy a lot of the fun in an os, but It was aimed toward the general public.
It may not look nice but it sure beats the hell out of any DOS BASED windows os ;) and any NT based Windows today (even xp due to security leaks).
Dont get me wrong I dont like mac at all, and some of my reasons are the same as yours :D
Put it this way, Im happy with Ubuntu :D :D
unlokia said: If Mac OS X is good for video editing, then that is all well and good. People go on and on about Apple's market share. I am NOT surprised it is so small, and it is small for DIFFERENT reasons than the ones Linux is small for - their hardware is TOO EXPENSIVE!!.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]If there is one thing I cannot stand, is someone spreading FUD about the Macintosh platform.
What do you mean if? Macs are excellent for graphics and video, and this has been proven many times over. I own a Mac for the graphical and programming capabilities that it has. Windows XP can do what Mac OS X is capable of, but it is more expensive and not as elegant. Linux? Yeah OK...
I hate to burst your bubble, but Mac OS X marketshare is much larger than desktop Linux marketshare and growing in huge leaps and bounds. Linux server marketshare may be larger than Mac OS X Server marketshare, but that will change soon enough.
Apple's hardware is expensive? I hardly think so... I just bought a new Mac Pro (3.00 GHz quad core Intel Xeon) for $3380 ($3677 with tax and delivery). A similar configuration from DELL would cost about $1000 more. Who is more expensive? The MacBook and MacBook Pro notebooks are priced well and they both have Core2Duo processors in them. A lot of Windows notebooks still have CoreDuo processors in them! In short, Apple is very competitively priced since they made the switch to Intel processors.
All I see in this thread is a bunch of FUD...[/COLOR]
unlokia said: I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots!. Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!.
Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'.
I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please...
I'm *NOT* a celebrity, but PLEASE.... GET ME OUTA HERE!!!! :(
Out of ALL the new experiences I have had with 'New Wave' OS', I am going to have to show myself up, and say I 'enjoyed' Vista the most!!. I prefer diff OS' for diff reasons and tasks, but if I had to make a *new* OS purchase today, Vista would be it I think. Not that I would do, just if I *had* to!. [COLOR="DarkGreen"]I would like to address a couple of things...
- Mac OS X is meant for Apple's hardware, not for your Windows notebook. That is why it is not working as smoothly as it should.
- Mac OS X is very configurable. May be you should actually try going to the System Preferences to do a lot of changing of system settings, etc. Also, one can make many system changes through the Terminal.
- You insult me personally by saying that because of Mac OS X's ease-of-use I am an idiot. May be I just prefer a computer that actually works. What a concept!
- Safari is just the name of the browser that Apple made. Get over it... Safari is a pretty darned good browser IMO. If you don't like Safari, you can use Firefox or Opera. There is choice on the Mac platform you know. :rolleyes: You can also use OmniWeb, which actually is a much better browser than Firefox, Opera, or Safari IMHO.
- Mac OS X is not snobby, cut-down, etc. More and more developers are moving to Mac OS X, in case you did not know. Why? The reason is simple... Apple's Xcode software and the Cocoa development environment.
You really like to insult people, don't you? I am a longtime Mac user, and I also use PCLinuxOS/Ubuntu and Windows XP. Stuff like this from users like you, really turns me off from using Linux - specifically Ubuntu.[/COLOR]
unlokia said: Showoff machines with nothing inside them worth all those £££/$$$. DRM... baddd!!!!.
Linux can and DOES do the same job a whole heap better, and FREE!! :D :D [COLOR=DarkGreen]Show off machines? Sure... I didn't spend almost $3700 to be a show off item to other people. I bought a Mac Pro because I need it to do all the work I need to accomplish on a daily basis. Linux nor Windows can do what the Mac can do - Apple's software is easy to use and works like it is supposed to.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkGreen]Free doesn't always mean better. That is what I have discovered in the last two years.[/COLOR]
As an article I read said recently. Take Linux and take OS X. Because of the platforms they are on, Linux almost works perfectly, OS X DOES work perfectly.
Will I be spending 3 months getting one piece of hardware working on OS X? No.
I'm also a sound engineer. ProTools works on XP and OS X. Given that I want an OS that just works and doesn't get in the way of working, what am I gonna do? That's it, OS X.
The so called "alternatives" to the software I want just don't cut it, fair play to the developers they are pretty good programs, but I don't need a program to be open source, I need it to be what I want. Am I gonna feel better on my death bed for using a program that other people could see the source code for? I'll give you a clue, it means absolutely nothing to me if a program is open source.
So, I'll be going OS X, because it has what I need, and it JUST WORKS. Ubuntu won't be gone no way, but don't try and act like Linux is the answer to everyones problems, its far far far far from it.
Ford, Chevy, Mazda?
I don't think it really matters what you drive as long as you're happy with it and it gets you where you want to get. I drive Ubuntu, by the way (and if it matters).
I'm also a sound engineer. ProTools works on XP and OS X. Given that I want an OS that just works and doesn't get in the way of working, what am I gonna do? That's it, OS X.
I am not a sound engineer, and yet Edgy + JACK + Ardour all run quite well on the linux platform, and I don't have anything getting in the way of working beyond my limited experience.
You say you have tried these programs and they are nice, but are you perhaps just accustomed to what you're used to (:-k) ?
I don't have any comments about Mac OS X 'Tiger', I just thought I'd comment as I see a lot of the sentiment that Mac is so great because its easy, but if you're used to linux, you find it easy aswell. For me, learning Mac, and Protools etc (beyond the cost) would be a steep learning curve as I already have gained habits around my system.
I know linux audio has limitations, but I think they are trumpeted far more than deserved, just like the rest of this OS, it just needs more attention to get the wrinkles ironed out.
Mac gives people what they 'want' right now, but I don't think Mac is the right answer for the long run, and in a lot of ways, Linux *will *be the solution for a lot of peoples problems.
unlokia said: Hi there people!. I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots!. Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!.
Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'.
I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please...
I'm *NOT* a celebrity, but PLEASE.... GET ME OUTA HERE!!!! :(
Out of ALL the new experiences I have had with 'New Wave' OS', I am going to have to show myself up, and say I 'enjoyed' Vista the most!!. I prefer diff OS' for diff reasons and tasks, but if I had to make a *new* OS purchase today, Vista would be it I think. Not that I would do, just if I *had* to!.
You forgot to mention that they charge you outrageous amounts of money also....but please keep in mind while your post and opinion is valued this forum is for support with OS-X.
I would highly suggest you try the new Sabayon Linux 3.2 (based on Gentoo) for a wonderful experience.
I will leave this thread open for discussion on support or help, or even a place to post your fustrations about OS-X, but try not to bash the OS.
I am writing this on a Mac Pro it has 4 2.66ghz Zenon Cores for CPUs. I happen to have 4gb of RAM as well. I am booted into OS X. I also have immediate access to the full Unix system via the terminal. I have X11 running. I also have Ubuntu 6.10 and XP Pro running under Parallels VM while booted into OS X. Try that with any version of Windows and or Linux available today. I would say Apple is doing something right.
At least it works for me!
Have a good day.
Cheesy as this sounds, can't we all just get along?
I'm not really into bashing things. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I happen to think Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu Edgy are all great operating systems.
I also think you should use what's best for you. OS X is clearly not what's best for the OP, but it *is* what's best for my wife, and Ubuntu is what's best for me. I know a lot of people for whom XP is best.
Live and let live. The bashing isn't cool. Every OS has its pros and cons.
aysiu said: Cheesy as this sounds, can't we all just get along?
I'm not really into bashing things. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I happen to think Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu Edgy are all great operating systems.
I also think you should use what's best for you. OS X is clearly not what's best for the OP, but it *is* what's best for my wife, and Ubuntu is what's best for me. I know a lot of people for whom XP is best.
Live and let live. The bashing isn't cool. Every OS has its pros and cons.
Absolutely aysiu
Yes, Macs are good for video editing. Yep, they're good for audio and MIDI work. The desktop even looks good, if you're a fan of unthemable interfaces with no consistency.
But when the Mac marketshare rises, don't connect them to the Internet. OS X may be based on Unix, but in reality Apple is trying to live the charmed life it had with OS 9. As a result, the OS is full of bad security flaws that never get fixed.
And, when compared to Win XP Pro, OS X is very inefficient in its use of resources (i.e. it's slow, even on Intel processors). These two things are a tremendous shame, because I think OS X could have been a great alternative to Windows. At the pace that desktop Linux is moving, when there are more real-world exploits of the OS X problems we will reach the "tipping point".
@Macintosh Sauce - sheesh you're VERY emotional dude... hey it's only a computer, after all. Are you related to Steve Jobs somehow??:-k
SO many posts, one after the other... calm down!.
Let me put it in plain English for you:
I was expressing my PERSONAL experience of Mac OS X 10.4.7. I am not stupid by any measure, thankyou very much, and I KNOW that running OS X on a PC is not the same as on GENUINE Apple kit, and that incompatibilities will arise!. My observations were that the OS is visually clunky, and functionally "hand-holding" to the Nth degree. The hard edged, rounded off shinyness and general visual style, I can see WHY it looks good to some people, but to me this whole concept is crazy, because whatever you like to promote about it, it is CLOSED source AND hardware, and you can only tweak up to a certain point.
The ridiculous price of Mac computers :rolleyes: coupled with the current issues that Apple company has with producing vast amounts of toxic chemicals and deadly pollutants, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-forced-out-of-apple and pretending to deal with the problems, while in fact probably NOT doing so at all, turn me RIGHT off the whole company.
I have as much right to my opinion as you, and as such I simply stated, possibly unacceptably to your good self, that I did NOT like Mac OS X 10.4.7. Please pay me some respect, and do not treat a stranger whom you have never once met, like a complete fool and imbecile - just because I am on a Linux forum, does not mean I favour Linux under EVERY circumstance. Seems as if your opinion of me as a person, has already formed, without having ever talked to me.
To anyone reading this - I am not personally attacking ANYONE for using Mac OS - I realise something that not a lot of people think about when posting... computers are NOT extensions of our personalities in this context, and just because you use X...Y...Z... OS, I still respect you and like you as a PERSON, the very same! :D
Mactintosh sauce - please try and be a bit more understanding... the very defensiveness of your three-in-a-row posts, is kinda offputting to me, and indicative to me(if I *were* so stupid and shallow as to be this way) of the general opinion and snobbishness of Mac users. Ok so you have 'seen the light' and you love your Mac - great! :). Now please, stop attacking people on forums.
unlokia said:
The ridiculous price of Mac computers :rolleyes: coupled with the current issues that Apple company has with producing vast amounts of toxic chemicals and deadly pollutants, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-forced-out-of-apple and pretending to deal with the problems, while in fact probably NOT doing so at all, turn me RIGHT off the whole company. I think then you should not buy anything from Apple if you feel that strongly about it.
Is there a point to continue bashing Mac and/or Apple?
You've expressed your opinion, and we've read it.
I was not "bashing" apple, I was expressing my opinion. I cannot stand stuck up opinions from people such as Apple sauce, repeating in triple-posts, what could have been said in one.
This thread is futile - we all have OPINIONS, and I was expressing mine. The rudeness with which he replied was unacceptable. I have no time for know it alls like this guy, sorry.
Thread pointless....
unlokia said:
This thread is futile > Thread pointless.... Agreed. Let's close it, then.
I have used mac only once. First impression was not so great. First impression with KDE and later GNOME were the greatest. I Just got feeling that I want to use those superior desktops. I just adobted almost immediately those Linux desktops. I can't say the thing for OSX. This is just odd because everybody says that OSX is the easiest. For me even Windows interface seemed easier. But let's face it I just love configurability.
By the way can you get your money back if you are not going to accept OSX licence and then how much is your refund. Just wondering :rolleyes:
My primary computer is an iMac G5 2Ghz w/2GB of RAM and Mac OS X 10.4, and my secondary is a PC with Ubuntu Edgy 6.10 on it. I honestly don't understand most of the complaints here...
Let me touch on a few complaints I've seen in this thread...
- Safari has everything Firefox does, minus addons, and is quite zippy, and most of the iLife apps aren't bad at all.
- The Finder, while I agree could be better, is designed for someone new to computers to be easy to understand - you can't tell me that your average inexperienced computer user wouldn't get confused over all the buttons and menu items available in KDE/Gnome filemanagers and Windows explorer.
- The Terminal is VERY capable, and has many options that most Linux terminals don't offer...
- The BSD filesystem very well may be bastardized, I don't know, but it was never meant to be seen by the user.
- Mac applications are designed in a way that apt-get and the like are unnecessary for the most part - they are self-contained .app packages that don't need libraries and such installed in 10,000 directories all over the system. It's as simple as going to http://macupdate.com/, downloading, and dropping in the Applications folder.
- The Dock has plenty of utility, considering that individual windows are handled by Expose. It's primary purpose is an application launcher and app switcher.
- Quicktime is a very robust media system when the proper codecs are installed. The fault lies in the Quicktime Player itself, which could use some improvements.
As for Linux, yes, it's very good, and better than Windows in almost every aspect; but I wouldn't go as far to say that it's better than OS X. Although I tend to like Macs a bit more, for general use, Ubuntu Linux and Mac OS X are about equal. The only thing that might scare the average person away from Ubuntu is the occasional required use of the command line...
Hey guys! Got really bored at work, and decided to go across the street to the mall and look around. Found an Apple Store inside. Don't care what anybody says - this place is a geek's paradise. Forgot how beautiful these things are! Typing this on a 24" iMac. SEXY!!!
Not saying I'd ever get one of these things. Just saying they're beautiful computers. I've left the Ubuntu website up on a few of em. :rolleyes:
Moved this to OS X discussions.
Sorry to tell you, and I am very much a Linux fan, but Mac OS X blows the pants off Ubuntu, hands down EVERY time. It 'just works' and I am afraid to say that apart from us Geeks, people as a whole want the beauty and simplicity of OS X out of the box, without all the PITA fiddling and farting about that you have to do in Linux. Well done Woz and Jobs, come on Linux community, give them a break, and as much as we all find uses and places for Linux, please lets not shove it down peoples throats like a bitter pill. Let the masses decide.
Unfortunately, once those rose tinted idealistic spectacles are removed, the reality hits you smack BANG in the face... Linux is fiddly and inconsistent for the person wanting a pc to 'just work', and that is something that just is NOT acceptable. I think Richard Stallman is a wonderful and admirable chap, but all this heroic political sulking and demonstrating, is an awfully large waste of creative energies!.
Windows IMHO, should be FREEWARE or FOSS, but MAC OS is something not to be hacked away at and modded. The guys have worked long and hard at Apple, and if I had £1000's to spend on Apple gear, I would GLADLY do so, instead of wasting my precious hours and days, typing into KONSOLE, to just get my devices running... grrr :)
Just cannot see the logic or sense in ANYONE paying the price for a Mac, and then wiping it all off for FREE software... makes no sense to me!.
Love y'all!
I hardly expected this thread to be 'Mac-loving' but this is madness. If you took an OPEN minded and non-'linux fanboy' approach to Mac OS X, actually had to use it, day in day out for everyday apps and work, and not just for toying about, I am sure you'd find it whoops *** BIG time, and is hassle free.
However, I am well aware that life is all about individual choice... but to the person who said "Linux JUST INSTALLS!" I say.... What the???... Mac OS X does too, or had you not noticed they custom make their OS *perfectly* for Mac ONLY hardware. They ain't Bill Gates and they are not trying to please ALL the people ALL of the time!.
Apple make VERY high quality merchandise... if they didn't make mistakes as in the first generation of MacIntel MacBook Pro's, then they would be 'error free' and everyone would take ANOTHER offensive, and have something ELSE bad to say. In my opinion, MAC OS X is the perfect balance of UNIX based OS... I love it to bits, because it is fuss free, not 'up-all-night-to-setup' and it simply WORKS, as it should, day in day out, and it looks AMAZING!.
I have to say this... when you install ANY Linux distro, you get all these weird named apps (named by Linux obsessed geeks who know nothing about marketing, probs!) like "Kicker" and "Kate"... WTF?!. There are TOO many bits on the screwdriver, and finding the right one is a pain in the *ss.
I used to put Linux as my main OS, but I am afraid that until mainstream society deems that Linux is worthy enough a platform to port major apps to, then the likes of Mac are gonna win hands down, time after time. XGL copies ideas from MAC OS X using BERYL, so it cannot be THAT bad!.
Apple and OS X works because it is basically a closed system as far as hardware goes. If linux had a hardware platform that was consistant it would be as good as OS X.
OS X is the lesser of two evils, but I ditched it on my iBookG4 for Xubuntu as soon as i got the wifi working (some time around flight 4 or 5 of dapper testing releases) because while yes it is clean and has some interesting features it just doesn't feel as comfortable as (X)ubuntu.
/me
If linux had a hardware platform that was consistant it would be as good as OS X.
Vaguely possible.... lets not forget, however, HOW much $$$ Apple has and how long they been around for a LOT LOT LOT longer than any Linux distro. They have market experience that Linux can only DREAM of, and technical libraries and resources that Linux does not.
Sorry to say so, but MAC has been on the scene MANY years longer than Linux, and to be honest, Linux has not got the marketing thing right. As long as there are 500 or so distros around, people are gonna see inconsistency as a downfall, and what they want is stability of design model, and not constant twiddling and incompatibilities between versions. Steve Jobs is well known for playing his cards VERY close to his chest, and for good reason no doubt. society say this that and the other about closed source, but this is one company who have got it VERY right, from the outset. The innovation, the class and the hardware style and inventiveness.... it is SO much more than JUST software. Ipod? isn't that being copied by Microsoft with their "Zune" (lmao!!)... have they not copied ideas from Macintosh within Vista?. Didn't Beryl copy Expose from OS X??. I mean isn't virtually EVERY gui idea that MS ever "invented" derived from one or another original concept from Cupertino?. Call Apple whatever you like, but underneath EVERYONE knows they got what it takes, and I back them 150% they are FANTASTIC!.
I hate to sound like I am an advocate of ANY OS... but perhaps I am. I repeat to you, Apple have been around MANY years before Linux popped its head up, and they have a loyal and established following, a VERY strong brand name and reputation. Say "Apple Mac" and people 99% of the time, know that it is synonymous with style, class and reliability. Say "Linux" to the same people, and most people go :-k :???: "HUUUH??!!".
It is going to be a VERY long time indeed - years, before any decent percentage of that following/userbase is simply going to drop Apple, after having looked after their workflow and day to day tasks, for many a year.
Oh and for those NOT in the know... Mac is based upon a variant of BSD.... google it... they also use some GPL code in the OS. BSD... another interesting concept. One of writing code to work from the outset, and not just hacking and re-using code to 'get it working' as is often the case with Linux.
Sorry, but that is the cold truth!.:mrgreen:.
Apple and OS X works because it is basically a closed system as far as hardware goes.
Yes....? they have made a WONDERFUL decision!. Their is no inconsistency or doubt with the hardware/software combination, and it has earned its amazing reputation for utmost stability and dependance. MS create a 'one size fits all' product, and succeed time and again, in making a mockery of themselves. If I made a product, I am sure I wouldn't let anyone ELSE make parts to go inside it, without me dictating EXACT specifications, and testing all samples with my 'machine'. They have a reputation that has been hard earned - why should Apple let ANYONE ruin their reputation, just because people are unwilling to pay a good price for great hardware and great software upon that hardware?!. Inventiveness is what they do best. Well done!
If I have made any mistakes, or a complete *** of myself, please feel free to say so!! :)
qazwsx said: By the way can you get your money back if you are not going to accept OSX licence and then how much is your refund. Just wondering :rolleyes:
You might get back the 39 cents you spent on postage mailing your refund request. On the other hand, if you're not going to use OS X, why bother buying computers from Apple? Doing so makes as much sense as buying from Sun Microsystems and then demanding a refund on Solaris 'cos you want to install Linux instead.
Biased madness ensues.... Hey I wonder if I could get a copy of Leopard for 39 cents??:mrgreen: :KS :confused: :KS
ComplexNumber said: i keep on hearing/reading so many stories about all these people getting fed up with OS X and looking for an alternative (usually linux).
this highlight some of the many problems that people are having. [COLOR=Purple][/COLOR]
I switched to OS X from Linux. I had my reasons for doing so, and no regrets.
Same here dude - tell me you don't fall in Lurrrrve with that boingy dock every time u click an alias?? WOOOOOOHHH!!:)
If MS copy the VERY IDEA of gui, they copied the windowing system... they now copy the shiny icons in Vista (recycle bin, anyone?!) they imitate BADLY with the "zune" ipod ripoff...
Linux copied the dock with eliveCD (http://www.elivecd.org) they imitate Mac OS menu with Gnome, Xpose with Beryl... heck, why don't you all just admit... Apple ARE *THE* pioneers of gui functionality, and all you can do is copy and dream!.
I wouldnt mind a Mac myself, particularly after seeing the new Mac Pro with a 30" monitor at work.
30" Monitor?!? OMG! When I got my 21" monitor at work, I rolled my chair back and asked for a box of popcorn. I felt like I was at the movies!!
I don't hate apple. I started on a mac. But I get sick of apple users talking up mac features that have been in linux for ages as if they're novelties. My brother gave me an iPod (he's a total mac nut) and I also get sick of dealing with the whole DRM iPod/iTunes things sometimes. (I don't use iTunes, and sometimes that causes problems.)
But they're still a lot better than M$.
i dont hate apple, although i would prefer that they would make it so that you can run mac os x on any intel based processor, so that i can ditch windows and dual boot mac / linux instead.
Moved to the Mac OS X forum.
I dont hate apple at all, if only thier puters were cheaper... But I LOVE OSX! Tiger is awesome, and panther was pretty great too. The OSX line is the best apple has ever had since the ol apple II, I love it and i wish apple made it PC ready...
I chose "other." Now in the act of fairness. I've been seriously thinking about a mac mini.
Now that that's out of the way, I want to tell you a few reasons why I have not bought one.
<rant>
- Steve Jobs had the audacity to think he could improve upon 'BSD by putting a closed source "pretty" front end on top of it.
- The spinning wheel of death. (you know what I'm talking about)
- The "Mac Guy". Come on, we all know at least one. The guy(or gal) that thinks Steve Jobs leaves stool samples made of gold.
- Mac rumors. Yeah. <sarcasm>Ooooh, shiney! I can't wait to get a new iFart when it comes out!</sarcasm> Seriously, Apple has not invented everything. Everything they have invented is not automatically cool.
- Apple's Open Sauce. The now defunct Open Darwin project was basically a joke. Darwin was not the only example of Apple completely misunderstanding Open Source.
- DRM.
- iTunes.
- iEverything. It's even worse than Microsoft's My Everything. You can take your My and shove it in your i.
- .Mac, hmmm, smells like .AOL
- Have I mentioned DRM?
- Oh yeah, DRM. (I almost forgot)
- Finder. I mean...just Wow....what an annoying program.
- Moving away from the Power architecture. And just as the Cell is coming out. Genius, sheer genius.
- 14 had Digital Restrictions Management on it. So it turns out it was never my point anyway.
- Another point about the move away from Power architecture. Apple moved to the Power architecture because it was "vastly faster" than the x86 offering at the same time. Now they move off of the Power chips because the current x86 offering is "vastly faster" and "Oh we never really cared about the Power chips, but we just wanted to hype them because they were our gravy train at the time." Make up your fscking minds and stop blowing My Smoke up our iButtocks!
- iPods. Not every mp3 player is an iPod. Stop asking me what type of iPod I have.
</rant>
Sorry.
I think the real reason they ditched PowerPC style chips is the heat output made them terrible for laptops. I hear the playstation 3 has power, but also has a very hot, very fast, blast of air blowing out the back.
That said, I'm sure the whole architecture thing would have been a pain if I were still a mac user, but most mac users are too into mac to care about it. The whole "now feature gossip machine" that apple users have is just sickening. I definitely agree with that.
I have an apple powerbook, it's dieing... slowly. it doesn't work as a laptop any more the screen is all foobar. I only use it to play WoW, and thats it. I'm going to stick with Ubutnu GNU/Linux and my programming. Mac OSX just isn't useful to me so I won't be buying a new one.
Their DRM and hardware vendor lock in is a problem.
The problems with compatabilties only crop up when you have de-facto standards where the standard was never properly defined, such as Microsoft Doc, Macromedia Flash, mp3 and nVidia Hardware. things that have de-jour standards we don't talk about, because they don't have a problem, http, html, cd-rom, x86, usb etc etc, as long as standards can be developed properly and not ad-hoc by a single company you will get good technolegy without vendor lock in.
I don't agree with some of their stuff but I'm surely not against them. I don't like their DRM with iTunes songs and the closed source of Aqua etc, but other than that, they aren't really *that* bad. I also don't like their "Buy our hardware to run our software," which seems very monopolistic of them.
To sum it all up: I'd rather get Leopard than Vista...
Linux may be occasionally fiddly to set up, but it has much better hardware support, speed, and security than Mac OS X. (well, even Windows has better hardware support and speed than OS X... possibly better security as well.)
unlokia said: If MS copy the VERY IDEA of gui, they copied the windowing system... they now copy the shiny icons in Vista (recycle bin, anyone?!) they imitate BADLY with the "zune" ipod ripoff...
Umm... the iPod itself is a rip-off of the very first MP3 players. The Zune might be a rip-off of the iPod, but it surely doesn't have the unreliability of the iPod.
unlokia said: Linux copied the dock with eliveCD (http://www.elivecd.org) they imitate Mac OS menu with Gnome, Xpose with Beryl... heck, why don't you all just admit... Apple ARE *THE* pioneers of gui functionality, and all you can do is copy and dream!.
lol. Seen OS X's newest GUI feature? Spaces - imitating virtual desktops, which have been around on Linux since it gained the ability to run X.
Plus, of course, a dock is just a panel of launchers and a system tray. You could set up KDE to do that since before the OS X developer beta. There is no equivilant of Gnome's Applications menu in OS X. Windows had a system tray for years before OS X came about, and Apple introduced support for media keys years after such keyboards became available on Windows.
Of course, the Apple Lisa's interface is startlingly similar to the Xerox Star; Apple's OpenDoc technology came about as a response to Microsoft's OLE, Windows and X could have "minimised" applications since before OS X came about, and there are plenty of Linux GUI features that haven't been implemented in OS X (breadcrumb buttons, themable windows, two-click application killing, clock-turns-into-calendar, file manager scripts...)
And we're just talking about user-interface features here. If you want to go under the hood, Solaris had asynchronus boot processes first, Unix had a command-line and an X server first, Linux had an open-source kernel first, Linux will have a desktop presence framework first, Unix had a reliable system first (something OS X is yet to accomplish, actually)... the list goes on. Seriously, if you want to hype up Apple, innovation isn't the way to do it.
ubuntu_demon said:
OS X is unix The major part of the OS X kernel is open source There's more commericial software available for OS X than for linux(for example games) OS X has better hardware support than linux and windows (because they sell hardware and there's less configurability)
I hope Apple goes more open source though.
I realise this is an old post, but:
- The OS X kernel is called XNU - presumably it stands for X is Not Unix. Mac OS X isn't Unix - it's not even POSIX compliant.
- The OS X kernel is open-source for PowerPC only, and even then it's not the ACTUAL OS X kernel; it's just an altered version of it.
- Granted.
- It depends what hardware support means - does it mean that it runs perfectly on the hardware, or that it supports a lot of hardware? Linux really does win in the second instance, and it even works perfectly on many more PCs than there are Macs.
I totally agree with Hitchhiker427. OSX Aqua is positively ugly with horrendous font display. The original Mac OS is much better as far as look and feel is concerned.
I think that for the computer iliteret (like me), mac is a perfect choice to reccomend to people. I know a 90+ year old woman that was able to operate a mac perfectly. As for me, I will continue to run all on a mac! Linux, Windows, and OSX! It will always be thus...
After seeing an OSX server today, my dislike of Apple has grown. Why? Because like Microsoft, they like interoperability only when it seems fit for them. The remote management app only runs on OSX (you have to install VNC if you want remote management on their servers via non-OSX OSes), their group policy is proprietary like MS's AD, and in general everything they do is geared more to Mac users than anyone else. I can understand (not too much) for desktops, but we're talking about SERVERS here, that are often deployed in mixed environments.
Shame on Apple. If they'd be dominant, they would be no better than Microsoft.
Ok point taken. It is impossible to explain the truth, to ears that have NO wish to hear it. Forget it. Thread reported for staleness.
Probably doubtful. Plug a digital camera into Linux (and I mean almost ANY one) and it does not know what to do with it!. Plug the same into Mac, and it says 'Ahh, a camera... let me present you with the memory of this camera, as a removable flash device'. Linux CANNOT do that yet. Sorry to say it, but these are dillusions of what MAY be to come in the Linux future, but Mac has had this for AGES!.
Plug almost ANYTHING USB into Mac, and it knows what to do, and configures it appropriately, no hassle, no long-winded command line fuss and nonsense - it just WORKS! :D.
I plugged in eyetoy this evening... ran ONE simple program and guess what... VIDEO FEED!!.
I like Linux and admire what it is trying to achieve, but SERIOUSLY people.... Mac has YEARS headstart AND resources, both technical and financial.
Linux may be occasionally fiddly to set up
Mac OS X is NEVER that way, for it is only designed for Mac computers. A very good idea and great business model to go for!.
well, even Windows has better hardware support and speed than OS X... possibly better security as well.
I cannot imagine WHERE you get these amazing statements from, but you need to do a *lot* more research!. Mac is designed for *Apple Only* hardware as far as the computer hardware is concerned. They don't aim for the 'one size fits all' model, instead VERY high quality hardware is produced, and the Apple team concentrate on fine tuning the software and hardware, to work together impeccably, for THE most stable machine experience ever. You cannot please ALL the people ALL the time, and I am sure Mac is not out to do this. No, they please the people who KNOW the difference between 'maybe' and 'without any doubt' and basically, either you get it, or you don't!.
well, even Windows has better hardware support and speed than OS X... possibly better security as well.
Mac is based upon Unix... a variant of *BSD. So I take it from that quote, you are inferring that Unix is insecure? LOL!.
Please, read up a little!.
I like Mac OS X for the same reasons I like Ubuntu linux -- a combination of elegance, simplicity, and a very nice unix platform.
I have to say given the hell I have been through with respect to the recent ubuntu kernel problems, I vastly prefer Mac OS X.
The only valid reason to hate Apple is if you are a GNU or open-source purist. The unix underpinnings to OS X used to be open source, but Apple has backed out of the commitment. The iCandy GUI apps are almost all restricted.
wgscott said: The only valid reason to hate Apple is if you are a GNU or open-source purist.
You don't need to be a GNU purist to dislike Apple's DRM. My mother hates Apple and she doesn't even know what "open-source" means - her iPod decided to corrupt all its database last night before she was going to go for a walk, and I had to spend hours remembering what songs were on it, finding those songs spread out over 50 MP3 CDs, and loading them back on. I NEVER had to do that with any of our non-Apple MP3 players.
Having your computer obseleted rather quickly also wasn't a good experience for me.
It is cell chips that is used in both Play station 3 and Xbox 360.
unlokia said: Probably doubtful. Plug a digital camera into Linux (and I mean almost ANY one) and it does not know what to do with it!. Plug the same into Mac, and it says 'Ahh, a camera... let me present you with the memory of this camera, as a removable flash device'. Linux CANNOT do that yet.
If the camera works as a mass-storage device, it will mount on Windows, OS X, Ubuntu, Syllable... this is not an innovation of OS X. It's a standard driver available on all platforms.
Plug almost ANYTHING USB into Mac, and it knows what to do, and configures it appropriately, no hassle, no long-winded command line fuss and nonsense - it just WORKS! :D.
Let's put my PC's sound card into a Mac. Will it work? Nope, OS X doesn't have the drivers for it. Does it work on Linux? Hell yeah. Oh, OS X works brilliantly for things where drivers aren't needed, or where OS X drivers are available, but Linux has built-in support for most of that stuff anyway (and a lot more)
unlokia said: I cannot imagine WHERE you get these amazing statements from, but you need to do a *lot* more research!. Mac is designed for *Apple Only* hardware as far as the computer hardware is concerned. They don't aim for the 'one size fits all' model, instead VERY high quality hardware is produced, and the Apple team concentrate on fine tuning the software and hardware, to work together impeccably, for THE most stable machine experience ever.
Puh-leaze. I'm not even sure that you answered what you were replying to. OS X has serious speed issues. Look at the benchmarks - if you would like a link to some articles comparing OS X to Linux speed-wise, PM me and I'll dig out the links.
Stability... unfortunately, even though OS X only runs on Apple's own hardware, it still crashes and gets confused an awful lot. My own experiences, using Macs in real-world environments. My own Mac has been running Ubuntu for a year, and although it's operating at the limits of its capabilities has never crashed in this time; application crashes have been rare too, and they have never brought down the system.
unlokia said: Mac is based upon Unix... a variant of *BSD. So I take it from that quote, you are inferring that Unix is insecure? LOL!.
No, I've never said that Unix is insecure.
Unix is only Unix if it conforms to the POSIX specification. POSIX does not allow things like resource forks, file-type and creator codes, etc that are present in OS X. How did support for these things get into OS X then? Apple did a huge amount of hacking into FreeBSD to support these Mac-specific elements, introducing bugs and security problems as they went. Recently, some white-hat hackers held "The month of kernel bugs", which identified 30 bugs in the OS X kernel which are not present in FreeBSD.
The kernel is not the only thing that can be insecure. OS X's application installer has a serious security flaw which allows malicious scripts to be run without the user even having to provide their password or click a confirmation button. The application installer is specific to OS X - it's not present in any Unix. (as it is automatically spawned as root without the user having to give confirmation, it also goes against Unix and Linux design principles).
Apple is even aware of this flaw - a number of people have independently discovered it and notified Apple, but nothing ever gets done about it. It even takes Apple a while to package fixes for the security flaws in open-source applications. The Linux distributions package and distribute the fixes within days. Apple takes weeks.
If you have an Apple laptop, make sure you change your computer's name, otherwise your own name will be broadcast to any computer with a wireless card in range. Looks like Apple hasn't heard of "identity theft".
If you're happy with your Mac, that's great. But don't try to convince people that Mac OS X is the perfect operating system; it's got serious problems that hamper its usefulness in today's computing landscape.
unlokia said:
Plug almost ANYTHING USB into Mac, and it knows what to do, and configures it appropriately, no hassle, no long-winded command line fuss and nonsense - it just WORKS! :D. What a load of BS.
My wife bought an iPod Nano a few weeks ago, plugged it into her Powerbook. Nothing. Nothing on the desktop. Nothing in iTunes. Nothing. I even went into the terminal to see if it was acknowledged in any way. Not at all. We did a bit of web research into the problem, and it turns out sometimes the Nanos are buggy that way, and you have to reset them in order for them to be acknowledged.
I'm sorry, but my wife has had way more problems with her Powerbook than I've had with my Ubuntu computer.
You can read about her terrible upgrade experience from Panther to Tiger in this thread: My wife "dist-upgraded" to Tiger and it messed up her user profile...
Mac OS X "just works" about as much as Ubuntu does, and that's sad, considering the hardware and software are designed for each other. Almost nothing is designed for Ubuntu, however, and Ubuntu is expected to work on just about anything.
3rdalbum said: OS X's application installer has a serious security flaw which allows malicious scripts to be run without the user even having to provide their password or click a confirmation button. The application installer is specific to OS X - it's not present in any Unix. (as it is automatically spawned as root without the user having to give confirmation, it also goes against Unix and Linux design principles). Does this have anything to do with how Mac has implemented *sudo*? I know it uses *sudo*, similarly to how Ubuntu does, but I also noticed that my wife is able to drag things in and out of the Applications folder without a password prompt. Sometimes software installation will require a password... sometimes it won't. Seems to be pretty arbitrary.
3rdalbum said:
Having your computer obseleted rather quickly also wasn't a good experience for me.
I bought my wife a macbook and it was obsolete 4 days later.
:evil:
Oh man, that bites.
As a side, I am glad that I build my own computers and now use open source OS and software. In other words, a company never dictates when my system is obsolete.
When my sister-in-law bought her first iPod, it became obsolete two weeks later--$100 cheaper, with a longer lasting battery, and more included peripherals.
Rodneyck said: ...As a side, I am glad that I build my own computers and now use open source OS and software. In other words, a company never dictates when my system is obsolete.
That´s me; I don´t hate Apple, I just prefer to build my own.
The thing with apple is that they usually have a predictable product release cycle. I think if you get screwed with market timing, with them it's usually predictable. That said, I doubt I'll ever buy an ipod. The one I own is more trouble than it's worth and I'm glad I didn't pay for it.
This is why I hate apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/copy-of-how-the-companies-line
Well it's like this, back in the eighties my mate had an Apple computer and I had an Atari. I know which one I preferred to use and it was ot a fruit.
Old kevin:)
glotz said: This is why I hate apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/copy-of-how-the-companies-line
Umm.... I find that confusing, considering that most of those manufacturers, apple included, mostly use 3rd party components. They are all probably using seagate or maxtor or some other brand of hard drive... they all have mobos designed around the same chipsets.... The only thing I can think of is that apple uses more plastic than the other companies for the cases it contracts out for manufacture. Could you point out how the materials used in an intel based apple are different than those used in an intel based acer or hp or dell? There is not any information explaining this on the website. (Oh which I am somewhat sceptical.)
unlokia said: Plug a digital camera into Linux (and I mean almost ANY one) and it does not know what to do with it!. Plug the same into Mac, and it says 'Ahh, a camera... let me present you with the memory of this camera, as a removable flash device'. Linux CANNOT do that yet. Sorry to say it, but these are dillusions of what MAY be to come in the Linux future, but Mac has had this for AGES!.
linux auomatically recognises all three of my digital cameras, mounts them appropriately and then lets me do what I want with the photos on the camera.
I hate how its starting to become trendy with some people to bash things which thy like.
On another note, how about that stupid air. I mean what is it?? Okay I can use it to breath and everything but what about when Im hungry or thirsty. I cant eat or drink it so its completely useless.
sloggerkhan said: The thing with apple is that they usually have a predictable product release cycle. I think if you get screwed with market timing, with them it's usually predictable. That said, I doubt I'll ever buy an ipod. The one I own is more trouble than it's worth and I'm glad I didn't pay for it.
Buy a Creative Zen... 10 times better than an ipod!!!
@ 3rdalbum
Let's put my PC's sound card into a Mac. Will it work? Nope, OS X doesn't have the drivers for it. Does it work on Linux? Hell yeah.
You evidently miss the point, either intentionally (probable) to make your point, or for some other bizarre reason. WHY would anyone use a PC sound card in a Mac??. Apple provide Mac hardware/soundcards etc, so your point is moot... unless of course you are using PIRATE copies of Mac OS X :confused:
To all the rest of the posters... making INDIVIDUAL points about INDIVIDUAL pieces of hardware is plain stupid and you very well KNOW so!. Your point is EQUALLY valid in the Linux respect, as I KNOW that it also, does not support anywhere NEAR 100% of hardware, seamlessly. Pointing out individual flaws in iPod NANO is also pointless... that is like me pointing out all the b*llsh*t I have to go through with distros JUST to install my soundcard drivers and/or graphics native resolution. Lets say that Apple are no SAINTS, and OS X is by no means 'magic', but it is THE best implementation of Unix around ANYWHERE!. The difference is that Apple will fix this, without asking the average user to download some tar.gz file and spend 3 hours in the command line. iPod is one of the top products they sell, but you can hardly expect it to remain bug free 100%. They are humans, just as we are!.
I ran EDGY EFT last night, in order to watch something in VLC MEDIA PLAYER, just because I needed to. CPU usage immediately ramped up to 100%, Gnome crashed and would not respond. Your OS needs some serious patching I would say - this was hardly and arduous task for Linux to just run VLC!.
I expect nothing more from Apple bashers, than to point out INDIVIDUAL cases of where things have not gone quite to plan, and magnify those cases out of all proportion, so as to make Mac OS X seem like the worst OS ever. If it is that bad, then WHY do they sell SO many products, have SO many fans, and WHY do Apple have the legendary reputation of their products 'just working'?!. I think you people are all great, and I respect you all as humans, but realise this - Apple do Unix with EASE OF USE... Linux does not, in most cases. Graphical installers and the like, are asking a user to know how to partition his/her drive with /ROOT /SWAP etc etc... how the **** do THEY know?? lol.
@aysiu - re: your wifes experience... again, this is ONE individual case. I suggest you visit a Mac forum or contact Apple. It is probably something VERY easy to resolve. Noone in Apple promised you EVERY eventuality and possible variable, could be guaranteed!!.
Ah yes. This is just what I've been looking for, an OS that locks me into buying only their hardware. Its so simple. I'll never have to worry about hardware incompatibility again.
Bullcrap. I've always said that if someone gave me a Mac, the first thing I'd do is sell it and buy a PC. I like choice. That's why I use Ubuntu; it can be made to work on almost anything.
unlokia said: OS X is by no means 'magic' > iPod is one of the top products they sell, but you can hardly expect it to remain bug free 100%. They are humans, just as we are!. Now you're being reasonable. Before you made it sound as if it is magic.
My copy/paste in firefox has decided to stop working ------------------------------------------------------------
To the member who mentioned Mac OS X going against Unix principles with regards to not requiring root perms to install some software:
Maybe, but Mac OS X is Max OS X - it uses portions of BSD which it needs to use, it is not true and pure Unix, it is Mac OS X. It is NOT open source and not free, so you cannot fix this issue, but they can, and no doubt will, as Apple are GREAT for listening to their consumers, and sorting things out!. They have adapted Unix/*BSD to suit their machines, so do not flame them for going against Unix principles. It is not called 'Unix OS X' is it?!. :)
Now you're being reasonable. Before you made it sound as if it is magic.
No, not 'magic' by any means, but very close, and the best and most compatible/supported implementation of Unix/*BSD and the most consistent and reliable OS *and* the most easy to use.
Sorry but Linux HAS got a long long path to tread, before it comes anywhere CLOSE to this. I speak as one whom has used ENDLESS 'distros over four years, and persisted for hours and days with setting them all up :rolleyes: .... THEN I found OS X!! :D
I have no desire to 'convert' anyone to MAC OS X. It will do that by itself!. I don't expect the majority vote to be Mac, on a LINUX forum, but I do expect a little realism from time to time. Keep your minds open, and try new things, is what I have found. There are SO many inconsistencies and constant changing and compiling and this and that within Linux, that yes, I *do* use it for occasional things (Gparted liveCD is FAB!!) but I just wanna get on with my life and create things, not spend half my creative energy and time, setting up my tools. Does an artist have to configure his paintbrush? :???: no, he just wants to get on with creating!.
Mac is good, sexy-time. Very niiiiiiiiiice, how much... oh... that much... uh... I use Linux to make sexy-time. Ye.
Borat jokes aside, I think the new Mac is awesome... they've actually submitted OSX to be recognized as a UNIX (to whichever board decides these things), after all it is based on BSD. As a former UNIX user myself I think that's cool.
Spot the difference.... OS X Icons compared to Vista Icons....
The Search Function of OS X. cloned by Vista
[IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/vista-spotlight-search.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/osx-spotlight.jpg[/IMG]
And then the Trash (Recycle bin lol)
[IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/VistaTrash.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/MacOSXTrash.jpg[/IMG]
'Redmond, start your photocopiers!!'
Never mind that Microsoft announced the search capabilities in Vista over a year before Tiger was released.
And what is so original about making the recycle bin/trash icon have transparency?
The reason Mac hardware is better is the EFI witch is layered on top of a BIOS for legacy OS support.
One thing people don't realize is boot-camp is only a tiny bit of code to activate the layered BIOS and MBR for legacy support.
Up sides of a Mac + Once we remove the MBR we will not be toped out to 4 primary partitions. + Vista will boot faster on a EFI (yes it is windows, you will need to boot it a lot) + You will have access to developing for the EFI and be a testing ground for others developments. + Once linux live cd's supports EFI they to will boot much faster. + All other EFI OS will boot faster. (note EFI "OS" not just that Grub or lilo were replace with elilo) + Easier to boot off USB. + Easer to boot off firewire. + You can run mac OS
Down sides of a mac
- Wen you boot legacy OS you have a maximum 3 OS's. Currently you are limited to mac and 2 others but this can be changed any OS can develop support for the bios layering.
- legacy OS boot with an added secant because it must boot the EFI so it can boot the BIOS.
That is my understanding of what is going on pleas reply if you know better.
Lastly I can understand discussing the hardware but I can't understand anyone discussing the Mac OS on a Ubuntu form.
First of all this is a bogies pole as it is not a pole of if linux users dislike macs but why they dislike macs. This pole is a good example of how evil corporation blind the meaning of what you are looking at.
I do not think linux users dislike macs I believe linux users like macs as they are better then winPC's.
Short Story: Last year wen I helped host LinuxFestNorthWest'06 I was helping sum-one out I accidently placed my computer on someone else's booth wen he returned I was in his way I offered to move his response was no pleas don't. if it were any other computer I would insist but your on a mac.
Macs are very easy to use, the stuff really does "just work." Having said that, you're locked into their hardware and to some extent their software. I remember for one of their OS releases, they came out with a new version of Safari. If you weren't running the latest OS, you couldn't run the latest version of Safari. Why can't Apple let you keep your software up to date without upgrading your whole OS? Especially something as basic as a web browser. You have to pay $130 whenever the OS is updated if you want to keep up with the latest stuff, with Linux that isn't an issue.
I felt like with Apple, that they could decide to phase out whatever at any time (which they've done), and I would be left in the dark. With Ubuntu and Linux I feel like I really own the software, and that my Music files are actually *mine*, with iTunes and m4p aac files, I felt like a convicted criminal, being told when and how I can play my music, although I do like the layout and selection of the iTunes Music store, the DRM is tacky.
I think that comparing MS to Apple is fair, Apple would have an even more tyrannical monopoly than MS if they could. The difference is, Apple doesn't suck at writing software and they come up with original ideas.
P.S. I find it comical that anyone would think Windows ME is MS's best OS, or that Windows is more secure than OS X.
The reason Mac hardware is better is the EFI witch is layered on top of a BIOS for legacy OS support.
One thing people don't realize is boot-camp is only a tiny bit of code to activate the layered BIOS and MBR for legacy support.
Up sides of a Mac + Once we remove the MBR we will not be toped out to 4 primary partitions. + Vista will boot faster on a EFI (yes it is windows, you will need to boot it a lot) + You will have access to developing for the EFI and be a testing ground for others developments. + Once linux live cd's supports EFI they to will boot much faster. + All other EFI OS will boot faster. (note EFI "OS" not just that Grub or lilo were replace with elilo) + Easier to boot off USB. + Easer to boot off firewire. + You can run mac OS
Down sides of a mac
- Wen you boot legacy OS you have a maximum 3 OS's. Currently you are limited to mac and 2 others but this can be changed any OS can develop support for the bios layering.
- legacy OS boot with an added secant because it must boot the EFI so it can boot the BIOS.
That is my understanding of what is going on pleas reply if you know better.
Lastly I can understand discussing the hardware but I can't understand anyone discussing the Mac OS on a Ubuntu form.
JPMaximilian said: Macs are very easy to use, the stuff really does "just work." Having said that, you're locked into their hardware and to some extent their software. I remember for one of their OS releases, they came out with a new version of Safari. If you weren't running the latest OS, you couldn't run the latest version of Safari. Why can't Apple let you keep your software up to date without upgrading your whole OS? Especially something as basic as a web browser. You have to pay $130 whenever the OS is updated if you want to keep up with the latest stuff, with Linux that isn't an issue.
I hear you; that's one of the worst things Apple does.
Another gripe: On Windows, I downloaded Quicktime 7 from Apple's website, and installed it. Then I downloaded iTunes 6 and installed it. (I bought some DRM'ed songs that I can't get anywhere else - don't worry, I re-ripped them :-)
Then, a couple of days later, iTunes 7 came along, and I lost the ability to use the iTunes Music Store. I had to download iTunes 7, which came with ANOTHER copy of Quicktime 7, to use the site.
Earlier, someone said that they'd had a lot of trouble with their iPod. My mother's iPod Shuffle decided to corrupt its database just before she went for a run two days ago. I had to "restore" it. The last time I "restored" it was the last time I put songs onto it. This is ridiculous. I always encourage customers not to buy iPods.
My iPod pet peeve: So far as I know, if your ipod is smaller than your music library, there is no way to sync a new random selections of songs to the thing every time you sync UNLESS you use a shuffle. If anyone knows a way around this, I'd be interested in hearing.
Those two search functions look nothing like eachother. And exactly how different can you make a trash can/recycle bin look?
I'm not exactly sure what causes this security flaw. I assume it's something like a daemon that runs as root and checks to see if any installer programs are being launched, and spawns the installer program as root. Or, it's a setuid or something similar on the actual installer.
Why would anyone want to put a sound card from a PC into a Mac? Simple. If you had a 5.1 surround sound card, or one with a good MIDI synthesiser, and you wanted to use it instead of your Mac's 2-channel sound card (without MIDI synthesiser onboard). Lots of examples.
"Individual flaws in iPod Nano"? I had the same experience with my mother's Shuffle! It's also the only MP3 player we've had that has needed to be reset at any point in its life - my friend Joe has a 30 gig iPod, and has the same problem consistantly. Plus, replacement batteries cost freakin' $80 (where I live). Let's not forget the screen cracking problems with the Nanos. The iPods are a flawed product that survive on name and advertisements alone.
I once crashed OS X by trying to look at a help file. That's a much less intensive task than watching a video, wouldn't you say? If OS X is such a powerful, efficient operating system, surely it would have a greater presence on servers?
Apple don't sell "SO many products". The iPod sells well due to Apple's ability to create the brand. The Macbooks sell well because they're a good product; but let's not forget that Apple is a computer company, and none of their computer products sold well since the original iMac.
"They have adapted Unix/*BSD to suit their machines, so do not flame them for going against Unix principles. It is not called 'Unix OS X' is it?!" Well, you and Apple have both stated that OS X is built on Unix as a selling point, so I'd assume that its Unix-ness is something important.
I know you're enthusiastic (you seem to have a fondness for capitalising your words), but until Boot Camp came out Linux had a higher rate of migration (probably still does, I haven't checked). That suggests to me that many people only bought Macs to run Windows/Linux on.
When the viruses come, will you still capitalise so many words in your gushing posts?
unlokia said: Probably doubtful. Plug a digital camera into Linux (and I mean almost ANY one) and it does not know what to do with it!. Plug the same into Mac, and it says 'Ahh, a camera... let me present you with the memory of this camera, as a removable flash device'. Linux CANNOT do that yet. Sorry to say it, but these are dillusions of what MAY be to come in the Linux future, but Mac has had this for AGES!.
Every digital camera I have simple plugged into Ubuntu has simply worked...
having only used OS X at my old workplace, I can not comment on the ability for it to just work...but I have to say OS X is over glorified...it can be a uncomfortable OS to use on a daily basis....and have seen at work where brand new monitors supplied by Apple did not work....this is a disappointment in practical terms since their hardware should in theory just work and not require a re-install of the whole OS as was what we had to at my former job....this was done not by me but the owners son who is an Apple Fanboy.
JPMaximilian said: Why can't Apple let you keep your software up to date without upgrading your whole OS? Especially something as basic as a web browser. Sounds as if you're talking about Ubuntu, actually...
aysiu said: Sounds as if you're talking about Ubuntu, actually...
You can install firefox 2 even if you're running Dapper right? You can install the latest ALSA drivers if you're on Dapper. You must know more about Ubuntu since you're on staff, what is your reasoning behind that statement?
But, lets say you can't update individual programs without installing the latest version of Ubuntu, the latest version of Ubuntu is free.
JPMaximilian said: You can install firefox 2 even if you're running Dapper right? You can install the latest ALSA drivers if you're on Dapper. You must know more about Ubuntu since you're on staff, what is your reasoning behind that statement?
But, lets say you can't update individual programs without installing the latest version of Ubuntu, the latest version of Ubuntu is free. I was merely making the point that that's often a criticism leveled by new users at Ubuntu, since five months into the release, Ubuntu will still have "old" versions of applications, and you can't easily get the newer versions unless you upgrade to an alpha or beta release of Ubuntu.
*nanotube* has worked hard on creating a simple Firefox installation script, but even that isn't double-click easy. You still need to know how to make a script executable and then run it... or copy and paste many instructions to install Firefox, or not have it be fully integrated with your system and just run it out of your /home folder.
Yes, you can run any application on an older version of Ubuntu, but you'll either have to find some clever HowTo on how to do it, or compile the app from source. It's slightly one-up on OS X, but not by much.
Of course, the whole way Ubuntu is constructed means you're not *supposed* to upgrade individual applications, while OS X follows the static binaries method of Windows, so nothing *should* stop you from upgrading individual applications.
3rdalbum - you make no sense. Why would anyone buy a Mac, JUST to scrub off OS X and install Linux and/or Win??. That is insanity.
The iPods are a flawed product that survive on name and advertisements alone.
I once crashed OS X by trying to look at a help file. That's a much less intensive task than watching a video, wouldn't you say? If OS X is such a powerful, efficient operating system, surely it would have a greater presence on servers?
Ubuntu crashes regularly... MUCH more so than OS X does, simply watching a video or using flash web pages. Flawed?? HAH! give me a break!!
Learn to use the quote tags and not "" please, your posts are kinda hard to decypher!.
Okay so you are basically calling the majority of iPod consumers dummies, amongst which not ONE of those millions of people is technically knowledgeable enough to know the difference between buying a wonderful, simple to use and beautiful product, and buying something because they are *told* to by Apple?? :-?
Your reasoning defies *any* sort of logic dude, and is seriously flawed I am afraid. I hate to break it to you, but not all people are dumbass sheep who don't *know* what they are buying. Yeah I agree, nano ver 1 had MAJOR issues, but they have fixed that now with the anodised re-released version. If uou expect ALL hardware to be made impeccable and absolutely guaranteed to NEVER have ANY issues at all, or product recalls (may i remind you of the MASSIVE battery recall organised by Apple earlier this year - the batteries were made by SONY and Apple used the OEM SONY cells inside some of their batteries - there was a manufacturing flaw which causes overheating and in rare cases explosions - hardly APPLES fault!!) then you are unfortunately naive in the extreme.
I am very ashamed that the world does not meet your stringent expectations, but at least Apple have stomped out their issues and FIXED the products in question!. :)
As to the Mac OS on servers issue, I cannot comment on a section of their business of which I know nothing at all, but I have to say this: their products are targeted at artists, media moguls and generally creative types who want the very best solution that money can buy. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant... tell all the major film studios, print works, artists and publishing companies worldwide, that they have made the wrong decision - Mac is THE de-facto standard for stability and creative workflow, for a reason. I hardly think one persons opinion can in any way change pure facts, and reputation hard earned over their MANY years.
And exactly how different can you make a trash can/recycle bin look?
Hmmm... do you have eyes and ears my friend? - were this the ONLY example of MS copying ideas, then probably noone would notice... but it isn't!. I am unwilling to sit here for an hour giving you the examples of the cloning of ideas which you know already, but are unwilling to admit. I have said enough, and I really don't have any desire to give further proof of this, as you can use GOOGLE I am sure.
I was a Linux evangelist for a LONG time, and in some instances and with regards to certain applications of Linux, I still am. The point CANNOT be ignored however, no matter what reasons you give, that Linux is NOT desktop ready, is VERY much different across varying distros, and is generally 'rough round the edges'. The 'geek chic' is all very well for us geeks who know what to do about it (just!) but for the general population? Forget it!!.
Please do not take this post as my putting you down or not listening to your viewpoint - I am open minded and love a good debate, as long as it is BALANCED, but please... be realistic, Apple are a GREAT company who actually LISTEN to their customers. I would have to say that they have taken all the good parts of open source community spirit, such as helping one another and listening to their customers, and made it into a VERRRRY successful market brand and product line, without inheriting all the constant confusion and change (rough/bleeding edges) as experienced with Linux at times. Their products are rigorously tested, fine tuned and well appreciated by those that use them. Maybe you hate the price of your iPod battery replacements, but at least you know that you are buying a quality replacement. If you want cheap and cheerful, then buy an 'el-plastico' flash drive/mp3 player from <insert-store-name>-Mart.
If you want cheap/free go Linux, but if you want certain stability, use a Mac.... you conveniently forgot to include all the times Ubuntu crashes, to make your point about Apple products being 'inferior'. I'd much rather trust a corporate giant with very good ethics, than wait for a hacker to sort my problem out for free. No offence to Linux, but you do pay for what you get.
To quote Apple (pardon the irony) but please... "Think different"
@ RAV TUX
but I have to say OS X is over glorified
I have to say that the fact that Apple supply beautiful hardware with innovative, and basically 'why-didn't-I-think-of-that' type simplistic but *wow* design, AND a cool OS which is SO easy to use, would nullify your point that OS X is over rated. It is *everything* I searched for in Linux, but failed to find, time and again, but with the familiarity and intuitiveness that KDE/Gnome etc try to imitate.
I am sure that this imitation is, in some way, a compliment to Apple, but they actually do it right, without all the mess. Can noone innovate any more, instead of copying?!. :(
To summarise and lessen flame induction, I would have to say it is all a matter of choice. Just happens that I have made the right choice.
As to the bold claim regarding Vista vs Mac OS X search functions, I quote from this site http://www.andwest.com:16080/weblog/tatle/comments/?permalink=Bogus-Claims-on-Spotlight-Compared-to-Windows-Vista-Search.html&page=comments
and snippet out this portion:
Nah, the way Microsoft does system development kinda resembles this:
1. Give an announcement of some feature we want implemented
2. See if Apple or others thinks it is a good idea
3. Wait for Apple's successful implementation
4. Copy implementation design, logic and UI from Apple
5. Add some odd twist to claim own, unique feature (normally makes implementation inferior)
6. Announce feature as own to Microsoft customer base
Sounds a tad more accurate!
I like OSX, I only used it once in a Compusa but the experience was nice. Oddly thats the reason I tried linux, I basically heard that OSX was Unix based and thought that Linux was the next best thing. Bare in mind I knew nothing of OS's at the time, about a year ago. Anyway Linux turned out to not be OSX in anyway, but I kept at it and when I learned of compiz I was hooked. To cut a long story short after spending time using Ubuntu I came to realize that it's as usefully as OSX and I now prefer it.
Linux and OSX are really in a different universe from each other....
- OSX - seamless, smooth, stable, little to config needed, limited hardware support, locked with one computer(hardware) company, and little to no choice
- Ubuntu - stable, fast growing, free and FREE, massive hardware support(cpu, sound/video cards, etc...), needs quiet a bit of tweaking, not always seamless, massive amount of choices
So I look at it like this: OSX will give you a great system with no choices, this can be good or bad. Ubuntu will give a system loaded(overloaded?) with choices and that can be expanded as you learn more, however your experience may be full of problems early on. So yes OSX is great and Linux :rolleyes: "is ready for the desktop"
I've changed the title of this thread and removed the poll from it.
The original title of the thread was Why does the Linux community HATE apple? It was pretty clear from the beginning that the Linux community does not hate Apple, and the OP never explained why she or he thought the Linux community did.
Sure, there will always be individuals within the Linux community who dislike or hate Apple, but it doesn't seem to be the majority, not by a long shot.
The poll, for a similar reason, needed to be removed, as it asks why people hate Apple without allowing any room for not hating Apple. I've attached an image of the poll just for posterity.
I've changed the title of this thread and removed the poll from it.Good call.
It had to be done. I wasn't a moderator when this thread started, and I thought it'd be too much work to ask someone else to do, but now this thread makes more sense...
Linux = too MUCH choice, akin to being bombarded with so many sweets in a chocolate shop, that you end up buying none, due to confusion.
Linux "is ready for the desktop"
No it certainly is not!. Configuration, command line catastrophe that the buying public DO NOT want/will not suffer lightly, just to get things working that OS X would have done hours ago, seamlessly.
I see a lot of angry consumers, and a great deal of smashed screens. Sorry, but that is fact. Please get into the mindset of a maybe VERY stupid consumer who has NO pc skills at all.... point taken?.
unlokia said: Linux = too MUCH choice, akin to being bombarded with so many sweets in a chocolate shop, that you end up buying none, due to confusion.
What a great analogy, because I actually end up buying lots of sweets at the chocolate shop. Choice is a great thing.
I think you should read this.
I'm sorry you don't like choice, but then Apple must be perfect for you. They just say, "Use our products and nothing else," and you have no problem accommodating them. Me? I like choice in cars, food, snacks, operating systems, applications, TV channels, pets, magazines, books, movies... just about anything. To each her own, I guess.
Sorry guys, but blinded by your very commendable and wonderful praise of Linux, you are forgetting the one thing people want: EASE OF USE.
You say it is, but what about when they come to install a graphics driver.... NOONE wants to do that!. Geeks do, consumers as a whole DO NOT.
You are Linux evangelists so I cannot expect you to see the point of view of the general public as a whole. Give away MAC OS X 10.5 Leopard in a store, and then give away a pile of Ubuntu CD's ...... see which pile disappears first!. I am not Linux bashing, just taking a realistic viewpoint on aspects of the business model which are not being absorbed here.
Do you think people want the frustration of lengthy boot times? The numerous sea of white on black commands that fly past as your average distro boots?. Do you think anyone in the public KNOWS what 'root' means?. Don't be daft!
aysiu said: What a great analogy, because I actually end up buying lots of sweets at the chocolate shop. Choice is a great thing.
I think you should read this.
I'm sorry you don't like choice, but then Apple must be perfect for you. They just say, "Use our products and nothing else," and you have no problem accommodating them. Me? I like choice in cars, food, snacks, operating systems, applications, TV channels, pets, magazines, books, movies... just about anything. To each her own, I guess.
Pro-Choice :mrgreen:
Do you think anyone in the public KNOWS what 'root' means?
Macs use sudo for root access
Bios is old, clunky, volatile and unreliable. I speak from MANY frustrating experiences, not JUST from one singular case. Go Mac!!
It seems you are an OSX fan. Fine, your choice. But I don't see everyone owning a Mac, same as I don't see everyone owning Linux..
In fact, they only have 2% of the market...hmm, why? If they are indeed so good, then why don't they have 95% of the market? You will tell me, then if Linux is so good, why doesn't it have 95% of the market? The answer is :
- Windows comes bundled with cheap pcs. With OS X, you have to buy a Mac to run it on.
- Public reluctance to change.
Linux has its flaws, same as every other OS out there. The difference is that in Linux you can mend its flaws, and you can help to fix the bugs and you can help out with device support.
You can't do that with Windows or Mac, unless you are a developer. With Linux, you can get the source code and examine it.
And give Linux time. Over 2 years Linux has evolved a lot. I can hardly wait for the next 2 years to come.
Also, my digital camera worked with Linux out of the box. My Ipod Nano worked too. My soundcard works too. And it is stable, and I know how to fix it if everything goes wrong.
Yeah I know Mac uses root, but in an intuitive way.
As for choice, too much is bewildering, and no, Apple do NOT say 'just use us'... have you SEEN the amount of hardware AND software available, NOT made by Apple??. Geez!!
- Windows comes bundled with cheap pcs. With OS X, you have to buy a Mac to run it on.
The very difference between generic beige box crapware, and unrivalled quality with support. Not EVERYTHING in life is better because it is 'el cheapo my friend. :rolleyes:
unlokia said: Yeah I know Mac uses root, but in an intuitive way.
As for choice, too much is bewildering, and no, Apple do NOT say 'just use us'... have you SEEN the amount of hardware AND software available, NOT made by Apple??. Geez!! Mac doesn't use root, actually. It uses the same thing Ubuntu does: *sudo*.
Apple does say "just use us." You don't have to, but they want you to, certainly.
I never think too much choice is bewildering. Uninformed choice is bewildering. My wife and I love trying out new restaurants, finding little gems. Do we just walk down the street and pick random ones? Sometimes. Most of the time, though, we like to read online reviews. If your choices are informed ones, choice is always a good thing.
Well... except for you.
unlokia said: The very difference between generic beige box crapware, and unrivalled quality with support. Not EVERYTHING in life is better because it is 'el cheapo my friend. :rolleyes:
No one said it was better. Lord Illidan was trying to explain why Windows is so popular, and that's one of the main reasons--it comes preinstalled on almost every cheapo PC out there.
In fact, they only have 2% of the market...hmm, why? If they are indeed so good, then why don't they have 95% of the market?
People are dumb generally, and behave like sheep in a field. Force something, and they grasp it willingly. Windows anyone?. They make it so crap, and it's reputation is so shot, that if they asked £900 for a BASIC pc with Win, people would laugh. The difference is, I don't see many people laughing at Apple, because mainly the informed and intelligent minds, know the difference!.
As to those who wish to spend their entire life using Windows, fair play - you're stuck in the hole you been pushed into, not us. If someone shone a torch down that hole, and revealed the way out, then maybe it would be a better world.
Funny thing is this: everyone on Linux forums slates windows into the dust, but as soon as someone mentions Macs, then every possible reason under the sun why Linux is better than Mac, is pointed out. Spot the fanboys?. You cannot have it ALL Linux' way!. Maybe one day when the rough edges and bugs are ironed out, and Linux finally decided to make up it's mind WHICH distro to market PROPERLY, then all this ranting and fanboyism will end. In the meantime, you have the masses who are force fed MS products at every opportunity, the Linux heads who rant on about free this free that freedom etc etc, and finally the sensible ones, who buy a Mac, keep quiet and just get on with their computing, safe in the knowledge that THEY are the ones with a little sense to spare, and a platform that generally:
A/ doesn't crash every 5 mins
B/ doesn't have weird names for every app, OVERLOAD the user with bewildering choices of apps and solutions, and need configuring for at LEAST half an hour before you can even get creating.
C/ Ask the user to download source code from 1991-style html only sites with geeky names, and compile it as a hack to 'get you working'
Apple chose *BSD, not Linux. Linux is based on 'get it working', whereas *BSD is generally written from the ground up, to work in the first place, and if it doesn't, then that part is RE-written.
There is a reason for everything - you cannot sell Linux to happy Mac users, because you are making a political statement for freedom of speech. People want solutions, not another load of problems. How many people use "Cinelerra" as preferred to "Final Cut pro" for editing??. Codecs anyone??.
'If I wanted to cook myself, I wouldn't order takeaway!. I cannot cook, hence I use people that can!.'
My analogy is quite simple ^^
I don't come here to make enemies - I think you are all great people on the whole, but all I can say is this:
When you fix it properly, let us know.. I wouldn't get in a car which had the wrong size wheelnuts on it, would I?!!
unlokia said: People are dumb generally, and behave like sheep in a field. Force something, and they grasp it willingly.
Exactly. Microsoft has forced itself on the general population, and that's why they dominate. It has nothing to do with quality.
But then again, it sounds as if you'll say just about anything to defend Apple/OS X--right or wrong.
unlokia said: Ok point taken. It is impossible to explain the truth, to ears that have NO wish to hear it. Forget it. Thread reported for staleness.
If a thread is stale, you don't report it. You just ignore it. Once a thread stops being posted to, it disappears into obscurity. Every time you post to a thread, it bumps the thread up and keeps it alive.
I've merged these three threads together, since they were all basically about the same thing: "What do we think about Apple/ Mac OS X?" Some people seem to think it's the cat's pajamas. Others seem to think it stinks. This is just the sharing of opinions...
unlokia said: The very difference between generic beige box crapware, and unrivalled quality with support. Not EVERYTHING in life is better because it is 'el cheapo my friend. :rolleyes:
Crapware? I think not. So long as it can browse the web, play some games, edit some documents, etc, it is enough for me. I don't need to buy a Ferrari. I can do just as well with a Fiat to get me from A to B.
Also, beige box my ***...there a lot of cheap pcs who have quite good cases. And they are standardised.
And you might want to look at the way you are gushing...we don't gush about Linux the same way you do about the Mac...we acknowledge the fact that both have their advantages and disadvantages, but you see only the disadvantages of Linux and the advantages of the Mac.
In terms of user friendliness, Linux distros have made a great leap forward in a few years. KDE 4 is shaping up to be one of the best DEs out there. I think your comments are a disservice to all the hardworking devs out there.
unlokia, can you point out some of what you consider to be OS X/Apple flaws? Being able to recognize flaws in one's OS of choice is a sure sign one is not a zealot.
After all, earlier in the thread, you were calling for *balance*...
aysiu said: unlokia, can you point out some of what you consider to be OS X/Apple flaws? Being able to recognize flaws in one's OS of choice is a sure sign one is not a zealot.
After all, earlier in the thread, you were calling for *balance*...
And don't say that there are no flaws, because it will be a sure sign that you are just another brainless zealot. I can recognise flaws in Linux and Windows...and I have never used a Mac, but I am sure that it is not perfect.
I've used OS X, Windows XP, and Ubuntu. They all have flaws.
Um, according to the boys in Redmond, Windows does not have "flaws". Those are just "features" designed to educate the user about computer problems.
JayTee said: Um, according to the boys in Redmond, Windows does not have "flaws". Those are just "features" designed to educate the user about computer problems.
But they're paid to say that. unlokia, presumably, is an ordinary OS X user, not a paid employee of Apple.
aysiu said: unlokia, can you point out some of what you consider to be OS X/Apple flaws? Being able to recognize flaws in one's OS of choice is a sure sign one is not a zealot.
After all, earlier in the thread, you were calling for *balance*...
yes - that the hardware is slightly too expensive.
I have yet to experience any, but shall not remain silent about them if I do. All I am basically trying to say, is that you pay for what you get, ok?!.
Of course there are flaws!. I am not naive to such an extent as to deny them error margins, but they deal with them because it is in the interest of their products and sales to do so, and for the benefit of customers. Linux *IS* hard to configure for the average user, and the fact that Apple make a specific hardware platform upon which to support their OS, is a business model which many software companies could do with taking a pointer or two, from. I could sit here and argue this until I am blue in the face, but it it futile and inefficient for us all.
Linux is another 'one size fits all' model - Apple make closed source tailor made software, for closed source hardware - noone can say that the thinking behind that is stupid, and I am not even going into the 'Stallman' aspect of all this, as it is a tad obsessive and unrealistic. I am going to refrain from further comments to this thread, as it is obviously pointless and going nowhere fast, and the VERY facy I am on a Linux forum, dictates the bias with which you are being blinded.
Macs sell well for a reason. Period!.
<end>
PS: Yes I am biased too, but I have taken off the rose tinted specs - they made my eyes hurt! :)
unlokia said: 3rdalbum - you make no sense. Why would anyone buy a Mac, JUST to scrub off OS X and install Linux and/or Win??. That is insanity.
I think you'll find that people do. Well, I've heard that OS X is necessary in order to boot another operating system, but there are lots of people who have new Macs but don't use OS X. Visit an open-source expo some time :-)
Ubuntu crashes regularly... MUCH more so than OS X does, simply watching a video or using flash web pages. Flawed?? HAH! give me a break!!
I've never had a full-system crash while watching a video or using a web page. I have had X crash on me when using Wine, and I have had full-system crashes due to the ATI proprietry driver, but apparantly this particular bug is fixed in the latest ATI driver.
On another machine, which only has open-source drivers, never had a full-system crash.
Okay so you are basically calling the majority of iPod consumers dummies, amongst which not ONE of those millions of people is technically knowledgeable enough to know the difference between buying a wonderful, simple to use and beautiful product, and buying something because they are *told* to by Apple?? :-?
No. What I'm saying is this: Apple advertise the iPod a lot. Stores advertise the iPod a lot. The name "iPod" has become synchronous with "MP3 player". People buy iPods because they have the iPod name on them, and also because less-knowlegable people haven't heard of Creative or Sandisk.
I've spoken to two friends who have iPods. My mother has a Shuffle. My mate has a Video. My other friend has a Nano. All three of these machines have corrupted their databases on a number of occasions. My Teac MP3 player is fine. My father's generic MP3 player is fine. My mother's old Lexar MP3 player is fine. No problems from these previous MP3 players. Only problems with the iPods.
Both my friends thought that it was completely normal for an MP3 player to lose its database and have to be reloaded from scratch. How many more of the millions think the same? The really knowlegable people stick with the iRivers and Samsungs and the other brands I mentioned. I was stupid myself - I bought an iPod for my mother because I thought it was a good brand. Only after getting it home and trying to put songs on the thing did I realise that I'd bought a lemon.
As to the Mac OS on servers issue, I cannot comment on a section of their business of which I know nothing at all, but I have to say this: their products are targeted at artists, media moguls and generally creative types who want the very best solution that money can buy. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant... tell all the major film studios, print works, artists and publishing companies worldwide, that they have made the wrong decision - Mac is THE de-facto standard for stability and creative workflow, for a reason. I hardly think one persons opinion can in any way change pure facts, and reputation hard earned over their MANY years.
Reputation earned during the classic Mac OS years, when ports to Windows were not good enough.
To my knowledge, major film studios, artists and publishers use Windows. My father is a typesetter, and he knows that the Mac is disappearing from printing shops. Yes, there are some parts of the Mac OS which are superior to Windows for these environments (for instance, installing networked printers - on OS 9 it was just "plug it into a socket", on NT there was a huge procedure necessary). But Macs are disappearing from these places, and part of it is due to the speed differences between Mac OS and Win XP Pro. Dude, there's a reason why Photoshop is a standard benchmark.
Maybe you hate the price of your iPod battery replacements, but at least you know that you are buying a quality replacement. If you want cheap and cheerful, then buy an 'el-plastico' flash drive/mp3 player from <insert-store-name>-Mart.
I wouldn't recommend that either - buy a genuine brand name. Creative, Sony, LG, Samsung, Teac (sadly they've left the MP3 player market, but you can still find the MP-20G at some places), Sandisk, Lexar. I notice you didn't explicitly say that you've never had to restore your iPod. I'll happily admit the areas where Linux needs some brushing-up, but I don't believe Mac OS X offers the answers. I'd rather fiddle around a little to set the machine up, and do a bit of searching to find .debs of new programs, than run OS X.
No. What I'm saying is this: Apple advertise the iPod a lot. Stores advertise the iPod a lot. The name "iPod" has become synchronous with "MP3 player". People buy iPods because they have the iPod name on them, and also because less-knowlegable people haven't heard of Creative or Sandisk
I think that you will find that the average iPod customer actually *knows* that there are better and cheaper (but not necessarily of a worse quality) MP3 players on the market, but choose iPod due to the sheer elegance, simplicity of use and the seamless way in which these devices operate, without taking a degree in Chinese to work out the menu structure!.
My ex girlfriend had a Creative 'ZEN' player... although it was white, it was also clunky and clumsily designed, and basically looked like a sardine tin. The point you are missing is that it is ALSO word of mouth that sells the iPod, and not mass marketing alone. The word 'iPod' is now synonymous with MP3, in the same respect that 'Hoover' means vacuum cleaner, and there is no thinking needed. I have just bought a NANO today, and every aspect of its design aesthetics, just blow me away.
You are right when you say people buy iPods when they see the name 'Apple' on them... but what you forget is, that if these products were really THAT bad, then Apple would lose sales, pretty logo or no!. Apple conceived the idea of simplicity of use, fused with complete beauty of design, and now a great deal of MP3 player mfrs, are taking various cues from the overall design, such as the colour white, and using them in their own devices.
People are stupid to some degree, but just because something is *white*, does not make that item the real iPod, does it?!. I would have to say that if people have a tight budget, and want MP3 playing immediately, then to save up and buy the real McCoy, and not some imitation item, which is going to disappoint, based on the *feedback from existing iPod users*.
I am sorry if you cannot see my point of view, but Apple really have a natural talent for taking a concept, and turning that concept into a successful and unique product. Look at XEROX gui idea and how Apple turned it into what is now OS X. A lot of companies implement and interpret what they THINK consumers need, very badly indeed - Sir Clive Sinclair is arguably one of these, as were Apple too, with earlier products.
I just urge you to open your mind a little - I am under no illusions that Apple have had and probably will have bad ideas, but then again their ratios of good to bad, are very small indeed, due to overall excellence with both physical build and aesthetics, ease of use and reputation. Marketing helps, and thats a fact, but it is not the only basis for success!!.
I had 2 mp3 players.
1 Creative Zen Micro dressed in Black and 1 Ipod Nano. Both are the same price.
The Zen Micro was a bit clunky, and not as stylish at the Nano. Yet, it stood up to scratches far better than the Nano.
It also has 6 gb, as opposed to the Ipod Nano's 2 gigs.
So why did I choose the Ipod Nano...you may laugh...
to run Rockbox and Ipod Linux on it :)
My iPod nano is black =\ anyway, i still think that iPod is more functional than most of mp3 players out there, and the price difference between a Zen and a Nano is not that much (at least it wasn't the last time i checked) I just can't get used to the Zen pad/menus, but of course this could be because i'm used to my iPod
raul_ said: My iPod nano is black =\ anyway, i still think that iPod is more functional than most of mp3 players out there, and the price difference between a Zen and a Nano is not that much (at least it wasn't the last time i checked) I just can't get used to the Zen pad/menus, but of course this could be because i'm used to my iPod
Not too different, but boy, 6 gigs to 2 gigs is quite different.
In Fnac's site
Ipod nano 4gb - 209€
Creative Zen V Plus 4gb - 205€
=\
raul_ said: In Fnac's site
Ipod nano 4gb - 209€
Creative Zen V Plus 4gb - 205€
=\
I am referring to the Zen Micro, not the Zen V.
The word 'iPod' is now synonymous with MP3, in the same respect that 'Hoover' means vacuum cleaner, and there is no thinking needed.
Jumping jellyfish Batman!! We've been brainwashed! :shock:
So why did I choose the Ipod Nano...you may laugh...
to run Rockbox and Ipod Linux on it
I put rockbox on my ipod 5g, It works great and looks nice with this theme I found(the default is hideous). The messed up part is that I bought a few songs from itunes(drm'ed) and encoded by cds in m4a format, which rockbox skips on every so often. However with Rockbox I can just drag and drop music, play ogg, wav, mp3, acc(needs polish), and I think some other formats. Hell, I even got gape-less playback with out having to by a new ipod.
Jumping jellyfish Batman!! We've been brainwashed!
On the flipside of that statement, I could argue that you have been Linux brainwashed!. Please do credit me with more than a mere modicum of intelligence... I am not one bit brainwashed, but I do admit that I love Apple products and their simplicity of design and use. I think the only way to resolve this sensibly, is to conclude that we all have our favourites, and I personally agree that Linux is wonderful, but rough round the edges and very inconsistent at times.
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not as stupid as you seem to assume - I have used virtually every popular distro under the sun, over four years, and given a choice I'd say that Ubuntu & Suse 10.2 are my distros I would use if I used any, but to be honest, for the meantime I am putting everyday usage on hold, due to the aforementioned. I have given these distros every possible chance to do what I need, and for the majority they do satisy, but there is, without fail, always *something* that messes up that experience, and I just wash my hands of all this fuss and inconsistency, for now at least, until there is a uniform standard that is set out, for distros to follow.
Please forgive me if I have enraged or upset anyone on this forum - I sometimes get a little carried away I admit, but also please will you accept my viewpoint, and that I choose Mac and iPod *NOT* because I am 'sucked in' but because I choose them, and adore them, and they really DO, 'just work'.
Thanks!
You made your feelings,and point known.
Thread closed..
unlokia said: On the flipside of that statement, I could argue that you have been Linux brainwashed!. Please do credit me with more than a mere modicum of intelligence... I am not one bit brainwashed, but I do admit that I love Apple products and their simplicity of design and use. I think the only way to resolve this sensibly, is to conclude that we all have our favourites, and I personally agree that Linux is wonderful, but rough round the edges and very inconsistent at times.
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not as stupid as you seem to assume - I have used virtually every popular distro under the sun, over four years, and given a choice I'd say that Ubuntu & Suse 10.2 are my distros I would use if I used any, but to be honest, for the meantime I am putting everyday usage on hold, due to the aforementioned. I have given these distros every possible chance to do what I need, and for the majority they do satisy, but there is, without fail, always *something* that messes up that experience, and I just wash my hands of all this fuss and inconsistency, for now at least, until there is a uniform standard that is set out, for distros to follow.
Please forgive me if I have enraged or upset anyone on this forum - I sometimes get a little carried away I admit, but also please will you accept my viewpoint, and that I choose Mac and iPod *NOT* because I am 'sucked in' but because I choose them, and adore them, and they really DO, 'just work'.
Thanks!
No I was referring to how many(me include) view the iPod as synonymous with mp3. I don't think you're dumb, just very pleased with macs. I'm getting one for school and I really like OSX. I also like Ubuntu and I use it for everything, but I hear your points regarding the lack of polish in linux. It's true OSX is well put together, however with Ubuntu I feel like I can grow as far as my understanding will allow. Thats what I like about linux, with OSX I like the polish but hate the vender lock in.
unlokia said: I think that you will find that the average iPod customer actually *knows* that there are better and cheaper (but not necessarily of a worse quality) MP3 players on the market, but choose iPod due to the sheer elegance, simplicity of use and the seamless way in which these devices operate, without taking a degree in Chinese to work out the menu structure!.
I don't know what MP3 players were like to use before the iPod came about, but my Teac is not only easy to use, it's also easy to load songs onto. Drag and drop onto the application window - that's it. Apple can't seem to manage that with iTunes. With iTunes, you have to copy the file from the CD to the hard disk, then drag it into the library, then drag it from the library to the iPod. When you're finished, you can't just quit iTunes, you've got to find a particular menu item first and then "eject" it otherwise the database doesn't get written.
You are right when you say people buy iPods when they see the name 'Apple' on them... but what you forget is, that if these products were really THAT bad, then Apple would lose sales, pretty logo or no!. Apple conceived the idea of simplicity of use, fused with complete beauty of design, and now a great deal of MP3 player mfrs, are taking various cues from the overall design, such as the colour white, and using them in their own devices.
Apple *is* losing sales, but there are still people who are buying their first MP3 players who are offsetting that.
I've asked the following question a couple of times, but you've forgotten to answer it yet: Do you have any trouble with your iPods? I believe that the reason why people still think iPods are good is because they think it's normal for an MP3 player to corrupt its own database, and that it's normal for batteries to completely die within a year.
I asked some friends... when asked if they have any trouble with their iPods, they said no. When I said that my mother's kept corrupting its database, all but one of these friends said "Oh yeah, you've got to reset them all the time".
I just urge you to open your mind a little - I am under no illusions that Apple have had and probably will have bad ideas, but then again their ratios of good to bad, are very small indeed, due to overall excellence with both physical build and aesthetics, ease of use and reputation. Marketing helps, and thats a fact, but it is not the only basis for success!!.
Former Mac user here. Current Linux user. My mind is as open as it's going to get, I'm afraid.
I am having no probs with my NANO... mind you, had it less than 24 hours so maybe there is still time for error, but I can't see it happening!. iTunes is actually very easy to use, and the reason Apple use it I have read, is that it allows one-way transfer of tunes from PC--->iPod but not iPod--->PC, to prevent copyright theft (apparently!).
Oh, and yes - now I remember that last night I did have to reset my *iPod*, but seeing as this whole thread is related to *Macs* and not iPods, this is irrelevant in the context of this thread... were we not discussing Macs, and if the fact that *some* iPods have this one issue, then I think your argument is a little bit weak...
Apple will no doubt fix this issue in the ever present firmware updates, and we can all relax again. Since I reset it, the NANO has been fine, and I expected nothing else to be frank. What you are focusing on, is every fault you can possibly find, within Apple products.. this does not make Apple as a whole, a bad company because of this. I have seen problem within Suse 10.1 whereby 'YaST' took about minute to startup (the Suse control panel) - people moaned and groaned and it is all too easy to voice your opinion, should anything detract from the continued 'perfection' you expect and demand, but those whining about these issues, conveniently forget that the designers and programmers are only human, and have the same probability of error as we all do, from time to time.
Apple *is* losing sales, but there are still people who are buying their first MP3 players who are offsetting that.
This is called self-contradiction. Read that sentence again..:-k
The thing is, as my friend sitting next to me has just mentioned, Apple have a smaller market share than generic PCs, because of the fact that PCs are everywhere, and churned out by the million, by both high quality manufacturers and every man and his Uncle who can figure out PCB design, which is really not all that hard. These products are then shipped by the container load, to backstreet PC 'consultants' who then (quite literally sometimes) throw a pile of low quality parts together, install Windows and a pile of shovelware, and bang it out @ £199 to anyone who wants one.
All very well I am sure, but beige tin boxes used to last longer than 12 months, before this mass manufacturing boom took off in the last 5 years or so. IBM 'clone' PCs I think is the correct term.
This by *no* means assures that because the PC has a larger market share, it is a better platform and of higher 'quality' than Mac. This is a prime example of mass marketing, and having windows this windows that, shoved and forced down the preverbial throat, does not make it a better market, even though the share is higher because of it.
It is all about quality, not quantity - can you not see that?.
The thing is, NOONE is going to buy an 'Apple clone', because the people who buy Apple products, know that anything but the real deal, would be a farce. You have pointed out all Apple's bad points, but you fail quite miserably to see, that if they were all that bad, and undesirable, then why are they still in business?. Yeah, maybe the iPod has something to do with it, but all the same, iPod or not, they are still here, and it seems as if you are *blaming* them for being around. Odd...
Apple will no doubt fix this issue in the ever present firmware updates, and we can all relax again. Since I reset it, the NANO has been fine, and I expected nothing else to be frank. What you are focusing on, is every fault you can possibly find, within Apple products.. this does not make Apple as a whole, a bad company because of this. I have seen problem within Suse 10.1 whereby 'YaST' took about minute to startup (the Suse control panel) - people moaned and groaned and it is all too easy to voice your opinion, should anything detract from the continued 'perfection' you expect and demand, but those whining about these issues, conveniently forget that the designers and programmers are only human, and have the same probability of error as we all do, from time to time.
Yes, SUSE's package handling is atrocious. That's why I came to Ubuntu.
... and Unbuntu repositories drop offline like flies!. Oh dear what fun! :D [IMG]http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/AppleHaters.gif[/IMG]
How appropriate!
zenwhen said: As a Mac user, I love Apple.
As a Linux user, I hate Apple because they benefit from open source so much and give back so little. (or they are at least minimally cooperative)
You bring up a really good point.
One thing that bothered me about OS X is that it's built on the back of Darwin. They took an open source BSD, forked it, expected others to build it for free, built a few crucial layers as closed source, and sold it as Apple's great OS.
Sure, Darwin is free to download, but it has a singular purpose - to run OS X. If you don't have OS X, it's practically useless compared to FreeBSD or Linux.
I'm not against people commercializing Open Source products by offering support or non-free elements; however maybe it's just me, but it seems like Apple got a lot of free labor and isn't contributing anything back to the open source community.
It would be one thing for apple to open source the key elements of OS X while restraining certain applications like the i-life suite to paying customers. But the key features of OS X such as its stability, lack of viruses, and maintainability are all a result of Darwin (AKA FreeBSD).
Most apple users don't even know they are running a BSD kernel. They think Apple is this great company that's responsible for this great operating system that never crashes. However, the reality remains that the meat and potatoes of OS X is a community-based product which isn't getting enough public recognition from apple nor any returns to the community at large from the release of OS X.
unlokia said: ... and Unbuntu repositories drop offline like flies!. Oh dear what fun! :D
Which part of the world? I'm using my local mirror (20 kilometers away, can't get much more local than that!) and I haven't had a problem since the night it synched with the main repo in time for Dapper :-)
24 hours, and you already had to reset your Nano? Dude, that doesn't qualify as "some" iPods - my mate has an iPod Video and says "you have to reset them all the time", and my mother's Shuffle has the same problem. I don't even know too many people with iPods :-) As the discussion we are having is about Apple's hardware and so forth, the iPods are entirely relevent.
Not sure that Apple is likely to fix the problem - have people been telling Apple about it, or have they just assumed that "all MP3 players must need to do that"? According to my friend, he's always had to reset his iPod, and he's had it a year.
Preventing the transfer of songs from iPod to PC is very noble, until you realise that some songs are allowed to be shared between people. If it's licensed under certain Creative Commons licenses, or the GPL, or even if the artist just says "Share this as you want", then it's really annoying to not be able to use your iPod to share those songs.
It's like the Zune and GPL v 3: If GPL v 3 has a "no DRM" clause, then any audio works licensed under it will be illegal to transfer from Zune to Zune wirelessly. Apple and Microsoft are practically trampling over the rights of the little guy in order to suck up to the record companies.
The one thing I hate about my ipod is that it was designed to only work with itunes... Not bad but little stupid stuff, like how it converts the music files and folders to gibberish, takes away from what it could be. Drag and drop would have been so much easier... Copy the music folder to the ipod.. ipod scans the music folder... updates the database and BaM!! an ipod that could work on anything. If it wasn't for apps like gtkpod, exaile, or listen I'd be screwed.
Same with OSX, their setting on a goldmine of software yet they choose not to let others work on porting it. I mean people have already gotten it to work on pc's, free labor! Just imagine what the OSS community could do with it. If I could buy(correction rent) OSX I would, faster then I would(could $$$) buy a Mac.
Apple and Microsoft are practically trampling over the rights of the little guy in order to suck up to the record companies.
'trampling'?? :-k
Ever hear of *choice*?... and what do the majority of the MP3 player-buying public choose, as their device of choice?? ;).
I am sorry to say this, but the the examples you have given of people having problems with iPods, seem entirely related to your nearer communty of your Mother and a few friends. As much as you would like to think so, that does not make them the *only* buyers of iPods, and I am sure that not everyone would agree with you on this subject of there being an inherent fault. However, if this *is* a widespread fault, then I am more than sure that Apple *do* (or will very soon, if the numbers reach epidemic proportions) know about it, and will fix it as they always have done with errors and bugs. You forget that Apple have an extremely good reputation as regards hardware and software is concerned, and no matter what is said, you alone cannot take away that reputation, unless it is some dastardly plan which they are hatching upon the public... but to fight that cause, I would direct you to Redmond, instead!.
As regards the whole issue of 'free music to whoever wants it, whenever they choose' - I would like to make these points, to all of those who are in the mindset that anyone and everyone can just grab whatever they want, completely free, and not have to think about it any further.
1/ I respect your undying loyalty to the noble cause of open-source - it is indeed a great thing and there can be no debate about that, but...
2/ You cannot possibly and reasonably *expect* by default, that everyone in the world thinks in the terms of 'give everything away, which is not hardware, for free' as this is both a naive and ludricous assumption, for which you will receive no respect in the long run.
Ok, so let us say that one person buys a CD, and they copy that CD and distribute the MP3 file onto the 'net. Let us then assume that 100,000 people download that track, and load it into their iPod/....'Zune' (:confused: WTF?) etc etc, and listen to it, but never pay a penny for that track. I'm sure that this scenario is highly improbable, but let us just think for a minute, that if person "1" was the only paying consumer of that music, then the artist would make what, £5-15 MAXIMUM if they were fortunate enough??... and how many meals a day would that provide for their family?....
As regards the whole open-source debate with people saying Apple should open their doors and let people port their code and products to other platforms - just one question guys... what makes you think they *want* to do so, and more to the point, why should they, JUST to please those who ask?. I could ask Heinz for the sauce code (:rolleyes: ) for Heinz ketchup, but do you think they will simply roll over and say "oh ok then, whyever not, we don't make any profit from it anyhow!". I know it is said that it is all for the benefit of the greater community and all the reasons beyond that are far from lost on me, but in actual truthful reality, *why* should they?.
The vast majority of people who buy Mac OS make a choice to stick to that platform, because it is both easy to use and easy to get support for it. Imagine if you will, that the source code for OS X was given away, and then people modded it and ported it and installed it on X number of platforms. You would then have tens of thousands (possibly) of people calling Apple, moaning when there were issues or bugs with it, and before you know it, OS X has lost its reputation almost completely!.
I am by no means at all, saying that the open-source philosophy is a bad thing, in any way, but it is applicable to those who choose to adopt it. You cannot expect EVERYONE to just give their hard work away, because you say so. Unrealistic and naive. It is surely better for those companies to mayber *consider* releasing source code for products whose life cycle has expired, are no longer sold or supported, so that people in the community can learn about programming. Do not expect everything as regards software and music to be free... this mentality is a dangerous one, and easlity mis-construed... and then you get people pirating OS X / Windows etc, and then they copy any and every piece of software that they choose, just because they can, and they want to do so.
I think this whole attitude of slating Apple, and quietly hoping that they will change their rules to suit *your* ethics, or otherwise disappear or go broke, simply because they make the odd mistake in their products, or, like ANY other hardware manufacturer, they have to fix minor issues (or major ones), is both insanely unrealistic and selfish. They have worked extremely hard in order to build a company whom people respect and like, and they (Apple btw!) have fought against the cynics and the critics with their ever-sharpened tongues and pens, lashing out at them and condemning every move they make, no matter what it be. I respect that, a great deal more than I respect people who expect it to be their *right* to get everything software or music based, free.
Finally, maybe their software *IS* highly priced, but it is a well known fact that people see a high price and they expect impeccable quality - why shouldn't they?. Fortunately Apple don't seem to disappoint on this score, and to bring down the price to the equivalent PC price range, would be crazy, because then you would have "just another computer" and that is FAR from what Macs are!.
I am sure Apple are MORE than aware that not everyone likes them, but hey, the ones that do, and analyse the whole situation and conclude that they are a clever bunch with products that enhance computing, BUY Apple, and for the rest of the people unwilling to save and wait, they can have second best, for less.
:)
... and Unbuntu repositories drop offline like flies!. Oh dear what fun! :grin:
Aw, shut up..
That has happened to me a few times actually, but maybe I have used non-official repos for certain apps, and that could be why.
No need to be rude!! :mrgreen:
This thread is getting kinda boring... I have a lot better things to do than argue the same stale point, repeatedly. Any new input, from someone who has a better case to bring to the table?. :)
PS: To those of you unfamiliar with forum protocol - we are not discussing repositories with this thread... steer back on topic please!. :rolleyes:
unlokia said: That has happened to me a few times actually, but maybe I have used non-official repos for certain apps, and that could be why.
No need to be rude!! :mrgreen:
Non-official repos...that's not Canonical's problem. Yes, I am fed up of your behaviour...
'behaviour' :D rofl!. Anyone care to comment *on topic!*, minus the predictable added sarcasm?
I am close to agreeing with Lord Illilan's position. Unlokia you seem to fit the elitist atitude that some of the linux fanboys are guilty of sometimes. It is about civil disagreement and argument. Some key points are ignored by you.
Suse and Ubuntu are the best distros you know in Linux. That shows a failing and a flaw already in your argument. Having said so I shall give you some hard truths:
Mac OSX is a wonderful OS that runs very well on an apple hardware. Would you expect a basic user to take OSX and install it on their own apple hardware easily, without help.
Can you install OSX on a mobile phone? On a PC? On a PSX 3? On an XBOX? -The answer to this question is NO -Oh and on all of these hardware peripherals, you can install and run Linux.
Affordability - I have a brother inlaw who bought a macbook with OSX due malware and frustrations with his Windows laptop. He now runs Windows XP on his Macbook in parallel for gaming as OSX sucks for gaming. Not their fault like Linux, game developers do not think of their users as much. - He is considering placing Ubuntu on his apple hardware because he is an informed PC user and this way he gets the best of all worlds.
- I personally do not think apple bundles are worth the money. PCs with no OS makes more sense to me. Why, because I can run whatever I choose to on them and be more productive. If all the OSes cost the same money, I would very easily switch to Linux as I already receive great support from the forums.
Beauty - Apple's OSX is very beautiful to work in. Alas, that beauty is great, the polish is nice, but it does not afford me the option of innovating my desktop computing experience. It teaches me nothing and tries to leave the user unaware of the system inner workings. With Linux, I have many an option. I can install Ubuntu, Suse, Xandros, Linspire, Zenwalk, and many more if I want to just use my OS without having to tweak anything. And all just works. Or I can choose to tweak my system and end up with entirely different window managers, desktop feels, etc. Heck I can make my linux OS try to look like OSX or Windows Vista, etc. The beauty is in being able to use whatever I want at ease.
- I have used OSX, windows, and rpm-based, debian-based, source-based, and slack-based; And I prefer these any time to either OSX or Windows.
People use Windows because they are forced to use it. Do you think if the same games made on windows were made on Linux or if certain proprietary apps made on windows were also made in Linux, we would not all almost be on a Linux platform. Why would users want to pay money for something immensely inferior to an equivalent that is free.
OSX is great for its eye-candy, this eyecandy is what many of my still window fanboys hate about OSX. There are many who hate the OSX look and behavior; Not because they should, because they are used to doing things a certain way in windows, or that the lighting is too bright. Enter Linux {Ubuntu being a very good one.}, you can customize the OS to whatever the user prefers, heck the user could get Kde {Easier for Win users}, Gnome {easier for OSX users}, Icewm, Fluxbox, XFCE, Enlightenment..., etc}
You can choose to have all of these and create users with different desktop feels on the same PC. Choice is a great thing. I was a novice PC user before. Thanks to my advent into Linux, I am that more richer in PC knowledge. I can better troubleshoot PC issues on all different OSes.
Folks exist that prefer Mac OSX systems. Folks exist that prefer Windows systems. - This is the preferred OS. I recall when we had Macintosh systems on our work place and employees would complain daily due to issues with incompatibilities to other things apps, etc. This was the fallacy of apple and still prevails today inspite of the fact that they have a wonderful system that I woul rank higher than windows, safer, but just too overpriced and leaves its users locked in.
Linux for me is simply the best of all world. Like you choice seemed bad at first. But the beauty here again is that if you want lack of changes and consistency you can with linux. Ever heard of Xandros or Linspire or SUSE. Those are great but not for me.
I like Ubuntu- It inconsistency for me is that it keeps looking more and more beautiful every release period; It keeps looking too polished for me. Well, I like that inconsistency.
Apple and Windows maybe in some years to come would give me that same beauty.
Choice is good but too much choice is a bad thing, because it causes endless confusion. I am sorry to say but Apple is MUCH easier to use, for the *average* person, than either windows *or* Linux.
Can you install OSX on a mobile phone? On a PC? On a PSX 3? On an XBOX?
-The answer to this question is NO -Oh and on all of these hardware peripherals, you can install and run Linux.
May I correct you - someone has hacked OS X so it *can* be run on a PC, because I have done it. Yes I *know* you mean "officially", but nevertheless your statement was partially incorrect. However, you argue that OS X cannot be installed on further platforms other than those made by Apple.... it was not created to do this - doesn't mean Linux is any better or worse for hardware support!.
Beauty - Apple's OSX is very beautiful to work in. Alas, that beauty is great, the polish is nice, but it does not afford me the option of innovating my desktop computing experience. It teaches me nothing and tries to leave the user unaware of the system inner workings. For the fear of sounding patronising, you are evidently oblivious to the wants and needs of the general computer user, as opposed to the inner geek who wants to tweak and fiddle. The absolute reality is, that the "average joe" wants to buy a computer, unpack it, plug it in and use it. You are missing this point, and I cannot say whether or not that is intentional, but regardless, you miss it entirely. Unfortunately for some of us geeks, this misunderstanding turns into frustration, as we cannot come to terms with WHY Linux is not the top of the OS ratings.... well it is simple, and the business model is that of ease of use, not tinker-ability and modification friendliness.
Like it or not, life is hard enough for most people, having to work a 9-5 kinda existence, and the last thing people want to do is fiddle and play with the innards of a computer!. They want to turn it on, do some work, turn it off and go to bed. THAT is the cold hard truth, and some geeks and Linux gurus, just seem unable to comprehend this, no matter how many times the point is made.
OSX is great for its eye-candy, this eyecandy is what many of my still window fanboys hate about OSX.
Tell that to the countless tens of thousands of Movie editors, artists, printhouses etc. Tell them Linux works better and to sell their Macs. I wish you the best in trying - you are talking nonsense re: that point!.
unlokia said: Hi there people!. I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots! I'm sorry you feel that way. OS X is actually a great operating system, depending on the user. I happen to like Ubuntu better, but for my wife, it doesn't get any better than OS X. > . Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!. But their hardware is top-notch, isn't it? Well, there are hacks, after all, where you can illegally install OS X on non-Apple computers. We wouldn't do that, though, of course.
Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'. Yes, but we can't force that attitude on others. Each person should use the operating system that works best for her. For some people, that's a Linux-based operating system. For others, it's Mac OS X.
I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please... Wow. That's some pretty strong feelings there. I hope eventually you'll come to appreciate some of the beauties of OS X. It's not a perfect system, but it does appeal to many people for a reason.
@ aysiu - the negative comments I made a number of weeks ago re: MAC OS X, were ones unfounded, before I had even gotten used to its beauty and ease of use. This makes me out to hate OS X, when in fact I have done a U-turn, it has grown on me immensely, and I now adore it even MORE than Linux itself. Please edit accordingly. Ty
unlokia said: @ aysiu - the negative comments I made a number of weeks ago re: MAC OS X, were ones unfounded, before I had even gotten used to its beauty and ease of use. This makes me out to hate OS X, when in fact I have done a U-turn, it has grown on me immensely, and I now adore it even MORE than Linux itself. Please edit accordingly. Ty
Wow! That's quite a turnaround. In only two weeks, Apple has really won you over.
Congratulations, Steve Jobs and the rest of the Apple crew!
aysiu said: Wow! That's quite a turnaround. In only two weeks, Apple has really won you over.
Congratulations, Steve Jobs and the rest of the Apple crew!
indeed!! :D
Took a year and a half to get me to appreciate Linux even HALF as much I am afraid.
I am not trying to make any kind of *radical* point, but simply alert you to the simple facts:
As much as FOSS is very admirable, when did:
(A) Photoshop CS last work on Linux? (B) Final Cut Pro last work on Linux (used by most film companies including the BBC etc etc) to make their films? (C) When did linux support firewire video capturing properly, seamlessly and without fuss, and PROPER pro level video editing? (D) When is Linux going to face facts, and buy codec licences in order to play LEGALLY the media content used by 80% or so of the worlds computer users, and stop shoving OGG in our faces, in some crazy kinda "sanitisation" philosophy?
(E) When are you going to realise that the general population of computer users want it top work out-of-the-box, not after 24 hours of typing commands inside Konsole or the suchlike.
These are MAJOR reasons why Linux is where it is - very much adored and used (and yes I use it ALSO for some things!) but not used by the majority, and hence the market share is indeed minute by comparison. Do you need to send your colleagues away for a week for a training course in order to use Mac?... hardly!
You see, I am not slating Linux by any means, but I am slating the ease of use for the *average* PC-WORLD type consumer - a dummy with no brains, and all they wanna do go on MSN and talk to their mates.
How about webcam support?? I plugged a webcam into MAC and guess what.... it just WORKED!!
Please - take in what I am saying here - Linux is *GREAT*, but it is NOT going to hit the big time anytime soon, because Mac (and then their copycat friends over at Redmond) got their first many years ago, and they have a reputation for "easy to use" and simplicty. You comments on aesthetics of OS X are a simple preference, analogous to your choosing the colour of your car, not to the inner workings of the engine!.
Sirin said: I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
I don't see what your talking about, I happily use apple MacOSX, its just beautiful, compared to Ubuntu, (sorry), and way more beautiful than Windows (not sorry).
Nice to see *someone* on a Mac thread, not ranting and raving that it is evil and ugly, just because it is closed source. I bet if Mac OS X was Linux, everyone would *rave* about it, and be all over it. Anyhow:
1/ Linux is ready for the general public consumption - fiction
2/ Mac OS X is ready for general public consumption - ](*,) Hellooooo?!!!! lol
If Mac OSX was truly ready for desktop use as you say, then it would be used more right? Unfortunately OSX is just not ready at all for that 98 % of users computing needs.
Sure it is beautiful. So is Dreamlinux to me. Doesn't mean that it is functional for my use. Sure it is great for multimedia artists. Go to these multimedia artists and ask them what they use for their daily activities. It is not OSX, it is going to be Windows. That should tell you something.
It is not that they are stupid. It is that they want something that just works for them. I hate to play devil's advocate. What does a typical user need for video? I'm I a photographer? No that rules out photo softwares, but if I just wanted it for the heck of it with hope to do something someday, I have gimp in linux. Not as user-friendly, but guess what it is free and it does the job.
Movies, DVDs, mp3s, whatever, I get amarok {better to me than itunes}, vlc, mplayer, audacious, xmms. And these are all free.
Ever heard of Picasa, alternatives to photo softwares. Oh, why with cedega, wine or crossover some of these apps become available in the linux users finger tips.
OSX is good, but there are some of us who feel more productive on a linux desktop or windows interface, that can't stand OSX. That does not give me a right to bash on OSX. It is well thought out and although takes sometime for certain users like myself to appreciate, but it just does not work for me, and definitly not for my parents.
I installed Xandros, Ubuntu Dapper, and Mepis for a few of my friends. Those machines still run like champs with little to no issues on them. No pop ups, malware, spams, etc. The apps they use are all setup for their use. This is what you get in OSX. What is beautiful in linux is that you have the option. OSX and windows do not give much options for customization.
Windows is the defacto OS for general PC users, not linux and definitly not OSX. Should this be the case no. But this is a reality. What does linux have over all the other distros? A lot of choices and ease of adaptation to varying types of users.
Some folks complain oh, pclinuxos looks to easyto work on, we hate it. It resembles windows too much in terms of guis. But ofcourse runs like a champ. It holds your hands totally so much so that you forget the CLI.
Others prefer gentoo or slack-based distros that either are very easy to work in or challenging, but rewards it users with great flexibility. And all of this innovation is done by the community and the great devs, some are people like you and I.
Also, something you may be missing unlokia is this: Linux is a multi-purpose OS. You know what that means. I can launch and work in many desktop windows all at the same time without the clutter. I can have my downloads going, firewall working, using gimp to texturize a new wallpaper, mp3 playing on audacious, two videos playing, firefox web browser working, chatting or audio conferencing through skype, burning DVD, writing a report, and totally updating my Operating system with almost no lagging.
Something I am unable to do in a Windows OS. I could not do this on OSX as easily could I?
Oh, and the OSX on PC install was done on a particular PC with very specific hardware components. Have you tried upgrading that OSX on that PC. What did they say, still impossible. That my friend is unproductive.
With Linux, I can run my OS totally from a livecd, I do not even have to install on my PC. I can run totally from a livecd on a PC with 128MB RAM and above. I can burn and backup all my datas on a MAC OSX or Windows PC gone blue and inaccessible from my linux livecd. That my friend is innovative.
Before you speak like you know anything about linux, try researching first. That is what smart computing is. Look up Knoppix, Sabayon, Kanotix, and Mepis livecds and then comeback and tell me what desktop ready is.
You would discover the sad truth that your choice in an OS is not quite what desktop ready is. As of date, I can argue totally and confidently on the greatness of the linux platform over any other OS.
OSX is good for a few people's needs, but definitly not for many. Windows is still more the OS of choice for people who require Autocad, Intools, {Oil and gas Industry.} Some of these companies use linux now or support different OS. OSX just doesn't cut it for these guys right? LINUX is my prefered choice and the easiest to setup for anybody than windows and definilty than a OSX in some regards. OSX is great in that it is already assembled as part of the Mac machine.
Linux is adapatable to more hardware peripherals. But windows tends to edge in the past with hardware with proprietary stuff. With as little help from hardware Vendors, linux distros still just work for the most part by default with more hardware. And when lacking, there are helpful guys to instruct on howe to properly get those components working.
So this is why I argue that Linux for about 3 years now has been over ready for the desktop and server.
Oh, UNIX is also very good. But crippled due to lack of hardware vendor supports.
I have spoken my case. Research more before comparing. It would greatly help our debate if we were at least on page on what desktop ready mean't. This would make our debate more meanoingful. As I see it, to me you are not aware of the meaning of that term. And maybe, I am not as well. We have to agree to disagree. But I have converted many a windows user. Some of these folks still prefer windows, but when they see the plaque of virus, and have to be responsible for your internet and downloading habits. Whereas, I am even more irresponsible as my system lacks a registry and is much more secure by default. I feel more free and productive.
In summary OSX is ready for some select users for their desktop needs or wants. Windows although the defacto for most users has earned its right more than any other OS for sometime, but is gradually failing at meeting all user needs.
Linux for me: Has been way overdue as what desktop readiness is all about. It is adapatable to all types of users. Confusion is as you say is possible with anything. It is like saying should I eat apple or orange or egg or biscuit. Linux is like why not any or all of them, while OSX is like egg for you but no biscuit, but maybe orange also; Windows is like all of them, but maybe with a bunch of preservatives added with little nutrients left.
This is my opinion ofcourse and that of many here.
sh*t Kazuya I thought *I* ranted :eek: :eek:
If Mac OSX was truly ready for desktop use as you say, then it would be used more right?
I don't know what is used on your little island, but Macs are used a heck of a lot more than maybe you realise, and have been around a *great* many years before Linux itself was ever conceived my Linus Torvalds, let *alone* Ubuntu!.
How is the weather on your planet, this evening?. Your posts crack me up - please do continue... I may submit them to BBC comedy. Please forgive me if I don't post for an hour or 5 - I was going to bed and enjoy a novel, but maybe I'll settle for your post instead. Still confused as to the exact point that all your mixed messages are trying to make - I am sure by the time I have finished, I will have settled into a deep calm slumber, so all this won't even matter to me. Someone wake me up when this fine chap says something useful. Thanks chaps! :mrgreen:
PS: It would be wise not to pad out your rants with so many spaces and tabs - they are very badly formatted, making for a light snooze instead of light reading. Paragraphs are better than the odd sentence of two, separated by blank space. This is not a rant, just an observation ok. And the use of the space bar in all the right places, makes for a much better post.
Yes, my friend unlokia, I am ranting like you are. It solves nothing really. But most of what I say is fact. The weather is nice hear. I hope it is the same at your spot.
Unlokia said: I don't know what is used on your little island, but Macs are used a heck of a lot more than maybe you realise, and have been around a *great* many years before Linux itself was ever conceived my Linus Torvalds, let *alone* Ubuntu!.
Response: I think you may need to wake up from 1990. Macs are used where? So is amiga and DOS, but you don't see me raving about them. I would almost say MAC is used as much as one brand of Laptop. But we know that is not true. In your credit, finally the user base of mac has grown again. The amount is still very minimal. The OS and hardware combination is good. However, the OS by itself is not quite as robust as any of the other linux distros out there. It can only be installed on apple hardware. This is supposed to favor better interoperability for its users. However, the end result of this lock to apple hardware is why windows beat the crap out of the Mac OS. The closed nature of the product bundle is what made windows come out and prevail over the existent giant. I believe Mac may be making a good run again with the bad offerings of Windows. But when it is all said and done, 90% of people I encounter at corporate and domestic level would not even consider an apple over even XP. Enter, Linux., It does everything. Not all about glitter per say, but functionality. I believe you need to wake up and grab a Bean in the morning to help juggle your mind back to the 21st century.
PS while on the subject of correcting my use of space and grammar. There is an old saying that says take the brick of your head before you point out the spec on someones eyes. This was a quote of yours below: many years before Linux itself was ever conceived _my Linus _Torvalds, let *alone* Ubuntu!.
Just my 2 cents.
I must add again should it not be clear to you and this time in as simple English terms as I can. OSX is not a bad OS. It works well for some folks. And for multimedia, it is very good. It just does not appeal to many other users due their varying preferences. Windows OS is the standard by which an OS is judged by the masses and corporations. This does not mean that Windows is the best OS. It appeals to those who are more comfortable with it. The sad truth is that more users prefer windows to any other OS. These users have their reasons. However, many of these users are not aware of alternatives. For PC gaming, Windows OS beats any system hands down. Why you may ask? It is because there are more games built for its users by game developers. Proprietary software apps have a better chance of being built for windows than for OSX and apple users. Macs fall short where linux falls short when it comes to the match up against windows. But linux and OSX beats windows on the same counts {security & better system resource management}.
However, linux comes out a winner in my book because, it gives the basic user almost all of their computing needs at a price tag of zero dollars. Moreover, the apps used are in some cases superior to the commercial equivalents in Macs, and windows interface, granted some of these apps are open sourced.
Should you detest something about the system, you complain about it and it either gets resolved or a workaround is offered for just you.
You speak of OSX as the only OS being used. You need to go to BBC as you have mentioned and do a search on the progress of alternative OS being used in certain European countries like France or other countries like Australia. In the oil and gas industry for their embedded systems, what do they use outside of XP or some proprietary OS? The answer is linux, not OSX.
Read more when you wake up and please get some "beans." This may better stimulate your reasoning and argument.
I agree with you that our rantings here would make a great joke or comedic relief.
Hey ya know what, stuff this - tedious and futile waste of time. See ya, this is for fools.
yes, give up. lol.
"Give up" ?... hardly!! :D I'm back!!! :D
Please read this (not my writing) from http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOffice/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=50437
mighty mike, apple doesn't sell commodity PCs. Macs are more of a "complete" system, not a tinker toy set just for games and the odd application that isn't yet on the Mac. Apple now sells the lowest priced PCs for the feature set. Apple has the advantage over all PC Vendors since it doesn't have to pay, (nor the buyers) the Microsoft tax.
Apple makes the WHOLE system, that's why it is more valuable in the marketplace, holds its resell value much better than PCs, has a longer useful life of course, and I think most people would agree it now has the better software library. 18,000 apps and growing quite a bit quicker than Windows since OSX is so easy to program for, plus it runs all the Linux and Windows software as well.
It's the only true "Universal PC", built today. Great product design, great engineering and HUGE attention to the finest details and that's why the smart money buys Macs. Check the real time price trackers, you'll be surprised how cheap Macs have become over the last 5 years.
kinda blows your crazy sense of logic, out of the water, and then the water evaporates!
*NOW* I am ready to leave this thread. Goodbye!
lol. I rest my point. You say it for me. If these open source apps are so bad and linux is so bad why does mac use them. Dumb magazines like that or articles like that are written everyday by people who have no clue about PC.
Have a read at a link with real facts and tests: http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/
Here it says:
Linux versus Mac OS X on Intel Dual Core
In early May I posted benchmarks comparing Linux and OS X on a MacBookpro running my R packages (I later added Windows XP benchmarks). In one of the original benchmarks, both Linux and Windows XP were more than twice as fast as OS X. And in a second (more representative) benchmark, Linux was about 20% faster. The benchmarks were posted on Digg and a variety of other high traffic Internet websites such as OSnews. This attention generated a lot of comments and suggestions.
With the help of a variety of developers working at Apple and elsewhere, the large OS X performance gap previously reported here has been significantly reduced. The most important improvement is the use of a more efficient algorithm which relies on optimized BLAS to perform key matrix operations. This change increased the performance of the code on all platforms. The performance gap was further closed by compiling and linking R on OS X against Doug Lea's malloc (called dmalloc for short).
This is my comment:
Some articles proclaim linux much better than any other OS. Companies with interest in desktop security use linux and freebsd and unix, and then maybe windows. No mention of OSX there.
So give me true valid sources. Your article is for the birds. Go look at the benchmarks for linux 2.6 kernel versus kernel for OSX and performance. The answer is painfully obvious to you. Perhaps, you already know this.
On that link you sent me, here is what a real user had to say on it:
wake me when apple has 30% of the market and there is wide-industry support. otherwise, its impractical. even linux has more momentum than apple. you guys are too fanatically and not realistic. hey, its a nice toy and eye candy to impress people with. when i need to get something done, i'll just use windows and linux for now.
mighty mike -June 2, 2006
I don't want to enter a religious debate - but it looks like I'm about to ;-) I'm a developer who has worked on Windows (and before that, DOS) machines for about 13 years. I've also worked with Linux and Solaris. In previous lives I used Amigas and various 8-bit machines. Last year I took the plunge and bought an iMac (G5). The visuals are great and there are certainly some nice features - but overall I have been very disappointed. First, it runs very slowly - especially Eclipse, which I have been using for Java (but apparently that is notorious for running like a dog on OS X). Running too many apps at once really takes a hit too. Firefox, especially, locks up fairly frequently and I have to reboot. I hope the Intel Macs are much better in these departments. Compatibility is the next issue. I have tried a number of printers, including two HP's and a Canon. All come with OS X drivers, plus I downloaded the latest updates. In all cases, to this day, my success rate in printing anything reliably is less than 50% Often pages come out as, say, A6, when I wanted A4, or the orientation is not what it should be. Sometimes it just wouldn't print at all and I had to reboot both computer and printer. There just seems to be no sense to it. It just plain doesn't work! Configuration: Certain software that is a breeze to set-up for Windows or Linux (SQL Server and Subversion come to mind) I wasted many many weekends gettings set-up on my iMac - and my Subversion server still doesn't work properly! A big problem seems to be that base directory structures and locations, types and formats of system config files seems to change with every release of OS-X, so no matter how much searching you do on the web you only ever seem to find the wrong advice! Why can't they just leave them in one place? Admittedly I'm not a Unix shell guru, but I don't have the same degree of troubles with Linux (although I find that a battle too). UI: It looks pretty, but I just find it soooo awkward to work with! The Dock is very slick, but impractical. It is so difficult to see what windows you have open. It's very frustrating that only minimised windows are iconised in the dock - so to get the full picture you have to look there (usually hovering over each because you can't really tell which is which), and then go to Exposé to see the rest. Such a pain! I'm constantly switching between windows and this really gets in the way. Another huge pain (which seems pointlessly unfixed) is that you can only resize windows from the bottom right. Half the time it is just an annoyance - but other times that corner is either off-screen or under the Dock (actually I have my Dock on the right now to minimise this problem) - so resizing a window is often a combination of moving the window to some other position, resizing, then moving back - why oh why? Also I still don't see why there is no "full screen" mode for windows. Yes I have seen explainations. I just don't buy it. I miss it! And don't get me started on software! There is plenty of high quality software available for the Mac, yes. And some of it is better than the equivalent for Windows. But we're mostly talking small numbers of specialist software. There is still oodles of very good, high quality software available for Windows that are simply not available for the Mac - or lower quality and/ or much more expensive equivalents only exist. One example here (and I'd love to be corrected) is a tool for MindMapping. I use MindManager for Windows, but the best I have found for the Mac are a couple of low quality shareware apps. My list of grievances could go on and on, but I should stop there. I just want to demonstrate to those that go on about how perfect the Macs are that there are some serious drawbacks that can't be overlooked by a lot of people.
I will say that, as a glutton for punishment, I am considering a MacBook. I don't want to give up on the Macs. Spiritually I still love them. I just can't work with them seriously. It's such a shame. The MacBook should address many of my concerns in two ways: 1. They're faster and 2. I can still run Windows.
Wish me luck!
Phil -June 6, 2006
PS: These are from comments directed at that same article on the web link:http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOffice/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=50437
I think your case is a dead one. Seriously, please research more before making claims. You may want to look at the age of your articles as well.
I don't like apple because a lot of mac users are total fanatics. They have this false sense of superiority over windows/linux users. At least that's my experience with apple folks.
I apologize to folks on this forum for the conduct displayed by both unlokia and myself. All of the OSes have their use and user-base. I cannot subjectively tell everyone that my OS is better than theirs. However, I am allowed to have an opinion. Macs are great, but so is Unix, Linux, Freebsd, Solaris, and heck even Windows, DOS, Amiga, etc.
It really depends on the user's choice, wants and needs in computing. For mine, my parents, siblings, and friends, the Linux OS suits their needs more and for a very affordable price of zero {place your currency.}
I also have a brother inlaw who owns a macbook. He paid a bundle for it. The first thing he did was set it up to dualboot windows for his gaming needs. He came to me about how to put Ubuntu on his macbook. I told him to wait on that. Since, he had both mac OSX and windows XP, I felt he could deal with that until he came to the U.S to fully see the intricacies of my system.
I sent him a screenshot of my desktop and he was almost sold. He has always used Windows and decided this year to try out a mac. He loves it, but the system has some shortcomings for him by itself. Hence he now has windows XP on there {gaming perhaps}.
I sense that after January when he sees my system, he may make a full switch to Ubuntu. He has been attracted to that distro for a while now.
So I say use what works best for you. My mom barely ever surfed the web when we had windows as she was afraid of the redirecting of her yahoo mail to another web-page {pop ups}, etc.. The whole family settled for a 256 MB RAM old PC I built and installed Xandros 3.0.1 OCE on three years ago versus the 512 Dell PC with XP. Now they love Ubuntu. Heck my mom does not know what interface she is running on. She is just more comfortable with it for surfing the web for news, emailing, listening to some music, and voice chatting every once in a while. I already set the system up to their needs.
ok..........
For a long time I said my next computer was going to be a Mac. Then I dumped Windows for Ubuntu, and I'm happy where I am. I don't hate Apple. Many complain of "vendor lock-in" because you have to use their hardware to use their software. I don't consider this vendor lockin, because if you chose to use different hardware, there are substitutes for most of the software you would need.
I also hate to hear people talk about how iPods are DRM infested. The iTunes Music Store may be DRM infested, but iPods are only capable of playing DRM, it's far from a requirement. I manage my iPod with Amarok quite easily, and when my iPod becomes too old to be usable, I'll replace it with a new one - mainly because I already have a number of accessories.
I'd rather see people using Macs than Windows, for it's Unix base if nothing else. While I'm not a fan of the closed nature of Windows (or OSX, though Apple isn't quite as bad), my primary reasons for wanting to switch away from Windows were security and stability, both of which are included on Macs.
AusIV4 said: For a long time I said my next computer was going to be a Mac. Then I dumped Windows for Ubuntu, and I'm happy where I am. I don't hate Apple. Many complain of "vendor lock-in" because you have to use their hardware to use their software. I don't consider this vendor lockin, because if you chose to use different hardware, there are substitutes for most of the software you would need.
I also hate to hear people talk about how iPods are DRM infested. The iTunes Music Store may be DRM infested, but iPods are only capable of playing DRM, it's far from a requirement. I manage my iPod with Amarok quite easily, and when my iPod becomes too old to be usable, I'll replace it with a new one - mainly because I already have a number of accessories.
I'd rather see people using Macs than Windows, for it's Unix base if nothing else. While I'm not a fan of the closed nature of Windows (or OSX, though Apple isn't quite as bad), my primary reasons for wanting to switch away from Windows were security and stability, both of which are included on Macs.
Ipods can play Non DRM files...my Ipod Nano only plays ripped mp3s. (and no it is not rockbox, it is the original firmware)
That is what he meant - just a typo I think. :)
Hey sorry for bitchin folks - just my way of getting my point across - may not be to everyones liking, but that is just me. :)
I prefer Mac OSX over XP every day of the week. X11 running on top of OSX's Aqua is very, very nice. Also having the ability to install all that OS software is a real treat. Stable, strong and built on BSD-Unix, very nice. Hardware is also always way above average in the quality department.
Brunellus said: other reason:
Apple is even more committed to proprietary solutions and vendor lock-in than Microsoft; this is one of the reasons, ironically, that my family went for IBM-Compatibles running MS-DOS over Apple computers back when we were buying our first computer back in '86 or '87.
Apple promises a universe where stylish people carry elegant, tightly-sealed Apple hardware, living in a kind of digital utopia where there are no hardware conflicts, driver issues or competing standards. There is only Apple, and Apple's elegant solutions. Anyone else wanting anything different, or, indeed, merely curious to find the workings of the hardware, never mind the software, will be brutally smacked down.
Of course, the iPod-wearing, dancing citizens of Apple's Alphaville are blissfully unaware of their total lack of freedom (in the GNU sense), because they are held in thrall by the overarching power of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field.
The very nature of their business model is anti-GNU.
must say, you summed up my thoughts very well. least now i dont have to do the typing. ;)
From a technical and aesthetic point of view, I love Apple. Their hardware and software works well, is beautifully and functionally designed, and is easy to use. As a company, they certainly have a lot more style than Microsoft. I love my iPod, and enjoyed playing with OS X on my friends' computers.
From an ethical point of view, they are not really better than Microsoft. Given the chance, Apple would make a monopoly even worse than the Microsoft monopoly (because they make both software *and* hardware). However, it is more ethical to buy Apple than MS, because they currently are less powerful, and it's always ethical to try and balance the scales.
Bragador said: I hate Apple.
They are worse than Microsoft.
They don't want to sell their OS on other computers than the ones THEY make. They want to promote THEIR filetypes and standards WITHOUT leaving space for other formats (i.e. Ipod and .ogg files for exemple).
For now everything is acceptable in the eyes of most users because Apple is not #1 but they are using business practices that I do not endorse.
The linux market is much better and open to competition. All competitors (distributions) can fight each other without much compatibility problems. Same things with the other softwares.
Apple is too self centered and they are trying to get users addicted to their formats in the same way Microsoft did 10 years ago.
So I hate Apple, I hate Microsoft, and I hate any company that can't compete fairly.
Getting the users addicted to your software so they get stuck with it 10 years from now is just plain wrong.
[-( [COLOR="Red"]Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source. (http://www.vorbis.com/)[/COLOR]
I agree with the rest though.
unlokia said: That is what he meant - just a typo I think. :)
Hey sorry for bitchin folks - just my way of getting my point across - may not be to everyones liking, but that is just me. :)
No need to apologize....... You're just giving your opinion.... with passion!
But anyway, macs can run linux apps?! or do they mean linux apps ported to OSX ?
Macs run 'Parallels Workstation' - by far the *easiest* way to install Linux *nix inside your shiney new Mac, without Fubar-ing the HDD.
google FUBAR all you n00blets :D ``` define: fubar
To all in the know, please read past this.
Parallels Workstation is software that is installed on Mac OS X, much like VMware, inside which you can install a 'virtual guest' operating system - in effect you are creating another PC *inside* a little window, inside MAC OS X!. This is fantastic for running OS's that you wanna try, without messing up your Mac partitions, and also Macs now use *EFI* - extensible firmware interface, and Linux is setup to look for BIOS, so it it far safer to use Parallels than run it natively.
ALSO - The latest Parallels Workstation is optimised to utilise every last bit of performance, out of C2D (Core 2 Duo) Processors, as are found on the latest Mac computers. So in effect, one core of the two is dedicated to running MAC OS X, and the other is dedicated to running the 'virtual PC' inside Parallels. I have tried it out on a MacBook, and it FLIES!!!! :D
PS: If you want to then get rid of the virtual computer you have created, you just delete it, and it costs nothing at all, whereas with PC hardware, you smash it to smithereens with a sledgehammer, and take it down to the recycling depot. This is, incidentally, the best way to get rid of Dell mass marketed trashware, Tiny....Time..... etc.... remove everything except the motherboard, sell them, then smash the rest up (in case of GIGABYTE mobos, burn em till they are ashes!!) and weigh in the resulting lump of steel, for scrap, and put the proceeds into your Mac savings tin!. :)
There! - now you feel better for ridding the world of a few more PC's, dont ya!
*{PS}* Don't smash up any PC unless you own it, and if you are already initiated in Mac geekology, this evidently is irrelevant to ya.Does parallels let you to play sound, I ask because I tried vmware-server and, while I could add a sound device, it would say that sound was not enabled over a remote connection....or something like that.
Ok, I only read the first 16 pages of this thread, sorry. It all seemed a bit cyclic.
I don't hate Apple. I don't hate Microsoft either. I just don't *use* either of them to any degree.
When I've used Macs, they seem nice. They look pretty, and seem snappy and well put together, quite logical to use. But they are expensive- much more than I would be willing to pay for a computer. If someone gave me a Mac, I'd use it. I'd be happy. I'd no doubt dual-boot with Ubuntu tho'.
I *do* hate those "I'm a mac" commercials tho. Because we all *know* that Macs are the only computers that let you organise photos and music:-k
@hanzomon4 - yes, sound works perfectly my friend, but remember that parallels is for *Intel* macs!
Because we all know that Macs are the only computers that let you organise photos and music
What kind of ignorance is that? lol!!. Maybe if you explored a little, you'd see the Mac world in a different light altogether! :rolleyes:
But they are expensive- much more than I would be willing to pay for a computer.
You pay your money and take your choice, my friend. Use that old PC, and pretend to yourself that you don't care that ya missing out ;). All depends how willing you are to put up with Windows throwing a fit every ten mins, or having to go into BASH every other day, to configure something. Apple does it all for you, and yeah maybe you don't learn much about what is going on... but then again, I been there and done all the Linux commands and compiling, and yeah it's all very well, but I want my computer to - and I quote - "just work" :)
The difference between a Mac and a PC is more than you think - I can run Mac OS X *and* have a PC *inside* my Mac, but you cannot have a Mac running at full speed, inside *any* PC! ;)
unlokia said: @hanzomon4 - yes, sound works perfectly my friend, but remember that parallels is for *Intel* macs!
What kind of ignorance is that? lol!!. Maybe if you explored a little, you'd see the Mac world in a different light altogether! :rolleyes:
You pay your money and take your choice, my friend. Use that old PC, and pretend to yourself that you don't care that ya missing out ;). All depends how willing you are to put up with Windows throwing a fit every ten mins, or having to go into BASH every other day, to configure something. Apple does it all for you, and yeah maybe you don't learn much about what is going on... but then again, I been there and done all the Linux commands and compiling, and yeah it's all very well, but I want my computer to - and I quote - "just work" :)
The difference between a Mac and a PC is more than you think - I can run Mac OS X *and* have a PC *inside* my Mac, but you cannot have a Mac running at full speed, inside *any* PC! ;)
I am well aware of the joy of Macs, they just don't do anything for me. I, personally, don't see the point in spending $2000 on a computer that allows me to do what I do now, only with eye candy, when I can do that on an old, battered laptop. And still have eyecandy. My computing needs are simple- I browse the web, I play old games, I listen to music, I watch movies, I type stuff. I don't need a mac for that when my pc will do that for me perfectly happily.
By using Ubuntu, I also have the joy of learning a little more about my computer- more than using Windows ever taught me. I don't mind getting my hands dirty under the hood now and again. That's why I'm using Fiesty. If I wanted my computer to 'just work', I'd use Dapper. Because it *did* just work for me. Not a single problem that wasn't caused by PEBKAC.
And yes, I *do* know that you can use Macs for much more than music and photos, but that's the general impression those annoying commercials give. If anything, they made me want a mac less.
Ok cool!. :D
The terminal.app uses bash right? I'm just curious do any of you linux/OSX users find bash as powerful on OSX as it is on a linux? Also do you have the tty on ctrl+alt+F1 or F(whatever).
And yes I would/will pay 2000 for a mac.... Because their just neat and it's a requirement for art school.... go figure :mrgreen:
This guy has got a clue - a *BIG* clue!. Gimp is all very well, and I actually happen to use it quite a bit and would do on Mac also, but Photoshop is *the* industry de-facto standard photo and art software - try running CS on Linux is -------------------->](*,)
As regards the command line in Mac - I have done a couple of 'ls' strokes and other things, but not too sure. Cannot see myself using it tbh in Mac - that's just me though.
Wow. I don't even know if anyone will see this considering it's on page 8,047...
I am always entertained by threads like this one. Platform choice is just that - a choice. I don't like many of Microsoft's business practices, and I equally dislike some of Apple's. I don't hate either, though. That being said, for some people, Macs and OSX provide a viable alternative to Windows, while for most, Windows is more than sufficient for their needs.
Personally, I love linux. It is a testament to what can be accomplished when like-minded people come together. However it is not for everyone. I know that my clients do not want to edit text files to change settings. And yes, while distributions like Ubuntu have made great strides in that area, there are still times when one needs to do that.
Some see Apple as restrictive because they will not allow OSX to be installed on anything but a Mac. My question to these people is, do you honestly think that if Apple makes OSX available for any PC that all the hardware manufacturers out there would immediately write drivers for the millions of different devices out there? It would be a major disaster. Apple controls the hardware and software so that the out of box experience is consistent from user to user. You buy a mac, you use it immediately. When you buy Mac software, you rarely (if ever) have to worry about if your video card will be sufficient. It is not unlike the console gaming market. You buy a game marked "Playstation 2" and you know when you get it home it will work on your Playstation 2. Macs cost no more than comparable PCs when you consider the software you get in the box. Another consideration is piracy. Apple does not force activation of its OS, so piracy would be rampant, unless they tried a method similar to Microsoft, which would make people hate them just as much.
If an average person asks me what kind of system they should use, my first response is usually NOT linux. Why? Because the average person wants to web surf and read and write e-mail. Linux is great for that. But what happens when they walk into a store and want to get a personal finance program? What if they want to use a Webcam? The average person cannot be expected to figure out how to download a gnucash package or open source webcam drivers that may not work for the particular chipset in their camera.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing linux at all. What I am saying is that the average person just wants the computer to do what they want with as little effort as possible. Unfortunately, Linux has not arrived there yet. An example - I installed Ubuntu on a new notebook, and everything was detected perfectly, except sound. When I found out that I needed to download and compile the driver, I was disappointed, but I know how to do it, so it wasn't a deal breaker for me. The average person however would see that as something just not working, and think it was linux's fault. Another problem was wireless. The internal wireless card was detected and worked great, until I tried to connect to my router. Apparently WPA wasn't supported without a download and some tweaks.
So, you can hate Microsoft, you can hate Apple, you can love Linux, but understand and accept that for most, a mainstream OS is their best choice. As for iPods and DRM, to me it's not restrictive at all, because I have never attempted to do anything with my iTunes purchases that was restricted. If I decide to use an MP3 player other than an iPod, I'll simply burn audio CDs and re-rip to DRM free MP3s or whatever format I choose.
I don't think I can say much more without this becoming a long rant on the pros and cons of proprietary versus open source software. The thing that is clear however is that both have their place. Hate, no matter where directed, does nothing to further the cause of the things you advocate. The same flames directed at people under the guise of "Mac advocacy" can be found throughout these forums, just in a pro-linux manner.
I hope that my comments are taken in the spirit they are intended - to get people to think and discuss, nothing more. I use Windows and OS X and Linux all the time, and all have their strengths and weaknesses. Let's look at what they get right as well as wrong and continue working to make Linux even more of a viable alternative.
doublesix said: ...That being said, for some people, Macs and OSX provide a viable alternative to Windows,...
Sorry, but doesn't OSX run on Macs, so wouldn't that be the same thing:confused:
I said it that way because some people run Linux on Macs. In many ways, Linux is better on a Mac than a PC because of the highly controlled hardware.
doublesix said: I said it that way because some people run Linux on Macs. In many ways, Linux is better on a Mac than a PC because of the highly controlled hardware.
Oh, Yeah.... Forgot that you can run Linux on Mac with Bootcamp... And yes I do prefer my Mac to a PC because of its hardware. But I'm not going to run Linux on it unfortunately, don't want to mess with the Hardware issues.
Wise comment!. Complete pita, is Linux at times! :D
hanzomon4 said: The terminal.app uses bash right? I'm just curious do any of you linux/OSX users find bash as powerful on OSX as it is on a linux? Also do you have the tty on ctrl+alt+F1 or F(whatever).
And yes I would/will pay 2000 for a mac.... Because their just neat and it's a requirement for art school.... go figure :mrgreen:
bash is now the default shell (used to be tcsh in 10.0 and 10.1) and is the same bash as you are used to. Apple OS X comes with bash, tcsh, ksh and zsh. I am a big zsh fan (both on linux and apple) and have written a lot of functions to enhance interaction of the shell with the higher-level gui stuff. If you are interested, google "zsh on os x"
Frak said: Oh, Yeah.... Forgot that you can run Linux on Mac with Bootcamp...
I believe he was talking about REAL Macs, not generic Wintel boxes with the Apple logo stuck on the front :-P
I believe he was talking about REAL Macs, not generic Wintel boxes with the Apple logo stuck on the front
Macs are never "generic"!. Have you even _tried_ buying a Mac clone?
Thought not - impossible (thank goodness!!)
So - what do you class as a "REAL Mac" then?. Considering the only "REAL Mac" you can buy, is an Intel one, I think you are talking nonsense.
Oh, and if you are referring to a Mac as a wintel 'box' then I presume you are referring to the Mac Pro... the logo is etched on the SIDES, not the front! ;)
:mrgreen:
macmatt said: Macs are never "generic"!. Have you even _tried_ buying a Mac clone?
Thought not - impossible (thank goodness!!)
So - what do you class as a "REAL Mac" then?. Considering the only "REAL Mac" you can buy, is an Intel one, I think you are talking nonsense.
Have you ever typed a colon, then a hyphen, then a P before? :-P
I was joking about how one of the earlier posters implied that Linux on Macs has only been around as long as Bootcamp :-)
3rdalbum said: Have you ever typed a colon, then a hyphen, then a P before? :-P
I was joking about how one of the earlier posters implied that Linux on Macs has only been around as long as Bootcamp :-) I only recently got my new Mac, wired all applations that could be used on Intel Macs, (done by a Mac Proffesional, because I'm lazy, appearantly only apps that had a universal logo on it could be transfered, didn't know that) and sold my old PPC one off, and saved alot of money that way, but just now encountered bootcamp, which I know as a "safer" way to install ubuntu, as the whole installation is controlled by the Mac, so all of it is protected, really love my Mac, pretty cool.
3rdalbum said: Have you ever typed a colon, then a hyphen, then a P before? :-P
I was joking about how one of the earlier posters implied that Linux on Macs has only been around as long as Bootcamp :-)
I tried to tell my friend that Linux runs on Macs, he didn't believe me lol.
HI, i've been reading some of this thread, (not all of it) and I see that I am in the minority. Im sorry to say that I hate apple. why you ask? because of their stance on open source crud and all that? oh no, I could care less. thats why I hate Microsoft. I reserve my special hate for apple. I hate them because they are lame, overpriced, eye candy hipster machines. they are annoying, the commercials, the "cool" looks. not to mention their users. almost every mac user I have encountered is completely apple brainwashed. I use Linux because I like it and it works great for me. if it didn't I would use something else and i'm the first to admit it has flaws. the apple people blind worship of the hip image puts me off. but the number one reason is their rigidity.
My Hideous Frankenstein Ubuntu box is housed in a noisy ugly case i stole from an industrial dumpster, and is a collection of replacement and upgrade parts or parts ripped out of various other old machines, some that aren't even hooked up to anything inside. Each of the cd drives is a different color, the side is falling off and its got pictures of Audry Hepburn hot glued all over it. oh and my surround sound speakers are from two different sets, stolen from two different ex boyfriends. there is no way in hell I could do this with a mac, my computer has probably cost me less than half of what I would have paid though apple for an equivalent, plus all the upgrades I have done over the years. I have purchased ONE desktop computer in my life, and about a million parts. but hey! i could have bought one of those cool looking Imacs, the "grape" one was pretty cool right? im sure it would be extremely useful to me now. I think not. however my old box that started out running windows 95 is still the fastest most flexible machine I have ever worked with. not to mention interesting to simply interact with now that i'm running xubuntu. I have used many a mac and they are always the same shallow sterile prettyness covering up a ridged, limited system.
the one thing I will say is that Linux lacks photo shop. that is the ONE thing that i use regularly that it lacks. and thats why there is a little 60g hard drive sitting around in my box with windows on it, and CS2 (that of course cost more than the whole thing combined) its there and I can use it whenever, then I can use Xubuntu. then in two weeks I can change my mind and run Solaris for while. I just couldn't deal without that kind of flexibility.
*disclaimer* this is an unjustified, unprovoked rant. I don't want to shove it down anyones throat. just putting in my input.
Well-I must say that is interesting--I'm one of the "old-time" Apple users & have gone away from Apple because it no longer follows the vision I knew & agreed with 15 years ago. Apple has gone down the money path--& I do agree that the "coolness" factor has left me cold. I actively helped bring OSX into the world almost 7 years ago (was one of the Beta team right after the public Beta was released late in '99) & I still believed that we could steer the world away from M$--I started to see Steve's new plan about 3/4 years ago & looked to Linux--And now I am here--I still own several of my old Apple units from the mid-90's--when Apple was still straight with their loyal customer base--I believe that this is no longer true of Apple & I for one felt betrayed by the path that Steve has taken.......Hate Apple---No---Mourn the passing of a friend--Yes
The Apple I knew is dead---long live Macintosh.
Ah that is a good point, the apple I am talking about is definitely the here and now apple. not the old ones, I didn't hate them then, even if i did switch to MS eventually, they were fun .
Yes--I still have the ORIGINAL (non-iPoded) 1984 ad that enbodied all I loved about Apple--Back when the apple was rainbow coloured (not the mono-chrome non-symbol it is now) & the computers were Macintosh.
I remember System 6 (a very simple, elegant working system) & my favorite was OS 8 (8--8.1--8.5 & 8.6) the first of the "modern" Apple OS.
Now it's about how "hip" it is to own a Apple that is not much more that a upmarket Dell......I built my own system & have NOTHING but Linux on it.
What the heck? I like Apple, and use an iMac. Mac OS X is an awesome OS too.
Thank You--I helped create the software you enjoy--I don't like the direction that Apple is going--when Steve went with the Intel chipset (after years of saying that he would NEVER do it)--that was the last straw for me.
I do not say that Apple puts out a bad product--Steve has always insisted on the highest quality for the dollar--I don't like where Apple is going as a company--I supported Apple in the dark days of the mid-90's because the vision I was given from Steve was true--I no longer support Apple because it seems that Steve has abandoned the old loyal customer base for a "hip" new vision---
I RESENT THAT--
To see what I mean--look for the 1984 ad (not the new iPod one)--was played during the Super Bowl game on Jan 1984--a REAL class act.
(I know that this one dates me--but you NEED to see that ad to know what I mean--goto the best information on the net about it:
http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/mac.htm
and look for yourself)
Well, I actully own an apple, and plan to triple boot it.(I am only dual-booting now) I don't hate apple, and I only dislike windows. What is the point of hating any OS? They are all nessesary evils. And most people honestly couldn't care. So isn't it better to get them closer to linux?
I don't hate apple but I do find some of their practices to be reminders of bad things microsoft has done in the past. Most notably at the moment, Apple has restricted iTunes to only accept 640x480 video that has been encoded using QuickTime and nothing else. Forcing us to use there encoder if we want the higher resolution is not nice :(
Other than that soapbox, I like Apple. The switch to Darwin in OS X was one of the best things to happen in computing in along time. They are a focused company, and they (for the most part) can support their products.
I have been thinking about buying my own mac for quite some time. I miss a few non-free apps and they run on OS X. So do most of my open source favorites. Apple has a future in my life one way or the other.
OK, I like Apple, but am just getting into Linux too.
The main reason I like Apple is that IT JUST WORKS! Sure controlling the hardware and software may be objectionable in some ways, but it certainly works. I have just been installing OSX and Xubuntu to make a dual-boot iMac G3 over the Christmas break. OSX installed fine, even with only 192MB ram, graphical installer and everything. Networking with my iBook G4 was automatic and painless. No worries. Xubuntu on the other hand, much as I like it when it is working, is fraught with difficulties to get basic things to go.
Open source is great, and Linux is great. I am fully behind Linux becoming bigger and maybe one day taking over from proprietry solutions. But I have found that if I actually want to have a computer to do my work on, it is much, much simpler to install OSX and use it. Why? BECAUSE Apple has designed the OS to work with the hardware, and the hardware to work with the OS, the very thing several posters here seem to object to.
Apple is by no means perfect, and I would love them to embrace more open source software for example. I would dearly love some of the Apple team to contribute to making OpenOffice.org more seamlessly compatible on the Mac and including it with all new Macs sold for example - at the moment the Mac comes with heaps of toys (iTunes, iMovie, Garageband) but little in the way of serious everyday tools (e.g. a good office suite, currently the best being MS Office as far as I can see, which adds a bit more to the cost of the computer).
Seriously, why would anyone want to sell a computer without a decent office suite on it? Isn't an office suite the most basic requirement of EVERY user? Appleworks is good for a basic user but really doesn't cut the mustard anymore, and Apple's new iWork package doesn't even include a spreadsheet, AND must be bought separately.
But much as I may object to bits of their philosophy, if I want a tool that works out of the box (once I install a suitable office suite), I will buy a Mac.
I just got my first Apple. A Macintosh Performa 6360, that was going to rot away in a friends basement if I hadn't rescued it. So, my first experience with a mac, in 2006, is with a 1996 performa 6360. So far I like it, but I am still learning. I turned it on with the little 'button' in the back until I found out about the power button on the keyboard. Wish me luck! :-)
Enjoy it! They are great old machines, and last for years. Until 2 years ago when I splashed out and got an iBook I was doing all my university assignments on an LCII, a Powerbook 150 (both from around 1992 or so) and a PowerMac 7200/120 (similar age to your fancy new machine!). Could pick them up for free or extremely cheap, and had some old copies of Word and Excel on them too. Few problems, and they always worked. They last for ever. OS7 is extremely stable and never, ever, EVER crashes or does ANYTHING wrong! If it ran the modern applications I need now I would continue using it - you certainly don't need a fancy GUI to type an assignment and print it out.
Thanks. I was quite surprised to find that the rainbow-colored apple in the corner wasn't just for decoration either. Theres an s-load of stuff hidden under there. Devilishly clever!, if you ask me.
I have read that you 'uninstall' programs by dragging them to the trash, and then emptying it? Is this true? Does that mean the 'shortcut' on my desktop is not just a shortcut, or is the trash designed to follow the shortcut back and remove the program and all of it's dependencies? This is very exciting to me, as it seems so bloody simple!!
steven8 said: I have read that you 'uninstall' programs by dragging them to the trash, and then emptying it? Is this true? Does that mean the 'shortcut' on my desktop is not just a shortcut, or is the trash designed to follow the shortcut back and remove the program and all of it's dependencies? This is very exciting to me, as it seems so bloody simple!!
Dunno really, I know that's true for OS X, but I have a little experience with OS 7 or any other classic Mac OS:)
Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source
That's why i wouldn't buy an apple.
i mean, why pay more for proprietary hardware? i enjoy putting my own computers together. AND being able to fix them or upgrade them as necessary, I wouldn't give that up.
Microsoft's os is just as proprietary as apple's. I prefer open source. Both the software, and the ideology are better in my opinion. Plus it's freely distributable.
Yes, that's right, sort-of, you will need to trash the desktop shortcut, the program files & you also need to goto the "System" folder & remove (trash) the preferences, folders, etc from the program also.
That should be able to run OS 8.6 without problems--OS8.6 was the most stable OS that Apple (Mac) had ever made, modern enough to run Usb stuff, yet old enough to not have all the bells/whistles in it. I've got a OS 8.5-8.51-8.6 install set if you are interested. I'm running OS 8.6 on a 6100 unit (reved up to a wopping 80mz--o-wow) & a 5400 Performa.
E me if you have any questions, I did beta work in those days & can tell you almost anything you want to know about it.
steven8 said: I have read that you 'uninstall' programs by dragging them to the trash, and then emptying it? Is this true? Does that mean the 'shortcut' on my desktop is not just a shortcut, or is the trash designed to follow the shortcut back and remove the program and all of it's dependencies? This is very exciting to me, as it seems so bloody simple!!
steven8 said: I have read that you 'uninstall' programs by dragging them to the trash, and then emptying it? Is this true? Does that mean the 'shortcut' on my desktop is not just a shortcut, or is the trash designed to follow the shortcut back and remove the program and all of it's dependencies? This is very exciting to me, as it seems so bloody simple!!
Er... it's not that simple unfortunately.
The alias on your desktop (what Windows users would call a "shortcut" and Linux users would call a "symbolic link") is just an alias. In order to uninstall the program, you just drag the *folder* containing the application to the trash then empty it.
If the application installed any extensions, you should disable those too, by dragging them from "System Folder:Extensions" to the "System Folder:Extensions (disabled)" folder.
If the program is in the Apple menu, then you should probably open up "System Folder:Apple Menu Items" and remove its alias from there too.
But yeah, installing and removing Mac programs is very easy on the classic Mac OS.
iPod nanos have to be the most sexual looking thing ever.. Therefore I like apple :)
Er... it's not that simple unfortunately.
I'd say not. :-) I'll be a little nervous worrying about dragging something away which shouldn't go. Do no two programs share anything?
graigsmith said: I prefer open source. Both the software, and the ideology are better in my opinion. Plus it's freely distributable.
It's not always better... :( , EG: Gimme an Open Source app that is better than iMovie... :)
Other bad thing about Open Source OSs is lack of some major software... (Photoshop, Cubase, Office...) :(
Plus, Closed Source OSs have got some of the best GUIs (Mac OS X, SkyOS...) along with other great ones GNOME, KDE...
steven8 said: I'd say not. :-) I'll be a little nervous worrying about dragging something away which shouldn't go. Do no two programs share anything?
Well, to put it bluntly, no. On Mac OS, everything except system libraries are static-linked into the program. Any programs that need kernel extensions or daemons have their own "extensions", which go into "System Folder:Extensions". There's nothing like Aptitude that knows what was installed and is no longer needed. But generally, any extensions that were loaded are easily recognisable (for instance, the program that they came with is usually mentioned in the Get Info box).
Usually though, the program is self-contained inside its own folder (this is much more so in OS 9 and X), and dragging it away is completely safe. If there is an extension that you can unload, you generally put it into the "Extensions (disabled)" folder until you're sure you don't need it.
To be honest, the only reason why I use Ubuntu is because I am fed up with windows, and can't run Mac OS X on my Compaq Laptop. If I had a mac, I would probally stop using Ubuntu.
I've seen some people that have been sucessful, since Mac switched to Intel, OSX can run on VMware, on Windows, or Linux, Linux is easier because it can emulate the hardware easier, and has less hardware useage. But with some mods to the source code with VMware player, or just using Qemu, you can essientially run OSX on Ubuntu.
Like from the begining of this thread, i dislike apple more then microsoft, for me im using Ubuntu for its company ethics. Apple has horrible company ethics dispite them advertising themselves to be "hip" and "cool". Dispite being the only one in my school using a Linux i am very happy with it. I will not compare since they are essentially different things that do the same job. Microsoft has long favoured BUSINESSES and not its small users, reasonable. Microsoft has shown some promise of being nice....or else 98% of the world will not be using microsoft. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also does good work, charity is always attractive form of marketing that i like. Apple however think they are Cool, and they are not. Obviously they look good, but according to Green Peace they are Dam polluting. Ipods are overused, and not exactly very good. Its just like the half arsed products from microsoft. To be frank i like GNOME over the Aqua GUI from apple. And Apple started advertising really REALLY lame things and makes it a BIG deal (i.e. its dock and expose which can both be achived on Linux and Windows), which microsoft seems to have copied with its AERO.
Overall Apple's Business Ethics SUCKS and thats why i DONT like Apple. :)
Canonical! never abandon your way of serving people in a humane way! if you dont exploit, i'll use :D
Apple comes across as a control freak company to me. They try to force users to only use Apple software with Apple hardware and visa versa. With Windows you can at least choose just about any X86 compatable PC. Also Apple seems concentrated on look and feel too much and not enough on practicality. I use the lack of a second mouse button for example, or the freakish scroll ball. Why not just use standard equipment? Everyone else uses it and it is efficient. Then there is the "we know best" mentality of the iPod. iTunes demands that you sync software and that you only buy from them. They won't let you take music off of the iPod (with iTunes anyways). They freeride off of BSD (they give some code back in Darwin, but most stays hidden). They ignore backwards compatibility and ensure that things only work on the newest of stuff (switching to PPC killed back compatibility, switching from the Mac based OS to the BSD based one killed compatibility, switching to Intel killed compatibility for PPC). They also seem to be total hypocrites. (IBM is evil, then they swap to IBM PPC CPUs. Our OS is better than all others, then swap to BSD, Intel is evil, then swap to Intel, Microsoft is evil, then they are proud to release bootcamp). They also attacked Be by refusing to properly document their CPUs and ultimately lead to the demise of BeOS, which was actually a decent piece of software (if not extreamly unconventional, Be was weird looking, but had some cool features). Plus they like their DRM stronger than Starbucks Coffee.
Not to mention the elitist attitude of the OSX community. They seem to feel that they can do everything better than their alternatives. They seem to be unable to grasp the concept that not everyone can pay $1000 for a midrange computer. They are rather ungrateful of anything that doesn't have a ton of excess polish on it. They seem to snub the Darwine project because "it looks uglier than a native app" same with crossover. They expect things to be handed to them and don't like to tweek things. If it isn't out of the box good it isn't worth it. Interestingly, while the OSX code may somewhat resemble Linux and BSD, the phylosophies of the two are as different as night and day. OSX seems to believe that the user should not do anything and that it has to work as is or not at all, while linux and BSD are about choice and allowing the user to do things as they like. Linux expects that the user can decide things.
beefcurry said: To be frank i like GNOME over the Aqua GUI from apple. And Apple started advertising really REALLY lame things and makes it a BIG deal (i.e. its dock and expose which can both be achived on Linux and Windows).
Yeah, but the "Dock" and "Exposé" in Linux and Windows suck major *** (except, maybe, The nice "Exposé" in XGL :) )
Monsuco said: Apple comes across as a control freak company to me. They try to force users to only use Apple software with Apple hardware and visa versa. With Windows you can at least choose just about any X86 compatable PC.
Apple Hardware maybe (Doesn't DELL force you to use DELL Hardware??), but not Apple Software (You can delete any program you get bundled with OS X. If you don't want to use their browser, just throw away Safari, don't want Dashboard?, throw it away too:) ) But M$ forces you to use IE, and they don't even let you remove it!](*,) Besides, you are comparing a manufacturer with a Platform...
Monsuco said: Also Apple seems concentrated on look and feel too much and not enough on practicality. I use the lack of a second mouse button for example, or the freakish scroll ball. Why not just use standard equipment? Everyone else uses it and it is efficient.
Mmm... You get 4 mouse buttons with their mouses, and the Scroll Ball it's a great innovation. Think about it, if everyone sticks with standard equipment there would be no innovation! Sometimes is better to dump old things and never look back, to go forward...:)
Monsuco said: They ignore backwards compatibility and ensure that things only work on the newest of stuff (switching to PPC killed back compatibility, switching from the Mac based OS to the BSD based one killed compatibility, switching to Intel killed compatibility for PPC).
Well, I can run All Mac OS apps in Mac OS X, and use PPC apps on Intel Macs; I call that backwards compatibility:) . Plus, you can't maintain it forever, look what what happened with Microsoft, the tried to have it, and look what Windows has become now...:(
Happy new year Monsuco!!:grin:
Alfa989 said: Apple Hardware maybe (Doesn't DELL force you to use DELL Hardware??), but not Apple Software (You can delete any program you get bundled with OS X. If you don't want to use their browser, just throw away Safari, don't want Dashboard?, throw it away too:) ) But M$ forces you to use IE, and they don't even let you remove it!](*,) In order to run Mac OS X (the operating system) legally, you must purchase Apple hardware. That's Apple's hardware (computer) and Apple's software (operating system) from one company.
To run Windows (the operating system) legally, you can purchase Dell hardware, HP hardware, Sony hardware, Gateway hardware... the list goes on. In fact, you can even build your own computer and install Windows on it. You are not forced by Microsoft (the maker of the operating system) to purchase Dell hardware.
People put too much stock into the varying degree's that the IT Market is at. Microsoft Create a product that is used by nearly every single Hardware Vendor, and forced down the throats of every consumer who has an interest in a computer. Big brand names don't give a toss about what OS they use, it's all about the most popular product at the time, it's just that microsoft have been consistently popular. You can hurl abuse at MS Zealouts but all it really means is they fell for the billion dollar marketing trick. It's all about image kids, Microsoft is seen as the Cutting Edge, Mature guy in the IT market, Apple is it's Younger, Cooler little guy that is only just learning to walk, Linux is seen as the geeky little sister that hides in the corner and plans world domination ala Pinky and the Brain.
Microsoft have carved a monopolistic niche, But they did so at a time when IT was really exploding amongst home users and they offered something simple that came bundled with your computer. Linux was always hard work back then, it took patience and time to really explore it. Microsoft used a GUI to great effect and Direct X pulled in more and more of the market as games got bigger and better. They planned it and it worked. There's no point trying to argue which company is better than any other because Microsoft won the monopoly race, Linux has the most ethical standpoint and advances the most compared to Ms's slow release cycle, Mac are the fastest growing IT company in the world and are constantly expanding.
With the 3 comparisons I HONESTLY can't say I hate any of the companies or ideas. Mac Make these brilliant, Boutique like PC's with their own individuality and style. PC's are much more vanilla with regards to style but are so configurable and you have the option to really expand and grow along with it. Windows is a problematic OS that has gained dominance which led to un unforseen amount of arrogance and then they let the troubles slip through. NT is a bad idea, it has gone horribly wrong and is mutating beyond Microsofts grasp, and all they can do is release a shiny new OS based on the same technology. Big on Idea's, Short on results. If they moved completely away from NT then it'd be a different Microsoft to look at.
expensive hardware, proven by the fact that apple lock their os from non apple approved intel hardware-can be hacked to run on cheaper intel pc system.
But why bother, choose ubuntu and do whatever you want on it and you'll get no agro.
What apple has done is make technology sexy and thats why they are successful when they are not offering top value hardware.
Personally. I don really hate either Apple or Wins. The only thing that bothers me is Apple's "I'm too good and pretty for your wallet" attitude. Real boutique equipment should be hand-made and hand-wired like Tube amps. Therefore the price tag. Apple does not fit as such. Wins just tries to sell you the idea that their system is reliable and stable while being easy to set up. That is just not true. I use wins only for music making and will do so until Linux catches up with it and it's just a matter of time. I believe in freedom of choice. If Win is your personal taste so be it ;) Germ:twisted:
I can't say I really hate Apple, but it's not for me. I like to use any hardware I like.
I do get annoyed by Apple devotees bashing Microsoft for being monopolistic while using Apple Software that will run only on an Apple OS that will only run on Apple hardware while also using an Apple MP3 player that is locked into Apple's iTunes that only works with Apple MP3 players. Microsoft at least affords more choices. Apple's vendor lock-in is both a strength and a weakness.
Gudanov said: I can't say I really hate Apple, but it's not for me. I like to use any hardware I like.
I do get annoyed by Apple devotees bashing Microsoft for being monopolistic while using Apple Software that will run only on an Apple OS that will only run on Apple hardware while also using an Apple MP3 player that is locked into Apple's iTunes that only works with Apple MP3 players. Microsoft at least affords more choices. Apple's vendor lock-in is both a strength and a weakness.
Let's be fair.
Microsoft software will run only on a Microsoft OS. It may run on Apple, but because Microsoft makes money by making it for them.
Also, I think the Zune will also be very Windows locked in.
And as for vendor lock in, well let's face it, you can't run Windows on anything but x86 successfully, apart from Windows CE.
[B] People put too much stock into the varying degree's that the IT Market is at. Microsoft Create a product that is used by nearly every single Hardware Vendor, and forced down the throats of every consumer who has an interest in a computer. Big brand names don't give a toss about what OS they use, it's all about the most popular product at the time, it's just that microsoft have been consistently popular. You can hurl abuse at MS Zealouts but all it really means is they fell for the billion dollar marketing trick. It's all about image kids, Microsoft is seen as the Cutting Edge, Mature guy in the IT market, Apple is it's Younger, Cooler little guy that is only just learning to walk, Linux is seen as the geeky little sister that hides in the corner and plans world domination ala Pinky and the Brain.
I would say that the Linux community is mostly seen as those communist, anti-windows, anti-american geeks who have no life but stay in their mother's basement tinkering with their pcs. [/B]
Not to mention the elitist attitude of the OSX community. They seem to feel that they can do everything better than their alternatives. They seem to be unable to grasp the concept that not everyone can pay $1000 for a midrange computer. They are rather ungrateful of anything that doesn't have a ton of excess polish on it. They seem to snub the Darwine project because "it looks uglier than a native app" same with crossover. They expect things to be handed to them and don't like to tweek things. If it isn't out of the box good it isn't worth it. Interestingly, while the OSX code may somewhat resemble Linux and BSD, the phylosophies of the two are as different as night and day. OSX seems to believe that the user should not do anything and that it has to work as is or not at all, while linux and BSD are about choice and allowing the user to do things as they like. Linux expects that the user can decide things.
From many comments I've seen about digg and slashdot, I agree with you.
Also, I think the Zune will also be very Windows locked in.
Zune isn't for me either. I think Microsoft blew it here, IMO the worst feature of the iPod is that it only works with iTunes. Since the Zune has the same limitation with Microsoft's music site, it doesn't have an advantage. I'd rather have a music player that could work with any music site. The market doesn't appear to be going that way though.
And as for vendor lock in, well let's face it, you can't run Windows on anything but x86 successfully, apart from Windows CE.
Last time I checked there was more than one company making x86 machines. But certainly Windows doesn't have the flexibility of Linux in that regard.
There's plenty I don't like about Windows too, but at least you don't have to buy the hardware from one company. But Windows users don't extoll the virtues of Microsoft the way Apple users do.
I don't hate either company though, they have their place. Apple is great for a lot of people since everything is single sourced and thus is more likely to just work. That same single sourcing just isn't my thing.
I would say that the Linux community is mostly seen as those communist, anti-windows, anti-american geeks who have no life but stay in their mother's basement tinkering with their pcs.
I don't think that's really true. On the server side Linux is very well established. The desktop side is still pretty much the domain of the geeky crowd, but I've never gotten the impression that there is an anti-American image. Outside the Linux community, I doubt anyone pays much attention to the free-as-in-freedom aspect. I don't really pay that much attention to it either even though I use a Linux desktop.
Gudanov said: I don't think that's really true. On the server side Linux is very well established. The desktop side is still pretty much the domain of the geeky crowd, but I've never gotten the impression that there is an anti-American image. Outside the Linux community, I doubt anyone pays much attention to the free-as-in-freedom aspect. I don't really pay that much attention to it either even though I use a Linux desktop.
You don't think its anti-american, read this
Lord Illidan said:
And as for vendor lock in, well let's face it, you can't run Windows on anything but x86 successfully, apart from Windows CE.
There was a version of Windows NT for PowerPC. Windows runs on all x86 machines as long as they have enough memory - try running OS X on a Genesi PPC machine or an IBM server, and you'll see exactly how much OS X is locked to Apple hardware.
3rdalbum said: There was a version of Windows NT for PowerPC.
Which actually didn't work quite well...](*,)
the iphone, new and crap :D. (go on someone quote me and disagree)
apart from the pretty side it is really exaggerated, the QVGA screen has been around for handheld devices since 2002 (i had a ipaq ppc with that..thought it was slightly larger but same thinkness) and the "amazing 5 hours of playback time" made me laugh. my Dopod 838pro owns it in everyway possible, hardware and software.
Back to the point: iPhone is not even a smart phone.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/09/iphone-will-not-allow-user-installable-applications/ http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-iphone-is-not-a-smartphone/
it does not allow thirdparty programs. Therefore if i want Skype, or msn messenger, yahoo chat...irc....stock market exchange info, or any other program i cant have it!
them showing off the on screen keyboard was soo funny i was laughing my a** off, ive been fed up with it since the pocket pc days...why do you think all the new pda phones are coming out with keyboards?!
Sirin said: I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
"must Linux users dislike Apple"?
huh? thats news to me.
(cant wait to get my hands on an iPhone..)
beefcurry said:
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/09/iphone-will-not-allow-user-installable-applications/
errr.. re-read that link again. he got the info from a "booth attendant".
and one of the commenters makes a valid point:
"What does it mean to minimize, or hide an application? Where would a dock sit? Placing mac os x application complexity would make the phone unusable."
solution: expect an iphone API so that developers , like skype, release iphone versions of their apps, so that the apps fit in with the form factor of the device.
Wasn't Apple just recently sued for the name of the Phone? That iPhone was already being used by somebody else.
I don't really dislike Apple, but I am not in a love affair with it either. The only thing I dislike about Apple is the way they treat you that you live in RichVille, everybody beside you and everybody you know has a Mac. Lots of Apple's programs are evidence of that. But I have to admit that OS X design, especially application installing, is something every OS should learn from. If Ubuntu just had a similar program installing system ... :P
Frak said: Wasn't Apple just recently sued for the name of the Phone? That iPhone was already being used by somebody else.
Yeah, Cisco owns the rights to the name so Apple can't legally use it. But I'm sure Apple will put out more propaganda, er, sorry, "adverts and notices" and the fan boys and other assorted brainwashed lemmings will happily eat it all up. It's really quite disturbing.
I've met one person that uses, or at least knows about linux that hates Apple. I don't know why though. Even when he told me his reasons: "OSX uses Unix, so it's just Linux with a pretty face."
He's sort of right, but considering all things, it was still a garbage argument.
Extreme Coder said: But I have to admit that OS X design, especially application installing, is something every OS should learn from. If Ubuntu just had a similar program installing system ... :P
Except on Linux, BSD and Syllable, the installation methods of programs are not mandated by the OS developer.
So you shouldn't be giving Apple the credit for having drag'n'drop installation - it's just as possible to do it on Windows. People who develop programs for Windows have this obsession with having you click "Next, Next, Next"... probably because the typical Windows user would be confused if asked to do anything else to install a program. I'm sure you could do it on Linux too, but Linux developers prefer that you don't have multiple copies of the same library on your hard disk (for security and anti-bloat reasons), and so that's partly the reason why they use a dependencies-based system.
Personally, I'd prefer to download a 700k program and maybe have to manually resolve some dependencies, than download a 5 megabytes program even when I already have all the libraries. My disk has two equal partitions for Windows and Linux, and although I have many more programs and files on here than I do on the Windows side, I'm only using 1 gig more on Linux (including 662 megs of swap).
Extreme Coder said: I have to admit that OS X design, especially application installing, is something every OS should learn from. If Ubuntu just had a similar program installing system ... :P
What is so hard about apt-get? :-k I find it even easier and more logical than window's install system. At least I don get my pc full of redundant libraries.
People that are still replying "what's wrong with Apple?" or "why would anyone hate Apple" PLEASE READ THE THREAD. It gives you many good reasons to mainly because Apple is against everything GNU/Linux stands for and visa versa.
I dislike Apple because it offers overpriced hardware for snobbish people... It's all about the hype.
I am totally on the opposite of the Mac image, since I value recycling older PC's and being able to canibalize parts from various PC's to form a new one.
For me hardware freedom is almost as important as software freedom. And yes, I use Linux only.
I just can't follow the Hollywood hype, when you see the heroes in the movies with a Mac, and the bad guys with a black Dell PC ! This just doesn't work for me, it is too easy s a propaganda.
I always assembled my own PC's, so Mac are just not for me.
I also dislike the elitism that Steve Jobs sports...
To me, Mac are further away from Freedom as even M$... You can't even install their MacOS on a generic hardware...
I don't use Ipods, and I don't care for their fashion-vicitm's style...
I view Apple exactly as I view Microsoft. When put in a industry leading position (iTunes/iPod) they have demonstrated that they will act exactly as Microsoft does. They use their software and hardware to limit choice and force artificial links between their products.
Do you think that the iPod is the only player capable of playing protected AACs because no other DAP maker feels like tapping the vast market of iTunes customers? Of course not. It's because Apple refuses to allow any other DAP to play protected AACs.
I hear many people saying they dislike MS because MS forces themeselves on you, yet it's painfully obvious that in this same position Apple goes to even greater lengths to force themeselves on you. Apple disables the chipset in the iPods (which can natively play WMVs) in order to keep these files off it's player, and by extension weaken the formats market presence. Conversely, MS openly advertises the Zune's ability to play AAC files.
Given my personal feelings on intelectual patents, I also have a hard time respecting a company that proudly proclaims it's managed to use over 200 intelectual patents in a single product.
Basically, Apple has shown me one thing. When they're in a position where they can call the shots, they have no aversion to forcing the use of not only their software but also their hardware.
Enverex said: People that are still replying "what's wrong with Apple?" or "why would anyone hate Apple" PLEASE READ THE THREAD. It gives you many good reasons to mainly because Apple is against everything GNU/Linux stands for and visa versa.
Well, Apple releases open source apps, so it doesn't stand against GNU...:)
Caraibes said: I dislike Apple because it offers overpriced hardware for snobbish people... It's all about the hype.
Well, for example, find a laptop that has the exact same specs as a MacBook, and then look at the price tag... The PC is gonna be more expensive... :-D
P.S: I am not "snoobish", and I use Macs because they are the best solution for desktop computers... :)
Alfa989 said: Well, Apple releases open source apps, so it doesn't stand against GNU...:)
What opensource apps?
Alfa989 said: Well, for example, find a laptop that has the exact same specs as a MacBook, and then look at the price tag... The PC is gonna be more expensive... :-D
Which Macbook?
Are you kidding me? The last time anybody had anything bad to say about Apple was when it was running on OS9, which sucked. OS X is a big part of the dream of Linux come true. it's a Unix based operating system, with really cool graphics stuff, easy to use, fun, and virus free. It's well worth the price-tag.
Now if only it were open source.
Hendrixski said: OS X is a big part of the dream of Linux come true............
Now if only it were open source.
These two comments seem to contradict each other. A big part of the dream of Linux centers around the free software movement. If you take that away, even a Microsoft rivaling market share wont be fullfiling 'the dream of Linux'.
geoken said: These two comments seem to contradict each other. A big part of the dream of Linux centers around the free software movement. If you take that away, even a Microsoft rivaling market share wont be fullfiling 'the dream of Linux'.
Well said. The dream of Linux is not to overthrow Windows. Torvalds did not create Linux to overthrow it. In fact, it was thanks to his releasing the software under the free software licence that Linux is so popular today.
Lord Illidan said: Well said. The dream of Linux is not to overthrow Windows. Torvalds did not create Linux to overthrow it. In fact, it was thanks to his releasing the software under the free software licence that Linux is so popular today.
Let's keep in mind, though, that several Linux distros (Ubuntu included) have as their goal to rival Microsoft (if not to "overthrow" it).
That is what Bug #1 is, after all.
A big part of the dream of Linux
No one should ever assume that there's a single goal of Linux as a whole. Remember, Linux is a kernel, and tons of projects use this kernel. Not all of these projects have the same exact objectives or morals (Linspire Vs. gNewSense or something).
From what I know, I would rather have Microsoft be fortunate on Vista then let OSX rein supreme, its a beautiful OS, but its made with bad intentions, no one should ever have to be forced to use something they don't want to, I like NVidia cards better than Apple cards, can I change that, not in one way, exept to emulate the hardware, thus risking going to jail.
Microsoft makes you install whatever they want you to, upgrade to whatever they want you to, and they act as a monarchy and hide truths from the people, but at least you can change your hardware.
Apple makes you install what they want, upgrade to what they want, upgrade to whatever they want, and they are fascist over hardware present.
Linux gives you the freedom to choose what you install, choose if you upgrade, and all information is present, as it is all open source, and best of all, you can choose the hardware you want, and they won't charge you a dime. A Revolution in computing.
Microsoft is a Monarchy, Apple is a Fascism, and Linux is the Revolution.
From what I know, I would rather have Microsoft be fortunate on Vista then let OSX rein supreme, its a beautiful OS, but its made with bad intentions, no one should ever have to be forced to use something they don't want to, I like NVidia cards better than Apple cards, can I change that, not in one way, exept to emulate the hardware, thus risking going to jail.
Uhh...yeah, that's wrong. I can change whatever hardware on my Mac mini I want. It wouldn't be incredibly easy, but Apple's Mac Pro invites that kind of thing. Also, there's no such thing as an "Apple card".
Apple makes you install what they want, upgrade to what they want, upgrade to whatever they want, and they are facist over hardware present.
This is because they sell computers as if they were appliances. They want the home computer to work perfectly and without fail; reliable like your microwave is reliable. They don't sell operating systems, they sell *systems*. That's it. The completed experience; the thing that takes less than ten minutes to set up and does a whole bunch of stuff right out of the box. Never consider them anything else.
mushroom said: Also, there's no such thing as an "Apple card".
I was using that term figuratively, saying that you can't replace parts, "Apple Card" being like RAM or other peripherals.
Frak said: I was using that term figuratively, saying that you can't replace parts, "Apple Card" being like RAM or other peripherals.
Yo can replace the RAM chips in whatever Mac you want...:)
geoken said: Which Macbook?
Anyone of the line... :)
Lord Illidan said: What opensource apps?
Darwin, TextEdit, and other several ones, I don't know the complete list...
GermanFafian said: What is so hard about apt-get? :-k
I find it even easier and more logical than window's install system. At least I don get my pc full of redundant libraries.
A lot of people are intimidated by terminal/prompt screens.
If I show the Terminal or the C:\ prompt to friends of mine, their response would surely be "Ugh".
I had a hard time with *apt-get* and *fink* on OS X as well. It's functioning straight out of the box in Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros.
On OS X, it's a lot more complicated. Don't believe me? Read the Fink instructions just for installation: http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/bundled/install-fast.php
Alfa989 said: Yo can replace the RAM chips in whatever Mac you want...:)
I didn't mean you couldn't replace parts, in fact the inside of a Mac Pro is very clean, you just have to lift the back switch thing to be able to free the parts, like the HD brackets, and the RAM holster, but what I meant was, you can ONLY replace it with ONLY Apple Parts.
I don't think that's true either, at least with Memory dimms and hard drives.
Video cards probably, but not HDs and memory dimms.
aysiu said: I had a hard time with *apt-get* and *fink* on OS X as well. It's functioning straight out of the box in Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros.
On OS X, it's a lot more complicated. Don't believe me? Read the Fink instructions just for installation: http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/bundled/install-fast.php
Well, for me it came with an installer...:confused:
I suppose it does...
Edited: It does include an installer...
[[IMG]http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8582/finkel2.th.png[/IMG]](http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=finkel2.png)
Frak said: I didn't mean you couldn't replace parts, in fact the inside of a Mac Pro is very clean, you just have to lift the back switch thing to be able to free the parts, like the HD brackets, and the RAM holster, but what I meant was, you can ONLY replace it with ONLY Apple Parts.
Nope, any part you want. Applies for RAM, HDD, GPU, Processor... and so on...:)
Hmm.. this is strange. I mean I love my PowerBook and have loved it for years. Although until now, I've never really realized how closed source and proprietary apple tries to be. Whoever said that Microsoft isnt as bad with proprietary and closed source, your right. Although apple does have the sources for Darwin on their website, some of which were made by apple.
Also, Apple submits some of its code every year to the FreeBSD project. So I suppose they arent *that* bad. But they definetly make themselves look really proprietary.
:-k not all bad then
Anything is better than Microsoft. Even Apple.
rai4shu2 said: Anything is better than Microsoft. Even Apple.
Apple aren't better, they're quite a bit worse, they are just smaller.
Apple is a sign of what can happen when a *nix box standardizes.
Imagine if Ubuntu decided to set some standards and say all of our apps must be developed for a specific desktop environment (such as either KDE or gnome, not both), then imagine that there was an Ubuntu specific IDE that made developing for Ubuntu super easy (including accessing lower level stuff, such as wifi and graphics).
I know this would mean Ubuntu would have to choose a hardware manufacturer, but if they did team up with someone, such as Dell, HP, or IBM, then they would be able to code specifically for the hardware they are using and add the same controls to that hardware.
This would limit developers' rights and freedoms, but would in turn make development much easier.
So there are 2 reasons I don't like apples:
- I think their commercials are funny but completely false.
- I think they show us what Linux could have done a few years ago if we weren't so busy being opinionated and getting our feelings hurt all the time.
I know that most of the way they get things done is by signing expensive contracts with various hardware manufacturers, I'm sure, but surely Linux could decide at least one platform to run really well on for the end user. (maybe there is a distro out there targeting hardware, but I haven't found them, and older releases of Ubuntu are the only ones that have come close to supporting my laptop's hardware out of the box.)
Anyway, here's hoping we can stop Apple from being the only *nix based OS that actually functions reliably on a daily basis for the end user. </superOpinionatedStatements>
OneSeventeen said:
Anyway, here's hoping we can stop Apple from being the only *nix based OS that actually functions reliably on a daily basis for the end user. </superOpinionatedStatements> Kubuntu works reliably on my daughter's desktop and Ubuntu does the same in my HP laptop (well, excluding the Broadcom thingy but it only took 5 minutes to get it working) and so have Fedora, Mepis and Suse before I decided on Ubuntu. So I have no idea what you mean by this comment :-k BTW. After reading thru this thread and and talking to a few Mac users I'm starting to see Apple under a different scope. Later. :twisted:
Alfa989 said: It is interesting how you compare a 3-year old iBook with a recent VAIO :twisted:
Ati 9700 and Pentium M recent ??? Wake up, not that you had a mac under 2Kg... :-\"
for desktop, a pc would win anyday over a mac for my use as I can easily upgrade my system parts and components at an affordable price and with ease. For laptop or notebooks, well that is a different subject. I actually love the design of the macbook pro and the OS. But more importantly, I like the fact that you can run linux on it. Windows is good as well on it, but not my cup of tea.
I would agree that Mac, like linux has less exploits & is more secure than windows and manages resources better. But every OS has their advantages.
On the other side of the argument, not many people upgrade their machines they just use it and eventually chug it off for a newer one. So a macintosh may infact still be as affordable and the quality of their OS is undoubtably good. However, it is easier to have a more supped PC than a supped Macintosh.
I've merged the Apple and OS X threads and retitled the thread to reflect the merger, since the two topics seem to overlap a lot.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Mac OS X rocks! Elegance and user experience are the reasons why.
Macintosh computers are very affordable now. Recently, I purchased a Mac Pro 3.00 GHz configuration from Apple. To get the same thing from "cheapo" DELL would have cost me $1000 more. Apple is no longer more expensive than buying a DELL computer.[/COLOR]
Macintosh Sauce said: [COLOR="DarkGreen"]Macintosh computers are very affordable now. Recently, I purchased a Mac Pro 3.00 GHz configuration from Apple. To get the same thing from "cheapo" DELL would have cost me $1000 more. Apple is no longer more expensive than buying a DELL computer.[/COLOR]
A machine with a 3Ghz (P4 I assume) processor in shouldn't cost $1000, nevermind the $2000 or so you're claiming. What was the Apple machine you bought?
Enverex said: A machine with a 3Ghz (P4 I assume) processor in shouldn't cost $1000, nevermind the $2000 or so you're claiming. What was the Apple machine you bought?
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Apple doesn't make any computers with the cheap P4, since they only use CoreDuo, Core2Duo, and dual-core Xeon processors.
You will have to go to the specs page as there are too many to list here. The dual-core Xeon processor is absolutely beautiful IMO, and two of them are even better.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html
I got the following: [IMG]http://www.seascape.us/jrhodes/macsignaturebar1-small.png[/IMG]
Soon, I am expanding it with another 4 GB FB-DIMM memory and much more HD space. [/COLOR]
Yeah, that'll be because the ones from Dell with Xeons in will have been servers. Using Xeons for a desktop is just plain silly, Core2Duo's would have been more effective, ATi cards for Linux are also a bad idea not to mention you're using slower and more expensive ECC RAM.
I'm curious why you chose that machine... and why you write in green...
I agree with it that Macs got cheaper after the transition and I would rather recommend it to someone than buy a PC with win to support the evil empire, the 13" Macbooks for 130 000Y are just killer.
Xeon configs are not really in the dells profile so I doubt that 1000USD still stands for desktops and notebooks.
For notebooks, macbooks and then toshibas. OSX really looks lovely on a notebook. For desktop, I still have to take the PCs. Aple should be worried about this thing added by microsoft that prevents dualbooting windows in parallel with Linux and OSX as well.
I would say apple should partner with linux or the open source to see that this does not get allowed as it means their future users may be sidewined again on gaming when Vista rolls out to the desktop.
They could also assist crossover office or codeweaver and wine developments.
Just my two cents. I love where apple is going though. I hope they catch on to this strategy.
Here is the series (Not the Webb and Mitchell. These are the US ones. Not as funny, but still, they can get a smile out of you).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7ReS_ur4Kc&mode=related&search=
This is brilliant ... The ads are adapted from a near-identical American campaign - the only difference is the use of Mitchell and Webb. They are a logical choice in one sense (everyone likes them), but a curious choice in another, since they are best known for the television series Peep Show - probably the best sitcom of the past five years - in which Mitchell plays a repressed, neurotic underdog, and Webb plays a selfish, self-regarding poseur. So when you see the ads, you think, "PCs are a bit rubbish yet ultimately lovable, whereas Macs are just smug, preening tossers." In other words, it is a devastatingly accurate campaign.
:D
It was all the more ironic for me, as I attended a multi-agency meeting for work a few days ago, and several people turned up with their tupperware Mac powerbooks or whatever they are called, and there was me with me £399 E-systems laptop with linux, and they were all very "oh, you don't have a Mac...." I just smiled and thought "thank God."
I then pointed out to one particular Mac-idiot after the meeting, that he'd just paid 2.5 times the amount for a machine that was inherently the same as mine, but not as good a spec as my lappy, and running a bloated UNIX based OS.
The irony of it all.
His argument is **** but he writes so so well :D
what annoys me about those ads is that it enforces the 'PC is synomynous(sp?) with windows' myth. when was the last time you seen a linux PC with a virus.
insane_alien said: what annoys me about those ads is that it enforces the 'PC is synomynous(sp?) with windows' myth. when was the last time you seen a linux PC with a virus.
That annoyed me too
insane_alien said: what annoys me about those ads is that it enforces the 'PC is synomynous(sp?) with windows' myth. when was the last time you seen a linux PC with a virus.
Yea, find that annoying too.
In more than half of the ads you could have easily substituted mac with ubuntu/linux.
you hate macs? join the club.
Apple's overconfidence ticks me off more than MS ever could...
those ads are horrible (i've only seen the american ones). i hate that mac guy. he's on my top ten list of people *not* to be treated in accordance with the ubuntu code of ethics. [ah]kill!kill!kill!!![/choo!]
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality.
this will be posted on all mac vs win flamewars
my uncle recently switched to mac... I left a gentoo and kubuntu cds at his house once, the next time i went over, they both havnt mooved. Needless to say, we havent spoken since.
Moved to the Mac OS X forum.
jeffc313 said: my uncle recently switched to mac... I left a gentoo and kubuntu cds at his house once, the next time i went over, they both havnt mooved. Needless to say, we havent spoken since.
My grandfather bought a second-hand Mac as his first computer, so I gave him an old version of Encarta encyclopedia on CD-ROM.
The next time I went over, I found the Encarta disc in his stereo system :-)
Sadly, although Mac users all reckon they're about "think different", a great many of them don't actually want to "think different" about what they run on their computers.
tigerpants said:
I then pointed out to one particular Mac-idiot after the meeting, that he'd just paid 2.5 times the amount for a machine that was inherently the same as mine, but not as good a spec as my lappy, and running a bloated UNIX based OS.
Bloated UNIX based OS?? Well, Mac OS X works and looks better than Ubuntu.... And I don't have to go through a looks-simple-but-it's-not installation process...:)
P.S: Please don't insult a 4,8 of the OS market... :(
What is all this trolling about? Completely useless
Don't see why everyone(several people at least) seems to hate APPLE. Its kind of like linux in a sense. Several people that I know don't like linux because its not as easy, and "the lack of programs" available for it. Its an OS made for nerds that don't have lives. Trust me, I've heard several untruths. Each OS has its ups and downs, I've been running Ubuntu as my primary os for 6 days now, and boy does it suck(not ubuntu itself), its just that I've gotten so used to windows. I've pretty much gotten alternatives for every single piece of software that I used to use on Win. I recently purchased a mac mini for my htpc(cant beat the price) and sent it off to compusa to get repaired, first experience with my mac will be a lasting one. When ever I get it back though, you can garuante that all software that i used on both ubuntu and windows will be on it. OOo, VLC, just to name a few. Thank god for cross-platform and the open source world makes the transition a lot easier.
I've merged this with the "what do you think" thread.
If you want to hate, hate here, but love, indifference, and mixed feelings are also a bit more welcome with this subject title.
Well I hate Apple and I hate Microsoft, but here I'll talk why I hate Apple...
Face it, he is.
- Steve Jobs is nuts.
I own a Mac Pro, cost me around 4k, I paid about 3k too much.
- Macs are rediculously overpriced, for slack hardware.
If you didn't know that, you do now.
- Mac stole the GUI from Xerox (then MS stole it from Apple... go figure)
Intel should have never invested in them.
- Mac was made to satisfy hype that it will never achieve.
'nuff said. He made his Apple ][ Team fight with his Mac team, where there was no need when the Mac was going to be released anyways.
- Steve Jobs is nuts.
OK not an insult, but, really, you have to admit, he is pretty funny.
- Steve Wozniac is funny
and finally
Deal with it, he just is.
- Steve Jobs is nuts.
1/2 seriousness
Frak
dawg said: Don't see why everyone(several people at least) seems to hate APPLE. Its kind of like linux in a sense.
Huh? It's less like Linux than Syllable is. OS X is not open-source. Even the part that Apple provides the "source code" for (Darwin) is full of closed binaries, and the whole lot requires black magic to build unless you're an Apple employee. Bug fixes to Darwin can take up to a year to be implemented, and so you don't know if someone at Apple has already fixed the bug for the next version, because Apple doesn't allow public access to its bug tracker.
Apple's hardware still must be reverse-engineered to work with real open-source operating systems, as few specifications are released.
Linux encompasses a lot of intruiging projects, but most of Apple's open-source (using the term loosely) projects are things that no-one wants to hack around on, and aren't any use to anybody. The exception to the rule is Webkit; and even that is hard for normal people to build (and Apple's engineers stopped submitting bug fixes and new features to KHTML for a while, remember that?).
Oh sure. If you mean "OS X is like Linux because you can run the same terminal commands and there's an X server", then yes; OS X is like Linux in that way. But Linux isn't about commands, it's about being open and free. Apple know nothing about openness and freedom.
whoa guy, calm down... I meant that Apple is like Linux in the sense, that people who use either are considered odd/nerdy, going against the grain. Correct me if im wrong, but aren't both OSX and Linux built around Unix? I still like them though. Great alternatives, and great programs for all.
I think Mac are somewhere realated to Unix because it is based on FreeBSD which I think shares some code with the original Unix. Linux although is its own.
I found this Unix timeline: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple.png
It does not say anything about Apple OS X, but you can see that Linux is not related to UNIX.
Frak said: Well I hate Apple and I hate Microsoft, but here I'll talk why I
Macs are rediculously overpriced, for slack hardware. I own a Mac Pro, cost me around 4k, I paid about 3k too much.
http://www.box.net/p/alfa98920530 (Download the PDF)
Frak said:
Mac stole the GUI from Xerox (then MS stole it from Apple... go figure) If you didn't know that, you do now.
Apple bought the project from Xerox, the guys at Palo Alto didn't think that the GUI could have any real use...
Frak said: Mac was made to satisfy hype that it will never achieve.
Intel should have never invested in them.
Macs are not about hype or coolness, they're about ease of use and doing things out of the box... and all those things people seem to like... :)
Alfa989 said: http://www.box.net/p/alfa98920530 (Download the PDF)
Umm... I was talking about Custom built computers, not OEM's, because my Custom cost way lless than an actual Mac, or a OEM like Dell.
Alfa989 said: Apple bought the project from Xerox, the guys at Palo Alto didn't think that the GUI could have any real use...
But I meant that they werent the innovators they claimed themselves to be.
Alfa989 said: Macs are not about hype or coolness, they're about ease of use and doing things out of the box... and all those things people seem to like... :)
You don't listen to the media much, do you?...
Like many others posting in this thread... as apple's computers evolved I pretty much hated thier computers and OS - it's only the recent OSX which is actually pretty darn nifty - yet I would have to say that I still don't like thier hardware, it may look cool, and is probably more convenient for the average person, but I like to be able to buy my computer as modular as possible with as much of a choice in hardware and software as possible .... Mac is for people that like to go to Apple dealers and just by things that have apple logos on them ... THE PC was always for the geek and the non-latté sippers that need to look at thier wallet before they choose an accounting package to buy or a new ram stick that doesn't necessarily have to be certified in order for it to work.
-although I always wished PC's would have a better BIOS like apple has.
Frak said: Umm... I was talking about Custom built computers, not OEM's, because my Custom cost way lless than an actual Mac, or a OEM like Dell.
But then, if you choose all the same good-quality components, it would cost around the same money... :-)
Frak said: But I meant that they werent the innovators they claimed themselves to be.
They were... The Xerox Star used a GUI where icons represented actions, not objects...
Frak said: You don't listen to the media much, do you?...
Why do you say so?
Alfa989 said: But then, if you choose all the same good-quality components, it would cost around the same money... :-)
If the big battery fiasco has shown us anything, it's that the supposed 'higher-end' components within the Mac are the exact same as the supposed 'bargain-basement' components found within your average Dell. In both cases they are lesser, or at best equal to, what the average person can purchase from the computer store down the street.
Buying the components from a computer store, even the exact same components, would be far cheaper for the average consumer. For example, Apple charges you $175 for 1g of 667mhz DDR 2. You'd be hard pressed to find this ram for over $100. Quality suppliers like OCZ, Crucial and Mushkin sell it in the 70-80 dollar price range. In the Mac pro they'll charge you $200 to upgrade from the 250gg Sata 3g to the 500gb Sata 3g. The drive itself only costs $200 ratail, yet they're charging that as the upgrade price.
erlyrisa said:
-although I always wished PC's would have a better BIOS like apple has.
Ten years ago, I told a PC-using friend that Macs didn't have a BIOS. He laughed; didn't believe me.
Today, most PC users still don't know that Macs don't have a BIOS. Even Linux users, who know that there's an alternative to Windows, don't seem to realise that there's an alternative to BIOS. It's been around for a quarter of a century and places ridiculous limitations on your computer's booting capabilities, yet Intel and Sun seem to be the only ones who have developed replacements.
I'll never buy another Mac, for the same reason that I'll never buy another iTunes Music card. But I do wish my PC had EFI, Open Firmware, or LinuxBIOS.
geoken said: If the big battery fiasco has shown us anything, it's that the supposed 'higher-end' components within the Mac are the exact same as the supposed 'bargain-basement' components found within your average Dell. In both cases they are lesser, or at best equal to, what the average person can purchase from the computer store down the street.
Buying the components from a computer store, even the exact same components, would be far cheaper for the average consumer. For example, Apple charges you $175 for 1g of 667mhz DDR 2. You'd be hard pressed to find this ram for over $100. Quality suppliers like OCZ, Crucial and Mushkin sell it in the 70-80 dollar price range. In the Mac pro they'll charge you $200 to upgrade from the 250gg Sata 3g to the 500gb Sata 3g. The drive itself only costs $200 ratail, yet they're charging that as the upgrade price.
Mmm... No one buys RAM from the Apple Store, I got a 512Mb stick at the Kingston Store... About the HDDs, you can go to any store, get the Drive, go home and install it without any tools...
3rdalbum said: Ten years ago, I told a PC-using friend that Macs didn't have a BIOS. He laughed; didn't believe me.
Today, most PC users still don't know that Macs don't have a BIOS. Even Linux users, who know that there's an alternative to Windows, don't seem to realise that there's an alternative to BIOS. It's been around for a quarter of a century and places ridiculous limitations on your computer's booting capabilities, yet Intel and Sun seem to be the only ones who have developed replacements.
I'll never buy another Mac, for the same reason that I'll never buy another iTunes Music card. But I do wish my PC had EFI, Open Firmware, or LinuxBIOS. ummm..... I think you mean UEFI Microsoft stated that they would consider implementing UEFI support in 2nd Generations of Vista. Linux can already support it out of the box (finally) And is being considered to be overlayed on top of BIOS chips on the market today, not to be as fast as a Mac startup, but a great increase in performance. And it works like this
UEFI Booting Process <-Pre<-|->->OS->->
<-Boot<-|->Booted->
UEFI Driver UEFI App. UEFI Boot Code ->->-> OS Loader
\ / / \ |
Platform ->->-> UEFI ->->-> UEFI OS Boot |
Init Image Loader Services |
Load Load Terminate |BIOS Boot Process
BIOS reads the CMOS to find info about your system -> BIOS Loads Device drivers and probes the hardware-> BIOS Tests & Calculates RAM ->
BIOS Probes Keyboard and figures out what kind of keyboard it is -> BIOS Performs POST (Probes again) -> BIOS Reads the MBR and from there the OS boots.I thought I'd share some insight.... :guitar: I own a few Macs and have explored into how they work many a times :lolflag:
dawg said: whoa guy, calm down... I meant that Apple is like Linux in the sense, that people who use either are considered odd/nerdy, going against the grain.
osx users are wannabes who think you can buy personality.
Frak said: Microsoft stated that they would consider implementing UEFI support in 2nd Generations of Vista.
They said that for the first generation - the earliest beta had support for it before it was pulled. But really, Microsoft is not going to support it outside the server, as it makes it easier for people to install and use alternative operating systems.
And is being considered to be overlayed on top of BIOS chips on the market today, not to be as fast as a Mac startup, but a great increase in performance.
Honestly, I don't notice a difference in startup speed between my PC and my Mac, but I *do* notice that there are fewer complicated technical concepts when setting up a dual-boot on the Mac. Just create as many partitions as you want - no need to worry about "primary", "extended", "logical" partitions, no complicated "master boot record" or restrictions of where on your disk an operating system can be.
I own a few Macs and have explored into how they work many a times :lolflag:
But Apple doesn't want you to know!
3rdalbum said: They said that for the first generation - the earliest beta had support for it before it was pulled. But really, Microsoft is not going to support it outside the server, as it makes it easier for people to install and use alternative operating systems.
MS feeling some competition eh... ;)
3rdalbum said: Honestly, I don't notice a difference in startup speed between my PC and my Mac, but I *do* notice that there are fewer complicated technical concepts when setting up a dual-boot on the Mac. Just create as many partitions as you want - no need to worry about "primary", "extended", "logical" partitions, no complicated "master boot record" or restrictions of where on your disk an operating system can be.
I do notice a difference, my Mac takes like literally 5-7 seconds to fully boot.
3rdalbum said: But Apple doesn't want you to know!
:popcorn:
TheWizzard said: osx users are wannabes who think you can buy personality.
Mmm... I use OS X and that isn't my description at all! :confused:
Alfa989 said: Mmm... No one buys RAM from the Apple Store, I got a 512Mb stick at the Kingston Store...
About the HDDs, you can go to any store, get the Drive, go home and install it without any tools...
I think you missed my point. You were trying claiming that a home built PC that ends up being cheaper than a Mac would invariably be built using lower quality components then the ones found within the Mac. I was merely trying to point out that even with the priciest components on the market, it's still costing you less to build yourself than to buy a Mac. The "home built is cheaper because you're using cheap components" argument is very weak.
geoken said: I think you missed my point. You were trying claiming that a home built PC that ends up being cheaper than a Mac would invariably be built using lower quality components then the ones found within the Mac. I was merely trying to point out that even with the priciest components on the market, it's still costing you less to build yourself than to buy a Mac. The "home built is cheaper because you're using cheap components" argument is very weak.
Kind of... I was claiming that sometimes it's the case, sometimes not...
Now, if you could just build a PC with the EXACT SAME specs as a 17" iMac (including camera, keyboard, mouse, noise proof case, etc...) and then tell me the price... :)
Macs have something ubuntu should learn of, especially their ability to work well with simpleton computer illiterates. Seriously anyone could pick up and use a mac. But because of that I choose not to use a mac, because It isnt extensable enough. I cannot modify nearly every aspect of it. MS windows has loads of customizations or hacks avaliable, far out numbers Apple Mac. Thats why I used Windows for most of my life, XP was stupidly easy to customize to death if you know how. Linux however provided me a new platform to explorer and customize in a completely different way, in that respect Linux invites the user to change code here and there, mix and match. Mac's however is not like that, it is pretty much WYSIWYG, everything is one click or very graphical. That is not a bad thing, but a combination of that and a massive supporting group of simpleton idiots (sorry for the generalization, but for me its very true.....) with a very exploitive bussiness stragedy (selling iPods at a 40% profit margin. even more on iPhone) really puts me off. If a Mac was a girl, then it would be a hot looking girl with a real bitch attitude.
beefcurry said: Mac's however is not like that, it is pretty much WYSIWYG, everything is one click or very graphical. That is not a bad thing, but a combination of that and a massive supporting group of simpleton idiots (sorry for the generalization, but for me its very true.....)
Everything one click or graphical? Well, in OS X I use the keyboard for most of my tasks like copy, paste, minimizing and closing windows and apps, navigating through menus and options... :)
Simpleton idiots? When I use Windows or Linux I am forced to use the right click menu for copying and pasting just because ctrl+c and ctrl+v are awkward to reach, isn't that designed for simpletons?... :)
How are Control-C and Control-V awkward to reach?
I do pinky and index finger for both keyboard combinations.
I find Cmd-C and Cmd-V awkward because they're too close together, and I end up having to curl my thumb underneath my index finger in order to press the combination quickly--not exactly a comfortable position.
aysiu said: How are Control-C and Control-V awkward to reach?
I do pinky and index finger for both keyboard combinations.
I find Cmd-C and Cmd-V awkward because they're too close together, and I end up having to curl my thumb underneath my index finger in order to press the combination quickly--not exactly a comfortable position.
copy that. spoke my heart out loud there :D
aysiu said: How are Control-C and Control-V awkward to reach?
I do pinky and index finger for both keyboard combinations.
You answered your own question there... It is uncomfortable to do that... For example, play a game that requires crouching a lot, like Day of Defeat. That action is set to ctrl by default... After half an hour you need to rest you little finger because it gets sore... I need to change it to the option key jut to make it playable... :)
aysiu said: I find Cmd-C and Cmd-V awkward because they're too close together, and I end up having to curl my thumb underneath my index finger in order to press the combination quickly--not exactly a comfortable position.
Well, I find it allright... But key combinations in Mac OS/OS X are designed to be easy to reach and use... Example: quitting an applicaction under Mac OS X: Cmd+Q " " " " Linux or Windows: Alt+F4 Go on, try them both and tell me what's more comfortable... :)
I don't hate Apples at all, there's an imac and also a powerbook in my house that my family is using, infact I was the one that converted my brother into using osx and he felt really comfortable with it now surprisingly... but I enjoyed them even I use a dualboot winxp/ubuntu machine myself (xp for games and certain programs).
I don't hate MS either though, I think winxp was great which I own, I don't like vista that much for it's price but it doesn't affect me that much since I'm not going to upgrade to that for a while, I do think it was a good operating system and definately is better (isn't that the case with all windows os other than winME) than the former windows, I just don't think it's worthed the price.
Interms of gaming I decided to just go with a console so I'll be sticking with winxp for a while, won't care about dx10 for a year or 2... or 3, I recently am convinced that it's not so worth it to pay the price just to play a few dx10 games (for graphics) ever since it's a vista only thing, and I've always been a console games fan (the games not the console), but that's another thing and it's off topic =p
There're a few things with microsoft that they've done really really great, I don't know how to word it but at the same time I felt kind of tired of their products, it felt like they'd keep trying to push their own products in every market, and even if you supported it, they'd still have something done wrong and having to release a better one to make you pay for it, their lifespan is just short, that is why I liked winxp, it had its problems but its benefit over win9x and the fact it lasted that long outweighted the cons.
Of course it's a matter of point of view and how you want to use your money and what it's for, but for me I thought I'd go for a mac over windows myself if I'm going to pay. it is costy but I just like osx as an operating system more so than windows, but I like windows for a bit more flexibility and software supports, in terms of operating system I just think osx is more polished.
I find the ctrl-c and ctrl-v to be MUCH easier than the Apple equivalent...and I have large hands. I've never had a pinky cramp or anything of that nature playing games before...and lots of games I played had the space-bar used as well, so taking my thumb away from that would just be silly.
As far as Macs go, I don't really care for their appearance and I despise their marketing tactics. As far as the appearance goes, I just don't like gigantic pulsating icons or their over-use of color; I'm not allergic to eye-candy (I use E17) but I just prefer something more...classy, I guess. The marketing, though, is just stupid..."Hey! You want this...it's what all the cool kids are doing...like crack! You don't want to be that nerdy guy working with the type of machines you'll work with in the workplace, do you? Come-on...just do a line or two...it'll be great!"
Henry Rayker said:
I just don't like gigantic pulsating icons or their over-use of color.
Actually buttons in Gnome are bigger that buttons in Mac OS X... :) And what's the problem with the "pulse" thingy, it's almost invisible and it's only for the buttons associated with the enter key... And I don't see the over-use of color... :)
Alfa989 said: Mmm... No one buys RAM from the Apple Store, I got a 512Mb stick at the Kingston Store...
in other words: apple hardware is overpriced.
Alfa989 said:
About the HDDs, you can go to any store, get the Drive, go home and install it without any tools...
and the mac sucks it in magically? this was about internal HHD's, not external usb drives.
TheWizzard said: and the mac sucks it in magically? this was about internal HHD's, not external usb drives.
well, he could maybe undo the screws with his teeth if he had them filed down the right way...
TheWizzard said: in other words: apple hardware is overpriced.
And the mac sucks it in magically? this was about internal HHD's, not external usb drives.
1.- Jesus... I'm tired of saying this to people, but you're wrong (http://public.box.net/alfa989 "comparison.pdf")
2.- I AM talking about the internal HD...
Alfa989 said: 1.- Jesus... I'm tired of saying this to people, but you're wrong (http://public.box.net/alfa989 "comparison.pdf")
2.- I AM talking about the internal HD...
i'm really sorry, but thinking an apple costs NOT at least twice as much as the equivalent is far away from reality.
- and i told this before: i don't know where you get this prices from, but as soon as the 17" macbook pro is around the price i pay for a laptop with the same specifications (around €1000,-) i buy one. at the moment the macbook pro is €2.789,- (http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/nlBusiness?type=biznlPRO&qprm=65643&family=MacBookPro)
- does it really fit? my apple fanboy friends use external hdd's because they think an extra disk doesn't fit. i'll tell them they're wrong.
TheWizzard said: I'm really sorry, but thinking an apple costs NOT at least twice as much as the equivalent is far away from reality.
Geez... Have you eaten anything gone bad lately?? That's like saying that anyone that thinks that Ubuntu half as good as Windows Me is totally right! Are you crazy?
BTW: I got the prices from Apple's and Dell's online stores... You can do it any day...
TheWizzard said: Does it really fit? my apple fanboy friends use external hdd's because they think an extra disk doesn't fit. i'll tell them they're wrong.
Do I look like I care about what your friends think?
Alfa989 said:
BTW: I got the prices from Apple's and Dell's online stores... You can do it any day...
i did compare apple with other laptops. as you can see in the link in my previous post, the mac is aroun €2700. i got the equivalent (better regarding some aspects) for €1100. that's €1600 for design and image ...
TheWizzard said: i did compare apple with other laptops. as you can see in the link in my previous post, the mac is aroun €2700. i got the equivalent (better regarding some aspects) for €1100.
that's €1600 for design and image ...
And ease of use, and reliability, and quality, and innovation, and durability, and software, and...?
TheWizzard said: I'm really sorry, but thinking an apple costs NOT at least twice as much as the equivalent is far away from reality.
Oh, really? You should take a look at this then: [[IMG]http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2898/zz69b3b92dpd5.th.png[/IMG]](http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zz69b3b92dpd5.png)
Alfa989 said: Oh, really? You should take a look at this then:
[[IMG]http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2898/zz69b3b92dpd5.th.png[/IMG]](http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zz69b3b92dpd5.png) Yes, but you must also respect System76 as a small manufacturer, they can't afford to keep prices low, but I must say, I like my System76 Darter Ultra much more than my Macbook Pro. I just like what System76 stands for, open source, TOTALLY open source. Not like Macs which are 80% proprietary.
I have to say that the macbook is the first apple computer that is cheaper than the other PCs...
Raffo said: I have to say that the macbook is the first apple computer that is cheaper than the other PCs...
Not really, it's been the case since the first minis...
Open source aside I prefer apple over windows, however the thing that I hate most from apple is the constrains of not enabling to customize your system as much as ubuntu does. It's simplicity drives me crazy. Apple's message to it's costumers is "Life is full of complexity, therefore our macs are so simple to use even a caveman can do it. Because we know you like simple stuff"
Alfa989 said: Oh, really? You should take a look at this then:
[[IMG]http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2898/zz69b3b92dpd5.th.png[/IMG]](http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zz69b3b92dpd5.png)
it's the exception that proves the rule.
TheWizzard said: it's the exception that proves the rule.
Jesus... I'll stop trying to argue about anything with you because don't want or don't understand statements anyone gives you...
Alfa989 said: And ease of use, and reliability, and quality, and innovation, and durability, and software, and...?
Spoken like a true fanboy.
Sirin said: I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
I think I can lay out the main reasons I hate Apple:
- Whenever they have a "Switch" testimonial, it's always some idiot that can't figure out how to plug the machine in or push the power button, or can't figure out how to use a USB camera (Hint: The driver is usually on the CD-ROM that came with it!).
- Apple can't really find anything that Mac OS X can do that Windows can't, so they say "It's virus proof!", the problem is that it really isn't, their latest security patch for Mac OS X just plugged 45 holes, and that adds to the hundreds more that have been patched over the years, meaning that OS X isn't really all that secure, just that nobody bothers with it, and they never tell you that there are OS's for the PC like Linux that don't have a virus problem.
- Apple is two-faced and wishy washy when it comes to things like DRM, they speak out against it, but they won't stand up against it, because they love it just as much as the RIAA does, because the whole point of selling incompatible music is to hook you into buying pricey hardware (ala iPod) to play it on.
- If Darwin was really that great, there would be other operating systems built around it, yeah the Mach microkernel is neat, but it relies too heavily on BSD, so it might as well be a monolithic kernel, having Mach up and running with the BSD section crashing doesn't help you at all.
- In the late 90's everyone used Real media formats, until Realplayer became bloated spyware that tried to take over and hose your entire computer, Quicktime could have been what everyone used except now it's bloated adware that insists on installing iTunes piggybacked.
:popcorn:
izanbardprince said:
- If Darwin was really that great, there would be other operating systems built around it, yeah the Mach microkernel is neat, but it relies too heavily on BSD, so it might as well be a monolithic kernel, having Mach up and running with the BSD section crashing doesn't help you at all.
Some people did try to put together Darwin distributions, but Apple basically killed these off by not providing any of the basics that non-Apple employees would need to develop the software. The build procedure was horrendous, Darwin relied on proprietry binaries, and Apple's bug tracker was not open to the public (so no hackers could see which bugs were currently being worked on).
Now all the projects have died.
Alfa989 said: Jesus... I'll stop trying to argue about anything with you because don't want or don't understand statements anyone gives you...
now i see the light. apple hardware is indeed better and cheaper. let's praise steve jobs. hallelujah.
TheWizzard said: now i see the light. apple hardware is indeed better and cheaper. let's praise steve jobs. hallelujah.
You don't get it, do you?
I got to the point that you are either stupid or too ******* blind, because you'll hate Apple whatever happens in your life... So good luck and bye...
3rdalbum said: Some people did try to put together Darwin distributions, but Apple basically killed these off by not providing any of the basics that non-Apple employees would need to develop the software. The build procedure was horrendous, Darwin relied on proprietry binaries, and Apple's bug tracker was not open to the public (so no hackers could see which bugs were currently being worked on).
Now all the projects have died.
So in otherwords, Apple deliberately sabotaged the open source Darwin projects, while at the same time, allegedly promoting open source.
Kind of like how they stole Konqueror, heavily modified it, then released all their patches in large undigestible blobs.
izanbardprince said: So in otherwords, Apple deliberately sabotaged the open source Darwin projects, while at the same time, allegedly promoting open source.
Kind of like how they stole Konqueror, heavily modified it, then released all their patches in large undigestible blobs.
Exactly, just like how they forced BeOS into oblivion. They clearly take more then they give. I suppose the only good thing they gave back is to show us how Unix like systems could potentially look nice after a few million has been invested into it.
beefcurry said: Exactly, just like how they forced BeOS into oblivion.
It wasn't Apple. It was M$ by not allowing the vendors to pre-install BeOS in their machines, because they'd be forced to pay more for OEM Windows licenses... :(
Alfa989 said: It wasn't Apple. It was M$ by not allowing the vendors to pre-install BeOS in their machines, because they'd be forced to pay more for OEM Windows licenses... :(
Yes but that was due to BeOS being optimized for PPC's, but since Apple would release the arch. for viewing and developing of the G3, BeOS was forced to move into the x86 market. Then M$ told vendors that BeOS could'nt be visible to the end user. It could be installed, but had to be manually booted from.
Frak said: Yes but that was due to BeOS being optimized for PPC's, but since Apple would release the arch. for viewing and developing of the G3, BeOS was forced to move into the x86 market. Then M$ told vendors that BeOS could'nt be visible to the end user. It could be installed, but had to be manually booted from.
And? It was Microsoft, not Apple...
BeOS wouldn't have had to butt heads against Microsoft, if it wasn't for Apple hiding Arch. information. :roll:
The people to blame for BeOS' failing were BeOS itself, Apple and MS.
What are your thoughts on Apple Inc.? Do you think that they are a marketing company that just takes advantage of the ignorant consumer who follows the trends or do they genuinely care for their customer and make products that are useful, and simple to use?
Personally I do not like Apple. I do not like the way their products as superior and all sleek and simple. Look at Apple TV, you pay $300 for it and it doesn't really stream anything other than proprietary Apple stuff. The X360 for instance you can play games on AND stream media to it. While the X360 is also proprietary.. although only in video streaming, but then again you can still get TVersity and stream pretty much anything. The only thing I coudn't get to stream through TVersity are my wma music files. The iPod is a pretty good product, but IMO there are other products out there that do just as well for sometimes less $. AFAIK the Zune was not accepted with open arms because it didn't have a fancy click wheel. Why is the click wheel such a big deal? Can't you just as easy click down on the wheel and navigate through your media?
What are your thoughts.. does Apple really have good products? Do they really care about their customers or is there main goal to reel those "suckers" in with all their trendy products?
Personally I do not like Apple but I would like to see what the general consensus about Apple is.
personally, I think no company wants its consumers to have every advantage; all that companies want is to make the most profit possible, to the detriment of the consumers.
While apple fanboyism is just as ugly as windows fanboyism (or even linux fanboyism), apple does create pretty sleek products, the best example of which is the iPhone (that looks awesome, even though its expensive, for what it has it is fairly priced)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
Sums up my thoughts.
their products are average, but I hate the company.
I think Apple is far worse than Microsoft. Apple is devoted to creating closed platforms, as Steve Jobs has repeatedly said. I'd rather have an open platform with Windows (with tons of third party software, the ability to upgrade my hardware myself, etc.) than a closed DRMed computer which I can't touch. MS is a monopoly, but it remembers the days before it was one... it doesn't try as hard as Apple to mesh hardware and software.
Hex_Mandos said: I think Apple is far worse than Microsoft. Apple is devoted to creating closed platforms, as Steve Jobs has repeatedly said. I'd rather have an open platform with Windows (with tons of third party software, the ability to upgrade my hardware myself, etc.) than a closed DRMed computer which I can't touch. MS is a monopoly, but it remembers the days before it was one... it doesn't try as hard as Apple to mesh hardware and software.
The hardware isn't really where the profit is these days.
Microsoft could care less about the razor thin margins of selling you a computer when they invest next to nothing in the $100 copy of Windows that comes with the computer.
Hex_Mandos said: I think Apple is far worse than Microsoft. Apple is devoted to creating closed platforms, as Steve Jobs has repeatedly said. I'd rather have an open platform with Windows (with tons of third party software, the ability to upgrade my hardware myself, etc.) than a closed DRMed computer which I can't touch. MS is a monopoly, but it remembers the days before it was one... it doesn't try as hard as Apple to mesh hardware and software.
I agree Apple is worse then Microsoft, I would buy a Windows machine over an Apple any day, I would buy Dell over Apple...
Friends don't let friends buy Apple Computers!
maniacmusician said: their products are average, but I hate the company.Again I agree, since I can now hold a non-neutral controversial opinion...the company is the worse.
Anything but an iPod (iRiver kicks an iPod's butt) Love OSX I Like their computer hardware since the switch to Intel cpus The rest of their hardware is so-so Not real enthused about the company.
JLB said: Anything but an iPod (iRiver kicks an iPod's butt)
Love OSX I Like their computer hardware since the switch to Intel cpus The rest of their hardware is so-so Not real enthused about the company.
Can't say I like OS X.
OS X is more of the whole DRM everywhere, Treacherous Computing crap.
Ubuntu would be my favorite OS if it wasn't for a few nagging issues with hardware, I hear Feisty Fawn is better with wireless chipsets, I'll probably try it out, but til it can use my laptop's wireless chipset, I'm stuck on Windows.
Now why didn't you guys have this thread BEFORE I bought the Mini. :(
It does make a cute little edgy computer though :lolflag: OS X and I just couldn't mesh.
izanbardprince said: Can't say I like OS X.
OS X is more of the whole DRM everywhere, Treacherous Computing crap.
Ubuntu would be my favorite OS if it wasn't for a few nagging issues with hardware, I hear Feisty Fawn is better with wireless chipsets, I'll probably try it out, but til it can use my laptop's wireless chipset, I'm stuck on Windows.
I should have qualified my OSX statement, Don't know why I didn't.... Everybody I turned on to OSX from Windows doesn't bug me anymore for free computer advice :)
I give apple more respect than microsoft... but hate them more and more. Recently their products have been getting shittier and not as good. The thing that pisses me off the most is that i killed my old ipod by getting water in it, and when I got a new video I tried playing games while listening to music, but it didn't work! It froze up and started skipping! Despite that, I am planning on replacing my broken (to some extent) laptop with a macbook which will hopefully triple boot OSX, Linux, and Vista
I love Apple. I love OS X. I love my iPod.
Ok, I'm slightly fanboyish, but I do like Apple products. The hardware/software integration is just perfect.
JLB said: Anything but an iPod (iRiver kicks an iPod's butt)
Love OSX I Like their computer hardware since the switch to Intel cpus The rest of their hardware is so-so Not real enthused about the company.
izanbardprince said: Can't say I like OS X.
OS X is more of the whole DRM everywhere, Treacherous Computing crap.
Ubuntu would be my favorite OS if it wasn't for a few nagging issues with hardware, I hear Feisty Fawn is better with wireless chipsets, I'll probably try it out, but til it can use my laptop's wireless chipset, I'm stuck on Windows.
Jellicletrb said: Now why didn't you guys have this thread BEFORE I bought the Mini. :(
It does make a cute little edgy computer though :lolflag: OS X and I just couldn't mesh.
JLB said: I should have qualified my OSX statement, Don't know why I didn't.... Everybody I turned on to OSX from Windows doesn't bug me anymore for free computer advice :)
meheheh said: I love Apple. I love OS X. I love my iPod.
Ok, I'm slightly fanboyish, but I do like Apple products. The hardware/software integration is just perfect.
OS X is what I like least about Apple, OS X is a completely unreliable and restraining OS...I would choose XP over OS X
currently The Top OS's that exist are:
Wolvix Sabayon NepaLinux rPath Aquamorph ZenWalk
OS X illustrates complete lack of freedom and hypocrisy, especially with Apples' adamant exploitation of slave-like female labor in China.
Apple is pure evil!!
If you have a conscience do NOT buy Apple products!
I believe Apple is the better of the two evils (Microsoft and Apple). My first internet pc was an Apple (Performa 6400). And I still have it.
My love for Apple is mostly because of Steve Jobs. Both of us share a common past. As with the late Dave Thomas.
[FONT=Palatino Linotype]I appreciate Apple's design sensibilities, and the tight hardware/software integration. If I couldn't run Linux, I might use an Apple--these days anyway. When I was using DOS/3.1 it was another story. Mostly because I could get at the innards when something went wrong--unlike with Apple machines, where just opening it up invalidates the warranty. My problem with Apple these days is a.) while their products do more or less exactly what they're designed to do, and do it well, if you want to do something they weren't designed to do you're SOL, and b.) DRM makes me cranky. It's my media content, man, so let me do what I want with it. The only Apple product I own is an older Shuffle I got for running. And I use a Python script to generate the track database from MP3s copied to it in my file manager instead of iTunes.
My favourite OS comparison book is still Neal Stephenson's *In the Beginning...was the Command Line*. I think it's mostly a collection of essays he wrote for *Wired.* [/FONT]
RAV TUX said: OS X is what I like least about Apple, OS X is a completely unreliable and restraining OS...I would choose XP over OS X
currently The Top OS's that exist are:
Wolvix Sabayon NepaLinux rPath Aquamorph ZenWalk
OS X illustrates complete lack of freedom and hypocrisy, especially with Apples' adamant exploitation of slave-like female labor in China.
Apple is pure evil!!
If you have a conscience do NOT buy Apple products!
maybe you should link to the websites of those distros (they are linux distros... right?) cause i have never heard of any of them besides sabayon where my wireless doesnt work which usually is an indication if i will attempt to use that distro =P
and i have to disagree on unreliable and restraining, it is not any more restraining then any other closed source OS (aka windows xp)... and its 100X more reliable then windows xp (because of the tight hardware + software intregration... i have yet to have a mac os x computer crash on me and i use one every day at school and have two at home)
and apples use of "slave labor".. how does that effect the outcome of their operating system? Sure its wrong, but honestly i think instead of boycotting apple, why not make the chinese goverment finally crack down on this kind of stuff? Apple is by far not the only company that uses cheap labor in china.
My opinion on apple: they are ok... besides the slave labor thing. Their computers really are stable, no matter what people say, because they have the luxury of only having their OS run on their hardware, so the drivers are rock solid. Like i said before, there is nothing really more restraining about mac os x then there is with any other closed source operating system...
and for the ipod, it annoys me that they refused to support .OGG and .FLAC, when they could easily do it since they are both open source, so therefore i dont buy ipods.
and i also kinda like apple more because steve jobs is also the CEO of pixar (where he gets payed like 1 dollar a day... lol), which has made and still does make amazing animated movies.
It's amazing how many people say "I never had a crash on Mac OS X". Have those guys been using their computers, or just looking at them? :-P
I remember my university days when the network would go down and all the G4s in the room would immediately crash. In an exam situation, I once had to be moved between 3 different computers because they kept crashing; luckily I really knew my stuff and I still passed the exam.
RAV TUX said: OS X is what I like least about Apple, OS X is a completely unreliable and restraining OS...I would choose XP over OS X
OS X illustrates complete lack of freedom and hypocrisy, especially with Apples' adamant exploitation of slave-like female labor in China.
Apple is pure evil!!
If you have a conscience do NOT buy Apple products!
Cheers, Tux. Couldn't have said it better. Apple is MUCH MORE worse than Microsoft. OS X is complete DRM infested crap -all you cool MS haters, yeah, it's much more worse than Vista-. I've been trying to install Ubuntu on this brand new iMac i brought i three months ago when I listened to those -expletive- mac fanboys who preach their mantra without knowing a damn about what they're talking about. I've haven't been able to install pure Ubuntu -yet. The hardware is designed to run *only* OS X.
Couldn't you guys have had this thread three months ago :( .
Deleted by poster.
i thought the 12inch powerbook was a great little machine and would have loved to have one. and no one can make the gap between a 99 watt lightbulb and a 100 watt lightbulb seem so wide, but the 'creep' factor of apple is way too huge for me to ever buy anything from them. i hate the little creep in their ads, the beedy little eyes of their leader make my flesh crawl and a visit to their stores reminds me of that old show 'the prisoner' (imagine the terror you'd feel being chased across a beach by a giant ipod).
I like Apple's technical designs, especially the work Apple had done to develop human-computer interfaces during its early era.
I don't like Apple's completely proprietary designs and business strategy. It's far worse than Microsoft. It is also one of the reasons why Apple computers lost the PC market to IBM clones.
3rdalbum said: It's amazing how many people say "I never had a crash on Mac OS X". Have those guys been using their computers, or just looking at them? :-P
I remember my university days when the network would go down and all the G4s in the room would immediately crash. In an exam situation, I once had to be moved between 3 different computers because they kept crashing; luckily I really knew my stuff and I still passed the exam.
The mini that I'm using right now (running Ubuntu 6.10 only now), wouldn't crash, per se, when it was running OS X, but it was constantly "losing" the keyboard. Every couple of hours I'd have to restart it to get my keyboard back. One of the main reasons that I ditched OS X.
Apple reminds me a lot of Volkswagon, with their ads for "superior German engineering" when in reality they are constantly rated as producing cars with some of the worst build quality in the world. The best Apple fanboy moment I've had was when one said it takes "mere" months to learn to use OS X and acted like the fact that it takes a significant portion of your life to be able to use it makes it usable (in contrast, usability testing shows that right off the bat users find KDE more usable than Windows). But it could just be that it takes a day to learn to use each look and feel in OS X, and when you have a hundred of them, they add up.
And their hardware is abysmally low quality. They contract out work to the lowest bidder, get back their horrid results, then charge as if they had to pay a buttload for premium quality. The low quality of Macbooks is a pretty good example of that. They are significantly more expensive than competing models yet are less powerful, heavier, and get pathetic battery life, even after Apple switched to Acer for manufacturing. And even with their constant problems people are dumb enough to still buy them!
It's amazing how many people say "I never had a crash on Mac OS X". Have those guys been using their computers, or just looking at them?
I've used OS X extensively, and never for more than two hours without it locking up. Or maybe it was just actually doing work for 10 hours. Because if you consider OS X's insanely bad performance, that is possible. That's what happens when you try to update your system to a FreeBSD 5 base by just bolting it on as a server to a decrepit, dead kernel from 15 years ago. You see, that doesn't count as a crash though, because OS X pretended to still be functional, instead of reporting a helpful error to the user. ;)
RAV TUX said: OS X is what I like least about Apple, OS X is a completely unreliable and restraining OS...I would choose XP over OS X
currently The Top OS's that exist are:
Wolvix Sabayon NepaLinux rPath Aquamorph ZenWalk
OS X illustrates complete lack of freedom and hypocrisy, especially with Apples' adamant exploitation of slave-like female labor in China.
Apple is pure evil!!
If you have a conscience do NOT buy Apple products!
I hate to tell you this buddy, but almost all our jobs have gone to China where they exploit women and children to death or damn near it.
You used to have the choice to buy American, now you really just don't, it's sad yes, our government has sold us out, they've entered us into an illegal war that has us hemmoraging cash and has our brave men and women in uniform (which it is not their fault and I do respect them) dying right and left, and the reason a lot of people have to join the military is because it's either do that or flip burgers because thats the only civilian job left really, college just gets more and more expensive every year and the federal aide keeps getting stolen to fund the Debacle in Iraq and projects like the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, and subsidies to big corporations like Wal-Mart who don't need them, to "create jobs".
Our whole country is ran by a bunch of hypocritical douchebags who need to be taken out into the street and shot in the head.
Anyway, off my soapbox....
<snip>
I dislike Apple, bad customer support (for me). All the Mac users Ive met act as if Macs are superior (also personal opinion and only a generalization from my view) and Apples marketing tactics are no where near ethical. Not to mention Green Peace listed it as one of the most un-environmentally friendly tech companies.
i think that apple makes some really really nice hardware. probably the best in terms of design IMO. the software is fairly nice too, but they are not innovative in terms of software at all. thats hardly surprising considering that apple are primarily a hardware company.
izanbardprince said: Our whole country is ran by a bunch of hypocritical douchebags who need to be taken out into the street and shot in the head.
But...then some poor minimum wage schmuck would have to wash the street. Have pity :lolflag:
3rdalbum said: It's amazing how many people say "I never had a crash on Mac OS X". Have those guys been using their computers, or just looking at them? :-P
I remember my university days when the network would go down and all the G4s in the room would immediately crash. In an exam situation, I once had to be moved between 3 different computers because they kept crashing; luckily I really knew my stuff and I still passed the exam.
i have NEVER had a crash (as in kernel panic with the whole operating system crashing and having to restart the computer) with mac os x. and i reiterate again, i use it every day at school (our school uses mac os x computers) and there are two mac os x computers in our house.
Jellicletrb said: The mini that I'm using right now (running Ubuntu 6.10 only now), wouldn't crash, per se, when it was running OS X, but it was constantly "losing" the keyboard. Every couple of hours I'd have to restart it to get my keyboard back. One of the main reasons that I ditched OS X.
Hey jellicletrb, I'd be greatful if you tell me how you run pure ubuntu on your mac. I ditched OS X a few days ago, and have been living since on live CD. I installed Ubuntu 6.06, and when I boot the comp
GRUB loading stage1.5
GRUB loading, please wait...
stays on forever. Any help greatly appriciated :).
The folks at Apple are great at attention to detail when it comes to design. Stuff like the magnetic power cord on the Macbook, its sudden motion sensor and the proximity sensor on the iPhone are really simple but smart additions. I learned to hate the OSX's setup program quite quickly as far as connecting to a wireless router. From the start, they were trying to sell us Airport routers. The setup program's wireless configurator would only connect to an airport router. For my *normal* wireless router that is far more popular than an Airport router, it would list the essid, but it would not give me a proper setup wizard. It instead just asked for a "Password", which I assumed to be my WEP key. Well, it didn't work and it was a big waste of time. What's worse? It didn't tell me why it didn't work; it just told me "It didn't work." I eventually skipped it and set it up within OSX, which was equally not fun. In the system utilities I found numerous Airport router configurators, but it eventually turned out that my own wireless router, because it is not an airport router, does not go in that spot. It worked in the end, though. (Strangely, connecting with the macbook almost always slaughters the router forcing it to be reset, but I think that's more the router's fault). Now, try dropping that thing about 2 feet onto a carpet. *Boom* hinge is off center.
Luckily, that MacBook which I quickly grew to hate was not mine. I so far own no Apple products. Some fool downloaded Quicktime (and thus bloody iTunes and, of course, APPLE UPDATER) on the Windows computer. I promptly deleted all of it and replaced them with Quicktime Alternative. After that, I could again operate my web browser without it crashing every 5 minutes. (Does Apple even test their web site in Windows? Windows Quicktime has a nasty habit of crashing Firefox and sometimes even Internet Explorer completely out of the blue, and their web site is packed with that darn thing). Then there's the whole Quicktime Pro thing. Anyone who says Apple software "Just works" obviously has not tried: Viewing a Quicktime video in full screen, saving a browser-embedded Quicktime video, or figuring out why certain useful menu options are greyed out. Quicktime Alternative "just works;" Quicktime, however, does not. I for one refuse to pay any kind of money for a media player which is The Only Choice to play Apple's media format. How about I just don't watch Quicktime videos, thus miss all that juicy content on Apple's web site which tries so hard to sell me Apple products? If Adobe could charge money for the Flash Player, I bet they could. The thing is they are smart enough to realize: They can't. If you want a media format to catch on, you need to have assurance that the format can have a wide audience; that everybody can play that format. Windows Media Player, for example, provides its users with the ability to play WMV files as well as a good reason to use it: Its library features kick iTunes' ***. Quicktime? It gives us a noisy updater, an ugly interface that does not blend in and an inability to perform any "professional" operations on any file it insists to play.
People like iTunes because it makes their iPod work. What they do not realize is that every good MP3 player (Creative Zen, for example, though huge and ugly and with a bad screen) is plug & play: Put it in your computer, file manager opens, drag and drop your files, and it will play them without complaint. No software installation at all. (*Maybe* a driver).
My DS with homebrew equipment costs less than an iPod and works as well as an iPod at media playing. It plays more formats and it does cross-fading, too. (Without the help of iTunes).
iPhone is bloody expensive, patent-thirsty ("And BOY did we patent it! [All 100 of them]" -Steve Jobs at his Macworld keynote speech), and just not sensible. I, for one, am going to hold out for the far more useful OpenMoko project to roll out a PDA-centric device. I can tell you right now that it will be: More open, less expensive, more capable within a month of its release, and like everything heavily inspired by any useful innovation of the iPhone (thus defeating the purpose of the iPhone). If the iPhone wants my attention, Apple needs to open up a little.
izanbardprince said: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
Sums up my thoughts.
- The "Everything just works" mantra is a marketing scheme. It isn't meant to literally say nothing will ever go wrong on a mac ever. The problems listed on that page are small ones with easy fixes.
- This argument is just ignorant. Of course mac ads use attractive, young, people. What marketing moron would have a bunch of nerdy unattractive people(presumably like the one who wrote that article) representing their product? It's a basic marketing fundamental to associate your product with cool, hip things. And their marketing campaign is working, proven by the increasing popularity of apple products.
It also criticizes apples community. "Part of the Mac community? It's a computer, not a social movement, ***hole!" Well maybe no one explained to you that this is a linux community, and you are a part of it. Why shouldn't there be a mac community as well?
And then he criticizes iTunes. He says it sucks without even being able to install it. Pretty much everyone I know has installed iTunes successfully if only to try it. I don't know how this idiot failed to do so, but he feels justified complaining about iTunes without even using it first.
I like apple because for the most part their products "just work". They have an attractive design, and usability. I don't know how all of you who in this thread said OSX crashes all the time got it to crash. I use OSX everyday at school and have never had it crash once. OSX has compatibility with graphic and sound programs that linux doesn't. The linux counterparts are awful in comparison. Audacity, the gimp, and ardour are essentially useless to me. I don't care if it is open source or not. Not everything needs to be open source if you ask me. We don't ask car manufacturers to reveal their blueprints, why would we demand open source software from developers? Other industries don't have this demand put on them. I am buying a computer to get things done, not support a software movement.
you can install quicktime standalone,.... you just have to find the link since apple is a jerk and hides the link
EDIT: they dont even hide the link anymore! just go to quicktime.com.... go to downloads and then select windows xp and there it is, quicktime with itunes and just quicktime.
I used to have a Mac, and I thought it was great. Compared to Windows I had almost completely hassle free computing. No viruses, no spyware, no crashes. It showed me that life without MS was possible.
My house got burgled and my Mac was stolen so I decided to give Linux a go and haven't looked back since enjoying the freedom that it offers.
However for someone completely clueless on computers I wouldn't hesitate to recommend they get a Mac. I fix my girlfriend's, her sister's and her mom's computers, and since her mom got a mac I haven't had to help her at all. In the same period both my girlfriend's and her sister's Window installations have been completely destroyed by a mixture of user incompetence and malware.
the.dark.lord said: Hey jellicletrb, I'd be greatful if you tell me how you run pure ubuntu on your mac. I ditched OS X a few days ago, and have been living since on live CD. I installed Ubuntu 6.06, and when I boot the comp
GRUB loading stage1.5
GRUB loading, please wait...
stays on forever. Any help greatly appriciated :).
Uh, well....I don't know.
But one thing that I will point out. When I first tried to install, I wanted to install 6.06 because of the long term support. And, it acted exactly the same way that yours does. It would try to load GRUB, and then just stop. I thought that it might have just been a flaw in my CD, it's getting pretty old, and I had downloaded 6.10 a few weeks ago. When I installed Edgy and let it reformat the drive to start fresh, it was smooth sailing from then on. I'm sorry that I didn't look any further into it, but I was sure that it was a CD issue.:(
I've merged this with the other thread on the same topic.
I have never used any Apple products really except quicktime (I prefer quicktime to Windows Media player, bu since WMP11 came out WMP is pretty good) I do not know how well they make their products it is jsut that their marketing tactics annoy me and so I don't buy any of their products.
ubuntuman001 said: personally, I think no company wants its consumers to have every advantage; all that companies want is to make the most profit possible, to the detriment of the consumers.
While apple fanboyism is just as ugly as windows fanboyism (or even linux fanboyism), apple does create pretty sleek products, the best example of which is the iPhone (that looks awesome, even though its expensive, for what it has it is fairly priced) Only when you can turn a product for no charge, to have the community help on your creation, can both the consumer and advertiser hold an advantage.
The great thing about Mac's is that it is no longer a matter of this OS or that OS. I tripleboot OSX/UBUNTU/XP, that way i can run whatever OS suits the situation the best (my XP partion dosen't get much of a look in though, it has to be said!)
OSX just works, regardless of user experiance and ability. I wouldn't, and don't hesitate to recommend OSX to ANYBODY. I certainly couldn't say the same about Linux. Both OS' have their own place.
Cheers, chrisj303
GuitarHero said:
I like apple because for the most part their products "just work". They have an attractive design, and usability. I don't know how all of you who in this thread said OSX crashes all the time got it to crash. I use OSX everyday at school and have never had it crash once. OSX has compatibility with graphic and sound programs that linux doesn't. The linux counterparts are awful in comparison. Audacity, the gimp, and ardour are essentially useless to me. I don't care if it is open source or not. Not everything needs to be open source if you ask me. We don't ask car manufacturers to reveal their blueprints, why would we demand open source software from developers? Other industries don't have this demand put on them. I am buying a computer to get things done, not support a software movement.
My thoughts exactly, well put..
chrisj303
Polygon said: maybe you should link to the websites of those distros (they are linux distros... right?) cause i have never heard of any of them besides sabayon where my wireless doesnt work which usually is an indication if i will attempt to use that distro =P
and apples use of "slave labor".. how does that effect the outcome of their operating system? Sure its wrong, but honestly i think instead of boycotting apple, why not make the chinese goverment finally crack down on this kind of stuff? Apple is by far not the only company that uses cheap labor in china.
My opinion on apple: they are ok... besides the slave labor thing.
and for the ipod, it annoys me that they refused to support .OGG and .FLAC, when they could easily do it since they are both open source, so therefore i dont buy ipods.
All the distros listed are linked...indirectly to the CafeLinux Forum where I have spotlighted each one of them....
of those rPath is the most polished and professional...I would highly suggest give rPath a try especially if you like Gnome....rPath is perhaps the best OS that utilizes Gnome
the.dark.lord said: Cheers, Tux. Couldn't have said it better. Apple is MUCH MORE worse than Microsoft. OS X is complete DRM infested crap -all you cool MS haters, yeah, it's much more worse than Vista-. I've been trying to install Ubuntu on this brand new iMac i brought i three months ago when I listened to those -expletive- mac fanboys who preach their mantra without knowing a damn about what they're talking about. I've haven't been able to install pure Ubuntu -yet. The hardware is designed to run *only* OS X.
Couldn't you guys have had this thread three months ago :( .
I am sorry to hear of your mis-fortune, but we learn by our mistakes, or in the best case scenario by observing others
fuscia said: i thought the 12inch powerbook was a great little machine and would have loved to have one. and no one can make the gap between a 99 watt lightbulb and a 100 watt lightbulb seem so wide, but the 'creep' factor of apple is way too huge for me to ever buy anything from them. i hate the little creep in their ads, the beedy little eyes of their leader make my flesh crawl and a visit to their stores reminds me of that old show 'the prisoner' (imagine the terror you'd feel being chased across a beach by a giant ipod).
They are a bit creepy
samjh said:
I don't like Apple's completely proprietary designs and business strategy. It's far worse than Microsoft. It is also one of the reasons why Apple computers lost the PC market to IBM clones.
agreed
Jellicletrb said: The mini that I'm using right now (running Ubuntu 6.10 only now), wouldn't crash, per se, when it was running OS X, but it was constantly "losing" the keyboard. Every couple of hours I'd have to restart it to get my keyboard back. One of the main reasons that I ditched OS X.
again I am sorry you had such a bad experience
Bloodfen Razormaw said: Apple reminds me a lot of Volkswagon, with their ads for "superior German engineering" when in reality they are constantly rated as producing cars with some of the worst build quality in the world. The best Apple fanboy moment I've had was when one said it takes "mere" months to learn to use OS X and acted like the fact that it takes a significant portion of your life to be able to use it makes it usable (in contrast, usability testing shows that right off the bat users find KDE more usable than Windows). But it could just be that it takes a day to learn to use each look and feel in OS X, and when you have a hundred of them, they add up.
And their hardware is abysmally low quality. They contract out work to the lowest bidder, get back their horrid results, then charge as if they had to pay a buttload for premium quality. The low quality of Macbooks is a pretty good example of that. They are significantly more expensive than competing models yet are less powerful, heavier, and get pathetic battery life, even after Apple switched to Acer for manufacturing. And even with their constant problems people are dumb enough to still buy them!
I've used OS X extensively, and never for more than two hours without it locking up. Or maybe it was just actually doing work for 10 hours. Because if you consider OS X's insanely bad performance, that is possible. That's what happens when you try to update your system to a FreeBSD 5 base by just bolting it on as a server to a decrepit, dead kernel from 15 years ago. You see, that doesn't count as a crash though, because OS X pretended to still be functional, instead of reporting a helpful error to the user. ;)
I am glad to see that there are people smart enough to see through Apples bunny slippers
izanbardprince said: I hate to tell you this buddy, but almost all our jobs have gone to China where they exploit women and children to death or damn near it.
You used to have the choice to buy American, now you really just don't, it's sad yes, our government has sold us out, they've entered us into an illegal war that has us hemmoraging cash and has our brave men and women in uniform (which it is not their fault and I do respect them) dying right and left, and the reason a lot of people have to join the military is because it's either do that or flip burgers because thats the only civilian job left really, college just gets more and more expensive every year and the federal aide keeps getting stolen to fund the Debacle in Iraq and projects like the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, and subsidies to big corporations like Wal-Mart who don't need them, to "create jobs".
Our whole country is ran by a bunch of hypocritical douchebags who need to be taken out into the street and shot in the head.
Anyway, off my soapbox....
This is why I buy Fujitsu....[COLOR=Red]made in Japan[/COLOR]
beefcurry said: <snip>
I dislike Apple, bad customer support (for me). All the Mac users Ive met act as if Macs are superior (also personal opinion and only a generalization from my view) and Apples marketing tactics are no where near ethical. Not to mention Green Peace listed it as one of the most un-environmentally friendly tech companies.
I didn't know about the Green Peace listing....good to know and another reason NOT to use Apple
Jellicletrb said: But...then some poor minimum wage schmuck would have to wash the street. Have pity
unfortunately here in the USA we are in the process of a massive deportation of our below minimum wage immigrant work forces, now factories are closing and they are plowing the fields under because there is no one to pick the vegetables.....not very smart.
Mr. Picklesworth said: The folks at Apple are great at attention to detail when it comes to design. Stuff like the magnetic power cord on the Macbook, its sudden motion sensor and the proximity sensor on the iPhone are really simple but smart additions.
I learned to hate the OSX's setup program quite quickly as far as connecting to a wireless router. From the start, they were trying to sell us Airport routers. The setup program's wireless configurator would only connect to an airport router. For my *normal* wireless router that is far more popular than an Airport router, it would list the essid, but it would not give me a proper setup wizard. It instead just asked for a "Password", which I assumed to be my WEP key. Well, it didn't work and it was a big waste of time. What's worse? It didn't tell me why it didn't work; it just told me "It didn't work." I eventually skipped it and set it up within OSX, which was equally not fun. In the system utilities I found numerous Airport router configurators, but it eventually turned out that my own wireless router, because it is not an airport router, does not go in that spot. It worked in the end, though. (Strangely, connecting with the macbook almost always slaughters the router forcing it to be reset, but I think that's more the router's fault). Now, try dropping that thing about 2 feet onto a carpet. *Boom* hinge is off center.
Luckily, that MacBook which I quickly grew to hate was not mine. I so far own no Apple products. Some fool downloaded Quicktime (and thus bloody iTunes and, of course, APPLE UPDATER) on the Windows computer. I promptly deleted all of it and replaced them with Quicktime Alternative. After that, I could again operate my web browser without it crashing every 5 minutes. (Does Apple even test their web site in Windows? Windows Quicktime has a nasty habit of crashing Firefox and sometimes even Internet Explorer completely out of the blue, and their web site is packed with that darn thing). Then there's the whole Quicktime Pro thing. Anyone who says Apple software "Just works" obviously has not tried: Viewing a Quicktime video in full screen, saving a browser-embedded Quicktime video, or figuring out why certain useful menu options are greyed out. Quicktime Alternative "just works;" Quicktime, however, does not. I for one refuse to pay any kind of money for a media player which is The Only Choice to play Apple's media format. How about I just don't watch Quicktime videos, thus miss all that juicy content on Apple's web site which tries so hard to sell me Apple products? If Adobe could charge money for the Flash Player, I bet they could. The thing is they are smart enough to realize: They can't. If you want a media format to catch on, you need to have assurance that the format can have a wide audience; that everybody can play that format. Windows Media Player, for example, provides its users with the ability to play WMV files as well as a good reason to use it: Its library features kick iTunes' ***. Quicktime? It gives us a noisy updater, an ugly interface that does not blend in and an inability to perform any "professional" operations on any file it insists to play.
People like iTunes because it makes their iPod work. What they do not realize is that every good MP3 player (Creative Zen, for example, though huge and ugly and with a bad screen) is plug & play: Put it in your computer, file manager opens, drag and drop your files, and it will play them without complaint. No software installation at all. (*Maybe* a driver).
My DS with homebrew equipment costs less than an iPod and works as well as an iPod at media playing. It plays more formats and it does cross-fading, too. (Without the help of iTunes).
iPhone is bloody expensive, patent-thirsty ("And BOY did we patent it! [All 100 of them]" -Steve Jobs at his Macworld keynote speech), and just not sensible. I, for one, am going to hold out for the far more useful OpenMoko project to roll out a PDA-centric device. I can tell you right now that it will be: More open, less expensive, more capable within a month of its release, and like everything heavily inspired by any useful innovation of the iPhone (thus defeating the purpose of the iPhone). If the iPhone wants my attention, Apple needs to open up a little.
interesting insight
billdotson said: I have never used any Apple products really except quicktime (I prefer quicktime to Windows Media player, bu since WMP11 came out WMP is pretty good) I do not know how well they make their products it is jsut that their marketing tactics annoy me and so I don't buy any of their products.
their marketing tactics are reflective of the company overall
Alfa989 said: You don't get it, do you?
I got to the point that you are either stupid or too ******* blind, because you'll hate Apple whatever happens in your life... So good luck and bye...
no, i don't hate apple. i've been using it since the apple ii and i still have a notebook with os 8 on it (although the last time i used that one is 3 years ago). actually, i think apple used to be superior. however, since the diminishing differences on hardware and with the introduction of "easy" linux distributions like ubuntu, i can't see the why i should buy another apple. the powerbook with reasonanble pricing is not available in my country. it's over €2700 while i can get the equivalent for less than €1100. just stating that apple is more expensive than it should be doesn't make one an apple 'hater'. i don't hate apple, i just think it's extremely overpriced.
Apple still is innovative, but innovation alone is not enough because innovations - no matter how fresh - are quickly duplicated and surpassed by competitors. Look at the iPhone, for instance. It is very innovative! The problem is that it is expensive. 2 years from now, there will be dozens of devices using multitouch and even more making good use of proximity sensors and tilt sensors. Apple will certainly be able to say "iPhone did it first!" but that's about all they'll be able to say; other devices will also do it and at the same time be much more open / extensible about it as well as less expensive. The Linksys routers used to be considered great because they were cheap and open. Not because they were "good." (And just for the record: No longer does Linksys make good routers. They were severely crippled with Hardware Version 5 to the point that the other 2 ports and antenna may as well be painted on. Support said I was "using mine too much" with a mere 2 wired and 1 wireless connection).
While I do own an iPod I pretty much despise Apple. Sure they are unix based, but their marketing strategies, hardware and smug attitude from 96% of "progressive" mac people make it very unappealing. On a side note, if the mac people are so "progressive" why don't they just use linux instead of that trashy OSX?
I use a Mac every day for many hours and I had one kernel panic in years and it was because I was messing around hehe.
Mac OS X is both stable and very intuitive, making it a great OS to do work in ;)
Shmifty said: While I do own an iPod I pretty much despise Apple. Sure they are unix based, but their marketing strategies, hardware and smug attitude from 96% of "progressive" mac people make it very unappealing. On a side note, if the mac people are so "progressive" why don't they just use linux instead of that trashy OSX?
Maybe because Linux is *still* useless as an OS for normal people??
The thing is, is that everybody is an individual and has different likes/dislikes. There will always be people that prefer one OS over another. And some people will always hate a particular OS, regardless of what happens. This 'debate' will go on and on and on, there is no right answer - use whatever OS you want.
OSX is a strong OS - just like ubuntu, they both have their place.
Chrisj303 said: The thing is, is that everybody is an individual and has different likes/dislikes. There will always be people that prefer one OS over another. And some people will always hate a particular OS, regardless of what happens.
This 'debate' will go on and on and on, there is no right answer - use whatever OS you want.
OSX is a strong OS - just like ubuntu, they both have their place.
Exactly...
This argument is pointless to start. I'm a long time mac user and Certified Apple Technician, in the past most of my experiences with linux/unix distributions have been largely the same, if I wanted to take 300 hours to edit .conf files to get all of my hardware to work, i would probably have used Linux long ago, however, since I can name better things to do, and my ADHD kicked in, I never bothered with it before. I was recently introduced to Ubuntu and am using it to run MythTV on a PC box, and it is Linux that finally works for my needs. I doubt anyone would argue that Linux/Unix gives the user nearly unlimited control. With that said, why would anyone argue against OS X? So the graphical user interface isn't open source...neither is Windows XP. At least the core is the result of a combination of open source components (NeXTSTEP, BSD). It is simply as easy to see Steve Jobs as some form of "Cult Leader", but I am sure the same can be said of Linus Torvalds or Bill Gates. All have their devoted followers. Its almost as if computing is a religion now. I am not here to say Apple is right or wrong, but just that we are all practically the same. Each OS has its ups and downs. For those that don't like the way OS X looks, use a different OS. And those looking just to fire weapons from a glass fortress, old Linux distributions looked equally as ugly as Mac OS 8.
http://www.epinions.com/content_5089894532 --------------------
Nothing infuriates me more than these television commercials, for one, they refer to "PC" as boring, old, slow, and simple, thereby making PC's mascot a balding, slightly overweight, middle aged man, in a suit and tie, with no sense of humor, thereby implying that everyone that uses a PC is some sort of impotent stereotypical banker or middle manager.
Then of course the Mac guy comes out, wearing the latest fashions, physically fit, pretty attractive, and this guy is here to tell us that the Mac is stylish, fun, well-built, and trouble-free.
Being on Linux, I had to go to Youtube, to watch the flash versions of the Mac ads, because even though Totem-Mozilla supports streaming Sorenson (Quicktime) video, the Apple website told me I needed Quicktime to view their ads, fascists.
"We're sorry, you have to be using Windows to see our ads on why you'll love a Mac, you further have to infect Windows with our adware media player, after a 30 megabyte download, to see our ad on Windows coming with too many bloated, useless programs."
What is the problem with these monikers?
Well, first of all a Mac...IS...a PC, it runs the same type of processor, the same kind of hard disk, RAM, video accelerator, you name it, you can buy functional equivalent hardware and build a PC out of it, because all a Mac boils down to is a pile of off-the-shelf commodity components, the major difference between a Mac and a PC at a hardware level is that Apple puts it together for you, and charges an outrageous retail mark up, and don't give me the "LOL! It has a nice case!!!111", because you can buy some really awesome looking PC cases as well, the Mac is all marketing hype, and when it comes down to it, all flash and no substance.
And if I have a problem with a hardware device on a Mac, I can't just go down the block to the computer shop, or get a no-questions-asked return at Newegg, because the nearest Apple Store is 100 miles from here.
When you buy an Apple Macintosh PC, the thing that differentiates it from a generic PC with a really nice case, is that it comes with Mac OS X, which there is no technical reason couldn't run on any PC, Apple worked HARD to make certain that it couldn't run on a standard PC, because Mac OS X is what people buy the overpriced hardware bundles for.
People say "But Mac OS X just works, and it's stable, and you can plug in a USB gadget and just know that it will be detected! And....and!!!!"
First of all, the Just Works deal is baloney, here are hundreds of satisfied Apple customers with their Macs, just working:
http://www.macfixitforums.com/
A few choice gems:
"OS disc not recognized" (Check the Md5 sum against the source where you got the disc image, oh wait, that's Linux, my bad.) "All Kinds of Problems, -600 error" (This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down, the police have been dispatched, and there is nowhere to run.) "Weird files appearing" (Sounds like the Shadow Copy program is broken and running amok, I suggest borrowing the shotgun from Doom Guy, then rezzing yourself into the system to stop Master Control Program, before it's too late.) "10.4.10 upgrade problems" (But, I just popped the CD in, like in the commercial, and....) "Black rectangle box crash" (Wow, a sentence composed entirely of adverbs, with no noun being modified, I'm impressed!) "Overall performance seriously slow" (Happy for you!) "Dock keeps crashing!" (Oh no, Mr. Bill!) "Safari keeps freezing and quitting." (It's called a SegFault, jackass! Try checking your dependencies, yes OS X has shared libraries, just like DLL Hell on Windows) "OS X 10.4 spotlight freeze on bootup" "Can't reset password -- can command line help?" (su enter root password enter passwd user name new password, badaboom, yeah, the command line can help, Mister "I Broke The Screen", oh wait, Mac OS disables root) "Not getting a warm and fuzzy" (Sorry, I don't think there's a utility in Mac OS that can get you laid, although I believe that feature is scheduled for Leopard, from what I hear.) "How can I open a Windows data CD on my Mac?" (It's called making sure your burning program is ISO 9001 compliant, then it doesn't matter what OS you mount the disc on, murdering anyone that sends you BIN/CUE MDF/MDS, and especially NRG images usually helps a lot with this problem.)
It was about this time, I had to remind myself this was a Mac troubleshooting forum, because those problems sound suspiciously like the screams of Windows users.
Then to make matters worse, Apple releases an official "10.4.10" system update, that causes program installers to fail, because they only see the first digit of the third revision number and think you have Mac OS X 10.4.1.
While we're talking about upgrades, Apple dings you for point releases, at $100 a pop, so if you'd been using Mac OS X from 2001-2007, you would not have only paid for the initial license that came with the system, but $400 to keep the OS current (and there's about to be an OS X 10.5 too), making Windows licenses look positively cheap in comparison, Linux is free of charge, nuff said.
If you decide you'd rather not go along with the upgrade extortion, be prepared to not have any security patches, of course not that anyone targets Mac OS X much, just because it's so obscure.
As far as detecting devices, I've had absolutely no trouble getting hardware to interface with Windows, it's just a simple matter of installing a driver, which usually comes on the CD, with the product you purchased, now show me how I'm supposed to install the gadget on a Mac when OS X has no driver for it, the manufacturer doesn't support the Mac, and by default, I don't have any compiling tools to write my own driver for a device that isn't supported and compile it (though I'm sure I lost 100% of Mac users and at least 50% of the Windows ones at the word "compiling")...no?
Take my XBOX 360 Controller for Windows, it's not supposed to work on anything but Windows (obviously), but it works on Linux because I found the C source code for "Xpad360", modified it to add support for Ubuntu Linux 64-bit, and ran a make on it, tell me how I compile it and load it as a kernel module when the kernel of OS X itself is not available as source, and is rather poorly documented, cause I'd sure like to know.
Moving away from hardware, what does OS X do that makes it stand out from Windows? Well surely since it's so modern and chic and all that, it has some wicked cool video games, exclusives at that!
Nope. Mac users are stuck with hand me downs that were on the PC several years ago, thats if anyone even bothers to write and support a Mac version, and since there is no economy of scale at work (since Mac OS X's usage share is marginal), you get to pay the price PC users did, when it was brand new.
And even if you're able to track down a Mac version of an older title (such as American McGee's Alice, Quake 3, Heavy Metal FAKK, etc), there's no guarantee it will run on a modern Mac, this is because Mac OS X is completely unrelated to Mac Classic (OS 9 and earlier), on the old PowerPC Mac OS X this wasn't a problem as much, because that version of OS X had a full emulator for Mac Classic, but if you have an Intel Mac, there is no way to run games (or any program for that matter) built for both Mac Classic.
Even semi-recent titles like Halo: Combat Evolved, Quake 4, and Doom 3 won't work on an Intel Mac very well, because it has to emulate a PowerPC processor for them.
Your solution? You have to BUY a patch from the maker of the PPC Mac OS X program, so that you may run it natively on the Intel x86 processor. (what a joke!)
Your only gaming option that is guaranteed to work, and stay working is to go out, BUY a full copy of Microsoft Windows (which is the reason you all point at for hating "PC's" in the first place), and the Microsoft Windows (A.K.A. "PC") version of the game, and dedicate a significant chunk of your hard disk to it, and there is just no way for Mac apologists to skirt their way around the little fact that it took a copy of Microsoft Windows to get their Mac to reliably run video games.
You could run Cider, which is Cedega for the Mac OS, but now you've paid good money for a commercial operating system, so you can pay more money to play "some" Windows games through a hacky work-around, and even though there is a port of Wine that runs on Mac OS X, it's temperamental, at best.
On Linux, you have two options, Wine and Cedega, if you want to use Wine, it's free, knock yourself out, it's surprisingly compatible with a lot of "Windows" software, it does require a lot of configuration though, Cedega is a pretty GUI with point and drool support, where you can install your games and have Cedega shield you from most of the Wine ugliness, so you don't "have" to pay to run Windows games on Linux, but rather you can "choose" to take the easy path if you so desire. (And I can compile a Cedega work-alike using the code in their CVS source repository, and not pay them anything, if I really want to, so suck that down.)
What about the software comes with the computer?
The software that Windows comes with from the OEM is usually completely worthless, if you don't go through an OEM, and install Windows manually, it's bare-bones, you have to download or purchase software for pretty much EVERYTHING you want to do with the computer besides watching it hum and burn electricity (and with Windows Vista, eat all the RAM and thrash the swap file before you've even told it to do anything).
The situation is somewhat better with a Macintosh PC, Apple does include useful software, but they don't do it for free, the licensing costs for iWork, iLife, and iWhateverthehellelse, are hidden in the cost of the operating system and the computer, thereby essentially forcing you to buy them, even if you have no use for them.
If Microsoft shipped Windows with a full copy of Microsoft Office, built-in anti-virus, and so on, then they would be sued, but it's OK for Apple to do it, because they don't have a significant market share.
With modern Linux distributions, you have a full Office suite, multi-protocol instant messaging, built-in support for digital media editing/burning, and bolt-on support for most Windows applications (including many, that Windows won't even run anymore), and if it doesn't come with what you want, you go out and grab a copy, chances are there is a fully functional program that is still free as in freedom, free as in free of charge, and yours for the taking, come to think of it, the operating system itself was all those too.
If you build your own PC, you don't have anyone cramming an OS, software, their own hardware choices, etc. down your throat.
Sigh, but the Mac.....(starts crying)......viruses...
Yes, Windows has viruses, lots of viruses, huge honkin' viruses, all over the place.
Good thing I use Linux.
Anyway, people with Macs still manage to hose their operating system despite the fact that Apple has made their system so "easy to use" and "virus free", and want you to come fix their computer, that they were bragging about just minutes before it wouldn't boot up.
In my experience, I think the typical Linux user knows more about Mac OS X than a Mac OS X user does, at least in regards to using a root terminal shell session to fix the boot sector on the Mac's hard drive that had been corrupted.
But what do I know? I haven't "discovered" the Mac yet, at least not the one I keep hearing about, so please stop telling me how easy the Mac is while I'm using an Ubuntu Live CD to recover it's operating system.
With the Mac, finally you can have a system with all the drawbacks of Windows *and* Linux, with the benefits of neither!
When it all comes down to the bottom line, Apple is probably even less ethical than Microsoft, and even with virtually no usage share, they try and act like they're the gansters that Microsoft is.
If you already have a Mac, you have my sympathy, for what it's worth, you can run the 32-bit or 64-bit PC versions of Ubuntu on it, if it's an Intel Mac. (Because it is, after all, a PC)
If you have a PowerPC Mac, I feel real sorry for you, there are PPC builds of most Linux distros, but good luck getting any software packages for them, because basically everyone in the whole world uses x86, hey this is what you get for investing in obscure hardware.
totally agree with what you wrote, man. macs are overpriced, the only real thing that differentiates a mac from a regular pc is the os: mac os x
You aren't alone - Best Page in The Universe, warning NSFW.
well despite some arguments I am still going to buy a mac someday, I just like OSX and I am a bit fond of their computers. the Mac vs PC debate is annoying no doubt, but both have their advantages and dis advantages.
that was an interesting article, i just hope people aren't too quick to judge and think you wrote it.
there are quite a few mac people on this forum that will come with their tar and feathers haha
although i don't really like OS X personally (i think the computers themselves are pretty good) i think its nerdy outrages like these, where some dude gets pompous and starts acting superior that are bad PR for linux.. hes *obviously* smarter than all of us if he knows how to *compile*
i mean, anybody that isn't smitten by apple kinda already knows those things in the back of their mind. it pretty much amounts to the jehova witness way of preachin linux, turnin more people away
A couple of things. At work I install a windows VM on all the macbooks -it does make the laptop more usable for business. Basically they get the nice macbook size and thinness, with the usability of a windows lappy. This says something. (yea I know I could just install winxp on it, but the company officially wants the lappys to be "mac" still.
second. Ubuntu runs great on a macbook except for the draft N atheros wireless. I have not investigated, but I bet somebody out there has a driver made by now for it. I DO LIKE the mac laptops. The macbooks are quite competitive when you compare like parts, and they seem to hold up well with our more punishing users. Seriously, $1200 or $1100 as a student (including a free ipod) gets you a pretty potent 2.15 gig C2D with all the fixens. That is damn close to hp/dell/whatever if you compare the same hdw. $79 for parallels and hopefully an old copy of win2k and you got it all covered.
On a personal note I am forced to have an iMac for a workstation. I hate it. I do not like the feel of mac osx, I do not like the lack of flexibility, I do not like the overpriced apps that are available. In protest I bring in my personal hp laptop with 7.04 everyday and hook it up to a 20" widescreen (that they bought) on my desk and do my work.
My mac use has diminished from trying to get it to work with our ip kvm, router, & other stuff (it is amazing how much web based server admin tools do not work on mac), to just using it for email and sshing into a few servers. Worse, Entourage sucks moist @$$ (pardon the francais) so even email on the mac makes me irritated. Should I even start with the perpetual wireless drops on my wonderful iMac... "how come you didn't email me back", "what do you mean,... uhh I haven't gotten an email in 2 hours, hold on while I reconnect through airport and restart entourage.
Now. A moment about the company's mac rump-swabs. Firstly, they are arrogant and are brainwashed to believe that if it (software or hdw) doesn't run on a mac it isn't worth using. They think that the mac MS office is 100% the same as windows. Presentations and reports are sent, the client complains about poor formatting and THEY ACTUALLY tell the client that they should get a mac, or use openoffice, or get stuffed -nice huh? Clue here. If you create it on office 2003 on a winbox it will look the same. Give the clients what they want and right the first time. mac office, and openoffice are fine as long as a client isn't opening it and printing it from a real copy of MS office. Wait...did you say we should send a pdf? Great, tell my users how to stop the "pinwheel of death" when they try to convert a 100+ report with embedded harvard graphics and other stuff. Thanks for the advice.
I think the thing that really annoys me about mac users is their belief that mac is vastly superior despite its deficiencies, lack of some hardware support, lack of software, and lack of a 2 button mouse (seriously, is it so hard to include a 2 button mouse?). But hey, I'm not bitter. They snicker at my linux laptop and my wife's linux laptop, but it's at least as good, "feels" better than osx, didn't cost me a nickel, and will even run VM's for those few win apps I like that wine won't run...just like your mac...and I don't have to use safari or that dreadful firefox mac port.
macbooks: good imac: yuck and expensive for what you get osX: if a linux distro got $400 a pop I bet it would be far better
ps. mac's don't crash. They either get the "pinwheel of death" or a kernel panic. That is not the same as a windows crash. :rolleyes:
edit: If I were, no, when I buy a new notebook it will very likely be a macbook. I really do like them -so don't think that I'm some horrid mac hater. I'm just trying to express a few annoyances about mac and some users I encounter.
it's OSX vs Windows that is the underlying argument in this advertising campaign but because most people don't understand what that actually mean it's Mac vs PC.
When people talk about PC's they usually mean "I run windows".
izanbardprince said: Being on Linux, I had to go to Youtube, to watch the flash versions of the Mac ads, because even though Totem-Mozilla supports streaming Sorenson (Quicktime) video, the Apple website told me I needed Quicktime to view their ads, fascists.
Generally I don't bother with these threads where people are just venting about something they don't like, but I would just like to point out that the ads play fine with Totem/Firefox here.
DjBones said: that was an interesting article, i just hope people aren't too quick to judge and think you wrote it.
Duh! He did write it! And it doesn't have one fact or show the slightest amount of research.
I also have brief experience with Mac OS X and while its GUI looks nice it's still more about marketing than about problem free computing. It has more in common with Windows (Vista) than UNIX. I say so because with these systems most innovation seems to take place in the GUI while GNU/Linux, Solaris and the BSDs have a strong emphasis on development of the operating system itself (kernel and system utilities).
That's why both Windows and Mac OS X will never be as stable and have performance as good as the free Unices. I understand that Apple will have Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) certified as UNIX, but this would be in the same way as AIX is UNIX, i.e. not really adhering to KISS principles.
I don't like OSX, it treats you like an idiot. The Mac forums (they call themselves mac forums, really its any apple product worship forums) are full of people who think they are so superior and yet are amazingly technically inept.
I completely agree with this. Macs are purely based on negative marketing and blanket advertising. It saddens me to say that a few of my friends who previously used PCs (some quite competant) now own Macs and as soon as they get them they have to justify their extortionate purchases with comments like "It's so nice", "It works so much better than my pc". Just wait till you've had it as long as your pc and you'll see it becomes lamer than a duck who's legs and wings have been removed and its beak is on backwards.
I don't tend to mind people using Macs (although I do question why they are willing to spend so much money on such a low end system) but it's when they start regurgitating the propaghanda from the Mac adverts and press releases that I start to get annoyed. Whilst Windows has its faults I'd say many linux distros are on a par, if not better, than the latest MacOS, and in some cases easier to use (I'm not too keen on the menu bar changing every time I select a different app, it just gets confusing). I don't think there is really any way you can defend buying a Mac unless you really do have money to burn, I can't see any justification for spending such a premium purely for the brand name.
Some people just can't see past the shiny, white plastic...
I don't tend to mind people using Macs (although I do question why they are willing to spend so much money on such a low end system) but it's when they start regurgitating the propaghanda from the Mac adverts and press releases that I start to get annoyed.
This is annoying I have to say. I don't mind Macs all that much, but now I wouldn't buy one out of principle. I strongly dislike the way they advertise and market the product...basically as a fashion accessory with the markup to boot. Just look at the iPod...nobody can seriously say that that product is good value for money. Alternatives are everywhere with more features, more storage space, and a small price tag...and I don't see any difference with the Mac computers.
My housemate bought one last year, and when I went to PC World with him, I was almost tempted to get one myself until I realised that I really *don't* want it! He started it up and home and I had a play with it, and it was a very nice computer in fairness, but what got to me a little was when he gave reasons like "it's just cooler" and pointed out the desktop eye-candy as reasons why he bought it. It was then I decided I'd rather install and try out Ubuntu on my current computer, which is good enough, than be taken in by Apple's marketing machine. And here I am still running Ubuntu now :)
The Mac ads here in the UK were *brilliant*, as they featured comedy duo Mitchell and Webb, who are best known for their sitcom "Peep Show".
In Peep show Mitchell (PC) is a socially inept businessman who is ultimately a reliable, stable, lovable character (in spite of having stalkerish tendencies).
Webb (Mac), however is an unemployed selfish drug-abusing layabout, who you really wouldn't want to meet your mother.
So they got it spot on.
I was surprised at just how mediocre both Vista and OSX are. Vista especially. Its the OS equivalent of lettice.
OOOOO A post having a go at other OS's, thats a new idea.....
I like Macs, I own two, I like Linux, I own two PC's with them on. I do not mind Windows, however I have no installs of it apart from a Virtual Machine or two.
I like that the software and hardware I use works with a Mac, and not Linux (GOOD audio interfaces that work with Linux are as far apart to find as a needle in a haystack).
Sorry and all, but I shall use ALL options available to me. Just so happens to be that I like the Mac option more.
b0ng0 said: I don't think there is really any way you can defend buying a Mac unless you really do have money to burn, I can't see any justification for spending such a premium purely for the brand name.
The only reason I can think of to ever buy a Mac for running Mac OS X (and then I would probably buy one second-hand) is because of some Mac OS X specific applications that are so much better than what is available for Linux or Windows that it would be foolish to do without them. I mostly thinking of media creation apps here from the likes of Steinberg, Adobe etc. There is nothing wrong with Macs per se but you should just run a real operating system on them instead of the PoS that is Mac OS X.
The first thing that Apple could do with Mac OS X is to throw away its kernel and adopt a modern one such as those from Solaris 11 or FreeBSD 7.0. This single change would make the occurrences of Mac OS X going down a lot less frequent. Maybe it's me but an operating system should never ever go down unless the hardware has gone bad and even then there is some hardware (Sun SPARC, HP IA64, IBM POWER) that can cope with these issues and keep the operating system running.
I agree with most of the points raised by the OP. Why pay that much for hardware? I bought my box for £272 w/o OS, and put Ubuntu 7.04 64bit on it. I have the same performance and stability as someone who has bought a £600 mac mini. Except I have a bigger hard drive, faster GPU etc... :confused:
I've merged this with another thread on the same topic.
marco123 said: I agree with most of the points raised by the OP. Why pay that much for hardware? I bought my box for £272 w/o OS, and put Ubuntu 7.04 64bit on it. I have the same performance and stability as someone who has bought a £600 mac mini. Except I have a bigger hard drive, faster GPU etc... :confused:
And how big was the case on this one?
Unless you are comparing like for like on cases, I think thats an unfair comparison, the Mac Mini isn't meant to be blazing fast technology built into the size of a matchbox, its a small form factor piece of hardware. For a PC of the same form factor you are talking more than the Mini, the Mini has Core 2 Duo now so its not that much of a slouch, and for an alternative in the PC realm, you are looking at This, and thats just the barebones case alone, no optical drive, no memory, no CPU. Given that you can pick up a brand new Mac Mini for £400, I don't think the Mini's are that bad a piece of kit.
Obviously not everyone is interested in small form factor, but the Mini isn't exactly overpriced compared to its PC equivalents put it that way.
I think the real problem with Apple is, as many of the fanboys/zealots complain about, and the rest of the Apple fans too, is that they have no mid range headless desktop. You have the bottom end Mini, the top end Mac Pro, the all in one iMacs, and the laptop Macbooks and Macbook Pro's. But, there is a market for something that would provide an equivalent for most PC desktops, and those who want some upgradability. This would add something Apple could gain from, a market for more enthusiasts, at which point they have a finger in every part of the market pretty much.
I just dont see what the huge backlash against Macs is all about. They, for me and many many others, work a lot better than Windows (and I dont hate Windows, I just choose not to use it), and are provided greater commercial support than Linux (which for me, many audio editors, video editors, etc) is more important than saving a couple of hundred quid, when most of the hardware wont work with the software, and the software wont work with the hardware. Yes, Wireless support, Graphic card support, support for network cards and the like is great for most computer tasks, but audio devices and video devices that work with linux? Its back to the needle in a haystack analogy.
My personal view of how each platform stands is Linux = Great for servers, great for desktops, great for everyday usage, very very sketchy for audio and video (the software isn't what i'm referring to) Macs = Good for servers, great for desktops, great for everyday usage, absolutely perfect for audio and video
This is why I run a Linux Desktop and a Laptop/Server, while I run a Mac Laptop and Audio Workstation. I use what works.
phenest said: Duh! He did write it! And it doesn't have one fact or show the slightest amount of research.
research: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6494001/wo/dD1UMJ6aj1U62S34G9F1YRBaPj8/6.?p=0 take a look at the components inside of a Mac. and then read something about computer architecture (and von Neumann Machine). hope you'll realize that a Mac is a PC. the rest is just advertising and marketing bullshit + Mac OS X (which is a fine os)
Yes, technically, any personal computer is a PC.
But in real life, people use the term *PC* to refer to *Windows PC*. That's why the commercials say "I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" instead of "I'm a Mac PC. And I'm a Windows PC."
aysiu said: Yes, technically, any personal computer is a PC.
But in real life, people use the term *PC* to refer to *Windows PC*. That's why the commercials say "I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" instead of "I'm a Mac PC. And I'm a Windows PC."
I know, still people should be aware of this. but, overall, they are free to spend their money the way they like
Personally, I don't think any company can win if they trap you to certain hardware, from a certain company, with a certain amount of money that has to be paid within so much time for a certain amount of time.
Windows/Linux PC: You can buy it or build it You can buy the OS or download it You are never forced to upgrade You don't have to renew your license
Sounds like freedom to me.
EDIT Also, as people think Macs are expensive, they will lose from that eventually. They could be the best computer known to man, but if the common consumer can't afford it, they won't sell.
OS X is a great OS. One of my favorites, I just don't like Macs.
i have always figured that mac's are for people who want a nice operating system but don't really care about computers ((by care i mean, genuinely interested in how a computer works, how the software works, like configuring things, producing and compiling software..))
i thrill at building packages from source and using the terminal, and i believe you have to care or else your not gonna have fun on linux. ((goes along with the point that you don't have to be nerd to use linux, but you have to be pretty savvy to have a narly linux system))
I currently run OS X86 with Fink, and find that not only does OS X run fast on regular hardware, but compiled programs are lightning fast.
EDIT Macports is great also.
I think the Linux community (Those who use FOSS because they think it runs better than proprietary crap or because some other reason that has nothing to do with the ethics of the situation.) does not hate Apple. I think most of the GNU/Linux community (Those who use FOSS because they care about their freedoms) does hate Apple on the other hand. :)
Frak said: Personally, I don't think any company can win if they trap you to certain hardware, from a certain company, with a certain amount of money that has to be paid within so much time for a certain amount of time.
Windows/Linux PC: You can buy it or build it You can buy the OS or download it You are never forced to upgrade You don't have to renew your license
Sounds like freedom to me.
EDIT Also, as people think Macs are expensive, they will lose from that eventually. They could be the best computer known to man, but if the common consumer can't afford it, they won't sell.
OS X is a great OS. One of my favorites, I just don't like Macs.
I second this. I really like mac os x as an OS, but I don't like Macs and Apple's attitude
Frak said: I currently run OS X86 with Fink, and find that not only does OS X run fast on regular hardware, but compiled programs are lightning fast.
EDIT Macports is great also.
you run os x on an regular intel/amd pc?...how well it performs? did you find drivers?
karellen said: you run os x on an regular intel/amd pc?...how well it performs? did you find drivers?
I do thanks to JaS and Semetex Kernel. JaS put the OS together, Semthex compiled a custom Darwin kernel from source to run it on SSE2 (Pentium 4, D, M, etc) and a version for SSE3 (Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, etc.)
Its very responsive on only 512MB of RAM, it only needs 192 to run. (256 to run smoothly)
Note Intel is your best friend, and oddly, ATi is also.
Nvidia drivers only work on 10.4.8 and above. (Yet I can't get it to install)
Hmm what about Intel wireless chipsets and intel integrated graphics? I'm thinking about trying it one day if I'm bored enough on my laptop lol.
Anything Intel works out of the box. Just use the Airport driver patch. I even got my Linksys WMP54G running just fine.
Haha looks like I'll be adding Mac OSX to my list then.
mmm triple booting Sony laptop lol.
Here's a pic.
Wait, if it works does that mean I can use anything that's in OSX on this? iChat, and such?
It'd be amusing if it did lol.
Yep, via SSE3 emulation (included in Kernel)
I installed osx86 once. I quit using that for the same reason that i quit linux: some hardware refused to work. Of course, i cant blame this on apple since im not technically allowed to run osx on my dell. One thing i noticed while using it is how terrible the dock is. MS has the right idea with the taskbar and i missed it dearly. If you only want to use integrated software, osx86 will probably work fine for you. It will probably run faster than on an actual mac computer.
I dont see why some people say MS is trying to force you to use their software. Its the pc manufacturers that try to force it on you as they have the deal with MS to pre-install windows on every system they sell (with the exception of dell, of course). I hate apple's insanely proprietary means of business. I bet if MS only allowed their software to be installed on computers they built, with a very limited number of hardware choices we would see system stability close to osx and linux. MS has a balance of open/closed mentality. Anywho, enough of that.
I agree, they are extremely proprietary. And the dock actually becomes a hassle to use after awhile (all windows using the same app look EXACTLY the same, it randomly comes up if you barely touch it, if you have a bottom scroll bar, you have to be careful not to click an app, you have to add the app from the Applications folder to it to use it faster, yet it makes it cluttered, etc)
Also, this turned me off of Safari, its pretty bad as a Web Browser. Not much good for anything else either.
I love Apples in pies. Otherwise, gimme something free. Money is for paying bills, not buying OSes.
Frak said: I agree, they are extremely proprietary. And the dock actually becomes a hassle to use after awhile (all windows using the same app look EXACTLY the same, it randomly comes up if you barely touch it, if you have a bottom scroll bar, you have to be careful not to click an app, you have to add the app from the Applications folder to it to use it faster, yet it makes it cluttered, etc)
Also, this turned me off of Safari, its pretty bad as a Web Browser. Not much good for anything else either.
I'm not a big fan of the dock either. I like ObjectDock or AWN over the real Apple dock lol.
Depressed Man said: I'm not a big fan of the dock either. I like ObjectDock or AWN over the real Apple dock lol.
+1, but the Dock in 10.5 from what I've used has been improved, and now has a purpose :P
Yeah, it has "stacks" or something. Objectbar had this way before apple, but they called it "Flyout menus." Just apple taking someone else's idea, polishing it up, and calling it a major breakthrough again. I also hate safari. It just plain sucks. Firefox owns the pants off any other browser. IE is even better than safari, and thats saying a lot.
Saying alot, but its 100% true. Running IE 6 with Rosetta is better than using Safari.
wow, I didnt think safari was that bad wow, thats a bit of a shock to me, the new version that comes with leopard is preaty good though, but the only tiger version to download was the beta, we shall see next month
What do I think of OSX/Apple? Honestly? I love the eye-candy desktop and the UNIX-based functionality. I like being able to run my preferred IRC client (irssi) without a ton of extra programs that never work right anyway (Cygwin.) I love the desktop options. I especially love how easy network filesharing is as compared to Windows (and I love the irony that it's M$'s own sharing format (SMB)!)
I remember when I laid eyes on a Windows system for the first time. Ever had an animal look at you with that "I don't LIKE you" expression, while not growling/barking/mewling/hissing at you? Yeah. That's how I looked at Windows back in '95. Not so with an Apple; I was instantly in love, and it was so EASY to figure out!
And that's the best thing of all, the ease of use!
Only thing I hated was the fact to compile under OS X, you had to have Xcode. To get Xcode, you have to register with Apple as a dev.
Painless, though. I just used a throwaway Gmail account.
hellion0 said: Painless, though. I just used a throwaway Gmail account.
Yeah, but they do act very intrusive.
NoSmokingBandit said: Yeah, it has "stacks" or something. Objectbar had this way before apple, but they called it "Flyout menus." Just apple taking someone else's idea, polishing it up, and calling it a major breakthrough again.
I also hate safari. It just plain sucks. Firefox owns the pants off any other browser. IE is even better than safari, and thats saying a lot.
WTF???
1.- I'd like you to prove your first claim... Because fly-out menus are used for browsing folders that are placed in the dock... And they only offer limited functionality btw... But, of course, you don't say who copied the whole Dock idea... And the screen edge tabs... Or how they totally ripped of the tab gui elements from the first versions of OS X... Apple doesn't steal ideas... And i'm not gonna get into ObejctDock's user experience regarding the UI...
2.- Why? Any reasons? Claims? Proofs? Cause I'll tell you, I don't even know if you ever tried Safari, but something tells me that you haven't... :) Without having tried Safari is easy to live with Firefox's slow UI and slow browsing experience... Or its pain-in-the-*** bookmark management... I've lost my whole collection of bookmarks on several gecko-based browsers... Not really funny, huh? And it doesn't even have a decent bookmark import-export feature!!!
Alfa989 said: WTF???
1.- I'd like you to prove your first claim... Because fly-out menus are used for browsing folders that are placed in the dock... And they only offer limited functionality btw... But, of course, you don't say who copied the whole Dock idea... And the screen edge tabs... Or how they totally ripped of the tab gui elements from the first versions of OS X... Apple doesn't steal ideas... And i'm not gonna get into ObejctDock's user experience regarding the UI...
Kind of irrelevant - The guys point was that Apple copied someone else, he point is valid even if they previously copied another idea from apple, the point being that most of the new features is Leopard are all copied from different places.
Alfa989 said: WTF???
2.- Why? Any reasons? Claims? Proofs? Cause I'll tell you, I don't even know if you ever tried Safari, but something tells me that you haven't... :) Without having tried Safari is easy to live with Firefox's slow UI and slow browsing experience... Or its pain-in-the-*** bookmark management... I've lost my whole collection of bookmarks on several gecko-based browsers... Not really funny, huh? And it doesn't even have a decent bookmark import-export feature!!!
please get serious. there are some good things about osx, but safari is definitely not among them.
Arktis said: Apple wants the whole pie, not just a slice. They want to glean riches by controlling the hardware and the software; the content and the players. They hide behind this false creation of this puffed up image of coolness but they're really just a bunch of greedy opportunists looking to exploit people and make shortcuts where they can just like any other corporation. Apple is just like Microsoft in my book.
Please forgive me, but that's extremely naive of you to think. Microsoft does it's level best to dominate the market and get your money. Bottom line. They want their products to be unavoidable in as many aspects of life as possible, and have even released press statements to this effect. This equates to an attempt to force their products on you.
I totally agree just because Apple (to some people at last) seems hip and cool and groovy and the David against M$'s Goliath doesn't make that a fact. Apple in fact seems to worse to me, anyway no point repeating what you so rightly have said. :KS
Actually, Apple did steal and innovate the Dock. NeXT invented the Dock, Apple took the idea, then Apple bought NeXT, and CEO of NeXT (Steve Jobs) reworked his way back as CEO of Apple.
Taadaa
Also, Mac OS X is actually NeXTstep, not a new version of System X which is widely believed.
Alfa989 said: 2.- Why? Any reasons? Claims? Proofs?
Cause I'll tell you, I don't even know if you ever tried Safari, but something tells me that you haven't... :) Without having tried Safari is easy to live with Firefox's slow UI and slow browsing experience... Or its pain-in-the-*** bookmark management... I've lost my whole collection of bookmarks on several gecko-based browsers... Not really funny, huh? And it doesn't even have a decent bookmark import-export feature!!!
Actually, Safari isn't much different than Konqueror, which I myself do not like. It's not a good engine IMHO (KHTML). I do not like the bookmarking of Safari compared to Firefox, because I can at least back up my bookmarks into my del.ico.us account in Fx. Also for the Bookmarks, I've never lost them using Fx or other Gecko based browser, why, because Bookmark handling is browser independent, not engine specific.
Also, there have been tests done that show that Gecko based browsers render Web Pages faster than KHTML on Unix based systems running x86/x86_64 based processors.
Safari is not a well made browser to some of us.
Alfa989 said: WTF???
1.- I'd like you to prove your first claim... Because fly-out menus are used for browsing folders that are placed in the dock... And they only offer limited functionality btw... But, of course, you don't say who copied the whole Dock idea... And the screen edge tabs... Or how they totally ripped of the tab gui elements from the first versions of OS X... Apple doesn't steal ideas... And i'm not gonna get into ObejctDock's user experience regarding the UI...
2.- Why? Any reasons? Claims? Proofs? Cause I'll tell you, I don't even know if you ever tried Safari, but something tells me that you haven't... :) Without having tried Safari is easy to live with Firefox's slow UI and slow browsing experience... Or its pain-in-the-*** bookmark management... I've lost my whole collection of bookmarks on several gecko-based browsers... Not really funny, huh? And it doesn't even have a decent bookmark import-export feature!!!
Safari is clumsy and not intuitive at all. You may like it, and thats fine, but i find that firefox handles my needs way better than safari does.
I'm not commenting much on your first part because Frak has it right. I didnt want a objectdock vs osx dock thing going on, im just saying that stacks very closely resemble flyout menus. Flyout menus arent only for folders, you can put anything you want in there at all. Anything. So its very useful.
Apple steals ideas. Microsoft steals ideas. Linux steals ideas. Saying one company steals no ideas and is completely original is a very uneducated thing to say.
Apple is just a smaller Microsoft. Mac OS X is a fine OS. and that's about it...
karellen said: Apple is just a smaller Microsoft. Mac OS X is a fine OS. and that's about it...
+1, very true.
I love Mac OSX - it offers me a tighter integration and a far higher standard of software then any other OS on the market.
Chrisj303 said: I love Mac OSX - it offers me a tighter integration and a far higher standard of software then any other OS on the market.
+1, I must agree. The software that you would usually find on Windows or Linux, is usually better coded and nicer looking, not to mention, in some cases, I've also had more features.
OS X is the best OS that money can buy, not the best OS that exist but the best that you can buy.
Best OS that money can buy, but use a lot of OS's and you'll notice it just acts like an Overglorified version of PC-BSD.
Frak said: Best OS that money can buy, but use a lot of OS's and you'll notice it just acts like an Overglorified version of PC-BSD.
I would say PC-BSD is even better then OS X & PC-BSD is free, I do think in my humble opinion that Elive Gem 1.0 is the best OS that exist and also free.
I actually have PC-BSD installed on my old computer, and Elive Gem 1.0 on my newer primary computer.
Yet, I still think OS X is the best OS, even if it is made by an evil company. It shows some effort. Not MS's crap.
Frak said: +1, I must agree. The software that you would usually find on Windows or Linux, is usually better coded and nicer looking, not to mention, in some cases, I've also had more features.
err.. i don't get it?
Either you've made a typo or mis-read my post.
"The software you would usually find on windows or Linux is usually better coded and nicer looking , not to mention, in some cases, I've also had more features."
Are you having a laugh!?
Now I am, sorry I had a moment of dyslexia ;)
I really like the Cocoa language, and find its harder to fault using it, than it is to fault using C or C++.
Ultra Magnus said: Kind of irrelevant - The guys point was that Apple copied someone else, he point is valid even if they previously copied another idea from apple, the point being that most of the new features is Leopard are all copied from different places.
"Copied from different places"...
Apart from Spaces, which is a blatant rip-off... You're wrong... (If I'm not wrong)
TheWizzard said: please get serious. there are some good things about osx, but safari is definitely not among them.
Why not?
Frak said: Actually, Apple did steal and innovate the Dock. NeXT invented the Dock, Apple took the idea, then Apple bought NeXT, and CEO of NeXT (Steve Jobs) reworked his way back as CEO of Apple.
Taadaa
Also, Mac OS X is actually NeXTstep, not a new version of System X which is widely believed.
1.- Apple DID NOT "copy" the dock before they bought NeXT... Revise you facts...
2.- Mac OS X is not NeXTSTEP or "A pretty BSD" as some "freetards" claim... NexTSTEP forms part of the foundation, along with the libraries and some concepts... But OS X is mostly new engineering...
And what the hell do you mean by "Not a new version of System X which is widely believed." What the hell is System X????
Alfa989 said: 1.- Apple DID NOT "copy" the dock before they bought NeXT... Revise you facts...
2.- Mac OS X is not NeXTSTEP or "A pretty BSD" as some "freetards" claim... NexTSTEP forms part of the foundation, along with the libraries and some concepts... But OS X is mostly new engineering...
And what the hell do you mean by "Not a new version of System X which is widely believed." What the hell is System X????
- FYI, System X refers to System 1-9, from which Mac has ascended from since the 70's. Mac OS X is based off of BSD, not System X.
- Mac OS X is modified version NeXTSTEP, or if you want to get technical, OS X is based off of Rhapsody OS, which is NeXTSTEP ported to the PPC. This based off of the BSD subsystem, which I might add is essentially the BSD I'm talking about. I don't know where you are.
P.S. Rhapsody is also the codename of OS X development, makes you ponder, hmm...
- Apple was using the Dock in late Developer versions of Mac OS 7, also known as System 7, from which Apple did not yet own NeXT, nor NeXTSTEP. Please revise your facts.
I dislike Apple for many reasons.
First, They force iTunes on you, Tell me one other player for the mac besides iTunes. Also, Quicktime is a peice of crap. Anyone that sells protected Music and forces it on you(Ya, I know you can buy unprotected but it cost more.).
Second, You are restricted to there hardware and only there hardware. You open your computer, its against the warrenty, you change your hardware you are completely screwed.
Third, There monitors are build in. This is good and bad, but what if your monitor breaks. Will they replace it? Does it cost more then buying a regular monitor from a store? Probably Not!
Fourth, People complain about Microsoft integrating Internet Explorer, Media Player and other stuff. Then again, Apple forces iTunes, Safari and Quicktime on you. Find me another music service for Apples besides iTunes Store. Honestly, There programs are more integrated then Microsofts.
Fith, Apple wants your money. Its true, most people don't belive it because they don't have majority share over things. For instance, Can you use another music service besides iTunes on your iPod? You can't even use a different media player for the iPod anymore.
Sixth, There computers are way over priced. Hello, Dell can sell me the same computer for a deal of $500 dollars for 1gig ram and duel core and a LCD monitor with Keyboard and Mouse. Apple can give me that for about $1200 more.
Actually for awhile, IE was the default browser of Mac OS 8 and 9. Mac OS X was the first since then to have Safari as the default browser.
Remember when MS integrated all their software into the os? Everyone got angry and called it a monopoly. Now apple does it and they call it an innovation... Apple =/= choices (hradware, software, what have you), and i like choices.
NoSmokingBandit said: Remember when MS integrated all their software into the os? Everyone got angry and called it a monopoly. Now apple does it and they call it an innovation...
Apple =/= choices (hradware, software, what have you), and i like choices. +1, I don't necessarily need iLife. Just a waste of HD space, and money.
Zoiked said: I dislike Apple for many reasons.
First, They force iTunes on you, Tell me one other player for the mac besides iTunes. Also, Quicktime is a peice of crap. Anyone that sells protected Music and forces it on you(Ya, I know you can buy unprotected but it cost more.).
Second, You are restricted to there hardware and only there hardware. You open your computer, its against the warrenty, you change your hardware you are completely screwed.
Third, There monitors are build in. This is good and bad, but what if your monitor breaks. Will they replace it? Does it cost more then buying a regular monitor from a store? Probably Not!
Fourth, People complain about Microsoft integrating Internet Explorer, Media Player and other stuff. Then again, Apple forces iTunes, Safari and Quicktime on you. Find me another music service for Apples besides iTunes Store. Honestly, There programs are more integrated then Microsofts.
Fith, Apple wants your money. Its true, most people don't belive it because they don't have majority share over things. For instance, Can you use another music service besides iTunes on your iPod? You can't even use a different media player for the iPod anymore.
Sixth, There computers are way over priced. Hello, Dell can sell me the same computer for a deal of $500 dollars for 1gig ram and duel core and a LCD monitor with Keyboard and Mouse. Apple can give me that for about $1200 more.
There is more than one way of looking at all that though. For situations where stability & functionality = time, and time = money (like a 48 track live audio recording session for example), I am more than willing to pay whatever Apple wants and deal with the hardware restrictions for the guaranteed functionality and support that Apple offers. That is the tradeoff for a locked system like Apple/OSX or Digidesign/ProTools, etc. However, I think that in addition to the "just works" benefit of Apple/OSX, you can add "and if it doesn't... we'll fix it". The few problem that I HAVE had with their hardware were fixed free of charge with replacement parts that arrived to me within 24 hours, AND I received follow up calls. I also don't know ANY other company in the genre that maintains the tech support/developer notes/software database as far back and as completely as Apple does. If I want to find the specifications for a SYS_BUS oscillator chip on a logicboard from 1993 or download a software patch for a mid 80's Mac Classic... I can get.
But I enjoy the open-ness of Linux as well. I tend to swing from completely closed and safe (OSX) to completely open and risky (Linux) and just skip out the Microsoft, etc. middle-ground where you feel like a criminal scouring hacker/kracker sites just to find a fix for something that SHOULD be legal and SHOULD have worked right out of the box.
Just my $.02
OS X is better than Windows. Apple's great image I think is somewhat fabricated with all the iPhone lock outs and such. That being said, I might be in the market for an iPhone (already on AT&T). Apple makes great products, end of story. They are sketchy, just like Microsoft, but do quality work.
I'll keep buying ubuntu Dell's as long as their available though...unless someone else offers Ubuntu pre-installs. Apple offering a Linux pre-install would be pretty cool. I'd even pay for OS X to run beside it. I don't want any of my machines running Windows in the future though, except as a virtual OS perhaps. It wouldn't do anything to Apple sales, since we'd still be paying for the OS X license. They'd have to do some different stuff on the install, but I can't imagine that would cost them that much.
Forgot about the hardware aspect, with that it makes it easier for developers to design nice, neat, pretty looking applications with added features and benefits, without having to worry about hardware restrictions.
Frak said:
- FYI, System X refers to System 1-9, from which Mac has ascended from since the 70's. Mac OS X is based off of BSD, not System X.
- Mac OS X is modified version NeXTSTEP, or if you want to get technical, OS X is based off of Rhapsody OS, which is NeXTSTEP ported to the PPC. This based off of the BSD subsystem, which I might add is essentially the BSD I'm talking about. I don't know where you are.
P.S. Rhapsody is also the codename of OS X development, makes you ponder, hmm...
3.- He should call it the "classic OS" or "Mac OS"... 2.- Mac OS X has just a tiny amount of BSD-ness in it... And Rhapsody was more than just "NeXTSTEP on PPC"... 1.- Show me
- Apple was using the Dock in late Developer versions of Mac OS 7, also known as System 7, from which Apple did not yet own NeXT, nor NeXTSTEP. Please revise your facts.
Zoiked said: I dislike Apple for many reasons.
Like everybody else... (At least a little...)
Zoiked said: First, They force iTunes on you, Tell me one other player for the mac besides iTunes. Also, Quicktime is a peice of crap. Anyone that sells protected Music and forces it on you(Ya, I know you can buy unprotected but it cost more.).
VLC, Songbird, RealPlayer, QuickTime, SoundJam, Rhapsody, etc... How do they "Force that evil, evil iTunes on you"? And they certainly DO NOT force you on buying music... And normally music bought somewhere else apart from the iTMS cost more... And it normally comes in lovely WMA format...
Zoiked said: Second, You are restricted to there hardware and only there hardware. You open your computer, its against the warrenty, you change your hardware you are completely screwed.
You are certainly not restricted to ONLY their hardware... And the same goes for the second claim, opening you mac to change thing like RAM doesn't void the warranty...
Zoiked said: Third, There monitors are build in. This is good and bad, but what if your monitor breaks. Will they replace it? Does it cost more then buying a regular monitor from a store? Probably Not!
Just on the iMac, dude... And yes, they DO replace it...
Zoiked said: Fourth, People complain about Microsoft integrating Internet Explorer, Media Player and other stuff. Then again, Apple forces iTunes, Safari and Quicktime on you. Find me another music service for Apples besides iTunes Store. Honestly, There programs are more integrated then Microsofts.
Ok Try uninstalling IE... Oops! Or WMP... Oops! They do not force you to use it... But to accces Windows Update you need IE yes or yes... Another music service? Bokay... Amazon, AllofMp3, Rhapsody... And maaaany more...
Zoiked said: Fith, Apple wants your money. Its true, most people don't belive it because they don't have majority share over things. For instance, Can you use another music service besides iTunes on your iPod? You can't even use a different media player for the iPod anymore.
EVERY company wants you money... People still don't know that? "Can you use another music service..." Hell yes! "You can't even use a different media player" Geez... iPod + iTunes is ONE SINGLE PRODUCT... But there are tons of 3rd party apps that let you manage you iPod... Now we just need to wait a bit to get the 3G nano and 6G iPod working on those...
Zoiked said: Sixth, There computers are way over priced. Hello, Dell can sell me the same computer for a deal of $500 dollars for 1gig ram and duel core and a LCD monitor with Keyboard and Mouse. Apple can give me that for about $1200 more.
Build me a computer with the EXACT same specs, nice looks, features and capabilities that any Mac has and then look at the price tag... Exactly! "Oops"
Alfa989 said: 1.- Show me
That's something you'll have to find yourself, I have the floppies right next to me, but they don't run on any of my Mac's, and I'm not running them in Mini vMac just to show you. They are freely available from Apple's website, all you have to have is an old Mac Classic and the Mac ROM off of it.
I don't have to make you believe me, I just know I'm right:guitar:
Frak said: That's something you'll have to find yourself, I have the floppies right next to me, but they don't run on any of my Mac's, and I'm not running them in Mini vMac just to show you. They are freely available from Apple's website, all you have to have is an old Mac Classic and the Mac ROM off of it.
I don't have to make you believe me, I just know I'm right:guitar: Mmm... I've got quite a lot of experience with Sys 7 on vMac and Basilisk...
And I can say that there's nothing like a dock in System 7... :)
Nice try dude...
He specifically said the dock was in developer versions of os7. Perhaps you havent used that version?
OK, here you go
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Macintosh_System_7.5.3_screenshot.png[/IMG]
The first dock of System 7
Nice pic, Frak. That dock actually looks more functional than the new one. Uglier by far, but looks easier to use.
NoSmokingBandit said: Nice pic, Frak. That dock actually looks more functional than the new one. Uglier by far, but looks easier to use.
That and it was less obtrusive.
NoSmokingBandit said: He specifically said the dock was in developer versions of os7. Perhaps you havent used that version?
Maybe... But he said that it was "floating around" the old Apple support downloads site...
Frak said: OK, here you go
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Macintosh_System_7.5.3_screenshot.png[/IMG]
The first dock of System 7 What, the control strip? :D :D :D :D
Have you even used Sys7? :D
1.- It's just like OS X's menu bar items or Windows' system tray... 2.- It can't contain apps or folders 3.- It can't be overall resized... 4.- It's can't be moved to a vertical position on the left or the right od the screen... 5.- It hasn't got rollover item names 6.- Items can't be moved around 7.- Items just have a pop-up menu, they are not proper "dockable items" 8.- Etc...
You have to know something to be able to speak about it, right? ;)
I do, I grew up with System 6 and 7, and I remember about the critisisms it got from from looking too much like NeXTSTEP's Dock.
Alfa989 has been added to the Ignore List.
Alfa, you don't want to listen to me, you know you are wrong, so you have been ignored.
Frak said: I do, I grew up with System 6 and 7, and I remember about the critisisms it got from from looking too much like NeXTSTEP's Dock.
But it's NOT a Dock...
It's a bunch of square-ish buttons in a side of the screen (NeXTSTEP's Dock was on the top right of the screen, remember?), but the similarities end there...
Frak said: Alfa989 has been added to the Ignore List.
Alfa, you don't want to listen to me, you know you are wrong, so you have been ignored.
WHAT?
I'm just asking for what you said you were going to show me! I'm the one that is right here, not you... Read the last 3 pages (actually 4 now) of this thread again, please...
he showed you that you were wrong on several occasions yet you keep going... The dock is copied. It may be slightly different, but it is so blatantly copied. If you cant see that then you must be a true apple fanboy.
Do you mean the Launcher maybe? That is the first Apple incarnation of the dock that I know of... just like the OSX dock, but it's ugly and can 'float' instead of being moored to the bottom or side of the screen, and be called up with a keystroke and either sit on top of open programs or stay behind them. The first time I saw it was in an old Performa... either late System 6 or early system 7, but it was at least installed by default somewhere in the revisions of Mac OS/system 7.
{edit} I just checked through my old Apple crud... if it helps at all, the launcher seems to have first appeared in system 7.0.1 'performa edition', but I don't see it on any of my old full install disks until the mid 7 versions.
Unbelievable. @ Alfa
SoundJam? You mean the app that Apple bought and corrupted it into the iTunes bloatware of today?
Actually, there was *one* other notable competitor before those guys gave up: Audion. Read the history.
Sure, you can choose not to use Apple hardware or RAM. Changing your HDD, even to increase storage space voids the warranty. Switching out your notebook's optical drive for something more powerful guarantees you to be SOL. Oh, and let's not forget what Apple thinks of third party RAM, especially when it comes to firmware.
Oh, and wouldn't you know? In unrelated news Apple's iPhone update today disables third party apps. Need I say more?
farmfield said: OSX is friggin amazing! The reason people are pissed off with with Apple/Jobs is iTunes/iPod. Read my post _here_ for my view on this! :)
Not to start a tangent, but I don't really understand all that hubbub about iTunes... just about every MP3 player has some kind of proprietary software bundled with it, and iTunes just happens to be the only one that actually ... well... functions, and if you don't like it, you don't HAVE to use it... run Floola, MPlayer and Yamipod or some such
And as far as the iTunes store being unfair to musicians... well I AM a musician, and the cut I get from Apple's iTunes store is higher than storefront sale royalty rate in most cases. People look at how small a muisician's cut is from the internet download sales and go "WHOA! They get NOTHING from that"... well, they should read a record contract sometime if they really want to be floored, AND for grass-roots musicians without a distribution deal, it sets them up with a ready-made global distribution network... which was inconcievable a decade ago (I would have KILLED for something like that back in the day). AAAAAAND, if Apple wants to stripe a download with copy-protection... GOOD! If a musician wants their music to be free for everyone then they can post the MP3's on their website, but if they actually work AS as musician and pay their bills with their music like I do, then they DESERVE protection.
I used SoundJam back in the day because it was the best alternative after MacAmp, so I was glad when Apple integrated it into their portable player since it was a lot better than streaming songs in real-time from SoundJam into my MiniDisk player. Heck, I even used Audion for a while, but it was buggy and when the iTunes store really took off, it was pretty much spent.
NoSmokingBandit said: he showed you that you were wrong on several occasions yet you keep going...
The dock is copied. It may be slightly different, but it is so blatantly copied. If you cant see that then you must be a true apple fanboy. 1.- He didn't prove me wrong at all... If you think otherwise, then show me...
2.- The Dock is NOT copied... If you can't see it then you haven't used OS X and Sys7 at all...
aletheianalex said: Do you mean the Launcher maybe? That is the first Apple incarnation of the dock that I know of... just like the OSX dock, but it's ugly and can 'float' instead of being moored to the bottom or side of the screen, and be called up with a keystroke and either sit on top of open programs or stay behind them. The first time I saw it was in an old Performa... either late System 6 or early system 7, but it was at least installed by default somewhere in the revisions of Mac OS/system 7.
{edit} I just checked through my old Apple crud... if it helps at all, the launcher seems to have first appeared in system 7.0.1 'performa edition', but I don't see it on any of my old full install disks until the mid 7 versions.
Mmm... Interesting!
Can you post a screenshot, please?
alphasubzero949 said:
SoundJam? You mean the app that Apple bought and corrupted it into the iTunes bloatware of today? "iTunes bloatware" What makes you think that?
alphasubzero949 said:
Sure, you can choose not to use Apple hardware or RAM. Changing your HDD, even to increase storage space voids the warranty. Switching out your notebook's optical drive for something more powerful guarantees you to be SOL. Oh, and let's not forget what Apple thinks of third party RAM, especially when it comes to firmware Not in a MacBook or Mac Pro... And third party RAM can be perfectly used, with no hitch...
alphasubzero949 said:
Oh, and wouldn't you know? In unrelated news Apple's iPhone update today disables third party apps. Need I say more? OMG!! I mean, come on, Apple should ENFORCE to modify or hack iPhones in violation of their terms and conditions...
Why do you even complaint?
Alfa989 said: Mmm... Interesting!
Can you post a screenshot, please?
Sure. I still have a few old powerbooks running.
Here is a pic of the launcher in it's natural-installed floating state in all of it's ancient glory. There were a ZILLION launcher helper apps /hacks/skins/etc back in the day that let you do various things to the way it looks/functions/behaves, but as it stands, you just drag and drop an application, folder, file, script, file on it and it converts the file path into a little 'button' that you click to launch the app/script, open the folder, open the file, etc.
I had to boot into OS 8.6 since that version had screenshots built-in, but the launcher remained pretty much unchanged from version 7.0 .
[IMG]http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z57/aletheianalex/launcher.jpg[/IMG]
Alfa989 said: "iTunes bloatware" What makes you think that?
Not in a MacBook or Mac Pro... And third party RAM can be perfectly used, with no hitch...
OMG!! I mean, come on, Apple should ENFORCE to modify or hack iPhones in violation of their terms and conditions...
Why do you even complaint?
Thank you for proving your fanboyish nature with retorts like those. Apple can do no wrong in your world; no one will ever convince you otherwise.
I'm not sure what this thread's about. I'm sure it's silly but that's about it. However all this rubbish about who stole the dock - seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXTSTEP
Nextstep's user interface was refined and consistent and introduced the idea of the Dock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_%28computing%29
The Dock is a graphical user interface feature used to launch applications and switch between running applications. It was first introduced in the NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP operating systems
Not that it matters one iota of course. Don't root for operating systems. Root for your favourite football team. Chill out.
Rick 1 said: I'm not sure what this thread's about. I'm sure it's silly but that's about it. However all this rubbish about who stole the dock - seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXTSTEP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_%28computing%29
Not that it matters one iota of course. Don't root for operating systems. Root for your favourite football team. Chill out.
True! It matters not.
Buuuuuuuut just as a little bone of contention... NEXTSTEP is the OS that was developed by NeXT... um... which was STEVE JOBS' company!!! So I don't know if you can actually "steal" from yourself.
Oh... and someone mentioned the control strip as a dock... which is not it's original purpose, but I just rememberd a little add-on from back ion the late 90's called "dockstrip" or something like that, which turns the MacOS control strip into an OSX dock-like appliance... just a fun little bit of history.
alphasubzero949 said: Thank you for proving your fanboyish nature with retorts like those. Apple can do no wrong in your world; no one will ever convince you otherwise.
Why don't you reply to my comments proving me wrong?
Geez... If you think that I'm the "bad guy" here... Then you haven't read yourself...
aletheianalex said: Sure. I still have a few old powerbooks running.
Here is a pic of the launcher in it's natural-installed floating state in all of it's ancient glory. There were a ZILLION launcher helper apps /hacks/skins/etc back in the day that let you do various things to the way it looks/functions/behaves, but as it stands, you just drag and drop an application, folder, file, script, file on it and it converts the file path into a little 'button' that you click to launch the app/script, open the folder, open the file, etc.
I had to boot into OS 8.6 since that version had screenshots built-in, but the launcher remained pretty much unchanged from version 7.0 .
[IMG]http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z57/aletheianalex/launcher.jpg[/IMG]
Wow!
Looks interesting!
I've never had the opportunity to run OS8 on an emulator...
Alfa989 said: Wow!
Looks interesting!
I've never had the opportunity to run OS8 on an emulator...
Try SheepShaver. It will do up to OS 9.0.4 with OSX or Linux as a host OS, but regretably it will not run OS 9.1 - 9.2.2. It's always fun to try out old OS'es... it's like playing an old video game.
Lemme make a vain attempt to get some more folks involved in the original topic of comparing/contrasting with OSX: I have been an Apple user since before MacOS existed, and a Microsoft user since before Windows existed, and a Linux user since before Ubuntu existed, and it seems clear to me that All OS'es have their pluses and minuses based on usage and the ideology of the platorm's development tesm, and there can not really be a difinitive "best" really since end-users have such differing needs, BUT, since this thread is "What do you think of Apple/Mac OS X", I do admire Apple/MacOSX for what they are and have done, but will FREELY admit that there are (like every OS) flaws, bugs and room for improvement, and I do not agree with how they treat their system and their corporate policies, but I accept them when I am working with their systems...you take the good with the bad, y'know?
In contrast, MS/Windows is a locked and shrouded system, but is not NEARLY as good or progressive, and Linux is...well...Linux: it will always be buggy by nature since it is always growing and expanding and trying to stay on the bleeding edge. While I somewhat lament a the closed-ness of OSX and the 'last generation' implimentations, it is solid, and I equally lament the fact that Linux seems to move along too quickly and re-create itself in a new form before the last form was fully worked out and 100% stable... but I use both for different reasons, as well as Windows when neccessary just because of it's ONLY redeeming factor: availability of good software (even though it is running on a bad system), and even DOS when needeed...OK... ONLY for old games.
MacOS 9 -- all gussied-up with my favorite tweaks -- is still my subjective favorite OS for daily ho-hum use even though it is a dinasour... just because I spent so many years in it, but I am comfy in 7.6.1 as well, which is the best of the pre-carbon MacOS'es. Unfortunately, there is some instability if you don't know what you are doing because OS 9 and up was really just to transition the Mac community and programmers into the new UNIX-like paradigm of OSX. Using Linux terminology, what I find lacking is the 'window manager' since navagating the OS is a bit clunky, BUT, in my opinion, still better than any of the unfortunate Windows interfaces, which have regrettably not evolved much over the yeras.
In OSX terms, the latest versions of OSX are my favorites, and I like the flexibility of having X11 at my fingertips, but within such a stable tweaked FreeBSD implimentation as OSX is.
It is hard to compare a system like MacOS to Linux, simply because there are soooo many flavors of Linux out there. I have been working with Ubuntu/Gnome for a while now, and I'll admit... I am not a big Gnome fan, BUT I think that Windows users should be very comfortable with it. The interface is very Windows-like and the performance kinda feels like my system is running with a bad spark plug, if you know what I mean. I DID like KDE, but the newest version seems horribly bloated and clunky. I don't know what they did, but it was not a good thing. Xfce is really just 'meh' as far as performance. I HAVE been really liking the e17 'Enlightenment' desktop, but the project seems to be stalled in an unstable state... which is unfortunate because it is the only Linux desktop that I have tried and thought... 'WHOA! This is SWEET!" Definately worth taking it for a spin just for the novelty if you have not already, even though it is buggy and crashey at the moment but BOY is it fast!
aletheianalex said: True! It matters not.
Buuuuuuuut just as a little bone of contention... NEXTSTEP is the OS that was developed by NeXT... um... which was STEVE JOBS' company!!! So I don't know if you can actually "steal" from yourself. .
Sigh... If you read anything you would realize that apple stole the dock before they bought NeXTSTEP. That means that steve jobs was not employed by apple at the time the dock was stolen.
NoSmokingBandit said: Sigh... If you read anything you would realize that apple stole the dock before they bought NeXTSTEP. That means that steve jobs was not employed by apple at the time the dock was stolen.
I don't want to start anything, but how do you figure that since Apple bought NeXT in 1996 and OSX server did not get released until 1999, and the dock in the form that this discussion is about did not appear until 2001 in OSX desktop? They didn't steal anything from NeXT, they BOUGHT it for $400,000,000, and then brought Steve Jobs back onboard as a temporary CEO to help them work out the details of porting NeXT features to MacOS... and then eventually decided to keep him around.
aletheianalex said: I don't want to start anything, but how do you figure that since Apple bought NeXT in 1996 and OSX server did not get released until 1999, and the dock in the form that this discussion is about did not appear until 2001 in OSX desktop? They didn't steal anything from NeXT, they BOUGHT it for $400,000,000, and then brought Steve Jobs back onboard as a temporary CEO to help them work out the details of porting NeXT features to MacOS... and then eventually decided to keep him around.
Well Apple is smart enough not to directly copy the dock, but what we're talking about is kind of "masking" the dock to where it doesn't look like the NeXT Dock, yet, contains much of the same functionality of the Dock.
bnj said: I am very surprised about this poll, too. I do not hate apple at all. I actually like their products very much, even though they are not open-source.
There's a great deal of code in MacOSX and other Apple products that is open source.
For quite some time Apple was one of the largest contributors to GCC's PPC code tree (MacOSX itself is built using GCC). Liikewise a lot of networking tools surrounding zeroconf have contributions made by Apple engineers. Apple's OpenDirectory too is based on OpenLDAP code, and submissions back into the OpenLDAP code base have been made by Apple engineers. Safari uses KHTML (the rendering engine for Konqueror), and again code contributions have been made back there. There's dozens of other projects that Apple actively contributes code to - and in the land of open source, code is worth a lot.
More recently, Apple bought the "CUPS" print engine/software (MacOSX uses CUPS internally for printing), and in the process hired the original owner who now works full-time for Apple (and the rest of the world) on CUPS. In fact, Gutsy Gibbon ships with CUPS 1.3.2 as it's print engine, which is technically Apple's baby now.
These are all positives. On the minus side, I'm very angry at Apple for buying out Shake, (1) Selling it on Linux at twice the price of the MacOSX version and (2) constantly lagging releases of the Linux version behind the MacOSX version.
The same can be said about a lot of Apple's multimedia side of their business. Most of the tools they sell are buy-outs of previous software, which are then Apple-ified and pushed heavily to lock people into buying Apple hardware.
But the positives are there. MacOSX itself is a great example of how a company can leverage open source for it's own financial gain without needing to resort to evil methods of doing business, and the computer-using community as a whole benefits. I just wish the same philosophy applied to all departments at Apple HQ.
Frak said: Well Apple is smart enough not to directly copy the dock, but what we're talking about is kind of "masking" the dock to where it doesn't look like the NeXT Dock, yet, contains much of the same functionality of the Dock.
Ok, that is all well and good, but Apple purchased the right to it in 1996 and then put it into use 5 years later in 2001 with some new eye-candy and improved functionality. It is not theft if they owned it. Much of the original OSX is NEXTSTEP since they purchased it in order to use that platform as a base for their new OS, so where is the theft?
I'm not talking about OS X, I'm talking about OS 7 and OS 8.
elvis said: There's dozens of other projects that Apple actively contributes code to - and in the land of open source, code is worth a lot.
(snip)
The same can be said about a lot of Apple's multimedia side of their business. Most of the tools they sell are buy-outs of previous software, which are then Apple-ified and pushed heavily to lock people into buying Apple hardware.
But the positives are there. MacOSX itself is a great example of how a company can leverage open source for it's own financial gain without needing to resort to evil methods of doing business, and the computer-using community as a whole benefits. I just wish the same philosophy applied to all departments at Apple HQ.
Food for thought.
Apple contributes code to give the impression of being open source when in reality they just don't give a hoot and it especially shows on the x86 side of the coin of their 'universal' support. Rob Braun detailed many examples of Apple not playing fair across several essays written by him:
http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/
Apple indeed have a history of buying up third party products, Macifying them, and including them as a means for further lock-in. SoundJam is already one previously mentioned example. Some other examples include:
- MultiFinder to Finder (classic Mac OS; an extension written by two Apple engineers)
- KeyGrip to Final Cut Pro
- Emagic to GarageBand/Logic Pro
- DVDirector to iDVD/DVD Studio Pro
- Stickies
- WindowShade
- SuperClock
and on and on...
At the same time Apple use their position to shut out competing third party developers:
- Audion vs. iTunes, again as previously mentioned
- Adobe Premiere vs. Final Cut Pro
- Watson vs. Sherlock
- Dashboard vs. Konfabulator
- Launchbar vs. Spotlight
Now back to "open source." Sure Apple software can import formats such as .vcf and .mbox, but good luck with the end result:
- Try importing your vCards into AddressBook.app and then try exporting your cards. Import them into something like, say, Evolution, and marvel at the number of format corrections you need to make. Your database? It's proprietary. Might as well use Outlook on your Windows box or even Entourage for that matter.
- Apple Mail uses a proprietary and undocumented format to store your mail in order to get around the limitations imposed by Spotlight. Fortunately there is a third party converter that will undo the damage and restore your mail into their respective mbox files.
- If you have custom playlists, ratings, sound counts, etc. in iTunes or custom photo info and albums in iPhoto? Good luck taking that with you to other programs. The .xml exports won't do you any good.
- iTunes can't properly write mp3 ID3 tags half the time. Try opening some of those mp3s in Amarok and...where did the tags go? I have many mp3s with missing tags that were imported from my CDs into iTunes. Perhaps it's Amarok's fault that the tags show up in Rhythmbox, Banshee, et. al. Not to mention the proprietary iTunes database, the XML backup that is next to useless, the proprietary format for downloaded album art in iTunes 7.x, and the most blatant example of lock-in, .m4p.
- And while we're talking about iTunes, .ogg is only supported through a third party plugin, and even then, no AirTunes if you land on an .ogg file while listening to your playlist over an AirPort Express.
- Lastly, read up in the wiki on why launchd was passed over in favor of upstart. (Hint: Has to do with licensing.)
I could go on all day with more examples of Apple deliberately locking in users into their apps, crippling open formats, crippling functionality in order to make users pay more on top of the Apple premium, and cheating the open source community...
To be fair, GIMP isn't all that open about their .xcf format, either.
alphasubzero949 said: Food for thought.
*Insightful stuff snipped*
All very good points.
Sometimes I wonder if the "Apple Philosophy" is universal throughout the company. It seems that project by project, department by department there are glaring differences in their approach to true openness. Their multimedia side is a blatant example of reject the core values of free software, yet their huge code contributions to some of their core OS features, compilers, web browsers, etc are certainly the polar opposite.
One could certainly argue Apple pick and choose their moral standpoint based entirely on how it affects them financially, or where the competition lies. Shake and Final Cut Pro are pretty unique, and open sourcing them would no doubt hurt their bottom line. Compare and contrast to Safari/KHTML/Konqueror and CUPS, where embracing open source doesn't infringe on their uniqueness (every OS can print and browse web pages, so no harm there).
Way back when MacOSX was first announced, I was pleasantly surprised to see their embrace of open source and hoped it would continue right throughout their product line. Now that the dust has settled and the OS itself has matured, I think we can all be certain that there are certain components that we'll never see opened up, and that's quite depressing.
I think Elvis is still in the building! :D People seem to be gradually peering deeper into this matter and uncovering the at times unsavoury truth. A few comments and questions; Alpha and Elvis seem to have already summed it up eloquently.
Their multimedia side is a blatant example of reject the core values of free software, yet their huge code contributions to some of their core OS features, compilers, web browsers, etc are certainly the polar opposite.
I think this too is part of the Headline Syndrome(tm). I would really like to know what Apple have contributed to GCC - for use by others that is. Objective-C has always been a proprietary language; Jobs struck a deal with inventor Brad Cox who came up with the language in 1983; my understanding is NeXT had an exclusive licence and the patent was absolutely not in the public domain as with most languages such as C by Dennis M Ritchie. Further and strange to say the least, the patent to Objective-C reverted to or was sold to Steve Jobs right before the ouvertures to Apple to effect a 'merger'. Strange, innit? And to this day the legal status of Objective-C is murky. Yet in the days of NeXT the developers tools - which today are included free on OS media and available for $20 S&H - cost US$10,000.
As for their contributions to 'web browsers': read instead what the KDE people think about this. Clue: 'they're not happy to say the least'. And what gets me personally is that they still haven't made a robust browser out of Safari after five years and many people either still discard the program as unreliable or gradually see too many bugs.
Way back when MacOSX was first announced, I was pleasantly surprised to see their embrace of open source and hoped it would continue right throughout their product line.
I think you were taken in by the hype. It's like a rock star visiting a small town and saying 'oh I've always loved the town - I always love coming back again'. Apple weren't embracing anything: according to the Street they were mere months from going tits up. Michael Dell suggested closing the company and refunding all the shareholders. NeXT saved their butt something ferocious. NeXT was very much open source - at least in the underpinnings - and this is what Apple 'bought' lock stock and barrel. They bought NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP to save their butts - not because they had some ideals about open source. And if you follow Alpha's links to Rob Braun you will read the inside story (from a former Apple programmer) of how Apple exploited the buzzwords 'open' and 'source' to garner interest in the scientific and research communities - and you will also learn how hypocritical this posture really was, how 'Darwin' was never 'open', how it's always been impossible to build a clean 'Darwin' from scratch outside the company, etc etc etc. Not an uplifting tale to be sure but true still the same.
~ Instant death of warranty and AppleCare if you even modify one component right down to your HDD.
They also have this tradition of using different stock parts on every new hardware model. So ordinary screws from one model won't fit in another and so forth. Makes things very expensive. The IBM PC is in many ways an 'open source computer' - for whatever reason off the shelf components. You will never find Apple doing that. I believe this is because of Steve Jobs who yes very literally will not let anyone else play with his ball. And when you see them instructed to put bloody limericks in the kernel to beg people to not run their OS on anyone else's hardware you've most likely seen through Steve-0.
~ Apple's repeated refusal to initially acknowledge defects unless threatened with bad press or class-action lawsuits.
This is perhaps the worst. And it's not just this. This is only one aspect of it. How dare they put up a message board and then hire nannies to remove any posts critical of the company? Anytime someone has a serious hardware issue (appledefect.com) and it's posted at Apple it disappears. Anytime someone posts a remark about these posts being removed - they get removed too! How long is it going to take before consumers wake up?
Apple used to be the darlings of consumer organisations. They were regarded as perhaps the only good computer brand and one of the best brands all categories. And then, like it or not, Steve Jobs came back and was CEO of the company he co-founded for the first time. iTools was to always be free and Steve said so; then iTools turned into .Mac and cost money. Yours truly reminded readers of this fact at the Apple discussion forums and had the post removed. This alone made them 'bad boys' at the consumer organisations. But this was only the beginning. Soon hardware would begin to suffer. The panicky move to Intel coupled with reassignment of factory locations now in China where labour is so much cheaper - no one watched quality control. Steve-0 pushed the company through the transition, customers be damned. AppleDefects.com is testimony to how bad things got. We tend to forget these things over time but scandals such as thermal grease, Bridget Riley lines, mooing, whining, random shutdowns - yours truly was sent a very expensive 15 inch laptop that was DOA. You have no idea how scary that is. I dare say 'traumatic': for months afterwards you're on edge wondering when the computer you now have instead is going to do the same thing. And people worry about crashes on Windows and losing all their data? What's worse than the bloody hardware just shutting down?
I have a theory. Many people won't like it but if you read some of the comments by former Apple employees at Amazon for the books written about the company you will see the trend. And in particular a curious quote from Steve Jobs when asked how his new policies (1997 or thereabouts) would affect customers. And Steve's spontaneous reaction was 'the customers? **** 'em!' Think about that a moment. One lonely employee in Apple still considerate of what customers think poses a question to Steve-0 and Steve-0 derides Apple's stupid customers! Is it a true story? I don't know. We can't possibly know. But I think the 'attitude' expressed in that narrative sums up corporate policy for Apple rather accurately. Apple even today rely to an inordinate extent on their Guy Kawasaki constituency who will - as related facetiously at Urban Dictionary - tie C4 to their chests and run up and hug anyone who says bad things about their 'beloved' company and their fearless leader.
When things have gone this far it's not an objective discussion anymore and it's no longer a question of hardware and software quality. It's instead become a crash course in post graduate abnormal psychology. It is this constituency Apple have systematically played up to ever since Steve Jobs yanked the CEO position back in 1997 by dumping $250 million in Apple stock to undermine the company, scare the board of directors, and get a vote of confidence against the then current CEO so he could move back in.
This is big major leagues cutthroat business and politics. Jobs is a billionaire just like Gates. To some extent they're both criminals. But whilst Gates is a player and learned how to be second richest by playing with others (and screwing them when he feels like it) Jobs is totally obsessive. They're different types of personality. Gates is cool and calculating; Jobs is bipolar.
Jobs will never be open with his company. It is HIS company and he will never let go - only reluctantly. Gates is certainly no better but Jobs runs his show an entirely different way even if certain things appear to be similar. And Steve-0 is a pathological micromanager. To understand what's wrong with Apple as a corporation it's therefore necessary to understand what's wrong with Steve Jobs as a person. The open source gambit; the incessant censorship on discussion boards - where officially there are no more censors; the fanatical move to Intel and China despite the ludicrous level of hardware scandals unparalleled in the industry as a whole - all of this comes back to Steve Jobs.
And if you ever have the chance to meet anyone from upper management at Apple as I have you will see it all. Seriously: they all dress the same (jeans and sneakers and black polo) have the same haircut and two day designer beard. OK not all of them but a considerable portion of them - the ones you don't normally see. If people are walking around the corridors of One Infinite Loop like Barbie dolls (Ken dolls) trying so desperately to look like their bosses because they're intimidated by the stories about how people get sacked for merely voicing a contradictory opinion - then you know beyond a shadow of a doubt who really runs the company down in its moldiest seams.
Apple and open source? Who cares - it's a joke. Apple quality? Another joke. The failures of their Tiger are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. With Leopard approaching they're still getting something on the order of five thousand new bug reports per day, They're driven - by an obsessive manager who 1) wouldn't let Objective-C go in the public domain; 2) hired on David Hyatt from Camino but wouldn't play ball back with KDE the way KDE wanted them to; 3) made a shambolic sham out of their supposed 'embrace' of open source; 4) keeps a really stupid hardware lockin; 5) ignores customer complaints as Alpha says until class action suits threaten their complacency - see the Danish case for a very enlightening look into this matter; 6) tells programmers to put bloody limericks in the kernel begging people to not run the OS on anyone else's hardware platform even for fun; and 7) ostensibly caters to a Jonestown type cult to keep a 'brown shirt' army close by if ever needed.
Hate Apple? Who can hate Apple?
All I can see is somewhere in the EU, they will ban "Brown Shirts"/"Mac's" from being "Worn"/"Sold"
Frak said: Well Apple is smart enough not to directly copy the dock, but what we're talking about is kind of "masking" the dock to where it doesn't look like the NeXT Dock, yet, contains much of the same functionality of the Dock.
But actually, the control strip hasn't got any Dock-like functionality...
That is all the attitude of Apple/Jobs that I love and hate... and watch fervently like a rubbernecker on the highway. Honestly, you can take one of two stances:
1) OK, OK, we'll do whatever you (the consumer and developers) want, throw caution to the wind, make the changes as we go and hope that our company lands on it's feet every time it falls down a flight of stairs...
2) **** you, I started this company in my garage, built it into an empire against all odds and I am going to do things MY way so if you don't like it: don't buy it and if you don't want to play cutthroat hardball with the big-boys, then get out of the way because you are in the wrong line of work.
So naturally, the implications of #2 are that is a 3rd party developer makes a product that catches the company's eye their choice it to either 1) work with them by giving them under strict guidelines if they show promise in a way/area that you are not interested in directly developing in-house 2) bring them onboard and control their direction if they DO show promise/innovation/functionality in a way/area that you are interested in DIRECTLY developing or incoroprating into the core of your system, or 3) buy/squash them out of existence if they don't fall in line with the vision of the company/threaten the company
The Nazi metaphor has been alluded to several times here... that only applies to a closed system: not a free market. If it were a monopoly, then by all means, let the metaphors fly, but buying into a closed system and then complaining about it's 'closed-ness'... well there is a Logical Conundrum if I ever saw one: which is why I am surrounded by half a dozen different machines running dozens of different OS'es, but my main preference is clear since I am typing this post on a Mac Mini dual booting OSX or Ubuntu.
Alfa989 said: But actually, the control strip hasn't got any Dock-like functionality...
Yes, the Control Strip is not a dock and was not intended to be. It will only launch CSM modules and nothing else, and was intended as quick access to primarily hardware control panels, but also some software control panels.
I don't "hate" Apple either. I don't like them though and thats mainly because how the company philosophy (land grab) and the religious following they have.
I do have problems with MacOSX though. I've been working on MacOSX for a couple of months now (due to work) and I must say it's the most horrible UI I ever had to work with. Besides the fact that I feel completely patronized by Apple's philosophy towards its users in not given them a choice about so many things (make it my choice to show hidden files in Finder!) the UI seems just quirky and unfinished. One example, from the top of head, the other day I copied MP3 files to the hard drive. I had an artist whose albums where stored on two different DVD's. When I copied the second folder (same artist name) MacOSX couldn't add to that folder. No, instead it could overwrite that folder or not copy at all (imagine there where several artist like this). There is heaps of stupid stuff like that on a day by day basis. Don't get me started on the damn mouse acceleration / declaration!
No I don't like MacOSX and I personally think that Windows has a much better, friendlier and approachable UI then MacOSX. Of course, my nr.1 choice is Ubuntu with Gnome... :)
I couldn't give a monkeys about OSX not being open source, In fact i couldn't give a damn about ANY software being open source or not.
I don't care if Microsoft and/or Apple are nasty monopolizing organizations that *gasp* copyright there work.
I use my computer to get stuff done . All I care about is the quality and stability of the software I use, and the hardware I run it on. And for me, OSX fits the bill perfectly.
Apple make some truly outstanding software - Logic Studio/ Final Cut Pro, anyone?
And when coupled with the tight OS/Hardware integration, you have a workstation that for me, is unparalleled.
I believe the same people who developed Logic Studio/Final Cut Pro before Apple bought them, still work for Apple to develop them to this day.
Frak said: I believe the same people who developed Logic Studio/Final Cut Pro before Apple bought them, still work for Apple to develop them to this day.
Final Cut has nothing to do with Macromedia (it's initial developers) anymore.
I believe the Logic development team still contains ex-Emagic guy's amongst it's ranks, but it is very much an Apple software..
Why do we dislike Stivie boy better than Bill? Bill's stuff is available for kids at school due to it's not open source nature-bunch of manufacturers are able to compete to provide us with a choice of hardware. That's why Jobs i not as reach as half of Microsoft's staff. Let me know if you ever see mac power book pro or whatever in your local school. regards
There are 10 Macs in the School I work for. 4 in Entertainment, 2 in Sports Entertainment Marketing, and 2 in Special Education, 2 in Intro to Programming.
No kidding, I have 20 of those-junk.
But thank you, sir.
alex1966 said: Why do we dislike Stivie boy better than Bill?
Bill's stuff is available for kids at school due to it's not open source nature-bunch of manufacturers are able to compete to provide us with a choice of hardware. That's why Jobs i not as reach as half of Microsoft's staff. Let me know if you ever see mac power book pro or whatever in your local school. regards
The suite were I did my Uni course, has almost 20 Mac Pro's. We also have access to Mac laptops when needed.
apple hates to give the end-user choice. You must use their hardware and you used to have to use their os on their hardware until they made the revolutionary new concept of 'bootcamp'... but wait, hasnt dual-booting been around since FOREVER!??! OSX is the complete polar opposite of linux in terms of open/closed source. Windows has a good medium stance. I dont see why some linux users prefer osx to xp when they bitch about xp not being customizable. I also hate the new osx 10.5. The 'revolutionary new features' are not new and not revolutionary. Workspaces have been around since the dark ages, time machine is a shiny version of window's system restore, stacks are a copy of stardock's flyout menus (i dont care that stardock copied the dock, they at least recognize it as a copy instead of something great). Not to mention that most of these new features could easilty be dont through an update.
NoSmokingBandit said: apple hates to give the end-user choice. You must use their hardware and you used to have to use their os on their hardware until they made the revolutionary new concept of 'bootcamp'... but wait, hasnt dual-booting been around since FOREVER!??! OSX is the complete polar opposite of linux in terms of open/closed source. Windows has a good medium stance. I dont see why some linux users prefer osx to xp when they bitch about xp not being customizable. I also hate the new osx 10.5. The 'revolutionary new features' are not new and not revolutionary. Workspaces have been around since the dark ages, time machine is a shiny version of window's system restore, stacks are a copy of stardock's flyout menus (i dont care that stardock copied the dock, they at least recognize it as a copy instead of something great). Not to mention that most of these new features could easilty be dont through an update.
I just hate the design period, they had it good with the Aqua backgrounds, flat dock (no fancy glass junk) and the "Vista" like transparent MenuBar.
I've used the 10.5 Developer Edition and it is much better than what they are putting out now. (10.5 with the 10.4 UI)
yeah, apple is once again moving toward something thats shinier but less functional. Of course, vista is doing the same thing for alot of its features. Operating systems are getting too big. I like that liux is powerful and completely customizable and it fits on one cd. OSX is a complete lockdown, is only powerful because they use bsd, and takes up a whole dvd.
NoSmokingBandit said: yeah, apple is once again moving toward something thats shinier but less functional. Of course, vista is doing the same thing for alot of its features. Operating systems are getting too big. I like that liux is powerful and completely customizable and it fits on one cd. OSX is a complete lockdown, is only powerful because they use bsd, and takes up a whole dvd.
Correction! 2 DVDs.
Speaking of OS X... what are the rumors about Leopard's release date?
who knows? Sometime this month i guess. People get pissed at MS for missing deadlines but they dont get pissed at apple for not even giving us a deadline... I kinda hate how its the cool thing to hate all that ms does and praise apple for what they do, even when its the same thing. I'll try leopard when it has been hacked by the osx86 team. Hopefully we could have more drivers for it then.
NoSmokingBandit said: who knows? Sometime this month i guess. People get pissed at MS for missing deadlines but they dont get pissed at apple for not even giving us a deadline... I kinda hate how its the cool thing to hate all that ms does and praise apple for what they do, even when its the same thing.
I'll try leopard when it has been hacked by the osx86 team. Hopefully we could have more drivers for it then. That's why they don't have a definate date, so they cannot be yelled at for missing it.
And osx86 turk team has already hacked "The Big Cat" (Hint, Hint, Hint ;))
oh crap, i need to find then then, eh?
NoSmokingBandit said: oh crap, i need to find then then, eh?
Yep
I don't really like apple, the only reason I would buy a mac is to do multi media editing which I am going to need to do soon when I put out my demo tape heh
benhagerty said: I don't really like apple, the only reason I would buy a mac is to do multi media editing which I am going to need to do soon when I put out my demo tape heh
Try JackLab or Ubuntu-Studio
Audacity is all you need to record. I've done a few songs myself on it and it sounds great if you know what you are doing. Granted, i used it in windows because i could never get it to work in ubuntu. I'll give it another try once Gusty is out.
Gentleman,
Thank you for your response.Ubuntu remains my OS choice for development testing troubleshooting of my projects.
That is, whenever possible
MCP MCSE CCNA 3COM elite partner:)
Frak said: Try JackLab or Ubuntu-Studio
Both are laughably bad when stood shoulder to shoulder with the best that OSX/Windows has to offer.
Same with audacity....
Chrisj303 said: Both are laughably bad when stood shoulder to shoulder with the best that OSX/Windows has to offer.
Same with audacity....
bullocks.
Chrisj303 said: Both are laughably bad when stood shoulder to shoulder with the best that OSX/Windows has to offer.
Same with audacity.... ehem, you have to try them first. They are "bad" because they solve the problem with various other methods.
Frak said: ehem, you have to try them first. They are "bad" because they solve the problem with various other methods.
I have tried them and I stand by my statement, they are laughably bad.
- I use Logic studio, Final Cut Pro and Peak Pro 5, BTW.
.
Chrisj303 said: I have tried them and I stand by my statement, they are laughably bad.
OK, then, you don't know how to use them. It is possible to come up with the exact same results with both. It has been done.
- I use Logic studio, Final Cut Pro and Peak Pro 5, BTW.
You dont need expensive programs to get a good sound. If someone has to rely on the software to get a good recording then they just suck at it.
Frak said: OK, then, you don't know how to use them. It is possible to come up with the exact same results with both. It has been done.
I take it *you've* never used Logic Studio/Final Cut then?
@nosmokingbandit
Quality software instruments are vital when working solely in a computer based enviroment.
So is a pukka EQ section.
Does ubuntustudio have a "NODE" protocol equal?
How about the REWIRE protocol?
Compatibility with MIDI controllers, external soundcards?
Are you *really* saying that Ubuntustudio is as good as Logic/Pro-Tools etc ?
There is a lot more to computer-based music production, then just getting a good sound - which I didn't actually say ubuntustudio was incapable of, but compared to Logic, well - it's a bit of a joke.
Chrisj303 said: I take it *you've* never used Logic Studio/Final Cut then?
@nosmokingbandit
Quality software instruments are vital when working solely in a computer based enviroment.
So is a pukka EQ section.
Does ubuntustudio have a "NODE" protocol equal?
How about the REWIRE protocol?
Compatibility with MIDI controllers, external soundcards?
Are you *really* saying that Ubuntustudio is as good as Logic/Pro-Tools etc ?
There is a lot more to computer-based music production, then just getting a good sound - which I didn't actually say ubuntustudio was incapable of, but compared to Logic, well - it's a bit of a joke. I own a copy of both. I've used them, and they aren't bad. Yes, I would prefer LS or FC over UStudio or JackLab, but US and JL are still very good distributions. They hit the nail on the head on what they do, and they do it just fine.
I have used Cakewalk as well as Cubase. Most of the upper-end features are nice and convenient, but if you cant get a good sound from your mic then something is going wrong before the signal even hits the soundcard. Some EQ's in the mixing process are vital as the balance everything out, but anything much more that that is overkill. If you need 'verb on the vox, get some true analog reverb going on , dont resort to cold digital junk. You shouldnt need fancy protocols to get good sound. The Beatles recorded their music with minimal technology, and you cant say their quality was sub-par.
i own an ib00k g4 ppc w/leopard. its awesome. apple support when not under the warranty can be expensive though. i fried my logic board and paid 350$ to get it fixed :(
Bragador said: Well I'm surprised it seems I'm the only one who have a problem with Apple's attitude.
I don't really understand why one wouldn't like Microsoft but like the more self centered and less cooperative Apple company.
Oh well...
The threads too big to read fully, but I want quote this for truth.
I hate the way Apple restricts what hardware you can use, at least Ubuntu and Windows will let you install (well attempt) on any hardware. Apple is total and utter vendor lock in, and if they had more market share than MS you better believe they would be more hated than MS.
As an after thought I don't like seeing smug people sat in Starbucks with their Macs either :)
GUYS GUYS GUYS. NAD GALSSSSSS. you need to our friends at Apple some credit. Had it not been for them, we would never have had COMPIZ FUSION. So I think we have UBUNTU, something which has pros of both windows and apple OS. In a couple of years companies will start making drivers for linux because they know its the future. If I owned a Wifi Device developing company, I would rather let the community develop the software from the original 'free' code rather than spend millions on RnD.
yaztromo said:
I hate the way Apple restricts what hardware you can use, at least Ubuntu and Windows will let you install (well attempt) on any hardware. Apple is total and utter vendor lock in, and if they had more market share than MS you better believe they would be more hated than MS./QUOTE] so according to you, any product is an example of vendor lock-in? :rolleyes: :P
As an after thought I don't like seeing smug people sat in Starbucks with their Macs either :) What? Mac users are smug? ... No comment :D
elgoog said: GUYS GUYS GUYS. NAD GALSSSSSS.
you need to our friends at Apple some credit. Had it not been for them, we would never have had COMPIZ FUSION. So I think we have UBUNTU, something which has pros of both windows and apple OS. In a couple of years companies will start making drivers for linux because they know its the future. If I owned a Wifi Device developing company, I would rather let the community develop the software from the original 'free' code rather than spend millions on RnD. Compiz Fusion follows Vista's Aero more than anything nowadays.
I tried OSX86 on my config. It worked fine. Then I uninstalled it.
Why?
Because I don't see the point of having Apple software when you have Ubuntu (or any GNU/Linux) and Vista already there doing an excellent job for you. Plus the GUI is boring, and the human interface is not more human-oriented than other OSes.
My advice if you're an average Linux user like me, considering buying Apple: DON'T. Not worth your time and your MONEY. Not that I'm against closed-source or 'commercial software', but this OS doesn't beat Ubuntu or FreeBSD 7.0 with Gnome, or Vista even. The only thing Apple has is a nice design for their boxes and some nice editing software if you want to make home movies. Not enough to impress me still.
Their sales people speech is crappy too. Only a noob could fall for that.
Feel free to comment if you wish. This is only MY opinion.
the8thstar said: I tried OSX86 on my config. It worked fine. Then I uninstalled it.
Why?
Because I don't see the point of having Apple software when you have Ubuntu (or any GNU/Linux) and Vista already there doing an excellent job for you. Plus the GUI is boring, and the human interface is not more human-oriented than other OSes.
My advice if you're an average Linux user like me, considering buying Apple: DON'T. Not worth your time and your MONEY. Not that I'm against closed-source or 'commercial software', but this OS doesn't beat Ubuntu or FreeBSD 7.0 with Gnome, or Vista even. The only thing Apple has is a nice design for their boxes and some nice editing software if you want to make home movies. Not enough to impress me still.
Their sales people speech is crappy too. Only a noob could fall for that.
Feel free to comment if you wish. This is only MY opinion. Some of us are required to use Apple machines. Plus, they do have some very nice ideas coming out of it (Time machine and remote network drive for instance).
I now help teach a multimedia class, and what I've found is a strong demand in the field of using Final Cut Pro (much of the motion pictures are edited with it). Therefore, we are provided grants to buy Macintosh workstations with FCP installed (with educational discount, around $1,400 per station).
Frak said: Some of us are required to use Apple machines. Plus, they do have some very nice ideas coming out of it (Time machine and remote network drive for instance).
I now help teach a multimedia class, and what I've found is a strong demand in the field of using Final Cut Pro (much of the motion pictures are edited with it). Therefore, we are provided grants to buy Macintosh workstations with FCP installed (with educational discount, around $1,400 per station).
Final Cut Pro is the software I was talking about. I'm not denying Apple or Mac fanboys the right to live, I'm just saying that _AVERAGE users like me don't need all that jazz_.
As a personal shopper, I would never waste $1,400 of my money on an Apple station. Your situation is different than mine and it makes sense for your organization, so that's all that matters.
Yeah, the only thing Macs are good for IMO is video editing. I really do not see any other point in getting a Mac. I never do any video editing. Therefore, I have no use for a Mac. I used Macs everyday for one year at school. I got bored with them fast. I couldn't play any movies that were not Quicktime it seemed like. Probably an error on my part for not getting codecs. I couldn't anyway because they belonged to the school. The funny thing is now all the Macs run Boot Camp so most people use Windows with them now. I don't use them at all anymore because I have a laptop.
A few months back my main machine started to encounter problems. It was quite a few years old and I had to upgrade. I've managed for a few years to upgrade parts of my machine, but I would need a new CPU (dual-core), ram, motherboard, graphics card, hard drive; in short I needed a new machine basically. I'd been self building for many years now so I could get a relatively cheap system but I was really tempted by a Mac Mini. OSX looked fantastic and now that I have a two year old son I simply don't have time to spend getting things to work. I wanted to be able to make DVDs of the movies I was taking of him easily, to be able to manage my thousands of photos of him. The photo management was not too bad in Ubuntu, but DVDs were a nightmare; I had spent months trying to follow the hundreds of different tutorials out there using a multitude of applications to get it done. I bit the bullet and ordered the top tier Mac Mini with 2Gb of RAM.
I am SO happy I did. The Mac Mini is a fantastic piece of kit. Small and compact it is much better for me than a tower as it has much more power than my previous machine but it sits on my desk on shelf out of the way of tiny hands which love to turn things off. Its virtually silent, far more so than any machine I could of built myself. OSX looks great and iLife makes it REALLY easy to do everything I need to. Quicksilver is the greatest piece of software I have ever used and I now spend all my time on my computer just doing the things I want to do; I spend zero time fixing things/trying to get things to work.
I still use Ubuntu; Mythbuntu sits in my lounge and works great. However I have been using MythTV for a couple of years now and have spent ten years building and repairing computers and about eight years using Linux. Without that there is no way I would be able to get it working. I am glad I had this time as it means I know my way around computers and if you want a fine degree of control over what happens on your computer there is no alternative to Linux. However if you can afford it, and just want to do fairly simple and fun things on your computer, Apple/Mac OSX is the way to go.
elgoog said: GUYS GUYS GUYS. NAD GALSSSSSS.
you need to our friends at Apple some credit. Had it not been for them, we would never have had COMPIZ FUSION. So I think we have UBUNTU, something which has pros of both windows and apple OS. In a couple of years companies will start making drivers for linux because they know its the future. If I owned a Wifi Device developing company, I would rather let the community develop the software from the original 'free' code rather than spend millions on RnD. Why are you saying that I should give Apple any credit?
Istonian said: Yeah, the only thing Macs are good for IMO is video editing. I really do not see any other point in getting a Mac. I never do any video editing. Therefore, I have no use for a Mac. I used Macs everyday for one year at school. I got bored with them fast. I couldn't play any movies that were not Quicktime it seemed like. Probably an error on my part for not getting codecs. I couldn't anyway because they belonged to the school. The funny thing is now all the Macs run Boot Camp so most people use Windows with them now. I don't use them at all anymore because I have a laptop.
I'm still fond of Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere Pro (which, by the way, looks A LOT like Final Cut). Mainly because I can use them while I'm in XP or Vista.
How do I express my joys of using OS X without sounding like an obnoxious nerd? Well that sums it up. I have had chances to use Ubuntu (using it now) and Windows (mixed with Novell as well), out of them all, Linux and OS X I have found most enjoyable.
In the end, each has their own place and special talents.
I bought a MacBook Pro about a week ago and, so far, I love it. It has the super-powerful guts of a Unix like OS, a good interface, and seriously amazing apps.
Well for me...I would go Windows,Linux and then Apple...but the reason i am doing thi as such is even tough windows may not be the greatest ever, i feel that i hardly et problems with it and run smoothly with it but also since its been my all life OS and Linux bcause of its free and open source apps and also its freedom of running it through mny other things which i run through MokaFive and Apple is last because although its more stable then Windows, I really don't come to a liking with it although i use it 24/7 only at school, I say that it's good.(Long sentence)
Am I the only one that finds that while OS X is incredibly stable, most of iLife and iWork is not? (iMovie HD crashes on me on a tri-daily basis, or every 3 days, anymore)
I started out my computer life as a Windows user, and eventually migrated to Ubuntu and bought a Mac because there were a few Windows apps I kinda missed that were available for Mac as well and it seemed like a better purchase at the time (and undoubtedly it was) but... I just have never found OS X to be very intuitive personally... and I think in many ways, it's workflow has been very counterproductive in my struggles with my ADHD...
It's the dock.
Look at your average Linux distro with Gnome or KDE or Xfce as the desktop... or even Windows for that matter... Unless you've moved things around, what's at the bottom of the screen? A little bar with all the windows of the programs you have open. If you have a lot of programs open, it gets cluttered really fast.
In OS X, we have the dock. The dock serves two purposes... One, a place for shortcuts to programs that you use often. Two, a place for shortcuts to programs that are currently open... and there's a very small visual indicator as to what's a currently active program and what's not.
This is a problem because I have a tendancy to open up LOTS of programs at once and then never close them because my dock never gets cluttered. Since I use the same programs all the time, there are never any additional icons in the dock. So all of the sudden, all of my programs are open, I've got 20 tabs openin Firefox and all of the sudden I'm getting the beachball of doom because I've used up all my memory because I've opened up a TON of programs all at once because I'm not making a mess of my desktop.
Um.. yeah. The dock might make that bottom section of my desktop look pretty, but it's not very practical.
nikkiana said: I started out my computer life as a Windows user, and eventually migrated to Ubuntu and bought a Mac because there were a few Windows apps I kinda missed that were available for Mac as well and it seemed like a better purchase at the time (and undoubtedly it was) but... I just have never found OS X to be very intuitive personally... and I think in many ways, it's workflow has been very counterproductive in my struggles with my ADHD...
It's the dock.
Look at your average Linux distro with Gnome or KDE or Xfce as the desktop... or even Windows for that matter... Unless you've moved things around, what's at the bottom of the screen? A little bar with all the windows of the programs you have open. If you have a lot of programs open, it gets cluttered really fast.
In OS X, we have the dock. The dock serves two purposes... One, a place for shortcuts to programs that you use often. Two, a place for shortcuts to programs that are currently open... and there's a very small visual indicator as to what's a currently active program and what's not.
This is a problem because I have a tendancy to open up LOTS of programs at once and then never close them because my dock never gets cluttered. Since I use the same programs all the time, there are never any additional icons in the dock. So all of the sudden, all of my programs are open, I've got 20 tabs openin Firefox and all of the sudden I'm getting the beachball of doom because I've used up all my memory because I've opened up a TON of programs all at once because I'm not making a mess of my desktop.
Um.. yeah. The dock might make that bottom section of my desktop look pretty, but it's not very practical. I think Bruce Tognazzini wrote something about this. Very informative.
At least OSX provides a bash shell, vim and nano. You can get your geek on and get a little practice to see if you like the commandline if/when you are ready to install the real thing like Hardy on your iMac.
I ran Apple's X11 and found the whole fink thing frustrating. Why not just do it right with a real Linux install? And I still keep OSX stuffed in a drawer on an external firewire drive if I ever need to do a firmware upgrade...
I like Apple a lot better than Microsoft. And I know, they're even worse about DRM and locking you in to their hardware, but you know what?
It WORKS. I can give in to them, and the software will work about 100% of the time, unlike the sh**ty experience I get out of Windows (Vista AND XP). I'd say it's an anti-Linux - very little customization, very little choice, and they pull all of the advantages out of it that they can, just like the diversity of Linux distributions pulls all of the advantages out of not being tied down to any particular implementation, even down to the basic infrastructure like file browser.
stream303 said: At least OSX provides a bash shell, vim and nano. You can get your geek on and get a little practice to see if you like the commandline if/when you are ready to install the real thing like Hardy on your iMac.
I ran Apple's X11 and found the whole fink thing frustrating. Why not just do it right with a real Linux install? And I still keep OSX stuffed in a drawer on an external firewire drive if I ever need to do a firmware upgrade... Have you tried MacPorts?
Well i hate to say it but i don't really like Macs that much,I mean sure they are easier to operate and are quite good machines but for me...i'd go with Windows and Linux 99.99% of the time since i like a challenge but really i am equal in this OS war with them all ties for 1st....And yes i have used all OS's.....Mac at school, Windows at home, Linux virtualized at home.
Frak said: Am I the only one that finds that while OS X is incredibly stable, most of iLife and iWork is not? (iMovie HD crashes on me on a tri-daily basis, or every 3 days, anymore)
I've used the latest iMovie ('08) a lot and its never crashed once on my machine. Dashboard client (whatever that is!) and quicksilver are the only things I have noticed crashing.
I've used all, and Mac OS X is alot better than Windows. The only problem is that, and I quote, "...the file system is totally messed up...". I have no idea what is executable and what is readable. However, it is the fastest OS I've used.
Frak said: Have you tried MacPorts?
I did early on, and just thought that if I wanted to emulate a more classic *nix environment, it was better just to devote the whole machine to Linux / BSD etc.
Megacherv said: I've used all, and Mac OS X is alot better than Windows. The only problem is that, and I quote, "...the file system is totally messed up...". I have no idea what is executable and what is readable. However, it is the fastest OS I've used.
- The filesystem is somewhat identical to Ext3. (Not completely identical, as there are some huge differences, but mostly the same)
- DMG is a Disk image, or Apple Encrypted HFS+ Image. This is much like an ISO file.
- ZIP images may contain a DMG file for extra compression. Safari auto-deompresses the ZIP and automounts the DMG.
- Executables have an icon but no extension. They are actually folders with a .app extension that, when read, use the corresponding icon and have scripts within the folder to start the program.
- DMG files are read-only by default, but if you have rights to the file, you can add write to them in the Disk Utility or running disk-utils.
EDIT
- .pkg files are installer files.
- When a dmg is decompressed, move the contents into your Applications (Clover + A)
Had to use MACs in school and for some reason just never was a pleasurable experience for me. I know a lot of people say that MAC is supposed to be easy to use and such but for me I still prefer windows over MAC and of course Linux over them all :). Probably a little biased answer though because I have never used it at home just a school for a bunch of various things so in a way I am kind of neutral on the topic although Apple laptops do look pretty sweet but damn expensive....
C!oud said: Had to use MACs in school and for some reason just never was a pleasurable experience for me. I know a lot of people say that MAC is supposed to be easy to use and such but for me I still prefer windows over MAC and of course Linux over them all :). Probably a little biased answer though because I have never used it at home just a school for a bunch of various things so in a way I am kind of neutral on the topic although Apple laptops do look pretty sweet but damn expensive....
I agree, but you don't need to capitalise Mac. It's just an abbreviated Macintosh.
I work in tech support for Apple (outsourced of course). Perhaps I spend all day dealing with the problems and people who don't know what they are doing, but I think I'll stick with dual booting xp and Ubuntu.
Megacherv said: I've used all, and Mac OS X is alot better than Windows. The only problem is that, and I quote, "...the file system is totally messed up...". I have no idea what is executable and what is readable. However, it is the fastest OS I've used.
ls -l will tell you exactly what is executable and what is readable, just as in Linux. A lot of command line tools that are available in Linux are there in Mac OS X too. Its very handy to be able to ssh into my MythTV box.
nikkiana said: I started out my computer life as a Windows user, and eventually migrated to Ubuntu and bought a Mac because there were a few Windows apps I kinda missed that were available for Mac as well and it seemed like a better purchase at the time (and undoubtedly it was) but... I just have never found OS X to be very intuitive personally... and I think in many ways, it's workflow has been very counterproductive in my struggles with my ADHD...
It's the dock.
Look at your average Linux distro with Gnome or KDE or Xfce as the desktop... or even Windows for that matter... Unless you've moved things around, what's at the bottom of the screen? A little bar with all the windows of the programs you have open. If you have a lot of programs open, it gets cluttered really fast.
In OS X, we have the dock. The dock serves two purposes... One, a place for shortcuts to programs that you use often. Two, a place for shortcuts to programs that are currently open... and there's a very small visual indicator as to what's a currently active program and what's not.
This is a problem because I have a tendancy to open up LOTS of programs at once and then never close them because my dock never gets cluttered. Since I use the same programs all the time, there are never any additional icons in the dock. So all of the sudden, all of my programs are open, I've got 20 tabs openin Firefox and all of the sudden I'm getting the beachball of doom because I've used up all my memory because I've opened up a TON of programs all at once because I'm not making a mess of my desktop.
Um.. yeah. The dock might make that bottom section of my desktop look pretty, but it's not very practical.
Use Command+Q :)
That should solve your problem :P
I use both... I love my Mac, but use the Kubuntu box more and more each day.
I have an iBook G3 that does everything and I sync it daily with my iPhone. The Kubuntu box is a Toshiba Satellite L45 that I have had to tweak to get it working with linux. The ATHEROS wifi card and the Intel HDA sound card were a royal pain in my **** to get working with Kubuntu, but I love it.
Micro$oft $ucks bad! Hate it, can't stand vista.
Thanks for listening, M
I don't hate apple I use them and linux. All are tools, you use the best for the job.
MS has no open source projects that they contribute to, Apple has more than 20. Of course Sun has even more, SGI less.
To bash Apple for making a hardware and software closed system is silly, the closed system makes it easier to keep consistency and stability.
Exactly why Windoz doesn't work very well, other peoples hardware and no control over drivers of 3rd party, Most of a crashing MS Windows system was written by the lowest bidder or outsourced from hardware. Windoz can work well and has benefits, it can be stable if you have quality hardware. Windoz also has more software available than any other OS, most of it junk but still more.
I love Apple, they make nice stuff. I love linux, you can do really interesting things when you have the time and patience to learn it. Windoz is what it is, slow buggy and hard to customize and do cool things without spending a bundle. Ma will cost you a bundle to do cool things because your software will be limited.
Back to the top ( TOOLS ) Use the right tool for the job. Educate the idiots from continuing to use a rock (windows) when a hammer (linux) is in the toolbox. Or if they want they can purchase an expensive but beautifully designed nail-gun(Apple) to get the job done.
edward4130 said: MS has no open source projects that they contribute to...
Believe it or not, Microsoft does participate in Open Source.
I quite like Mac OS X. Much like any OS it has bad bits too :) It works quite well for lots of things. I still prefer Linux though.
What Bad bits are you ppl talkyn about ?
I haven't seen any...
Apple rocks all the way, its EEEEAAASSY to use, easier than Ubuntu..
am so confused when am looking for something on ubuntu, for example if I want to sync photos to my ipod, there are so many options & none work..
theumang said: What Bad bits are you ppl talkyn about ?
I haven't seen any...
Apple rocks all the way, its EEEEAAASSY to use, easier than Ubuntu..
am so confused when am looking for something on ubuntu, for example if I want to sync photos to my ipod, there are so many options & none work.. Remember that Apple has only decided to support OS X and Windows, therefore, iPod support in Linux is still buggy.
Bad bits refers to the downfalls of an Operating System. Linux has its downfalls in available applications and hardware support, Windows has its downfalls in the security and high-end stability areas (Servers for instance), and OS X has its downfalls in available applications, hardware support (restricted), and heavy use of DRM in their systems.
Bad bits, they all have them.
Here are a couple of examples of bad bits I've seen, not to mention the fact that my wife has never been able to get WPA working properly, either on her Powerbook or her Macbook Pro: My wife "dist-upgraded" to Tiger and it messed up her user profile... Macs are just computers, not magic
She still has had an overall positive experience with Macs and loves Macs, but to pretend there are no bad bits to Mac OS X... I just don't get how people can do that.
I'm certain WPA isn't possible, because I too have tried and just decided to switch to (albeit less secure) WEP.
Frak said: I'm certain WPA isn't possible, because I too have tried and just decided to switch to (albeit less secure) WEP.
Yeah, that's what she ended up doing on both her laptops (first the Powerbook, then the Macbook Pro). Believe me, we Googled, and there is no satisfactory solution to this problem. WPA will work for a little bit, but the connection will constantly drop. WPA2 just won't work at all.
aysiu said: Yeah, that's what she ended up doing on both her laptops (first the Powerbook, then the Macbook Pro). Believe me, we Googled, and there is no satisfactory solution to this problem. WPA will work for a little bit, but the connection will constantly drop. WPA2 just won't work at all.
Do you have an airport or a generic access point? I've seen WPA work over the newer 802.11n airports, but that's about it.
Frak said: Do you have an airport or a generic access point? I've seen WPA work over the newer 802.11n airports, but that's about it.
You mean one of these? http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
We have a D-Link router.
aysiu said: You mean one of these?
http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
We have a D-Link router. Yes, that's it.
I have a Linksys that only works over WEP. So I'm sure its not router specific.
Frak said: Yes, that's it.
I have a Linksys that only works over WEP. So I'm sure its not router specific. It's not the router's problem at all, as WPA2 worked just fine for me with Ubuntu.
aysiu said: It's not the router's problem at all, as WPA2 worked just fine for me with Ubuntu.
I just see it as another way of getting Apple to get people to buy overpriced hardware.
Frak said: I just see it as another way of getting Apple to get people to buy overpriced hardware.
Ah, so it might be deliberate. Tricky.
I despise Apple more than Windows! *eye starts twitching with anger*. And I don't even know why. I think it's because they claim to be the pleasant people in the OS wars, and they lie!
And I hate iPods because they're just a tool of control and fashion - Sony (no more Sonic Stage :))or Creative Zen are the way forward.
At least Windows is open in their evilness, whereas Apple are subversive.
[/rant]
R_T_H said: I despise Apple more than Windows! *eye starts twitching with anger*. And I don't even know why. I think it's because they claim to be the pleasant people in the OS wars, and they lie!
Why do you think they lie?
R_T_H said: And I hate iPods because they're just a tool of control and fashion - Sony (no more Sonic Stage :))or Creative Zen are the way forward.
No. They are a tool for listening to your music library on the go without much hassle.
R_T_H said: At least Windows is open in their evilness, whereas Apple are subversive.
Why *subversive*?
I am a rookie with linux systems, but I really like Apple products,just because they are very good, contrary to MS
Sirin said: I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
Apple is just overpriced fashion. I can get twice the computer for half the price. It just doesn't have a blue apple on it.
Microsoft support??? When has anyone received support from them. Oh wait sorry, I remember someone telling me you can call them for $100. LOL.
Taking up Unix space??? What does that mean?
I am actually a: Linux fan Nintendo fan and an Apple fan
I don't like apple(the company) for a few simple reasons. They are more proprietary than Windows. It's good for the user because they are guaranteed their machines will work, but they also do it to have you buy more of their products for updates, software etc... (theoretically of course :P)
Also because their overpriced bubbles of goo. *Cool my machine looks like a space ship! .... 1 year later.. damn I have to upgrade from this list?!
I like freedom of Hardware, freedom to design my machine MY WAY. :)
I think Linux could learn a lot about how to make a desktop operating system that anyone can use by looking at OS X and implementing some of the things they have done.
jrusso2 said: I think Linux could learn a lot about how to make a desktop operating system that anyone can use by looking at OS X and implementing some of the things they have done.
Like moving for more preinstallation and recommended hardware, yes. Having physical stores to sell the computers in, too, would help. I'd buy from a Ubuntu Store just as much as my wife would buy from an Apple Store.
garyedwardjohnston said: Apple is just overpriced fashion. I can get twice the computer for half the price. It just doesn't have a blue apple on it.
Microsoft support??? When has anyone received support from them. Oh wait sorry, I remember someone telling me you can call them for $100. LOL.
Taking up Unix space??? What does that mean?
I subscribe to this
aysiu said: Like moving for more preinstallation and recommended hardware, yes. Having physical stores to sell the computers in, too, would help. I'd buy from a Ubuntu Store just as much as my wife would buy from an Apple Store.
Well they also do a couple more things that are really good like the software install, the replacement video system for X, which really needs replacement, and installation of drivers.
I will probably repeat known things - apple has even worse proprietory software issues than micorsoft when it comes to installing non-apple stuff and their monopoly over their hardware and software is huge. Beside that, lunix is the best so far when it comes to multitasking - apple is slow. Linux rocks!:guitar:
aev said: Apple has even worse proprietory software issues than micorsoft when it comes to installing non-apple stuff and their monopoly over their hardware and software is huge. Beside that, lunix is the best so far when it comes to multitasking - apple is slow.
Linux rocks!:guitar: What? I can install any non-Apple hardware or software in my Mac... I don't understand your complain... :-k
It's not a monopoly. I suggest searching what *monopoly* means in a dictionary... :)
aev said: I will probably repeat known things - apple has even worse proprietary software issues than Microsoft when it comes to installing non-apple stuff and their monopoly over their hardware and software is huge. Beside that, Linux is the best so far when it comes to multitasking - apple is slow.
Linux rocks!:guitar:
New Macintosh's support Intel VT and are Dual Core, so of course OS X was designed to abuse this. Designing applications for OS X is a walk in the park for its superb choice of hardware (they are meeting with Nvidia to discuss implementing Nvidia graphics on their lower ends at the moment) and its static sets of standards which make system requirements no object. If your Mac can run 10.5, then you can run Y for instance. In this way, I can run a Windows application in a virtual machine in seamless mode and run a very intensive application natively and still not lose performance.
- Internal hardware? yes. Unless you have a Mac Pro, you would need to send your Macintosh back to Apple to be upgraded. External Hardware? No. Anymore, manufacturers need to also make device drivers available for OS X to stay afloat and not take criticism.
- I don't care that Apple chooses my hardware for me, and that they market it a bit higher. My computer does what it was designed to do, multitask.
- Monopoly does not involve choice of hardware. It refers to economics.
L815 said: I don't like apple(the company) for a few simple reasons.
They are more proprietary than Windows. It's good for the user because they are guaranteed their machines will work, but they also do it to have you buy more of their products for updates, software etc... (theoretically of course :P)
Also because their overpriced bubbles of goo. *Cool my machine looks like a space ship! .... 1 year later.. damn I have to upgrade from this list?!
I like freedom of Hardware, freedom to design my machine MY WAY. :)
- Apple is more open source than Microsoft is.
- If you don't like their control of hardware, don't buy a Mac.
- $20 updates are cheap. This is a full OS upgrade, not a half-baked upgrade.
And a bit off topic. Apple does listen to its customers. When OS X 10.1 was released, it was offered as a free download to customers because they thought 10.0 was bloated, slow, feature lacking, and had some very minor hardware issues (DVD burning was not a capability as of yet). Do you think Microsoft would do this with Windows 7? No. Why? Because they hold a monopoly over the largest PC manufacturers. They don't have to release it free to their customer base, because they have a hostage situation as it is: Stay with the crippled old Windows XP, switch to the bloated and expensive Vista, or buy our new Windows 7. Do the customers know they have a choice? Probably not.
Finally, if I need help with my Mac, I can come here, or I can go to the genius bar. From what I've found, it doesn't cost me a dime to go ask them to help me fix an issue. They even helped me install Linux on one of my old PPC Mac's. (Though, I think the guy was a Linux geek to begin with :D)
Frak said: External Hardware? No. Anymore, manufacturers need to also make device drivers available for OS X to stay afloat and not take criticism.
Well, peripherals almost always work out-of-the-box with no driver needed... Even if they don't mention Mac OS X or Linux on the packaging or manuals... :)
mac is epic fail.
buying a mac computer is like paying someone too much money to punch you in the balls.
you pay all these money for a nice looking computer, then you get it and you can't do anything important or fun. except for go on the interwebz.
i hate mac so much, people think they are so badass when they have macs. [img]http://i29.tinypic.com/r8rpxw.jpg[/img]
:confused:
Aesir09 said: mac is epic fail.
Of course. That's why they don't sell at all and every review says Mac OS X sucks...
Aesir09 said: buying a mac computer is like paying someone too much money to punch you in the balls.
Err... No comments to be made here.
Aesir09 said: you pay all these money for a nice looking computer, then you get it and you can't do anything important or fun. except for go on the interwebz.
What? Considering you can do more or less the same things as any Linux distro does, only more easily, then you're saying that you can't do anything important with Linux either.
Aesir09 said: i hate mac so much, people think they are so badass when they have macs.
Do you know the meaning of the word *stereotype*, mate?
I don't feel like saying what people think they are when their username is Aesir09. :lolflag:
Mac = think different. Linux/BSD = think correctly.
cardinals_fan said: Mac = think different.
Linux/BSD = think correctly.
I like this :)
cardinals_fan said: Mac = think different.
Linux/BSD = think correctly.
Mac = think different. Linux/BSD = think much different.
It's all Unix(-ish) underneath. Just depends on how far under the hood you want to go.
cardinals_fan said: mac = Think Different.
Linux/bsd = Think correctly. :p :p
As a person who has extensively used Apple OS (from 7.4 to 10.3) and Windows (from 3.1 to Vista) and now Ubuntu -- I have to say that it is Apple's approach to hardware manufacture and forcing you into the Apple Store to get anything repaired because of their super-secret-skeleton key like screws and physical layouts that I find the most obnoxious. Luckily their hardware is so good that you rarely need to go in there anyway.
They are premium machines, running a premium OS, sold at premium prices.
Also as a sidenote: Apple OS is overall probably the most secure OS out there as determined by the simple ratio
of users:attractiveness to hackers: # of developers
Observe:
Windows Many many users : VERY attractive to hackers : limited number of developers looking for holes (Them > Us)
Linux Very few users : slightly attractive to hackers as it is run on servers : uncountable developers looking for holes (Them < Us)
Mac OS Few users (though more than Linux) : not at all attractive to hackers - who, after all, really wants to hack into that one hippie's iBook? Easier to just take the iBook from him physically : limited number of developers looking for holes, but again, nobody cares
(Them don't care, Us can't this darned small white brick open)
Conclusion: Windows has the highest risk because it has so many potential hackers compared to people defending it. Linux is at relatively very low risk because while some people may want to compromise a Linux machine there are so many more people closing off those holes before they are taken advantage of. Mac OS is at no risk because Mac OS play next to no role in networking. Nobody is going to waste the time to develop something to compromise a machine that is used only for things important to the individual user. - again... if you really want access to that hippie's iMovies, just jump on his machine when stands up to stretch or something...
jasontu said: Mac OS
Few users (though more than Linux) : not at all attractive to hackers - who, after all, really wants to hack into that one hippie's iBook? Easier to just take the iBook from him physically : limited number of developers looking for holes, but again, nobody cares
(Them don't care, Us can't this darned small white brick open)
1 Windows XP 78.56% 2 Windows Vista 7.34% 3 Mac OS X 4.89% 4 Windows 2000 3.14% 5 Linux 1.89%
Linux doesn't hold a candle to OS X. Plus, there have been several viruses for Mac OS, and a few for Mac OS X. Since OS X relies on much of the same components that Linux and BSD use, it can use the same fixes that Ubuntu uses during its updates.
ex. OS X uses Samba. Ubuntu uses Samba Samba team discovers a security hole and provides a fix. Ubuntu developers package the fix and distribute it over apt. OS X developers package the fix and distribute it over Apple Software Update (sudo softwareupdate --install --all)
Same fix, different implementation, same teams of developers fixing problems on both platforms.
jasontu said: As a person who has extensively used Apple OS (from 7.4 to 10.3) and Windows (from 3.1 to Vista) and now Ubuntu -- I have to say that it is Apple's approach to hardware manufacture and forcing you into the Apple Store to get anything repaired because of their super-secret-skeleton key like screws and physical layouts that I find the most obnoxious. Luckily their hardware is so good that you rarely need to go in there anyway.
They are premium machines, running a premium OS, sold at premium prices.
Also as a sidenote: Apple OS is overall probably the most secure OS out there as determined by the simple ratio
of users:attractiveness to hackers: # of developers
Observe:
Windows Many many users : VERY attractive to hackers : limited number of developers looking for holes (Them > Us)
Linux Very few users : slightly attractive to hackers as it is run on servers : uncountable developers looking for holes (Them < Us)
Mac OS Few users (though more than Linux) : not at all attractive to hackers - who, after all, really wants to hack into that one hippie's iBook? Easier to just take the iBook from him physically : limited number of developers looking for holes, but again, nobody cares
(Them don't care, Us can't this darned small white brick open)
Conclusion: Windows has the highest risk because it has so many potential hackers compared to people defending it. Linux is at relatively very low risk because while some people may want to compromise a Linux machine there are so many more people closing off those holes before they are taken advantage of. Mac OS is at no risk because Mac OS play next to no role in networking. Nobody is going to waste the time to develop something to compromise a machine that is used only for things important to the individual user. - again... if you really want access to that hippie's iMovies, just jump on his machine when stands up to stretch or something...
Err... The one million idiots argument again?
Security doesn't have anything to do with number of users. Nothing. Zero.
So please stop spreading the FUD...
Want examples? Mac OS wasn't what you'd call a secure OS, there were some viruses for it and, of course, anti-virus software.
Mac OS X is much more popular, but there are 0 viruses for it as of today. And things aren't going to change, mate.
VMWare Fusion is taking alot of Windows users away, and bringing them to Mac's. While Microsoft is busy fighting a losing battle with Google over Yahoo, Apple is taking more desktops away. Isn't that amazing.
Aesir09 said: mac is epic fail.
because?
buying a mac computer is like paying someone too much money to punch you in the balls.
too much money? does a right amount of money paid for that even exist? I'll let you think on that one.
you pay all these money for a nice looking computer......
Let me stop you right there. Some people actually like OS X, without any of the prettiness the chassis offers. I honestly could care less, I put my Mac Pro under the desk, and my Dell widescreen on top of my desk. In my case, it just so happens that apple products have really really good design.
[, then you get it and you can't do anything important or fun. except for go on the interwebz.
Macs can't do anything important or fun? So what you mean is that for your particular case (or so you THINK), YOU can't THINK of anything important or fun to do with a Mac.
i hate mac so much, people think they are so badass when they have macs.
substitute linux for everytime you see mac in that sentence. Not fun to be on the other end of your logic is it?
the6step said: because?
too much money? does a right amount of money paid for that even exist? I'll let you think on that one.
Let me stop you right there. Some people actually like OS X, without any of the prettiness the chassis offers. I honestly could care less, I put my Mac Pro under the desk, and my Dell widescreen on top of my desk. In my case, it just so happens that apple products have really really good design.
Macs can't do anything important or fun? So what you mean is that for your particular case (or so you THINK), YOU can't THINK of anything important or fun to do with a Mac.
substitute linux for everytime you see mac in that sentence. Not fun to be on the other end of your logic is it? +1
The only thing I hate more than Mac Fanboys are any other OS zealot that tries to make everything else look like a brick.
, then you get it and you can't do anything important or fun. except for go on the interwebz.
Guild Wars on Crossover Games under Leopard on my iMac, performs miles better than it does under either Cedega or Crossover Games under Linux.
& Guild Wars is fun, & important! :lolflag:
Hi all, I've just read **this** page and the pages listed at the bottom of it, on the failings of the HFS+ file system.
I was hoping to find the other side of the argument on this thread. Alas, no. Presumably though, there is another side; even the Rixstep author (Rick1 are you there?) says somewhere that there are advantages to the HFS system of forks.
I have a Mac mini, a Ubuntu PC and an external HD (formatted HFS+) which I have tried with limited success to use with both machines. Though I prefer the Ubuntu box I have no real complaints with the Mac, except the incompatibility of the HFS file system with Linux. (Yes, you can get read-only access, and you can disable journalling, and get to write to it with varying results, but the basic incompatibility remains).
Well, there's plenty on the disadvantages of HFS+ in the link above; what are the advantages? Without ranting, if possible.
Apple really need to replace HFS+ with something better... It'll probably end up being ZFS... Which is good! Then we'd have a real *nix filesystem :lolflag:
My impression from a scientific point of view:
simple stuff is next to impossible to build/port or if it happens it takes ages. Talking about common stuff like gnuplot, meld (unsuccessful), gftp, maxima, opendx (so far unsuccessful), gcc, g77, gfortran (ok, this one actually has .DMG file binary), cdf... only common things. Nothing fancy.
My impression is that many people around me compromise with having Mac OS because it works for common use and have no problems with hardware when it comes to hibernation, wireless, etc... They dont have to adjust anything.
For work I wouldnt use it. For browsing and text typing and movies - yes.
impert said: Hi all,
I've just read **this** page and the pages listed at the bottom of it, on the failings of the HFS+ file system.
I was hoping to find the other side of the argument on this thread. Alas, no. Presumably though, there is another side; even the Rixstep author (Rick1 are you there?) says somewhere that there are advantages to the HFS system of forks.
I have a Mac mini, a Ubuntu PC and an external HD (formatted HFS+) which I have tried with limited success to use with both machines. Though I prefer the Ubuntu box I have no real complaints with the Mac, except the incompatibility of the HFS file system with Linux. (Yes, you can get read-only access, and you can disable journalling, and get to write to it with varying results, but the basic incompatibility remains).
Well, there's plenty on the disadvantages of HFS+ in the link above; what are the advantages? Without ranting, if possible.
If you haven't done so already, it is worth installing DiskWarior or Mac Pilot, so you can keep your HFS+ file system healthy. It seems to need preemptive maintenance.
handy said: If you haven't done so already, it is worth installing DiskWarior or Mac Pilot, so you can keep your HFS+ file system healthy. It seems to need preemptive maintenance.
Seems that Apple has taken a general journaling filesystem, modified it, and now acts like a Windows NTFS partition.
Wow
Frak said: Seems that Apple has taken a general journaling filesystem, modified it, and now acts like a Windows NTFS partition.
Wow
:lolflag:
Hopefully Apple will migrate to ZFS as soon as possible.
handy said: :lolflag:
Hopefully Apple will migrate to ZFS as soon as possible. There is always 10.6... I mean 7...
We'll have it by 11, I swear.
Frak said: There is always 10.6... I mean 7...
We'll have it by 11, I swear.
:lolflag:
Were you quoting Bill, oops I mean Steve?
Alfa989 said: Apple really need to replace HFS+ with something better... It'll probably end up being ZFS... Which is good! Then we'd have a real *nix filesystem :lolflag:
ZFS.... they better look again. The guy who invented it, and runs the company is up for murdering his wife I think. At least that's what I heard.
Unix_Slayer said: ZFS.... they better look again. The guy who invented it, and runs the company is up for murdering his wife I think. At least that's what I heard.
That is a truly horrible thing to hear.
Does that have any effect on the efficiency of ZFS?
It wasn't Bill Joy was it?
They call him Kill Joy, & of course I won't ask what his wife's name was...
Sorry, I couldn't help it...
Humans are such insensitive creatures on the whole.
Unix_Slayer said: ZFS.... they better look again. The guy who invented it, and runs the company is up for murdering his wife I think. At least that's what I heard.
You're thinking of Hans Reiser. ZFS was created by Sun Microsystems for Solaris. ZFS is uniquely UNIX while ReiserFS was uniquely Linux.
handy said: That is a truly horrible thing to hear.
Does that have any effect on the efficiency of ZFS?
It wasn't Bill Joy was it?
They call him Kill Joy, & of course I won't ask what his wife's name was...
Sorry, I couldn't help it...
Humans are such insensitive creatures on the whole.
Read it and weep ==> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser?currentPage=all#
Frak said: You're thinking of Hans Reiser. ZFS was created by Sun Microsystems for Solaris. ZFS is uniquely UNIX while ReiserFS was uniquely Linux.
I know. I work with Sparc's, but he had a hand in ZFS with Sun.
Unix_Slayer said: Read it and weep ==> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser?currentPage=all#
I feel sad for him & his wife, though I have not been bought to tears.
Unix_Slayer said: I know. I work with Sparc's, but he had a hand in ZFS with Sun.
I don't see any negative connection between his actions & ZFS, they are entirely separate entities as I see it.
In the end this is just gossip, but hey, we are on a forum.
handy said: I feel sad for him & his wife, though I have not been bought to tears.
That was just a pun.
handy said: I don't see any negative connection between his actions & ZFS, they are entirely separate entities as I see it.
There is also another article about what will become of ZFS.
Unix_Slayer said:
That was just a pun.
I'm glad you caught it.
Unix_Slayer said:
There is also another article about what will become of ZFS.
So do you need to keep it to yourself or will you post the link & share it with everyone?
@Handy:
If you haven't done so already, it is worth installing DiskWarior or Mac Pilot, so you can keep your HFS+ file system healthy. It seems to need preemptive maintenance.
Thanks for the suggestion, I use Onyx.
Unix_Slayer said: I know. I work with Sparc's, but he had a hand in ZFS with Sun.
Reiser refused to work on any project not licensed under the GPL. ZFS is licensed under the CDDL. This was to ensure that his products would run under the Linux kernel.
ZFS is opensource but they have made it so it can only be included into one kernel and thats solaris now, it can be ran on linux but its got to be through userspace. Reiserfs v3 is the only filesystem that comes close to ZFS in features. XFS lacks data journaling, ext3/4 lack decent dynamic growing options (and have many limitations besides that).
Unix_Slayer said: ZFS is opensource but they have made it so it can only be included into one kernel and thats solaris now, it can be ran on linux but its got to be through userspace. Reiserfs v3 is the only filesystem that comes close to ZFS in features. XFS lacks data journaling, ext3/4 lack decent dynamic growing options (and have many limitations besides that).
They're thinking about GPL'ing ZFS at the moment. Also, there are patches for the kernel that allow support for ZFS in the kernel space. (You patch it, legal. Distributed, illegal.)
My only major strikes against the MacOS are the following: No eject/load buttons on the media drives.... 20 years plus, and you can't find a Mac that lets you eject things with a physical button. One button mouse... what, the average Mac user can't figure out the utility of having different menus come up with different mouse buttons?
agamotto said: My only major strikes against the MacOS are the following: No eject/load buttons on the media drives.... 20 years plus, and you can't find a Mac that lets you eject things with a physical button. One button mouse... what, the average Mac user can't figure out the utility of having different menus come up with different mouse buttons?
What's wrong with the eject button on the keyboard?
Why is it so hard to understand that you can right click on a Mac?
http://leopardtips.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-right-click-on-mac.html
x0as said:
Why is it so hard to understand that you can right click on a Mac?
http://leopardtips.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-right-click-on-mac.html In response to those tips:
Method 1: Great. I just spent a ton of money on a new Mac, and now I should buy a new mouse just to have two buttons?!
Method 2: Control-Click isn't bad once you're used to it, but it's a pain at first.
Method 3: I never really got this. It just seems to be a bit finicky for me.
The reason many people complain about right-click on Macs isn't because it's impossible, it's because there's no clear reason why they don't include two-button mice. Why don't they just include mice with two buttons with each computer?
personnaly, i like so much the graphics and themes of Mac OS. even i think it's the best operating system for the theme categorie. but no operating system can beat the ubuntu.
cardinals_fan said: In response to those tips:
Method 1: Great. I just spent a ton of money on a new Mac, and now I should buy a new mouse just to have two buttons?!
Method 2: Control-Click isn't bad once you're used to it, but it's a pain at first.
Method 3: I never really got this. It just seems to be a bit finicky for me.
The reason many people complain about right-click on Macs isn't because it's impossible, it's because there's no clear reason why they don't include two-button mice. Why don't they just include mice with two buttons with each computer?
- Ever since the Intel switch, all of my iMac's came with a two button mouse.
- This is a UI issue. If somebody calls support, and the support team says to "click" on something, the person might ask "right or left?". In this process, if they don't ask, they may become incredibly lost and blame it on Apple. This also forces structure amoung UI creators to create interfaces that force using one button use. This is one way that Apple recieved its "Easy-to-use" street cred. No worrying about features you cannot see. Everything is WYSIWYG.
They have only recently moved to two button because power-users and new Windows converts were complaining. If you think about it, it was a very nice idea.
x0as said: What's wrong with the eject button on the keyboard?
Why is it so hard to understand that you can right click on a Mac?
http://leopardtips.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-right-click-on-mac.html
They have an eject button for emergency cases. It's located on the right side of the drive and you have to push it with something small, like a pencil...
About the mice: just because you can't see the right mouse button, doesn't mean it isn't there ^^
Frak said:
- This is a UI issue. If somebody calls support, and the support team says to "click" on something, the person might ask "right or left?". In this process, if they don't ask, they may become incredibly lost and blame it on Apple. This also forces structure amoung UI creators to create interfaces that force using one button use. This is one way that Apple recieved its "Easy-to-use" street cred. No worrying about features you cannot see. Everything is WYSIWYG.
I guess Apple thinks its beyond users to comprehend such things? I mean, Linux typically uses mice with three buttons and a wheel. I don't see rampant confusion here.
The biggest gripe I have about Apple is that their keyboards have lots of keys. It is so complicated. Why can't they just have one key to make things easier and reduce confusion.
sunstriker said: They have an eject button for emergency cases. It's located on the right side of the drive and you have to push it with something small, like a pencil...
All drives have that somewhere for emergencies.
Well I can say I hate Mac. I don't hate them for the reason most people think a PC guy would hate a Mac. For me, it's the lie they tell you. Mac's can crash just as easy as a PC. So all of those commercials on TV and the ads in magazines that say "it just works" to me, are lies... and I don't like being lied to.
I used Mac's in school and managed to crash it on a hourly basis. I've had to fix 3 ipod nano's, 2 ipod Classics, and 2 of the new macs running OSx for friends. These same guys were the ones proclaiming their superior experience, basically vommitting the same stuff in the Mac ads. Who had to fix their stuff? The PC guy.
It's like the BMW m3 driver who can't change his own oil, and then proceeds to tell me why his overpriced machine is better than my home build muscle car.
MAC's cost way too much for my taste. I mean, I spent more on my homebuilt PC, so I'm not cheap... but my homebuilt PC can smoke any MAC of comparable price + you can take it apart, upgrade it, modify it and it makes a mean turkey melt. lol.
I dislike DELL, HP's and most of those company's too. I just want complete control over my machine and OS.. and a custom built, Ubuntu Box does that for me.
Plus my experience with Itunes was horrible. That's the worst piece of SW I've ever used. EVER! I consider it a virus lol.
cocopuffz said: It's like the BMW m3 driver who can't change his own oil, and then proceeds to tell me why his overpriced machine is better than my home build muscle car.
I own a M3, plus I have a muscle car as well. They are different flavors when you drive them. BTW.... BMW's go for 15,000 miles between each oil change.
sunstriker said: They have an eject button for emergency cases. It's located on the right side of the drive and you have to push it with something small, like a pencil... It's actually on the keyboard at the top-right.
Frak said:
- This is a UI issue. If somebody calls support, and the support team says to "click" on something, the person might ask "right or left?". In this process, if they don't ask, they may become incredibly lost and blame it on Apple. This also forces structure amoung UI creators to create interfaces that force using one button use. This is one way that Apple recieved its "Easy-to-use" street cred. No worrying about features you cannot see. Everything is WYSIWYG.
Bolded for emphasis. I think that line says it all.
cardinals_fan said: Bolded for emphasis. I think that line says it all.
Those said features are to be automatic, or a powerusers friend, not the average user.
a two buttons mouse is definitely a power user feature that a normal mac user can't handle ;) that makes all other windows pc users some real computer gurus
karellen said: a two buttons mouse is definitely a power user feature that a normal mac user can't handle ;)
that makes all other windows pc users some real computer gurus
Just one button...... Amazing.
cocopuffz said:
Plus my experience with Itunes was horrible. That's the worst piece of SW I've ever used. EVER! I consider it a virus lol.
It is. It phones home and downloads unwelcome internet browsers and who knows what else on windows boxes.
Apple is just as evil as Microsoft. M$ gets a bit more crap because they're bigger, and Apple has *some* FOSS in their operating system. However, nothing makes it okay for my software to spy on me or tell me what to do, so anything that, for example, permits DRM is out.
ladr0n said: It is. It phones home and downloads unwelcome internet browsers and who knows what else on windows boxes.
Apple is just as evil as Microsoft. M$ gets a bit more crap because they're bigger, and Apple has *some* FOSS in their operating system. However, nothing makes it okay for my software to spy on me or tell me what to do, so anything that, for example, permits DRM is out.
I use *Little Snitch* on my Leopard partition, that way I can say what program gets to phone home or anywhere else for that matter.
karellen said: a two buttons mouse is definitely a power user feature that a normal mac user can't handle ;)
that makes all other windows pc users some real computer gurus
I always wonder when someone throws this ancient one button stuff out whether they are just fishing for a *byte* or they are truly ignorant of the facts?
Whichever way it goes it is always still amusing... :popcorn:
handy said: I use *Little Snitch* on my Leopard partition, that way I can say what program gets to phone home or anywhere else for that matter.
As do I. I wish there was something like this for Windows. I know there are firewalls and PG2 (which I use now), but I like how LS works alot more.
Least Apple has gone partly open source (with Darwin). I don't see M$ releasing the Windows code base any time soon.
Frak said: As do I. I wish there was something like this for Windows. I know there are firewalls and PG2 (which I use now), but I like how LS works alot more.
I use comodo on all my windows installs and its very nice and easy to use. LS doesnt have a ton of advanced features which i miss a little when i boot to osx, but its the best out there so i just deal with it.
handy said: I always wonder when someone throws this ancient one button stuff out whether they are just fishing for a *byte* or they are truly ignorant of the facts?
Whichever way it goes it is always still amusing... :popcorn:
*_http://www.apple.com/au/mightymouse/_*
[img]http://kevinjung.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/trackpad.png[/img] Thats the reason people get pissed about no 2nd mouse button. I would hate it if my laptop had one button. Its stupid to lug a mighty mouse around with a laptop, so dont bring that up.
I love apples software, hate their hardware.
NoSmokingBandit said:
Thats the reason people get pissed about no 2nd mouse button. I would hate it if my laptop had one button. Its stupid to lug a mighty mouse around with a laptop, so dont bring that up.
I love apples software, hate their hardware.
I have an old iBook and that really made me unhappy. I am used to my thinkpad...
The notebooks are the only things that don't have right click. That's always intrigued me. (Macbook Pro)
handy said: I always wonder when someone throws this ancient one button stuff out whether they are just fishing for a *byte* or they are truly ignorant of the facts?
Whichever way it goes it is always still amusing... :popcorn:
*_http://www.apple.com/au/mightymouse/_* As I already pointed out, purchasing a seperate mouse just to have more than one button is a bit aggravating considering the price of Apple hardware.
mac... better than windows, but i wish thay would ditch the 1 button mouse! and untill OSX becomes as configurable as Ubuntu, il be sticking with that.
Tap the touchpad with 2 fingers for right click.
cardinals_fan said: As I already pointed out, purchasing a seperate mouse just to have more than one button is a bit aggravating considering the price of Apple hardware.
It COMES with all new iMac's and Mac Pro's.
Frak said: It COMES with all new iMac's and Mac Pro's.
About time! :)
Apple has been using the one button mouse a long time ago since they stole it from Xerox.
Unix_Slayer said: Apple has been using the one button mouse a long time ago since they stole it from Xerox.
Let's try that again.
Apple has been using a one button mouse since they bought the rights from Xerox all the way to just about 5 years ago.
Frak said: Let's try that again.
Apple has been using a one button mouse since they bought the rights from Xerox all the way to just about 5 years ago.
Watch the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley". Apple, and MS stole a lot of stuff from XParc.
x0as said: Tap the touchpad with 2 fingers for right click.
...because thats not inconvenient at all...
/sarcasm
Instead of adding to the list of track-pad gestures apple could just add a 2nd mouse button. Not too hard to slap another button on the macbook. NOBODY likes having only one mouse button. People deal with it, yes, but i doubt anyone favors having fewer buttons. Apple is too arrogant to admit their on-button method might be obsolete though. Although if they ever do put 2 buttons on the macbook steve Jobs will undoubtedly taut it like its the greatest invention in the world. The guy knows how to put together a decent OS, but hes too damn conceited.
NoSmokingBandit said:
[img]http://kevinjung.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/trackpad.png[/img] Thats the reason people get pissed about no 2nd mouse button. I would hate it if my laptop had one button. Its stupid to lug a mighty mouse around with a laptop, so dont bring that up.
I love apples software, hate their hardware.
I was replying to the purported existence of the Apple one button *mouse*.
As far as the one button touchpad is concerned I fully agree with you. We have a 15" Powerbook here that is setup that way & I really don't like it.
I use a mouse with it, & then the problem goes away. Personally I don't think that is the slightest bit stupid, quite the contrary actually. :lolflag:
At least the software is set up to function well with other mouse buttons.
Fortunately, I don't know how to feel hate.
cardinals_fan said: As I already pointed out, purchasing a seperate mouse just to have more than one button is a bit aggravating considering the price of Apple hardware.
The difference in the price of the lower end notebooks is very competitive in Oz.
That aside, the cost of a 3 button infrared mouse is under $20- here, I don't think that is much of a problem, if you don't already have such a thing laying around anyway.
I agree, though, that Apple's notebooks should have another button.
handy said: The difference in the price of the lower end notebooks is very competitive in Oz.
That aside, the cost of a 3 button infrared mouse is under $20- here, I don't think that is much of a problem, if you don't already have such a thing laying around anyway.
I agree, though, that Apple's notebooks should have another button.
Yes.... one to click, and two others to make a circuit between two sticks of dynamite.
Unix_Slayer said: Yes.... one to click, and two others to make a circuit between two sticks of dynamite.
Chauvinism will be the end of us all...
handy said: Chauvinism will be the end of us all...
Agreed.
It is not true that itunes is best for music. I have creative audigy sound card. I tested Windows media player 11, itunes and real player. Among them Windows media player 11 showed superior quality of music.Itunes playing music as like from inside the well. Before Windows media player 11, real player had the superior quality. With windows media player you play both music and video.
Apple has worse user lock in than Windows... I would take M$ over Apple anyday.
there was a hacking competition made on three laptops (Vista, ubuntu, Apple). the first one was hacked was apple. i thought that apple is more secure then vista(both are bad :D)
cocopuffz said: Well I can say I hate Mac. I don't hate them for the reason most people think a PC guy would hate a Mac. For me, it's the lie they tell you. Mac's can crash just as easy as a PC. So all of those commercials on TV and the ads in magazines that say "it just works" to me, are lies... and I don't like being lied to.
I used Mac's in school and managed to crash it on a hourly basis. I've had to fix 3 ipod nano's, 2 ipod Classics, and 2 of the new macs running OSx for friends. These same guys were the ones proclaiming their superior experience, basically vommitting the same stuff in the Mac ads. Who had to fix their stuff? The PC guy.
It's like the BMW m3 driver who can't change his own oil, and then proceeds to tell me why his overpriced machine is better than my home build muscle car.
MAC's cost way too much for my taste. I mean, I spent more on my homebuilt PC, so I'm not cheap... but my homebuilt PC can smoke any MAC of comparable price + you can take it apart, upgrade it, modify it and it makes a mean turkey melt. lol.
I dislike DELL, HP's and most of those company's too. I just want complete control over my machine and OS.. and a custom built, Ubuntu Box does that for me.
Plus my experience with Itunes was horrible. That's the worst piece of SW I've ever used. EVER! I consider it a virus lol.Nice post. This is my main gripe with MACS. Very cool software, very sleek designs, very cruel price-point. Especially when you compare specs or what you could actually do with the same amount of money as a Mac.
I run buntu, I'll probably use it until it isn't supported anymore. The beauty is, I don't have to go with Ubuntu 9.0 "Jeering Juno" if my PC specs can't handle it.
I could go with a XFCE alternative, or a flux alternative, or a base install and add-on everything I need.
True, I miss applications like Windows Media Maker, and I'm sure Macs has an even better default video editor. I love the scrolling options in Itunes, Iphoto--and the built in camera. Very cool stuff, hopefully we can get some decent software like that on Linux.
To me though, it just isn't worth the price of admission. The features (besides the video editor) are more or less-bling. And going to best buy playing around with a Mac for about an hour, I couldn't find out why this thing cost so much money?
I'd rather just get an HD display and turn on Compiz for when I want to be amazed by my desktop. Having said that, I think it's a cool OS, and If I had money to waste, I'd pick on up.
Then again--probably not...yeah, the price really bothers me lol..
handy said: Chauvinism will be the end of us all...
You might have to explain this one to me concerning the one button mouse.
Apple is FAR worse than Microsoft when it comes to proprietary stuff. I'm pretty sure it's been explaine up-thread.
Unix_Slayer said: Yes.... one to click, and two others to make a circuit between two sticks of dynamite.
Unix_Slayer said: You might have to explain this one to me concerning the one button mouse.
***_Chauvinism_*** separates humanity.
Theoretically, chauvinism can not be a good thing.
Reality has proved the theory.
handy said: ***_Chauvinism_*** separates humanity.
Theoretically, chauvinism can not be a good thing.
Reality has proved the theory.
To some degree it can be good, otherwise we'd never be able to resist certain hostile elements if it didn't exist in some form.
LaRoza said: To some degree it can be good, otherwise we'd never be able to resist certain hostile elements if it didn't exist in some form.
Chauvinism itself, by definition is something that lives in the mind of humanity.
Whilst ever it does, humanity will not be at peace.
I am, as is common for me, being idealistic LaRoza.
handy said: Chauvinism itself, by definition is something that lives in the mind of humanity.
Whilst ever it does, humanity will not be at peace.
I am, as is common for me, being idealistic LaRoza. If that is true, get off my lawn handy, cause you're not as good as mai coffeh cupz. ;)
handy said:
I am, as is common for me, being idealistic LaRoza.
I am also:
**"Matthew"]
And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
[QUOTE=Frak said:**
If that is true, get off my lawn handy, cause you're not as good as mai coffeh cupz. ;)
We have to talk...
What do you mean? Apple's great for multimedia! I don't hate them at all. I use my Linux for fun and my Apple for multimedia, Apple's great! :guitar:
NexXtTime said: What do you mean? Apple's great for multimedia! I don't hate them at all. I use my Linux for fun and my Apple for multimedia, Apple's great! :guitar:
Every OS is good for multimedia, at least if you're not a pro
karellen said: Every OS is good for multimedia, at least if you're not a pro
And depending on what the media is. Linux has been used for movies.
LaRoza said: And depending on what the media is. Linux has been used for movies.
Not just rendering either, actual workstations for editing.
LaRoza said: And depending on what the media is. Linux has been used for movies.
I know that, that's why I'm annoyed when people think that only Mac OS X (and eventually Windows) is suitable for serious audio/video work
karellen said: I know that, that's why I'm annoyed when people think that only Mac OS X (and eventually Windows) is suitable for serious audio/video work
To me, the prime advantage of OS X would be for non technical people for basic home use (the price is the only thing against this) as Macs are typically all ready to go and are much safer than Windows.
In days gone by the Apple computers had the advantage for desktop publishing, graphic design, working with photo's, sound & movies.
They have not had that advantage for some years, though Apple naturally market as though they still do, as any other company in the same position would.
It is the nature of marketroids to tell lies & use any perceived possible way to take advantage of their customers or to make potential customers real.
handy said:
It is the nature of marketroids to tell lies & use any perceived possible way to take advantage of their customers or to make potential customers real.
No, I am a burglar...
Some of the Mac crashes and its malfunctions videos are here;
1.Mac and Vista performance comparison- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUWVaifgnXM 2.Mac Crash video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqKNNLadj_M 3.chirs@pirillo review- See problem of all OS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgGXNuGURs0
- chirs@pirillo Mac crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig1qtduR9ik
Hope you enjoy those videos.:)
there is a big difference between a "commercial OS release" and any linux flavor. You buy windows or mac because it should just work... well not windows. Mac OS is a VERY polished and functional unix overlay, yes it cost money but not as much as the nice hardware costs. If you think that a mac is expensive, you must buy POS computers to lead any OS on, because there is not a Wonblows PC manufacturer that makes a portable with a REAL videocard for less than $2000. Sure there are many craptops out there for $500 -$600 but you are getting serious junk in almost all cases.
edward4130 said: there is a big difference between a "commercial OS release" and any linux flavor. You buy windows or mac because it should just work... well not windows. Mac OS is a VERY polished and functional unix overlay, yes it cost money but not as much as the nice hardware costs. If you think that a mac is expensive, you must buy POS computers to lead any OS on, because there is not a Wonblows PC manufacturer that makes a portable with a REAL videocard for less than $2000. Sure there are many craptops out there for $500 -$600 but you are getting serious junk in almost all cases.
bah youre joking right? there are literally TONS of 800-900$ pcs that have dedicated graphics, most of which can be just as good if not better than the 8400 used in the macbook pro
bufsabre666 said: bah youre joking right? there are literally TONS of 800-900$ pcs that have dedicated graphics, most of which can be just as good if not better than the 8400 used in the macbook pro
Really $900 for a Laptop with a dedicated graphics? I never seen one. Who makes one? Can I not pay the windows tax on it, and get it OS free? What kind of parts does it have to make it that affordable?
Don't get me wrong, I love and use linux like mad. But we all in here had t earn the cool stuff we do in them. I won't use MS Windows, too buggy for paid software. If you don't want to jack with a OS or hardware get a Mac, they may not make low-end computers, but they work well. They also have Top knotch support, toll free and in store for hardware. Those of us on this forum like to make computers work. Many other people would rather pay the money for quality and just have it done for them.
Linux will get there, thanks to Microsoft and the year and a half old "work in progress" (their quote not mine). It is happening faster than ever. Apple has a reputation of making easy to use technology, they are taking care of those that want to use a computer, not work on it.
And Go Sabers, I miss watching Dominick Hassick, did I spell that correctly?
edward4130 said: Really $900 for a Laptop with a dedicated graphics? I never seen one. Who makes one? Can I not pay the windows tax on it, and get it OS free? What kind of parts does it have to make it that affordable?
Don't get me wrong, I love and use linux like mad. But we all in here had t earn the cool stuff we do in them. I won't use MS Windows, too buggy for paid software. If you don't want to jack with a OS or hardware get a Mac, they may not make low-end computers, but they work well. They also have Top knotch support, toll free and in store for hardware. Those of us on this forum like to make computers work. Many other people would rather pay the money for quality and just have it done for them.
Linux will get there, thanks to Microsoft and the year and a half old "work in progress" (their quote not mine). It is happening faster than ever. Apple has a reputation of making easy to use technology, they are taking care of those that want to use a computer, not work on it.
And Go Sabers, I miss watching Dominick Hassick, did I spell that correctly?
its hasek although since he left here hes kinda been treated as a traitor, here at best buy and circuit city there has to be 12 differnt computers with dedicated graphics from like 800$ to about 1200$ ((depending on other features and brand, i still dont get how sony can charge so much more ?)) if you goto the websites of mfts and config a computer you can change alot of them to dedicated for usually 90-120$ more ((the hp im ganna buy next week costs 1250 in total with 8600gt graphics)) i dont know about opensource os's though maybe the dell ubuntu ones i think a couple of those have dedicated if you add it but you pay more in for them cause theres no trial software to bring the price down, and all 3 system76 laptops have a dedicated option i believe
edward4130 said: Really $900 for a Laptop with a dedicated graphics? I never seen one. Who makes one? Can I not pay the windows tax on it, and get it OS free? What kind of parts does it have to make it that affordable?
you never seen one? what's so hard to believe
i got a Dell inspiron 1420 with an Nvidia 8400GS for [COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]$800[/COLOR] and ubuntu pre-installed
Go to Newegg.com and start browsing. You will find plent of $900 laptops. The price of a laptop has gone down in the past few years and this has made it possible to put dedicated graphics in a $900 machine.
I am a relatively new ubuntu user, but I love my Mac's.
I have one of the Macbook Pro's & one of the Mac Pro's and mainly use them with programs such as Pro Tools and Ableton Live in my studio.
It's nice to be able to use something besides Microsoft that actually does what it's supposed to.
I envy my wife and her Macbook pro. When she lets my touch it I love it. I have no probs with Mac except the hefty price but she's worth it. ( I'll leave you to guess the noun "she's" posseses, lol" We have had no problems with her Mac except Airport seems awfully hit and miss on connections. I can always connect with no probs on my Ubuntu Hardy Haron in a compaq 6710b but she gets droped off and on. Im not sure about the graphics on those Macs but her colors seem much more vibrant than any thing I can do with this old war horse or even my top line desktop pc. So no Linux folks dont hate Mac. If I could afford another Macpro I would get one for myself but I would NEVER give up my Ubuntu! Ubuntu and Linux is simply too much fun and I have never have lost anything important on my pc, she has lost a few things on the Mac but I'm not ready to blame OSX yet. Linux, fantastic OSX, great Windows,shoot me first so at least I can hope to die before i go insane.
best of both worlds - been running ubuntu on a macbook 4,1 for a few months now. a bit tricky to get all the hardware working, including all the multi-touch stuff, but its great!
I think OS X is what Ubuntu should try for. Not that it should copy it in terms of apps and GUI, but the integration and the GUI oriented processes are what make OS X so easy and reliable compared to other UNIX-Linux variants.
Mac OS X is very polished interface-wise, and a pleasure to use. If you come from a Linux/BSD background it will feel very familiar. Beware if you decide to go down the Mac Mini route, I've experienced more driver issues with using hardware such as scanners/web cams etc than under Linux.
The main advantage I can see is in the commercial software available for it, especially if you are in the design field. You can also purchase native MS Office; although under Linux/OS X I prefer Crossover w/Office 2007 (of course you can always opt for Open Office:) ). iTunes is just a joy on the Mac, and seems to run far more efficiently than the Windows version.
From a machine design perspective, you just cannot beat the Mac. You can transform that PC box, mess of cables and mix-matched peripherals into something quite aesthetically pleasing.
Only been using OSX for a day now and I'm a bit lost. Looks nice, responsive etc. I'm not sure how everything works just yet and it feels a bit 'dumbed down' to me. I prefer a repository to install apps though.
I only clicked a few moments ago how to access application preference, duh.
How does one change the fonts and font sizes. My linux fonts looked better in all honesty.
mips said: Only been using OSX for a day now and I'm a bit lost. Looks nice, responsive etc. I'm not sure how everything works just yet and it feels a bit 'dumbed down' to me. I prefer a repository to install apps though.
I only clicked a few moments ago how to access application preference, duh.
How does one change the fonts and font sizes. My linux fonts looked better in all honesty.
The Menu: Finder / View / Show View Options
Will allow you to adjust the font size up to a maximum of 16; this menu is applicable to whatever is active (with certain limits), so if you select the desktop & go to the menu it will adjust the settings on the desktop, if you have a Finder window open it works there.
On my 24" screen there are quite a few fonts that I can not adjust, which is a real pain in the eyes at times.
Regarding changing fonts, I have never bothered looking, so I can't help you there, apart from suggesting that you have a look at Applications / Font Book.
A tip that just came to mind is to install ***_Perian_***, it gives you a very useful range of Quicktime codecs for free.
Leopard is in the opposite corner to Arch!
P.S.
I'll send you some pics from NZ, when I get around to it mips. ;-)
What do you think of Apple/Mac OS X?
I want a MacBook Air
handy said: The Menu: Finder / View / Show View Options
Will allow you to adjust the font size up to a maximum of 16; this menu is applicable to whatever is active (with certain limits), so if you select the desktop & go to the menu it will adjust the settings on the desktop, if you have a Finder window open it works there.
On my 24" screen there are quite a few fonts that I can not adjust, which is a real pain in the eyes at times.
Regarding changing fonts, I have never bothered looking, so I can't help you there, apart from suggesting that you have a look at Applications / Font Book.
A tip that just came to mind is to install ***_Perian_***, it gives you a very useful range of Quicktime codecs for free.
Leopard is in the opposite corner to Arch!
P.S.
I'll send you some pics from NZ, when I get around to it mips. ;-)
Handy, you're my hero. Thanks for Perian :D.
steveneddy said: What do you think of Apple/Mac OS X?
I want a MacBook Air
I have one. It's nothing amazing. It's nothing that hasn't already been done.
Apple and OSX are outstanding, but the reason is the fantastic integration between the applications. Make a slideshow with iPhoto and iTunes can be the source of music. You can make the slideshow an iMovie with the iTunes music burn it to a dvd. Making a keynote (powerpoint) presentation, you can integrate the iMovie clips as quicktime, etc. The real advantage of Apple is they also write applications, and they all work well together. I like Ubuntu, but I can't get F-spot to behave well enough to even export to a cd and burn my photos. And iChat video is great.
tashmooclam said: Apple and OSX are outstanding, but the reason is the fantastic integration between the applications. Make a slideshow with iPhoto and iTunes can be the source of music. You can make the slideshow an iMovie with the iTunes music burn it to a dvd. Making a keynote (powerpoint) presentation, you can integrate the iMovie clips as quicktime, etc. The real advantage of Apple is they also write applications, and they all work well together. I like Ubuntu, but I can't get F-spot to behave well enough to even export to a cd and burn my photos. And iChat video is great.
Apple bought about 90% of all those great applications. They aren't "that" innovative. Mac OS X, in a sense, was also bought.
chestnut1969 said: From a machine design perspective, you just cannot beat the Mac. You can transform that PC box, mess of cables and mix-matched peripherals into something quite aesthetically pleasing.
Just curious if you have seen some of the excellent PC rigs people build... that are not a mess of cables or mix-matched peripherals.
tashmooclam said: Apple and OSX are outstanding, but the reason is the fantastic integration between the applications. Make a slideshow with iPhoto and iTunes can be the source of music. You can make the slideshow an iMovie with the iTunes music burn it to a dvd. Making a keynote (powerpoint) presentation, you can integrate the iMovie clips as quicktime, etc. The real advantage of Apple is they also write applications, and they all work well together. I like Ubuntu, but I can't get F-spot to behave well enough to even export to a cd and burn my photos. And iChat video is great.
I thought that if I made a presentation with PowerPoint that I could embed movies too and I know if I make a movie with Movie makes I can use MediaPlayer files as the source of music... I must be missing your point though...
I will have to play more with the MacBook Pro I just was forced to start using.
chestnut1969 said:
From a machine design perspective, you just cannot beat the Mac. You can transform that PC box, mess of cables and mix-matched peripherals into something quite aesthetically pleasing.
I have an iMac, which is currently away having its noisy optical drive replaced under warranty. To open up the iMac you have to remove the front glass panel which is held in place by magnets, there is an Apple tool for the job, though anyone with a suction-cup tool is in the race, the worst thing that can happen is you break your screen's glass!!! (can you imagine what Apple would charge for a replacement?)
I have opened up a variety of Apple machines over the years & found them to be a pain to work on compared to the vast majority of non-Apple machines out there.
Apple do make pretty things, but boy they can sure make them so much harder to work on in the process, & I think that often that difficulty is there by design with the intention of keeping the hardware work in Apple's hands too.
I worked for apple for a while, the OS design is basically, we work with our own hardware and we work with hardware that paid attention to our pre release,otherwise, screw you.
and I think this is the right way to go.
IE was the best browser around, M$ 'acquired' it and let it lie dormant, they've now picked up their shoes... Safari, the opposer in commercial land was 'better' but there's a bug (I've seen it) where Mac OS has **** upload speed, so IE wins that puny war... Whereas it should be a war between the best, :(
otherwise, returning to M$, the previous code releases show the weaknesses (like Apple) come from unexpected uses of features to help the user (M$: many Safari, trusting file types), or abuses of features provided for 3rd party products to work (IBM ViaVoice).
anyway, a rant was not asked for, M$ try to appease everybody and end up creating too many problems, Mac try to keep their codebase 'clean' and Linux try to keep it secure, or at least somewhere between secure and usable...
in the long run Linux has the best chance, but only if people run the updates, otherwise it's Apple.
M$ have annoyed too many people now. and Mr Gates has quit, so the personality war went... although their codebase is the strongest, the chance of them winning decreases as the weaknesses introduced for 3rd parties are really weaknesses and Linux doesn't allow for such weaknesses will let Linux rise to the top.
Finally, the repository system is good (worthy of beating M$ into the ground), but Ubuntu fails with this one great point as sometimes the latest version is a great thing but not always held with the latest upgrade (specifically, I mention Ktorrent, as that is why I upgraded a whole distro version) and the (last) version in the distro mightn't be the best...
so (summary, while inebriated)
Mac OS: limited SW / HW: Good at what it does
M$ Windows: Good on proprietary HW: broken at the first sign of shareware or malware
Linux: Good, but you need someone to help you at first, and to keep moving towards what you want (honestly, I think Linux users will end up somewhere between Ubuntu and LFS).
(sorry about the length!)
Powerpoint was a company whose product ran only on Apple hardware. So, Microsoft bought them, as they did Excel. Anyway, it doesn't matter. There are some nice things about Ubuntu/Linux that I like very much, but the TOTAL package when using Mac with iLife and iWork is just unbeatable. Keynote is a much slicker and prettier presentation than Powerpoint. iPhoto sure works better for me than F-spot, I can make an iMovie or a Quicktime using my iSight webcam and post it on youtube in a few minutes. I downloaded a picasaweb button to iPhoto and take an album and make a photo page in a minute. But, you can't argue with a $379 NEW 15" Everex gBook from Walmart running Linux. Apples are good to find used, I got a super 12" aluminum powerbook for $320 for traveling.
An irrelevant addendum. When in coffee shops, young women have actually said "Oh, what a cute laptop" when looking at my shiny nice 12" Powerbook.Priceless.
the8thstar said: I think OS X is what Ubuntu should try for. Not that it should copy it in terms of apps and GUI, but the integration and the GUI oriented processes are what make OS X so easy and reliable compared to other UNIX-Linux variants.
Exactly my thoughts.
Gnome should be THE platform (not "Linux" in the same way BSD is not what makes OSX a platform) and provide as much integration as possible, both for their own apps and third party, by making it ridiculously easy and by enforcing it as much as possible.
The famous "OSX experience" is just that.
tashmooclam said: Powerpoint was a company whose product ran only on Apple hardware. So, Microsoft bought them, as they did Excel.
Could you please post a reference for MS buying Excel?
I was under the impression that it was MS's first product - Excel for Apple; I'd like to know more history on the topic if possible...
Dont really have anything against the of (Only the Price)
The Is agaisnt the company and its products (The charge you so much for their Junk)
I been like Mac for grandparents! the comp are new to hem so they need somthing for no brainers (Since most Mac OS are very Visual) its perfect for them.
Ooops. Microsoft did make Excel. They bought the trademark of another software product named "Excel", previously they had to call their product "microsoft excel" because the other product had the name first.
Orlsend said: Dont really have anything against the of (Only the Price)
The Is agaisnt the company and its products (The charge you so much for their Junk)
I been like Mac for grandparents! the comp are new to hem so they need somthing for no brainers (Since most Mac OS are very Visual) its perfect for them.
As hard as it is to perceive another's point of view as valid sometimes; I believe that if all computer users on our planet were surveyed regarding the importance of the OS, most would consider it way below secondary, which would further the idea that the easier an OS is to use (could this be why the GUI was invented?) the more the vast majority of computer users will like it.
We have to be very careful with regards to feeling more intelligent, or superior (for whatever reason) with regard to our personal preferences as *opposed* to other people's.
In the end, freedom of choice rules, & we will do whatever we can to preserve such freedom, won't we?
P.S.
You may want to tidy up your grammar & spelling, so as not to give people the wrong idea about you? They may classify you as illiterate when in reality you were in a hurry, or English is your second language. No one knows the details, so they jump to (often erroneous) conclusions.
tashmooclam said: Ooops. Microsoft did make Excel. They bought the trademark of another software product named "Excel", previously they had to call their product "microsoft excel" because the other product had the name first.
Cool, thanks, I didn't know about the name thing. :-)
PrivateVoid said: Just curious if you have seen some of the excellent PC rigs people build... that are not a mess of cables or mix-matched peripherals.
That's a fair comment. I'm not comparing apples with apples so to speak. The various home-brew 'projects' I have on the go have more of a focus on functionality than looks.
handy said:
P.S.
I'll send you some pics from NZ, when I get around to it mips. ;-)
Cool, will be looking out for your mail.
I actually think I like linux more than osx. Probably because I don't really know how to use it but at times I want to bang my head against a wall.
mips said: Cool, will be looking out for your mail.
I actually think I like linux more than osx. Probably because I don't really know how to use it but at times I want to bang my head against a wall.
Yes, I too prefer linux, though it is nice to know that when I stuff up a linux installation I can boot into Leopard & use the web to get myself out of trouble.
Though my iMac is away for a warranty job at the moment, & I'm really missing having a 2nd computer for reference, as I have 3 drives all with messy trial installs of various distro's. I would have rebuilt my initial *test of Arch* installation if I had a web reference machine. Unfortunately I did a huge (500+ Mb) pacman -Syu a couple of days ago, which made a real mess of Arch, though it was probably the way I merged the new config' files that made my Arch unable to access the internet!? :lolflag:
As it stands I'm putting Sabayon 3.4f back on a drive as unfortunately Sabayon 3.5 won't install; funny really when 3.4 handles my hardware better than any other distro'?
I'll send you some pic's after I get my mac back mips, it is due next Friday all going well.
As far as banging your head against a wall goes, I guess your frustration is heightened due to the fact that you know exactly how to do what you want to do on Linux. The Mac OS won't take you very long to get used to, in many ways I think it is the easiest to learn of them all. Though I guess it depends on how much you need to know. I don't need to know too much at all these days... :lolflag:
handy said:
On my 24" screen there are quite a few fonts that I can not adjust, which is a real pain in the eyes at times.
Regarding changing fonts, I have never bothered looking, so I can't help you there, apart from suggesting that you have a look at Applications / Font Book.
After some googling I have come to the conclusion that changing fonts in osx is either impossible or excruciatingly hard. It has to be done on a per application basis and this will take forever if you ask me.
There are however 3rd party apps like TinkerTool & Silk which will apparently handle font setup for you.
I find this whole situation totally ridiculous. This is one area sabdfl does not have to worry about in beating OSX with his new linux desktop beautifying strategy.
handy said: Yes, I too prefer linux, though it is nice to know that when I stuff up a linux installation I can boot into Leopard & use the web to get myself out of trouble.
If I stuff up linux I just boot up my laptop, if that is not working then a good livecd will do the job. My lappy currently only has a semi-finished openbox setup on it, just have to learn a bit more to get it going properly. The new Arch LiveCD coming out soon should be ideal for this, it is straight arch with no funny patches & mods + kdemod4.1
handy said: Though my iMac is away for a warranty job at the moment, & I'm really missing having a 2nd computer for reference, as I have 3 drives all with messy trial installs of various distro's. I would have rebuilt my initial *test of Arch* installation if I had a web reference machine. Unfortunately I did a huge (500+ Mb) pacman -Syu a couple of days ago, which made a real mess of Arch, though it was probably the way I merged the new config' files that made my Arch unable to access the internet!? :lolflag:
I have not played around with other distros for quite some time now unlike in the past where I would try new things all the time. I think I have settled with Arch for now but you never know as there might be something in the future that tickles my fancy.
I'm just waiting for kdemod4.1 and then I'll do a fresh install of arch on my pc again. Know it is not required but for some reason I have this mental thing that a fresh install is nicer :)
handy said: As it stands I'm putting Sabayon 3.4f back on a drive as unfortunately Sabayon 3.5 won't install; funny really when 3.4 handles my hardware better than any other distro'?
3.4 was there best version, I have not tried 3.5 yet though. I kinda fail to see the point of the new binary installer, I mean it's gentoo and that is not the gentoo way.
handy said: I'll send you some pic's after I get my mac back mips, it is due next Friday all going well.
No rush, I'll keep checking my inbox. How was your holiday btw?
handy said: As far as banging your head against a wall goes, I guess your frustration is heightened due to the fact that you know exactly how to do what you want to do on Linux. The Mac OS won't take you very long to get used to, in many ways I think it is the easiest to learn of them all. Though I guess it depends on how much you need to know. I don't need to know too much at all these days... :lolflag:
Lol, I always though gnome was dumbed down (although I like it's clean look) but osx just takes the cake when it comes to dumbed down. They do everything differently. I suppose if I was a first time pc user osx would be easy to learn. Lol, with osx I feel like a computer novice.
mips said: If I stuff up linux I just boot up my laptop, if that is not working then a good livecd will do the job. My lappy currently only has a semi-finished openbox setup on it, just have to learn a bit more to get it going properly. The new Arch LiveCD coming out soon should be ideal for this, it is straight arch with no funny patches & mods + kdemod4.1
The 2nd machine is what is really important now that I look a little closer at the situation. Whether the OS is from a LiveCD/DVD, or an installed Leopard, Linux or whatever doesn't really matter as long as it has internet access. I don't play around with Leopard much, at least not in a fashion that will stop it from working (so far, so good anyway), so I can rely on it being available, except at the moment of course!
The Arch LiveCD sounds great, I look forward to that one.
mips said:
I have not played around with other distros for quite some time now unlike in the past where I would try new things all the time. I think I have settled with Arch for now but you never know as there might be something in the future that tickles my fancy.
I haven't been doing much with other distro's either, that is why what I had on my test drives were neglected. The size of the update on the Arch disk was ridiculous. :lolflag:
mips said:
I'm just waiting for kdemod4.1 and then I'll do a fresh install of arch on my pc again. Know it is not required but for some reason I have this mental thing that a fresh install is nicer :)
I agree, though I have done the occasional version upgrade just out of interest & each one has worked perfectly well, except a Sabayon & the very recent pacman -Syu.
mips said:
3.4 was there best version, I have not tried 3.5 yet though. I kinda fail to see the point of the new binary installer, I mean it's gentoo and that is not the gentoo way.
Perhaps they are trying to move Gentoo along the lines of the Arch package installation system. I have been using portage today, & it really is so slow, compared to pacman/yaourt/tupac.
mips said:
No rush, I'll keep checking my inbox. How was your holiday btw?
NZ was fantastic, we did not travel much, spent most of our time around Queenstown, which is probably the tourist center of NZ, even so everyone seemed really relaxed, both residents & visitors. The only hype I remember was up at Coronet ski field where they were in the process of appealing to the young, many of whom like lots of noise & fast talking!
Much of The Lord of the Rings movie was shot around Queenstown, it is magnificently beautiful territory, as you will see in the photo's.
mips said:
Lol, I always though gnome was dumbed down (although I like it's clean look) but osx just takes the cake when it comes to dumbed down. They do everything differently. I suppose if I was a first time pc user osx would be easy to learn. Lol, with osx I feel like a computer novice.
I think it is aimed at making computer novices feel comfortable as quickly as possible. Much of the system is hidden from view, you have to get hold of software on the net to be able to access OSX's gizzards. I have seen the software, don't remember its name, I didn't bother acquiring it as I don't have any desire to go into OSX's underbelly. Yuk!
I'm a linux lover but i love Mac OS X aswell The thing i love about Mac OS X along with Linux is they both work! Unlike the other alternative... yes thats you windows! Linux and Mac shall rule the world together! :)
Bought a Macbook Pro about a month ago. Here's what it boils down to for me:
For daily tasks, basic work flow environment and efficiency, Linux.............beats the pants off of OS X, hands down. I really thought that OS X was going to be a more streamlined and pretty version of my Ubuntu/Kubuntu flavors, but as it turns out, I curse OS X quite often when trying to do the most simple tasks.
First off: NO CUT AND PASTE FOR FILES AND FOLDERS ! ? What idiot (Steve Jobs) thought that was a good idea ? I read somewhere that apple thought it would confuse their users. So now Apple thinks of their user base as being retarded ? Then you get Apple defenders saying that dragging a file around winows is the same thing, and that "what if you forget to paste the file, it will be lost". Holy cow man, seriously ?
iTunes. Wow. Biggest crap pile I've ever seen. Not only is it insulting to not have Ogg/FLAC support out of the box, but when you finally add Ogg support via the xiph file, you still don't get your files with the correct tags, so all songs are totally out of order. Guess if it's not done with the ever so perfect (lock down tool) iTunes, the tags don't mean anything eh ?
Getting iTunes to seamlessly get files from an external HD is like asking for a miracle. I got it to work one time, but after iTunes made a TOTAL mess of my folder heirarchy, leaving me to clean it up (which took half an hour because of no cut/paste) I had to start over from scratch, but then it never refreshed the playlist database as it did the first time, and that was that.
That's just the start of it, but I don't have the time to go on too much further. I get the feeling that Apple does things "different" just for the sake of saying they're different, and not out of logic, or to be efficient. I work 10 times faster on my Kubuntu box, and that's not exaggerating, nor is it because I'm simply used to the environment. OS X's environment isn't hard to figure out, and neither is doing things that IT wants you do do... And here's my biggest gripe..
OS X forces you to work within the confines of its structure and rules. It makes YOU work for IT, rather than having the OS work for YOU. On the first page of this thread, someone commented that Apple was just as greedy and monopolistic as MS, and I couldn't agree more. Seeing how things work with Apple, actually makes me think that they're even more greedy than MS simply because they've got "The Eye of the tiger". Apple wants that market share, and seems to be doing everything they can in order to lock their users into doing things their way, with very little choice otherwise.
iTunes is a shining example. Have an iPod ? Don't want to pay for some lousy unsupported third party app to manage your files ? Better love iTunes. Apple doesn't want you to use anything but iTunes etc.. Whatever. I'm just glad that Linux is around. If it weren't for programs such as Garage Band, Logic, Aperture 2 etc.. OS X would be TOTALLY redundant. Today's Linux is a godsend in comparison. I do all my cd/dvd ripping, burning on Linux. I do all my music listening and organization in Linux. When I want to do music editing, or get rid of ticks on vinyl or create music or nice photo journals, I'll use OSX. Other than that, it's all Linux.
Doug
Sweet Spot said: Bought a Macbook Pro about a month ago. Here's what it boils down to for me:
For daily tasks, basic work flow environment and efficiency, Linux.............beats the pants off of OS X, hands down. I really thought that OS X was going to be a more streamlined and pretty version of my Ubuntu/Kubuntu flavors, but as it turns out, I curse OS X quite often when trying to do the most simple tasks.
First off: NO CUT AND PASTE FOR FILES AND FOLDERS ! ? What idiot (Steve Jobs) thought that was a good idea ? I read somewhere that apple thought it would confuse their users. So now Apple thinks of their user base as being retarded ? Then you get Apple defenders saying that dragging a file around winows is the same thing, and that "what if you forget to paste the file, it will be lost". Holy cow man, seriously ?
iTunes. Wow. Biggest crap pile I've ever seen. Not only is it insulting to not have Ogg/FLAC support out of the box, but when you finally add Ogg support via the xiph file, you still don't get your files with the correct tags, so all songs are totally out of order. Guess if it's not done with the ever so perfect (lock down tool) iTunes, the tags don't mean anything eh ?
Getting iTunes to seamlessly get files from an external HD is like asking for a miracle. I got it to work one time, but after iTunes made a TOTAL mess of my folder heirarchy, leaving me to clean it up (which took half an hour because of no cut/paste) I had to start over from scratch, but then it never refreshed the playlist database as it did the first time, and that was that.
That's just the start of it, but I don't have the time to go on too much further. I get the feeling that Apple does things "different" just for the sake of saying they're different, and not out of logic, or to be efficient. I work 10 times faster on my Kubuntu box, and that's not exaggerating, nor is it because I'm simply used to the environment. OS X's environment isn't hard to figure out, and neither is doing things that IT wants you do do... And here's my biggest gripe..
OS X forces you to work within the confines of its structure and rules. It makes YOU work for IT, rather than having the OS work for YOU. On the first page of this thread, someone commented that Apple was just as greedy and monopolistic as MS, and I couldn't agree more. Seeing how things work with Apple, actually makes me think that they're even more greedy than MS simply because they've got "The Eye of the tiger". Apple wants that market share, and seems to be doing everything they can in order to lock their users into doing things their way, with very little choice otherwise.
iTunes is a shining example. Have an iPod ? Don't want to pay for some lousy unsupported third party app to manage your files ? Better love iTunes. Apple doesn't want you to use anything but iTunes etc.. Whatever. I'm just glad that Linux is around. If it weren't for programs such as Garage Band, Logic, Aperture 2 etc.. OS X would be TOTALLY redundant. Today's Linux is a godsend in comparison. I do all my cd/dvd ripping, burning on Linux. I do all my music listening and organization in Linux. When I want to do music editing, or get rid of ticks on vinyl or create music or nice photo journals, I'll use OSX. Other than that, it's all Linux.
Doug +1, I totally agree.
Well, I will say, without hesitation, that I HATE Apple. I have been a user since System 7.1. I hated them then, but it was the ONLY platform that ran Photoshop and Illustrator. When Adobe started releasing solid versions of their software for NT4 I dropped the Mac like a ton of bricks. I thought NT4 was a great system. It ran programs. It didn't crash. Amazing!
OS X won me back for a while, and by and large I like Apple products (though i think some are an amazing rip-off.) But I still feel the same about the company: far worse than Microsoft in terms of strategically omitting certain functionality or even crippling software after the fact. They're smaller and they get away with a lot more.
That said, OS X (the client version) is a reasonably good system: simple to figure out and mostly virus free. I don't feel too bad about recommending it to people with the disposable income.
OS X Server, on the other hand, is the most buggy, over-engineered piece of horse poop I have ever had the misfortune to use. Having used it since Server 10.3 was introduced, I've found serious regressions in many updates. This latest one in 10.5, which appears to be a simple user interface bug, renders the system completely useless to me. Is there an alternative, less buggy interface I can use? Not that I've found. If there was, would I feel comfortable using it? No, as my reps have repeatedly cautioned me against using 3rd party software for management tasks. That gives me a great deal of confidence in the robustness of their system (not.)
Really. I could go on about Apple for a long time, so I'll just stop now.
guys they have a intel chipped version of hacked macintosh now ad its legal its called osx86
EnGorDiaz said: guys they have a intel chipped version of hacked macintosh now ad its legal its called osx86
It depends
Use it inside the US - Illegal, always. Other countries may disagree, but the only way to loop the US system is by being a certified Mac OS X developer with full developer rights.
Plus, the only thing OSx86 patches do is remove EFI and TPM loading. It runs natively on any range of hardware that OS X already loads on. The only issue would be changing the EFI dependent loading to BIOS loading, but since there is now an EFI emulator that can be installed to the boot sector, you can install OS X with a simple patch that removes TPM dependency and it will work with native apple updates.
Overall, its still a pretty advanced operation and it is still illegal for those that aren't certified to do so.
Wow, that was somewhat long-winded.
Frak said:
Overall, its still a pretty advanced operation and it is still illegal for those that aren't certified to do so.
Advanced, definately not. Illegal, yes.
The official apple updates still mess up alot of installs os osx86 (just got done fixing mine after the 10.5.4 update) but for the most part its the same as an actual mac. If you have a working install of osx86 you can actually install Leopard from the official non-aptched disc on to another hard drive and remove the TPM stuff by hand so you have a 99.9% vanilla machine. Im too lazy to go through all the work for that though :) Its completely illegal here in the US. The OSX EULA specifically states that leo cannot be installed on anything but apple's hardware. Im not sure what countries respect the EULA, but it really doesnt make a difference since people will do what they want anyway.
I, for one, like OSX. I use it for everything except gaming which i use XP Lite for. I dont hate windows, i just prefer a *nix OS. And i get the cool/nerd factor of osx86, lol. I will never buy an apple computer though. They are overpriced (yes you can argue this, but compared to the average price of non-apple lappy's, the macbook is outrageously priced), and i cant customize one the way i like. I've never been an iPod fan, but i fear i might need to upgrade from my Creatve Labs Jukebox Zen Xtra (30gb) soon. My music collection is getting very close to 30gb and i cant stand the though of not having all of my music with me at once... Anyway, i digress. I might end up buying an iPod Classic (not the touch, they are cool but incredibly over-priced) because the refurb Classics are very well priced and have a 1-year warranty which is the same warranty as a new model (i think, i might be wrong). I dont enjoy the though of dealing with iTunes though. If i can find an 80gb Zune (with a manufacturers warrantee) for the same price as a refub iPod Classic i will be getting one of those. I like the giant screen and the fact that WMP11 is so much better than iTunes7. If linux could run all of the programs i use on a daily basis (photoshop, Garageband (never will happen, lol) Guitar Pro (tux guitar doesnt cut it)) then i will swtich to a linux/xp set up without thinking twice.
ATM its legal until Snow-Leopard. The EULA says "do not install on a non-apple labeled computer", so technically, you could put an apple sticker on there and it becomes legal.
No joke, it went to court. I'll find the case in a bit. Apple just said they'd be more specific in the next release.
Dude, im am so putting an Apple sticker on the side of my computer. It would be sweet to have an apple sticker like those "made for windows" stickers they slap on laptops. :D
Frak said:
No joke, it went to court. I'll find the case in a bit. Apple just said they'd be more specific in the next release.
Looking forward to the info.
mips said: Looking forward to the info.
I talked to Semthex about it, and he said it didn't go to court, but one of Apple's legal team alerted them that Apple logo certification (what the EULA tries to imply, a process of Apple to certify certain hardware/software for Mac/Universal compatibility) can be mistaken as an actual Apple Logo. Therefore the current Snow Leopard Developer Preview EULA has it clarified.
I wonder why Psystar got in trouble then? They built computers to be compatible with OsX86 and got sued by apple. Maybe there is a clause that prohibits people from advertising OsX on non-apple hardware or maybe they ran out of little white apple stickers....
NoSmokingBandit said: I wonder why Psystar got in trouble then? They built computers to be compatible with OsX86 and got sued by apple. Maybe there is a clause that prohibits people from advertising OsX on non-apple hardware or maybe they ran out of little white apple stickers....
Even if the Terms weren't clear, Apple's a pretty power-hungry corporation, and they won't let anybody step on their turf. They will take to the law and prove that they were in the right.
I have been a Mac user ever since Commodore AMIGA went belly up. It was more natural for me to go to the Mac UI than the Windows UI.
Currently, I have a Mac Pro running Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and I love it. With the RAM maxed out I can run Ubuntu in VMware Fusion and allocate half of my 16 GB RAM and one dual core Xeon processor to the virtual computer. Runs real nice too...
I have owned windows and ubuntu and have used mac at university for the last couple of years so have ahd some experience with all. I'd say mac took me a while to get used to, and at first i didnt like it at all, but now i think its pretty good and i can do a fair few bits with it... if it werent for a few factors id have bought one already:
1) The cost : with the sum total of about 3 laptop varieties, and no competitors selling the same product (except 2nd hand) they seem to charge quite a bit for machines with not particularly impressive performance.
2) The features and Linux : I was considering getting a macbook for my dissertation (in fact the result of this decision was to get ubuntu! ! !), im doing physics and a bit of simulation work so windows doesnt really suffice - i've not found anything I need for this so far that I havnt got on ubuntu so its not like i really need it for anything in particular now
3) (Ok so this ones a bit petty) The marketing campaign : It looks pretty, you can create photo albums and use itunes - wow
I have a bit of a love hate relationship with macs I think you can see - theyre certainly not bad, just not for me to buy myself
Here is my opinion of Mac & Apple.
I like Aqua, and I love the simplistic ideology of the OS. BUT I hate how Apple operates as a company, even more so than Microsoft. If only they allowed OSX to run on PC's, legally...
I understand why they do what they do, but I don't agree with it.
L815 said: Here is my opinion of Mac & Apple.
I like Aqua, and I love the simplistic ideology of the OS. BUT I hate how Apple operates as a company, even more so than Microsoft. If only they allowed OSX to run on PC's, legally...
I understand why they do what they do, but I don't agree with it.
From the start: Please don't get me wrong? I own an iMac running Leopard (amongst other things).
BUT:
When you say you love Aqua, can you define that?
Is it just the look that you love?
Do you love the way that the Finder works too?
Also, I am in total agreement with you with regards to the Apple corporations ethics/morals, they are also as selfish/greedy as their compatriots.
Honestly, I like Apple. I think Leopard is a good OS.
ya, im thinking about the same with you
I love Macs. There are a lot of web development tools I love for it, and the interface is just so awesome. I also love the keyboard shortcuts and everything, and everything just works with no hassle. Sure they are expensive (which is why I don't own one of my own), but then again, there are a lot of people who are willing to pay so obviously the price isn't a huge issue to a lot of people. As far as the business practices of Apple go, yeah, in a lot of ways they are worse than Microsoft when it comes to certain things. However, unlike Microsoft, Apple does this very well, and the operating system is both stable and it has a large number of applications that look nice and the functionality of the programs makes you go OMG THIS IS AWESOME!!! So yeah, that's whjy I love Macs and Apple.
(Of course, Linux is just as awesome in so many other ways too, it's hard to choose which I like better)
If we talk about Freedom of choice, quality of choice and what you get for your time/money, Apple is MUCH worse company then Microsoft.
The main reason is because you can (legallly and supported) run Mac OS(X) ONLY on computers that Apple is selling! Microsoft made its way to the mass public, by supporting thousands of big or small companies in their effort to make PC Compatible computers, parts an peripherals. But what Apple was doing all the time since it begin to sell computers i the 80`s? He always wanted to promote its CLOSED software on CLOSED hardware with CLOSED file formats.. Linux and Windows runs on every PC today and it IS supported. But for OSX.. If Apple platform dies .. OSX goes with it. The same thing Happend to old MacOS platform.
Therefore, I Choose Open file formats Using Multi platform Applications that run on Open and free (as in freedom) Operating system AND on Hardware platform that does NOT depends on only one hardware vendor. Not to mention that using linux you can even choose Processor architecture that you see fit.
Therefore, As Much as Sun is wrong when he thinks that Opennes without GPL is enough, Microroft is Wrong when he thinks that more than one manufacturer for PC platform is enough, Apple is worse than its brother Microsoft becouse he enforces people to the Only ONE hardware vendor with closed source Operating system. And THAT is sometning I dont want to live with in 21st century. Therefore, Apple OSX SUCKS. Apple is and iphone/ipod company. OSX/Macs are not their main product anymore. If Apple choose to support PCs and not only Macs for OSX, All we will get is that Apple will be on the same level of greediness with Microsoft, instead on lower level, where it is now.
I choose GNU/Linux distributions because on top of all freedom of choice we get from using it, I have multitude of vendors/types of Operating system itself to choose from. Therefore, Future is made on GNU-Licensed Operating systems, programs and open document formats and standards. Freedom list: (Freedom to choose, freedom of right to choose)
Apple solution is the worst choice here.
- Multiple GNU Linux on multiple platforms ++++
- Multiple BSD OS on multiple platforms +-++
- Sun Open Solaris on few platforms --(+)(+)
- Ms Closed Windblows on PC x86/64 platform ---- (+)
- Apple Closed OSX on closed Apple platform. -----
Okay, so Apple's business tactics are less than acceptable. But then again, I choose my software based on functionality, not the company's business practices. And as to your statement that Apple is the worst solution out there, what is that based on? If it's based solely on the fact that OSX is not a versatile operating system, that is pretty ignorant. You can't make a base statement like that without more facts to back up your argument. I personally love Macs because they are functional. I really could care less about Apple's business practices and whatnot as long as their product delivers, and that is what the basis of whether a product is good or not should be based on - functionality.
I've recently stopped by an Apple Store in Edmonton. I'm planning on getting a new computer soon, so I was thinking about buying a macbook. The place was very well organized. There were almost more staff then computers there. I found when I wanted to know some stuff, they were very friendly. I asked questions to somebody for about an hour and they didn't get annoyed by them. I have tried the macbook and the imac and I really want one of the two. I've never had that much fun using an Operating system before. I really like the look and feel of it. (I say somebody online bank on the the imac. That person did not delete there cookies or even log out. I would never online bank in a public place [-(
I liked the keyboard. I've asked some really complicated stuff to the staff, they knew most of it. I even learned you can run Mac os X in a virtulized environment if you buy the server version costing more then the mac I want. I've even had fun zooming in and out with the control + scroll trick lol.
Now I just have to save up for either a imac or a black macbook. The only draw back is I can't build my own mac. But whatever. Another thing is because alot of people are using the keyboards. I think I managed to catch a human virus lol :p Mac os x may not have (other then a few) viruses. But you can get human viruses :lolflag:
Lol your Apple Genius' know what they are talking about? I confused the hell out of one of the techs at an Apple Store near my house and he had to call out to answer my question. Plus, he said that no version of OSX can run in a VM which I already knew the server version could so he was wrong. Essentially I just love going into that store to give them a mental headache.
I got a macbook pro last week and i LOVE it...
i got an ipod classic 80GB and I hate apple now. If they'll make iTunes w. windows support, why not make it for linux too (espically if they're gonna make it harder for 3rd party apps to add music to the library)?
Lack of a decent market. Same reason nothing cool ever gets officially ported over to Linux :(
HokeyFry said: Lack of a decent market. Same reason nothing cool ever gets officially ported over to Linux :(
UT2k4, the Quake's, Firefox, VLC is awesome & I dig NeroLinux.
I wouldn't say nothing cool ever gets officially ported over to Linux (distributions).
Well. I hate Apple more then I do Microsoft. I view Apple as a more sleazy version of Microsoft thats just less successful, but probably worse behaving. Apple's very good at marketing in some ways, they OS is very candy cane in my mind -- its not exactly awful, but I view OSX as a "toy OS" -- its poor performing and ultimately its only selling feature is that it comes on a computer that has a white case that some people think looks cool and "chic".
But thats essentially it. Apple sells to people who think having a "chic" computer is cool somehow. Personally, I don't see it -- computers where meant to do work, not look "chic". I mean, they are only even talking about the -case- even. The OS is pretty much the same as any other OS by appearances. Their hardware is essentially the same as the stuff you buy from your local computer shop for 1/3 the price.
Another thing -- Apple is just another company that wants your money and doesn't care what happens to you after you've given it to them. iPhone's and their fascist policies are good examples -- actually, Apple in generally is full of fascist policies, but Mac users seem to just be happy with having another company control their computer as long as they believe that company is benevolent. Doesn't really make sense. Its not giving you computing freedom, its just changing dictators -- the root problem remains.
And finally, the mac users themselves. I can't help but tie them in with the bongo-playing hippies that read lesbian seagull in the parks. Yet, like the best kinds of hippies, these particular sorts of hippies are the hippies with money, who recycle things without understanding the economics involved, and essentially believe that they are "thinking different" somehow by buying into someone elses marketing. Just thinking about these "people" makes me gorge rise. Bleh.
Maddox can help explain too. Something that PC's can do that Macs can't. Be sure to read his quips about the iPhone too.
:)
Apple lead the way.
MS has always been following Apple.
MS' first program was Excel for Apple.
Apple are primarily a hardware manufacturer who attempt to make their accompanying software innovative, visually appealing & as simple as possible for the user. They have successfully marketed to the youth of the world, which is a very smart thing to do with regard to profit. When you get someone when they are young, they are more likely to stay with you, as, as we get older we find change harder - old dogs & new tricks...
I read that statistically (sorry I don't have a link) Apple OS users are far more likely to learn another program than the users of any other OS, which is due to the Apple OS being more consistent than the others which plays a part in the previously mentioned implementation of simplicity. I personally know that OS-X is far from perfect, & that is not what I am saying.
I own an iMac, for the reasons that it suits my purposes & my desk space, (which runs two computers). On this iMac I use both Leopard & Arch (in many ways they are the two opposites in the world of the OS). In the past I was a sole trader, who specialized in repairing both the hardware & software/OS of computers. I had business & private clients & successfully ran my business for ten years until I retired. I very rarely worked on anything other than computers running one of the Windows OS's.
So to sum up, I say that from my experiences that have been spread out over the AmigaOS's, various Windows versions, multitudes of Linux distro's, Mac Classic/OS-X's, PC-BSD, Solaris & other little used OS's, they all have their strengths & weaknesses, we are lucky to have so many choices, all of them keep improving (currently Windows Vista may be an exception to that statement :-)). Some Mac users may be trendies, some users of whatever Linux distro' may be elitists, some users of the Windows environment may only use their computer to get whatever the job is that they need to get done & don't care a hoot about computers, computing or what an OS is. Full stop.
Who has the right to judge other computer users by their own standards?
Use whatever you choose for whatever reason you choose, & don't give two hoots about what anyone else thinks about it.
& as far as dooming any business because it chooses to be profitable is concerned, that argument just doesn't cut it. Take MS & Apple out of the discussion & look at the hardware giants involved in the computer industry; IBM, Intel, HP, Sun, nVidia, AMD/ATi, Sony, Philips, VIA, Motorola, & so many more; most of these companies aren't in your face like Apple & MS are, they do their dealings in closed meetings, they don't have the need to appeal to the individual consumer as does Apple in particular. Apple have developed a marketing strategy that works. If they see one that works better they will use it, that is what corporations do. If you are against the corporate run world in general (as in my heart I am) that would make far more sense than just picking on one corporation who's marketing offends you which is obviously compounded by the fact that some young trendies have been influenced by it, which irritates you...
I agree that Apple is worse than Microsoft. But, I have never had an issue with Apple products in terms of functionality, and as long as their products continue to not suck, I will support them and buy their products.
OSX is by far the most gorgeous looking "stock os". No tweaking, no additional customizations, out of the box beautiful. Unfortunately for Apple we dont just use OSs based on their looks, they certainly are better than a windows box. Main problem is their business model locking up hardware development and restricting software innovations over the last ten years, mostly Adobe are the only few who have successful software running on Macs. Do not stifle development, you have to find a way to make things profitable but not so restrictive. No way that model is going to last forever even if they make great products they aren't competitive.
Bottom Line Overriced Restrictive Use Poor business model
If only linux distros would team up to make one great OS instead of this plethora of distributions, coupled with SERIOUS applications for webdesign and multimedia they would seriously make headway into the OS market. My two Cents
I am a big big apple and Mac OS X fan, but thinking of switching to Dell & Ubuntu to get better value.
I've moved some of the off-topic discussion to this thread.
Quite simple actually.
They blackbox their computers. Imagine if Apple was the dominant computer. Hardware vendors would be severely lacking in a customer base, and it would become much more expensive to customize your computer.you would HAVE to use apple products.
Oh, and that and that iTunes for windows (gasp, I didn't put the $ instead of the s) is the worst piece of software, and is designed so that windows users will think that windows is incredibly slow, and that macs are infinitely better.
PS incase you're wondering, I dualboot ubuntu and windows xp, and I haven't gotten the bsod in years.
mrblue182 said: Quite simple actually.
They blackbox their computers. Imagine if Apple was the dominant computer. Hardware vendors would be severely lacking in a customer base, and it would become much more expensive to customize your computer.you would HAVE to use apple products.
I kind of agree with you. Though the need to use Apple products has diminished somewhat; at least you don't have to spend $125- on an Apple printer cable so as to use a non Apple printer these days.
I do think that if Apple had the market share of MS, the freedom we know under the FOSS licensing system would be under more of a threat than it is now.
There would also be far less hardware innovation, as Apple are primarily a hardware company, without competition, they would do just exactly what suits them with regard to being profitable. They would not go down the costly road of innovation any further than the market demands.
If only linux distros would team up to make one great OS instead of this plethora of distributions, coupled with SERIOUS applications for webdesign and multimedia they would seriously make headway into the OS market. My two Cents
Actually if that happened, that would take out the best part of linux. It can suit your needs. (OMG LOL my keyboard is controlling me, I just typed Halo sucks, and I like halo...) Anyways you will need competition within the distro's to push the programmers, to innovating.
My three cents.
I hate apple because they got opensource platform. modified a name, and put a fkin price-tag on it. Their hardware is overpriced, the thing about "apple is more stable than pc" is just a bunch of bull. its just an os "for n00bs" who use their $2000 xenon apple computer for email, myspace and utube. and who really think that any other OS is just slower than mac...
Kronie said: I hate apple because they got opensource platform. modified a name, and put a fkin price-tag on it. Their hardware is overpriced, the thing about "apple is more stable than pc" is just a bunch of bull. its just an os "for n00bs" who use their $2000 xenon apple computer for email, myspace and utube. and who really think that any other OS is just slower than mac...
No, you are wrong & making statements that sound immature & thoughtless. Most computer users don't care about the technology, hardware or software, they just want to get the job done as expediently as possible. Apple's OS-X does that far better than MS's current mess, BUT you have to buy the hardware from Apple to get the software to suit. Apple like the Linux based distro's & the BSD's doesn't have the client base to attract as many software manufacturers, so many people are forced to use the MS OS due to their software requirements.
We can bitch_&_moan about the corporate philosophy of those involved in the computer industry all we like, we are still all caught in the catch22 of computer use, as there are many mega corporations involved in the production of the hardware involved in every computer, & all any of them care about is the bottom line of profit for their directors & shareholders.
As I have stated previously in this thread, Apple, much more so than MS, require an in your face marketing strategy to counter MS's domination of Apple's hardware competition.
Like it or lump it, it is purely marketroid business, aimed firstly at survival, & secondly it is aimed at making the most profit for all concerned - directors & shareholders.
Most corporate entities would adulterate the water we drink to make a bigger profit. (Of course they would provide all those associated with the company with appropriate water filters with the annual report!)
I love OS X. For the past two and half years my main computer has been a Mac. I just fell in love with the interface and how everything just seems to work. It's nice to just sit down and be able to work without fighting with the operating system. Don't get me wrong, OS X isn't flawless and doesn't always work correctly without a little bit of work, but it's been much better than Windows for me.
I started using OS X when I got my current job. At the time, I could use either Windows XP or Mac OS X as my main operating system. I had been using Windows XP for years, so I decided to try OS X for a change.
[SIZE="6"][/SIZE] If you take the raw speed and power of linux and give it 100% functionallity and support, there you have OS/X
I gave some if the image editing tools a try the other day in the shop
Very powerfull stuff!
Its linux that just works!, Hence the price tag
tarvtarv said: [SIZE="6"][/SIZE]
If you take the raw speed and power of linux and give it 100% functionallity and support, there you have OS/X
I gave some if the image editing tools a try the other day in the shop
Very powerfull stuff!
Its linux that just works!, Hence the price tag
Apple (the hardware manufacturing company) makes software for its products with ease of use, functionality, beauty (there is no accounting for taste) & financial profit, in mind. Due to the combination of the above factors being governed by the need for profit, OSX, is a long way from being like the Linux kernel based distributions.
Linux is FOSS, Apple's products are not; to the point of much of OSX being hidden & inaccessible to the license holder.
I dual boot Arch & Leopard on my iMac, I find Arch to be noticeably faster. Arch is the opposite of OSX, in the user control & freedom stakes. Apple has more commercial software available, for those that need it, I don't.
handy said:
Linux is FOSS, Apple's products are not; to the point of much of OSX being hidden & inaccessible to the license holder.
Exactly! I wouldn't say OSX is just like linux, but with commercial support. Any distro of linux has more raw power from the start, by virtue of being open and customizable, so you can basically build it from scratch any way you see fit.
Now if this monster would gain commercial support, Windows & OSX would be on the list of endangered species.
Hi! I have a Mac, i don't regred his OS is just fascinating,but it is not "Open Source" I would never compare to windouz wich i consider is mainly for kids, due to everything is done with a clikc" no ofense . I'm also using ubuntu on my 3rd computer and i like it very much.Back to Mac it would be a hit if most of there hardware & software were free. ThanKs!
I just bought a mac. And to be honest I'm pleased. Actually I'm more than pleased, I love it. The reason why I bought it is simple. There are no Linux pre-installed machines here in Denmark. It is therefore just fair to say that the best Linux machine I could buy was an overpriced, closed sourced UNIX ******* son. Just for the record I'm posting this from my 6 year old dell laptop running xubuntu (which in principle is the machine I am replacing with the mac).
I really enjoy OSX. I have Leopard running on a Hackintosh, and while not everything works (*shakes fist at Adobe Photoshop CS3 and Cider*) most of it runs well enough for daily use. I really like:
-The way most .dmg's have a drag-able image that you pull to the applications folder, and it installs. Neat.
-The layout of everything. Simple.
-The nifty little animations, which I find pleasantly amusing.
-And most importantly, drag and drop support is amazing. I can drag a torrent file on top of Transmission, it'll start up, and start downloading the torrent. Awesome.
Mr. Psychopath said:
-And most importantly, drag and drop support is amazing. I can drag a torrent file on top of Transmission, it'll start up, and start downloading the torrent. Awesome.
Idk if any linux distro does that, but i know windows will do the same thing if you drop a file on a program. Apps in windows are a bit more of a pain to navigate to though.
Well, I don't have anything against Apple. I think they make really cool and innovative products. The only thing I don't like is OS X Tiger. Least favorite OS ever. I was actually thinking about buying a Mac Mini for a while, but then I downloaded Ubuntu and that all changed.
Only reasons i don't like apple is their limited support for ipod on linux and that the iphone is so ******* expensive
I think Apple are great. I've used OSX for about 5 years now, and when I got my latest [Windows, because I'm poor] laptop, it really was frustrating to change back to Windows. I've put Ubuntu on here too, but even that is nowhere close. OSX just has some very intuitive things that you don't notice until they're missing.. a folder opening when you hover a dragged file over it, for example.
An Interesting and Worth Try OS which I would never get the chance to use because I can't afford it/don't want to spend extra bucks for it.
I have now been 'forced' to use OS X for about five months.
Desktop: To be honest the features I found myself liking are all available in Linux so there is little here that would make me want to buy a Mac. At this point even if OS X was available for non-Apple TPM computers I would not see any advantage to purchasing the OS.
The manner in which Apple stores it's shares is bizarre to say the least. From the plist files I have seen it does not store the server name, just the share name. This causes problems if you have the same share name on two different servers. While this would seem to be a planning issue to some I would have to disagree; there is no way a plist should not store the server name.
The default auto-login feature (yes, it can be disabled - then again the same can be done in Windows) is insecure. The prompts to do administrative tasks happen with roughly the same frequency as with Windows Vista, but they at least ask for you password instead of a simple 'click the button' response that Vista asks for. The Apple ad seems to play on the Vista mechanism being annoying and the Apple mechanism is more annoying; the ad is clearly a distortion, but the feature is more secure.
Server: On the server side of things Apple has a product that is a cross between NT4 and Windows 2000 for usability and function. OD is just not ready to be used outside of the small office/work group setting yet. Apple may catch up like Microsoft did with AD when Netware NDS ruled the Directory Service world, but given Apple's focus on consumer end bling I would doubt it.
The GUI controls on the server are incomplete and using ARD to the server (brand new this summer server setup by an Apple Engineer) tends to lock ARD up so you can not connect a second time. Apple gets points for the fact that I can SSH in and reset things though.
The Company: I personally think Apple is far worse than Microsoft because of its anti-consumer practices. Sure, they make nice stuff but they lock consumers in. If Apple ever gets a dominant posistion in computers that would be a very bad thing for computing.
I've a friend who sees Apple as being "worse" than Microsoft for the reasons PrivateVoid stated; however, I have to put this down to a difference in perspective, a la *Democrats vs. Republicans.*
Apple was the *only* significant competition for Microsoft for the longest time, and the only significant driving factor for Microsoft to make what improvements they have in their OS line-up. For that, in truth *everyone* in the tech industry owes Apple at least *some* degree of gratitude. And whether or not they want to admit it, that includes Linux users as well. After all, while it's obviously not a verbatim copy, look at how much the various Linux GUI environments share in common with Mac OS. (And yes, it also shares a number of things in common with Windows, too. But please, don't anyone repeat that too loudly in this thread. Thank you. :) )
Does this mean Apple can do no wrong, or that they walk on water? *Hardly.*
What I think a lot of people, here and elsewhere, seem not to understand is that Apple had *every opportunity in the world*, back in the day, to put themselves where Microsoft is now. This was both with and without Steve Jobs as an employee. Even now, Steve could put Apple in the same position as Microsoft, especially in the media distribution market (think songs and videos via iTMS) but, unlike Microsoft with their scare tactics, FUD, and so on, Apple's gotten the iPod and iTMS where it is based on the fact that, at the end of the day, they've made products people *desire* strongly, and obviously *keep on* desiring. Trends and fads only last so long, especially in the tech world; arguably the iPod platform and iTMS have out-lived that sort of period of time.
This is not to try to white-wash over what have certainly been strong sales tactics jobs done by Steve, et al, in meetings with the various labels and networks. I'm certain that has taken place. But again, strong-arming only works up to a point; after that, the success or failure of a company's efforts is based on whether they demonstrate some degree of value to the customer base.
There's two ways of doing that. First is the Microsoft way, where you corral all the big players into playing ball with you, and then deliberately squeeze out all other competition (to whatever extent it exists), and then force everyone else -- the general public included -- to adopt your company's products on the theory (which may or may not be true) that "there's no other choice". The second is to put out a product range which, when the public (both businesses and home users) is exposed to them, are well liked, and therefore succeed *on their own merits*.
Clearly, it's been demonstrated that there's a significant number of people out there who like what Apple puts out. The fact that they can say "Yes, I *know* there are other options, but I don't *want* to use them." is significant and should not, in my opinion, be lightly discounted.
Of course, the flip side to all this is the extent to which Mac OS X users benefit from the efforts of the F/OSS community, a fact which I frequently remind Mac users of.
MikeTheC said:
After all, while it's obviously not a verbatim copy, look at how much the various Linux GUI environments share in common with Mac OS. (And yes, it also shares a number of things in common with Windows, too. But please, don't anyone repeat that too loudly in this thread. Thank you. :) ) Maybe you should take a look at dwm ;)
MikeTheC said:
What I think a lot of people, here and elsewhere, seem not to understand is that Apple had *every opportunity in the world*, back in the day, to put themselves where Microsoft is now. This was both with and without Steve Jobs as an employee. Even now, Steve could put Apple in the same position as Microsoft, especially in the media distribution market (think songs and videos via iTMS) but, unlike Microsoft with their scare tactics, FUD, and so on, Apple's gotten the iPod and iTMS where it is based on the fact that, at the end of the day, they've made products people *desire* strongly, and obviously *keep on* desiring. Trends and fads only last so long, especially in the tech world; arguably the iPod platform and iTMS have out-lived that sort of period of time.
I dislike Apple because they:
a) make products that I feel are overpriced, difficult to use, and locked in b) have almost every part of their software DRMed/locked down
If they decided to gain customers through misleading advertising rather than strongarming OEMs, I don't really care.
MikeTheC said:
I've a friend who sees Apple as being "worse" than Microsoft for the reasons PrivateVoid stated; however, I have to put this down to a difference in perspective, a la *Democrats vs. Republicans.*
Please give us your U.S. description of why it fits your simple U.S. view of the politics of the world?
MikeTheC said:
Apple was the *only* significant competition for Microsoft for the longest time, and the only significant driving factor for Microsoft to make what improvements they have in their OS line-up.
Apple's OS is what MS has always been inspired by. Have a little look at history & you will very quickly see that MS follows Apple all the way.
The difference between the two companies is that 1. (MS) is very good at making money, & 2. Apple is very good at being creative.
Apple knows that it does not need to become the predominant OS on the planet, nor does it need to sell a larger amount of computers than it does now. Apple does very well out of its peripherals; meaning iPods & iPhones, iTunes sales & on it goes.
Apple has come from behind in the marketroid stakes to being so far in front it is not funny in the internet music market, the hardware sales of personal music players & now personal multimedia/internet connected portable telephones; in comparison to MS. Apple has no problem now in relation to MS, as Apple have created & now dominate a market that MS can not ever compete in, no matter how much money they throw at the problem.
For that, in truth *everyone* in the tech industry owes Apple at least *some* degree of gratitude, if only due to the fact that it is Apple & not MS in the same position.
Does this mean Apple can do no wrong, or that they walk on water? *Hardly.*
What I think a lot of people, here and elsewhere, seem not to understand is that Apple had *every opportunity in the world*, back in the day, to put themselves where Microsoft is now. This was both with and without Steve Jobs as an employee. Even now, Steve could put Apple in the same position as Microsoft, especially in the media distribution market (think songs and videos via iTMS) but, unlike Microsoft with their scare tactics, FUD, and so on, Apple's gotten the iPod and iTMS where it is based on the fact that, at the end of the day, they've made products people *desire* strongly, and obviously *keep on* desiring. Trends and fads only last so long, especially in the tech world; arguably the iPod platform and iTMS have out-lived that sort of period of time.
This is not to try to white-wash over what have certainly been strong sales tactics jobs done by Steve, et al, in meetings with the various labels and networks. I'm certain that has taken place. But again, strong-arming only works up to a point; after that, the success or failure of a company's efforts is based on whether they demonstrate some degree of value to the customer base.
There's two ways of doing that. First is the Microsoft way, where you corral all the big players into playing ball with you, and then deliberately squeeze out all other competition (to whatever extent it exists), and then force everyone else -- the general public included -- to adopt your company's products on the theory (which may or may not be true) that "there's no other choice". The second is to put out a product range which, when the public (both businesses and home users) is exposed to them, are well liked, and therefore succeed *on their own merits*.
Clearly, it's been demonstrated that there's a significant number of people out there who like what Apple puts out. The fact that they can say "Yes, I *know* there are other options, but I don't *want* to use them." is significant and should not, in my opinion, be lightly discounted.
I've never been a hater of Apple. I have gone through stages on not liking them, but I have also come to like them a lot recently - they make a lot of nice devices.
But right now. I cannot stand the company. I really dislike their ethics.
If I buy an iPhone/iPod, I shouldn't have to use their bulky mp3 player, in order to transfer mp3s to my device. 99% of mp3 players offer simple drag/drop options lol. Why can't Apple?
Because they want to lock all their users into the iTunes Store - to make more money. I don't buy music from the iTunes store, and I never will. I don't use Windows or Mac OS X either. So there should be an option for me to use a damn iPhone/iPod on my Free Operating System.
Lord C said:
So there should be an option for me to use a damn iPhone/iPod on my Free Operating System.
Apple only has to give you the options they feel like giving you. A little pre-purchasing research would tell you that apple doesnt give a crap about any free os. And if you didnt look that up before buying those items then it is only your own fault.
NoSmokingBandit said: Apple only has to give you the options they feel like giving you. A little pre-purchasing research would tell you that apple doesnt give a crap about any free os. And if you didnt look that up before buying those items then it is only your own fault.
Some lot of Apple OS (Darwin backend of Mac OS X) is open source. http://www.apple.com/opensource/
Lord C said: I've never been a hater of Apple. I have gone through stages on not liking them, but I have also come to like them a lot recently - they make a lot of nice devices.
But right now. I cannot stand the company. I really dislike their ethics.
If I buy an iPhone/iPod, I shouldn't have to use their bulky mp3 player, in order to transfer mp3s to my device. 99% of mp3 players offer simple drag/drop options lol. Why can't Apple?
Because they want to lock all their users into the iTunes Store - to make more money. I don't buy music from the iTunes store, and I never will. I don't use Windows or Mac OS X either. So there should be an option for me to use a damn iPhone/iPod on my Free Operating System.
I totally agree with you.
Apple's lock-in sucks big time. Their marketing practices set an extreme example to those of us who dislike such mental manipulation.
Unfortunately, the marketroids who desire *results*, which I'll define as the need to feather their own nests, see Apple's self promotion as an ideal to be striven for in their own professional experience.
This is to varying degrees the crap that we have to live with every time we walk into any shop any time of the day, anywhere in the world. (from my experience anyway)
By the way, I don't HATE Apple, or anything for that matter.
Thankfully, I don't know the emotion.
It is cool. But it is not easy to use.
handy said: I totally agree with you.
Apple's lock-in sucks big time. Their marketing practices set an extreme example to those of us who dislike such mental manipulation.
Unfortunately, the marketroids who desire *results*, which I'll define as the need to feather their own nests, see Apple's self promotion as an ideal to be striven for in their own professional experience.
This is to varying degrees the crap that we have to live with every time we walk into any shop any time of the day, anywhere in the world. (from my experience anyway)
By the way, I don't HATE Apple, or anything for that matter.
Thankfully, I don't know the emotion. I believe in Psystar's countersuit, it involves lock-in's as an illegal trade. If they win, Apple will have to a. Stop charging for upgrades/updates of Mac OS X b. Allow all hardware to run OS X or c. stop using/making OS X altogether.
Frak said: I believe in Psystar's countersuit, it involves lock-in's as an illegal trade. If they win, Apple will have to a. Stop charging for upgrades/updates of Mac OS X b. Allow all hardware to run OS X or c. stop using/making OS X altogether.
Have you seen this:
*_http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080829184018767_*
Also this thread is very interesting:
handy said: Please give us your U.S. description of why it fits your simple U.S. view of the politics of the world?
Ok, liberals and conservatives. Is that better? I have no interest in arguing politics with you or anyone else on this board. This isn't the place for it -- this is a Ubuntu Linux message board.
The rest of your post being in obvious agreement with mine, I'll simply coast along knowing we concur.
FRAK, *et al*...
Can we please stop this whole legal opinion thing? From the perspective of a U.S. lawyer (which would be the only relevant point-of-view) none of us here know what the hell we're talking about.
Vis a vis the Psystar / Apple thing, let's simply consider the notion that what Psystar is really interested in is reaching a market segment Apple isn't targeting, and that's the mid-range PC enthusiast. Psystar is in no way seriously targeting the MacPro, nor is it targeting the Mac mini. And whether their actions were legal or not, at the end of the day they're both in this for the money.
Then again, in a way, so is EFI-X, in selling a what -- $150? $175? -- "internal USB" dongle to let PC-building enthusiasts have relatively unfettered access to Mac OS X.
I think Psystar have a very valid point, that'll probably stand up in court.
I don't however agree with MTheC, that unless we're a qualified Lawywer we should shutup, lol. If someone has an opinion on the subject I see no problem in them raising it.
Even lawyers don't always know what they're talking about >:P
Lord C:
I think there's been ample evidence from several public commentary sources (i.e.: message boards) that the general public doesn't understand the difference between civil and criminal law, often referring to acts of breaking a EULA as being "illegal" when clearly, at least in most countries, they're not. And given the opinions stated which are obviously then predicated and built upon such misapprehensions as those, it's hard to come away with anything other than the opinion that many -- if indeed not most -- people don't really have any clue what they're talking about.
You're right to say we're all free to our own opinions, and it would also absolutely be true to say one demonstrates one's intelligence or ignorance in the process of giving voice to those opinions. It's just I'm a bit tired of wading hip deep through the muck of ignorance and investigative apathy.
In short:
Breaking Apple's EULA itself is not illegal. Doing things which may happen to go against parts of their EULA which by chance happen to also be against the law are illegal. But that's simply a coincidence. In the U.S., thanks to the DMCA, doing things which allow someone to violate another's copyright, trademark or patent can be found to be illegal themselves. Therefore, the OSX86 Community's efforts could in theory be found to be illegal under DMCA, but not under any strict basis of violating the EULA. EFI-X's product could possibly also be found to violate DMCA law, but as the maker is outside of the U.S., it would be hard to do more than put a halt on shipments of their product into the U.S.
Do I think that Apple overcharges for the hardware they sell? Yes. Do I think Apple has the right to charge for their efforts at system and case and cosmetic design? Absolutely. But there also comes a point where the market may or may not bear the expense. However, all of this posturing aside, and complaints from "the masses" in the computer world aside as well, clearly Apple is doing awesome business and seems in no way in immediate danger of going out of business.
TheMikeC
Fair Use in the United States of America allows the OSx86 project to live and for people to use OS X on their PC's, if and only if, it is used on the basis of education.
Ta-da! Loophole.
EDIT As for EFI-X, all it is, is a device that allows you to run OS's from an external EFI-chip, not illegal whatsoever.
*@MikeTheC:* I'll post this again for your benefit:
*_http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080829184018767_*
[I][Edit:]
These two are also related to the topic of Psystar, very interesting info' I find:[/I]
[B][I][U]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080831104451947&query=psystar
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080903082827766&query=psystar[/U][/I][/B]
I have to ask the OP if he is infact his avatar. This seems like a post that should end in "FLAME ON!!!" lol
and obviously the flaming has started. Personally I hold no prejudice against Apple, but the last system I used of theirs besides my Ipod was System 7 so I suppose I'm a bit behind the times...
HacDan said: I have to ask the OP if he is infact his avatar. This seems like a post that should end in
"FLAME ON!!!" lol
Some people seem to get emotional about the subject, though many of us state our views in the hope it is of benefit to someone, & if not, who cares? (Admittedly we all can have our off days for whatever reason & not be as kind as we would normally be.)
There is no need to call the fire brigade here.
handy said: There is no need to call the fire brigade here.
It just seemed as the OP was asking for replies not of good nature, I know most of this thread did not turn out that way as us Ubuntu folk are of the peaceful kind. If the post had stated what us GNU/Linux folks thought of Apple/OS X then it would have been a different story, but assuming we all hated Apple and their products is asking for a debate of obviously great magnitude.
HacDan said: It just seemed as the OP was asking for replies not of good nature, I know most of this thread did not turn out that way as us Ubuntu folk are of the peaceful kind.
I agree, the OP does seem to have been intending to stir up some flames way back then in February 2006.
Sirin said: I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
this is total nonsense in my opinion. myself, I've owned Mac for years and I think it's smart, easy, beautifully implemented OS. For last 2 years I've been using Ubuntu, exclusively though...mostly because of costs and to get 'unplug' from mega companies. Open source is the only way to go if you don't want to be spied on.
I'm sticking with Ubuntu and not going back to Apple anytime soon despite that they have gorgeous products.
One note: Apple laptops are quite delicate as few of my friends found out recently - I'll take rock solid Ubuntu on tank-like Thinkpad any day.
Because macos is task-oriented and those tasks are not abstract enought, but tries to emulate some real world task models. IMHO an operating system or any software should not do that, because it makes working with computer really inefficient. Maybe macos is good for non-technical people, for example artists, designers, musicians and so on - for all ordinary dumbusers. But it's (GUI) awfully painful for powerusers. And there are also problems with font rendering, window manager configuration flexibility, screen usage efficiency and so on. Still I'm not advocating against Aplle, just expressing my own opinion about their operating system. I like Apples hardware design.
I love the way that Mac apps are installed. Very simple for the user (especially *"for all ordinary dumbusers"*), no real mysteries, and you can easily see what you have. I can only hope that Linux will be so transparent one day. I can never tell what I'm doing in Linux, it's all so cryptic. There are vast repositories of packages which, I can't search. I have to rely on word of mouth to find out what is there. It's awful. Linux may be free, but it is very stressful. Apple usually "just works", like they say. It may come as a surprise to many of you out there, but some of us were not born with a complete, encyclopedic knowledge of Linux, we "*dumbusers*" must struggle along and try to learn, under the derisive gaze of the most learned gurus of Linux. Pardon, us for breathing.
Perfect example: After two weeks of research and trial and error, I still can't see flash video on my Ubuntu machine. Even though it is common on the internet. Why is that? Why is it so darn hard to make this work? Is it because I'm a "*dumbuser*", genetically inferior to the uber gurus?
Pharohs said:
I love the way that Mac apps are installed. Very simple for the user (especially *"for all ordinary dumbusers", no real mysteries, and you can easily see what you have.*)
Me too, though sometimes the installation spreads into places that you are not aware of unless you have a thorough & extended look.
Pharohs said:
I can only hope that Linux will be so transparent one day. I can never tell what I'm doing in Linux, it's all so cryptic. There are vast repositories of packages which, I can't search. I have to rely on word of mouth to find out what is there. It's awful. Linux may be free, but it is very stressful. Apple usually "just works", like they say. It may come as a surprise to many of you out there, but some of us were not born with a complete, encyclopedic knowledge of Linux, we "*dumbusers*" must struggle along and try to learn, under the derisive gaze of the most learned gurus of Linux. Pardon, us for breathing.
Much of OSX is hidden, you can only access it through specialized software.
Nothing is hidden in Linux kernel based distributions due to the license.
Pharohs said:
Perfect example: After two weeks of research and trial and error, I still can't see flash video on my Ubuntu machine. Even though it is common on the internet. Why is that? Why is it so darn hard to make this work? Is it because I'm a "*dumbuser*", genetically inferior to the uber gurus?
It is due to the closed source licensing of Flash, that it can not be included in Ubuntu.
Your skin is a little thin I think. Caring about what others think or say whether thoughtlessly or to aggrandize their own ego is a total waste of time & energy. :-)
i used to Windows OS, but i am glad to try every new things, why not!
just my 2 cents. Theres a lot to read through so I'm sure this has probably been said before.
I see no reason to spend the money on the apple system. I also see no reason to use hackintosh unless you are just that way inclined. IMHO if you want to use mac then buy a mac.
As far as usability is concerned I can't see the advantages over say Ubuntu, Ok it doesn't run on every system but its never going to. Maybe they should take a leaf out of Apple's book and make some custom hardware. I used to be a Windows user, I would defend it until I was "Royale" in the face. Now though I would recommend Mac instead of windows if the person rejected the idea of Linux. I personally am not partial to OSX. In fact I think leopard isn't as good as Tiger. Its almost a bit "Vista-ish" in its eye-candy over substance approach. The dock, although pretty, seems a little silly now. At least to me. I'm trying not to use my Ubuntu like windows, i.e. using the file manager for everything. Theres no need to when there are programs designed to do it. I think that this is very much the philosophy of Apple, (well I hope it is coz it would explain how dire finder is lol).
Mac certainly has its place in the market. I'm not sure of its advantages though. Ubuntu is certainly ready for regular use for the masses as long as it is set up before the system is bought. The same can be said for Windows and Mac. I was very close to buying a mac this summer before buying my laptop. Their marketing is very good but I decided that I'd miss Ubuntu too much. I didn't see the worth of buying a mac if i wasn't going to use the OS. The integration in mac is very good (for the most part) as is the range of commercial products.
whaddya think??
I have an iBook (600 MHz) with Debian 4.0 installed :guitar:
mikko
I have been a Windows user for many years, and have been using Ubuntu on the side for awhile. Windows has a buttload of 3rd party support and rightfully has a buttload of marketshare. Ubuntu is an awesome OS with an awesome community. I like how unbiased many of the users are. A few of my friends are OSX users and we get along just fine because we aren't blindly following our OS or blindly hating the other. I've never tried out OSX because it has no use for me. It's expensive and doesn't have the programs I need. Ubuntu is proving to have many of the things I need (including an awesome community that has already helped me through several problems).
If there is anything I hate, it is ignorant Windows, OSX, or Linux users who say that one thing is better than another for x reason. They all have their uses, and the most respectable OS is the one that has the most respectable community imho.
I like Macintosh. It is stable etc. It is a little like Linux for beginners. I mean, I prefer Linux, I do, but there's nothing wrong with Mac or Windows other than that you have less freedom. You can do pretty much anything with Linux, without breaking any EULA's or Lisences...
veiho said: Because macos is task-oriented and those tasks are not abstract enought, but tries to emulate some real world task models. IMHO an operating system or any software should not do that, because it makes working with computer really inefficient.
Maybe macos is good for non-technical people, for example artists, designers, musicians and so on - for all ordinary dumbusers. But it's (GUI) awfully painful for powerusers. And there are also problems with font rendering, window manager configuration flexibility, screen usage efficiency and so on. Still I'm not advocating against Aplle, just expressing my own opinion about their operating system. I like Apples hardware design.
I own both a MacBook Pro and an Ubuntu desktop, and a few Linux servers. I really don't see any truth in your post at all, being a poweruser on both platforms. There's nothing preventing me from dropping to a terminal in OS X and accessing the same command-line tools I'm comfortable with in Linux. I actually prefer the task-oriented design focus - if 90% of the time I'm going to perform a task in a given way and the software is optimized for that, great. For the most part, I have access to the tools to customize my workflow for the remaining 10% of the use-cases that demand it.
Beware your narrow-minded categorization of people (re: "dumbusers" - there are plenty of highly technical artists and musicians, in fact, some people do more than one thing!) - lest you be judged yourself (ie: naive, socially inept geek in Mom's basement, etc.).
Pharohs said: Perfect example: After two weeks of research and trial and error, I still can't see flash video on my Ubuntu machine. Even though it is common on the internet. Why is that?
It's because you haven't gone to Synaptic Package Manager and done a search for "flash". That would bring up "flashplugin-nonfree".* After installing that, start up your Firefox and you'll have Flash support.
If you change the search from Name to Description And Name, you can just type in some keywords of the sort of thing you're looking for (like "Bittorrent client" or something) and the programs will pop up.
(*Assuming you're not on a PowerPC Macintosh. Adobe doesn't make Flash Player for PowerPC. Not our fault, their fault).
3rdalbum said: It's because you haven't gone to Synaptic Package Manager and done a search for "flash". That would bring up "flashplugin-nonfree".* After installing that, start up your Firefox and you'll have Flash support.
If you change the search from Name to Description And Name, you can just type in some keywords of the sort of thing you're looking for (like "Bittorrent client" or something) and the programs will pop up.
Flash is poop anyway:popcorn:
Its all about mohnays for apple... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-logo-legal-college,6459.html
Kronie said: Its all about mohnays for apple...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-logo-legal-college,6459.html
Yeah I heard about that, It's pretty stupid really.
As for what I think about Apple/Mac OSX... I think Apple is a company with many good quality products and an excellent OS. I originally intended to switch to Mac and somehow found out about Linux while researching them, probably by clicking on a UNIX link or something in a Mac OSX wikipedia article. :D
Jim! said: Yeah I heard about that, It's pretty stupid really.
As for what I think about Apple/Mac OSX... I think Apple is a company with many good quality products and an excellent OS. I originally intended to switch to Mac and somehow found out about Linux while researching them, probably by clicking on a UNIX link or something in a Mac OSX wikipedia article. :D
well, osx is based on unix, so.... or is it redhat? dont remember, but this 500$ OS for 5000$ Computers was originated from an open source... ironic, isnt it?
Kronie said: well, osx is based on unix, so.... or is it redhat? dont remember, but this 500$ OS for 5000$ Computers was originated from an open source... ironic, isnt it?
***_Here is a link_*** that will give you the story on OSX, which costs $158- aus.
I love the way that Mac apps are installed. Very simple for the user (especially *"for all ordinary dumbusers"*),
I'm a "dumbuser" myself and totally prefer Linux. It's just as has been said: lot's of freedom, ethically correct, functional, community-supported...
Macs are cool. Literally. They make you look cool. That's why they're so damn expensive. They're making money on people buying status.
gbrosso said: I love the way that Mac apps are installed. Very simple for the user (especially *"for all ordinary dumbusers"*),
I'm a "dumbuser" myself and totally prefer Linux. It's just as has been said: lot's of freedom, ethically correct, functional, community-supported...
Macs are cool. Literally. They make you look cool. That's why they're so damn expensive. They're making money on people buying status.
Some people care what others think of them to the point that it effects what they wear, what they drive/ride, where they eat, who they talk to, what hardware they they use to listen to music or talk to others through, even what computer brand they buy.
Some people like the Apple OSX as it suits them better than any other they have seen. Some people consider it a waste of time learning how to use an OS, they just want to get the job done & get away from the machine.
Some people really like OSX a LOT.
Some people really like OSX & Windows & various Linux distro's a LOT.
Who would of thought it possible!? :lolflag:
handy said:
Some people care what others think of them to the point that it effects what they wear, what they drive/ride, where they eat, who they talk to, what hardware they they use to listen to music or talk to others through, even what computer brand they buy.
Some people like the Apple OSX as it suits them better than any other they have seen. Some people consider it a waste of time learning how to use an OS, they just want to get the job done & get away from the machine.
Some people really like OSX a LOT.
Some people really like OSX & Windows & various Linux distro's a LOT.
Who would of thought it possible!? :lolflag: +1
I only buy Macs now. Not because I "hate" Windows or "hate" Linux, I just "like" OS X and the way Macs are made.
Frak said: +1
I only buy Macs now. Not because I "hate" Windows or "hate" Linux, I just "like" OS X and the way Macs are made.
I prefer OSX to Windows by far, though I like the control I have via the distro's.
The reason I won't buy another Mac is due to the hardware limitations in place.
I really like to be able to fix/upgrade my machine, & all notebooks in general are quite limited as far as mother/daughterboard, psu, LCD screen & case components (the hing system) availability. I accept that. What I don't like is that the iMac has even more limitations in place due to its design.
I like the iMac, though it has been designed to age fast, particularly in the GPU department, where Apple products are always behind to start with, with perhaps the only exception being their Mac Pro, which may still have driver restriction regarding the latest graphic cards from nVidia & ATi.
Next time I'll build my own machine specifically for Linux kernel & driver compatibility. Though just like you, I don't care what other people use; different strokes for different folks, I'm always grateful for the freedom to choose. :)
Here is the disassembley process for the alu' iMac:
I don't hate apple I don't like apple i think it is quite good only what I don't understand is this: http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
handy said:
I like the iMac, though it has been designed to age fast, particularly in the GPU department, where Apple products are always behind to start with, with perhaps the only exception being their Mac Pro, which may still have driver restriction regarding the latest graphic cards from nVidia & ATi.
If Apple had stuck to the MXM specification the GPU could have easily been upgraded but they probably had alterior motives when they implemented MXM. http://www.mxm-upgrade.com/store.html
mips said: If Apple had stuck to the MXM specification the GPU could have easily been upgraded but they probably had alterior motives when they implemented MXM.
http://www.mxm-upgrade.com/store.html
+1 on the alterior motives.
It looks better than Windows. What I dont like in Mac is maximizing and minimizing the windows. You have to go only to the bottom corner to do so. In windows and linux it is very simple, you can maximize windows from any where around the border:guitar:.
I like Apple products but I do not have access to the funds required to procure an Apple machine. Therefore, I use Linux as a means of doing my computing tasks without shelling out lots of money I don't have.
athaki said: I like Apple products but I do not have access to the funds required to procure an Apple machine. Therefore, I use Linux as a means of doing my computing tasks without shelling out lots of money I don't have.
I wish you have more money soon!
nocturn said:
But, I do not hate them in any way, it's not like MS that they are forcing their products on me.
That sucks, you rent an office in the Redmond headquarters or something? I mean it's not like you don't have the freedom to run Apple's OS on any PC platform legally...oh wait a second.
factotum218 said: That sucks, you rent an office in the Redmond headquarters or something? I mean it's not like you don't have the freedom to run Apple's OS on any PC platform legally...oh wait a second.
If you do it for the sake of learning, it's legal.
Frak said: If you do it for the sake of learning, it's legal.
I'm sure that will keep all the lawyers at apple away. It's worked so far.
I've never heard of anyone hating Apple. I use Mac along with my Ubuntu machine, and I LOVE it!!!!
galenorama said: I've never heard of anyone hating Apple.
I use Mac along with my Ubuntu machine, and I LOVE it!!!!
If you have never heard of anyone hating Apple, you obviously have not read this thread. :lolflag:
handy said: If you have never heard of anyone hating Apple, you obviously have not read this thread. :lolflag:
Nor been around many geeks.
I love my MBR...but I do have Ubuntu on two other machines. I hav to admit that my MBP is my main machine. Sorry... :(
CGW said: I love my MBR...but I do have Ubuntu on two other machines. I hav to admit that my MBP is my main machine. Sorry... :(
Master Boot Record? ;-)
handy said: Master Boot Record? ;-)
Wait... What?
CGW said: I love my *MBR*...
Frak said: Wait... What?
Sorry Frak, my strange humor again... :lolflag:
handy said: Sorry Frak, my strange humor again... :lolflag:
I know ;)
Macbooks use fairy dust, of course.
My, aren't there some opinionated and arrogant children out there. Worse still - ill-informed. I'd like to know how many have actually *used* OSX? By that I mean for more than an hour at school, or at the Apple store.
I'll begin by saying I'm a *computer* user - my main machine is an iMac running Leopard, my laptop is a Dell running Ubuntu.
As a company Apple, like Microsoft, are *hugely* responsible for making computing accessible to the masses, firstly with the Apple II, then with Macintosh, and more recently iMac and iPod, so I think that we should show more respect. The iPod may not be the best MP3 player on the market, but through clever marketing and good usability it IS the MP3 player to own. Geeks (generally, if you find yourself reading this, it means you are probably a geek!) know that there are technically better players, and for that matter formats (ogg, flac...) but for whatever reason MP3 is number 1 - and the iPod does what it does well - and its pretty (you may not agree with that statement, several million people will tell you that you're wrong, and since beauty is subjective...). Interestingly Mark Shuttleworth thinks that Ubuntu should look to Apple for inspiration in terms of look and feel. Finally, the price differential argument doesn't add up - if you spec an Apple, Dell and HP machine like for like, unsurprisingly the prices are all similar.
As I stated, I'm a *computer* user and enthusiast - not a fanboy/boi. What people I have tried to convert to linux (specifically Ubuntu) and Apple are worried about is not being compatible with the rest of the world, perhaps through Microsoft FUD, but mainly through ignorance. When challenged with using forum to help and find out more, they say that dealing with geeks is horrible, they are opinionated and arrogant. Generally I find this forum friendly and informative, but having read this thread, I can see what they mean...
If you read all of the thread you should know that I normally have 3 Macs in my house (there are 4 these days as our daughter is living with us again, plus I have a PC or 2 on Arch & other distro's), am a retired (mostly windows based software & hardware) tech', & can find fault in any OS or distro'.
I defend the right for people to use whatever they want to, as freedom of choice is what it is all about.
There is a huge range between being open minded & suffering from tunnel vision on any given subject. It matters not where you go, there are always going to be people no matter what their age that posses the immature & biased attitudes that incorporate being closed minded & suffering from tunnel vision.
You will find that MS is the most unpopular corporation in these forums, followed by Apple, who are really even more closed & protective of their products than MS. This is obviously going to rub people the wrong way in a Linux forum, especially those people that work for, or hold the FOSS ideal in high regard. Surely this attitude would be expected here?
Really, when the size of the Ubuntu forums population is taken into consideration, it is a minuscule proportion that comes & wastes their time making derogatory comments about Apple or even MS for that matter.
You will notice though that there is this Mac OSX & the Windows Discussions forums hosted here, with help given in them, they were not created as a venue for a roasting, actually if a flame war starts it will very quickly be reported & hence stopped by the forum admin'/mod's.
I think you are over reacting to posts in one of two currently existing threads that are about what people think of Apple or OS X.
If you post a question that requires technical assistance for OS X in this sub-forum you will get very good help here, & quite quickly too.
simonbanyard said: f you spec an Apple, Dell and HP machine like for like, unsurprisingly the prices are all similar.
I've done this myself on several occasions. Apple computers always cost more.
NoSmokingBandit said: I've done this myself on several occasions. Apple computers always cost more.
I've noticed here in Oz, that the Apple machines have been getting more & more opposition that is cheaper than them in recent months.
As has been said in this thread & others in this forum, it is usually cheaper to run a Mac than a windows PC (unless you do your own repairs), there is no need for anti-virus/mal-ware software & updates. The windows OS reliability may have improved since XP was released, it does not corrupt its registry as often as it used to, & there is system-restore to get back to a pre-corrupt state pretty quickly, this has bought the cost of owning a windows machine down some.
It is interesting how these two types get compared when really type 1. Apple Corp. & type 2. Windows & Linux, are very different. Type 1. is a hardware manufacturer that also makes some of the software that runs on its hardware. Type 2. Is software.
The Apple hardware & OS being created by the same company certainly has some benefits regarding compatibility with the Apple package. Though Apple do make it hard to upgrade internals (apart from RAM) on all of their models except the Mac Pro, which for the price really does need to have something going for it.
simonbanyard said: if you spec an Apple, Dell and HP machine like for like, unsurprisingly the prices are all similar.
Apple charges around $1000 per stick of FB-DIMM RAM on their Mac Pro's. I call Apple, get a bare-bones, and build it myself. My Mac Pro costs around $1,400, while the default Mac Pro is around $2,700.
Sources: Apple's site and a calculator.
Frak said: Apple charges around $1000 per stick of FB-DIMM RAM on their Mac Pro's. I call Apple, get a bare-bones, and build it myself. My Mac Pro costs around $1,400, while the default Mac Pro is around $2,700.
Sources: Apple's site and a calculator.
Can you buy a bare bones Mac Pro in the States?
We don't get offered that here in Oz.
I think Apple makes good products (and like that fact), I too like the fact OSX is secure (thanks to its UNIX roots).
What I don't like it's Apple's 'vendor lock in', or the fact that their products can't be customized (without hacking them). Take for example the Ipod touch. You can't sync it with the PC unless you use Itunes (meaning you have Windows), you can't play some format files (open, like OGG), and from what I've read you can not buy music from any other place than Apple's service.
Some of the mentioned 'problems' can be 'graciously' overlooked considering one has enough money. So for now Apple's products are expensive toys for me to own, and as a matter of fact, since I am quite comfortable with the stuff I already have (don't need a new MP3 player, nor a new laptop with *NIX), I don't think I'd be getting Apple stuff when I can. Right now I could, but I like Linux and my current player, and prefer to keep buying Playmobil :)
Thanks. Joe.
handy said: Can you buy a bare bones Mac Pro in the States?
We don't get offered that here in Oz. I had to call them up personally and ask them for one. If they ask a reason, tell them you're trying to sell Mac's with refurbished parts. I've done this twice, and they asked for proof that I had a permit the first time around, though, not the second.
Personally I love my mac but don't always agree with apple. I think they have taken a number of bad stances on DRM issues. That said, I love the fact that they took UNIX and made it pretty and easy to use. I also love that I can have access to some popular software titles that will never come to linux. I also love the fact that I can run linux mac and windows all on the same box (Though I don't do windows anymore) But most of all I love it because I can ditch windows completely.