PDA

View Full Version : My PC friend and his complaints with Macs


Macmaniac
Jun 9, 2004, 07:32 PM
Well we all have em, my friend is an ardent PC user, he is all into Linux, and used to be a windows lover, but Linux converted him. However he despises Macs. Well since we are friends we have frequent arguments about Macs however he knows way more about programming then I know( he wrote his own OS) So here are some his complaints, I wonder if you have answers.
1. Macs crash way too much under OS X, of course I know that OS X is stable however he is convinced that OS X is the worst version os UNIX ever, one problem I have with this argument is that our schools Macs don't to well exhibiting OS X's stability. We use iMovie, FCP, and QT a lot and whenever we run programs on them they crash, and crash often. So of course this only convinces my friend even more.
2. Macs are poor at multi-tasking, he complains to me whenever he runs multiple programs on our schools macs. Running iMovie and QT at the same time results in slow performance and crashes and he chides OS X for ruining the best part of UNIX which is well known for its multitasking.
3. When ever we try and move or export large files the Macs bomb, so of course this is more ammo for him.
4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIX
5. His favorite argument has to be that all Apple cares about is making "pretty computers" while using bad software and hardware, he hates that eMacs and iMac's are not expandable, and he thinks its ridiculous that you have to pay $2000 on the Apple platform to get expandability.
So as you can see I'm in a tight spot, he makes some good arguments, so what can I tell him to convince him other wise. Please be specific, he knows his techno talk well. :mad:

varmit
Jun 9, 2004, 07:38 PM
Well we all have em, my friend is an ardent PC user, he is all into Linux, and used to be a windows lover, but Linux converted him. However he despises Macs. Well since we are friends we have frequent arguments about Macs however he knows way more about programming then I know( he wrote his own OS) So here are some his complaints, I wonder if you have answers.
1. Macs crash way too much under OS X, of course I know that OS X is stable however he is convinced that OS X is the worst version os UNIX ever, one problem I have with this argument is that our schools Macs don't to well exhibiting OS X's stability. We use iMovie, FCP, and QT a lot and whenever we run programs on them they crash, and crash often. So of course this only convinces my friend even more.
2. Macs are poor at multi-tasking, he complains to me whenever he runs multiple programs on our schools macs. Running iMovie and QT at the same time results in slow performance and crashes and he chides OS X for ruining the best part of UNIX which is well known for its multitasking.
3. When ever we try and move or export large files the Macs bomb, so of course this is more ammo for him.
4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIX
5. His favorite argument has to be that all Apple cares about is making "pretty computers" while using bad software and hardware, he hates that eMacs and iMac's are not expandable, and he thinks its ridiculous that you have to pay $2000 on the Apple platform to get expandability.
So as you can see I'm in a tight spot, he makes some good arguments, so what can I tell him to convince him other wise. Please be specific, he knows his techno talk well. :mad:

They could be running 10.0 or 10.1, which were problematic. 10.2 got better, but 10.3 is the best. Take hime to apple store or compusa, have him use the latest macs, then ask him if they are worth the price, and if he has any sence, and knowledge about pricing for the same hardware, he will say buy it.

And what are you talking about you could only have one word document, or QT window. Tell him internet explorer can have multiple windows. Are you sure you are even using 10. File, New Window.

7on
Jun 9, 2004, 07:53 PM
I'll try and help


1. Macs crash way too much under OS X, of course I know that OS X is stable however he is convinced that OS X is the worst version os UNIX ever, one problem I have with this argument is that our schools Macs don't to well exhibiting OS X's stability. We use iMovie, FCP, and QT a lot and whenever we run programs on them they crash, and crash often. So of course this only convinces my friend even more.
Sounds to me like the school's systems are taxing their procs/RAM. And/or corrupted prefs. I haven't had a corrupted pref in a long time now that I think about it. OSX is just as stable as UNIX/Linux or whatever. Then again OSX has the use of commercial apps. Things Linux can't have. And commercial apps tend to crash a lot. Moreso that freeware/opensource stuff in my experience. OSX is stable because one program can crash and the system stays running. What your friend is talking about is program stability and that various from app to app.



2. Macs are poor at multi-tasking, he complains to me whenever he runs multiple programs on our schools macs. Running iMovie and QT at the same time results in slow performance and crashes and he chides OS X for ruining the best part of UNIX which is well known for its multitasking.
Again, slow lab computers. My 1Ghz G4 TiBook (in sig) has remained flawless through scanning/editing/printing pictures all while I have VPC open and running LC4 (hash decryption). The Multi-taskiness of OSX still surprises me one year after I've boughten my book.


3. When ever we try and move or export large files the Macs bomb, so of course this is more ammo for him.
Old Mac, or corrupted hdd.

4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIX
You can't run multiple Word apps in Windows. You can on the Mac. Just make a copy of the App and run the copy. Two of the same apps running at the same time.

5. His favorite argument has to be that all Apple cares about is making "pretty computers" while using bad software and hardware, he hates that eMacs and iMac's are not expandable, and he thinks its ridiculous that you have to pay $2000 on the Apple platform to get expandability.
eMacs and iMacs aren't expandable due to the market of consumer their aimed at
eMacs = education. Not many schools upgrade separate components. Usually it's the whole computer.
iMacs = The average household doesn't want to have to fiddle inside the computer to make it work. I know maybe 5 people outside the internet that fiddle with computer insides for hobby/fun. Not the average user.
The PowerMac can be upgraded.
Bad software? Panther got best OS in PC World (or something) for 2004. Despite being released in 2003. FinalCutPro is becoming a household name in the video industry quickly overshadowing Premiere.
Bad Hardware? Tell that to my professor who still uses a Quadra and a B/W as his only computers. And he teaches graphic design. Apple has the best hardware of most computer manufactors. First with SCSI? Fist with USB? First with Firewire? First use of GUI? First personal computer? Keeping mind being the first 'successful' use of these.

ftaok
Jun 9, 2004, 08:10 PM
4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIXEven though you can open multiple instances of the same program, it doesn't really matter. Who cares if I open 2 IE sessons. When a website's coding crashes IE, all open sessions of IE go down.

What's the advantage of opening 5 Word sessions?

krimson
Jun 9, 2004, 08:24 PM
This may not work for you, but I just let my MS Zealot friends ramble on and on. When they're done with their bashing, tirad and rantings, i simply say,
"When you give me $$$ to buy a PC that's up to par in your opinion, replace all my programs (legally). That's when you can dictate what computer I use, and how I use it."
That usually shuts up everyone except the die-hards, for them I ask if they've ever sat down and really used it for a few days. 90% of the time, they'll say "No, but I've read *insert PC Mag*'s article.. blah blah." I tell them to use my G4 for a while.
If that's still doesn't shut them up, then I start telling them how to live their lives. Whenever I can, as often as I can. ;)

PlaceofDis
Jun 9, 2004, 08:32 PM
This may not work for you, but I just let my MS Zealot friends ramble on and on. When they're done with their bashing, tirad and rantings, i simply say,
"When you give me $$$ to buy a PC that's up to par in your opinion, replace all my programs (legally). That's when you can dictate what computer I use, and how I use it."
That usually shuts up everyone except the die-hards, for them I ask if they've ever sat down and really used it for a few days. 90% of the time, they'll say "No, but I've read *insert PC Mag*'s article.. blah blah." I tell them to use my G4 for a while.
If that's still doesn't shut them up, then I start telling them how to live their lives. Whenever I can, as often as I can. ;)

LoL awesome approach, i love it, im going to have to start doing this

Crikey
Jun 9, 2004, 08:49 PM
Sorry to hear that the Macs at your school are so messed up. It's hard to argue with someone who is having the kinds of user experiences your friend is having. Are the Macs old? What version of MacOS do they run? I've never seen any Mac running OS X that is as unreliable as you describe.

It also sounds like your friend is just bigoted about computers, and no matter how logical your arguments you are unlikely to change his mind. Personally, I wouldn't waste my breath trying. He likes what he likes; you like what you like. No problem, eh?

If he's hassling you about why you like Macs, just tell him you think the user experience is superior. "They are more fun to use." If you say anything at all; you aren't required to justify your preferences to anyone.

Cheers,


Crikey

mkrishnan
Jun 9, 2004, 09:01 PM
Even though you can open multiple instances of the same program, it doesn't really matter. Who cares if I open 2 IE sessons. When a website's coding crashes IE, all open sessions of IE go down.

What's the advantage of opening 5 Word sessions?

I thought that this *was* the specific advantage. I thought if you run multiple instances in the newer versions of Windows, rather than doing "file/new window" you were crash protected. Not true? :(

Macmaniac
Jun 9, 2004, 09:02 PM
Ok here is a follow up on the post. The Macs we are using are 800mhz eMac's running 10.2. The eMacs are not on the school network and are only used for video editing. A sad thing about the local computer stores is that when my friend went their he actually visited the Apple department wing of the store, and got the salesmen to admit that Mac's were inferior. Kinda depressing considering these guys are on the front lines selling Macs:(
I know I will never change his mind, but it always comes up in our talk.
Whats also unfortunate is that FCP is unstable on our computers and crashes often on the eMacs making him scoff at it when I refer to it as a pro app.
I have actually raised the point that since they are school computers weird stuff happens to them when stupid people use them, however he does not buy into that argument, because in his words, "If Mac OS was so great then it would be able to handle this kind of situation."

Please post more replies this is interesting.

bousozoku
Jun 9, 2004, 09:17 PM
Those machines should be running 10.2.8 since mostly anything prior to 10.2.6 was troubled with various problems. 10.2.6 wasn't that great but most things ran successfully, which is why I recommend 10.2.8.

I've seen lab technicians mess up anything. They figure out just enough to get things to work and then, make that the standard installation.

I wonder if they've applied application updates since there were plenty of those too and they always make a big difference.

The only problem I can imagine with the hardware is that there isn't enough RAM and the disk drives are slow. That shouldn't really destabilise the machines but just make them dreadfully slow.

ChrisH3677
Jun 9, 2004, 09:43 PM
dude... you don't need to say nuthin. It's the old "When you know that you know that you know" situation. Just shrug as if to say, "Your arguments aren't worth arguing." I mean, who still would waste their breath arguing against someone who says the world is flat?

You don't need to defend Macs against Wintels and definitely not against Linuxes. We all know Mac is superior in most areas. If he is too narrow minded to look at it objectively, then don't waste your breath arguing. He'll get the message - and that will bug him even more. Coz he'll realise that Macs are so good they don't need defending! :D

And if he pushes you too much, just hit him with "Hey, it's ok, you have the right to be wrong."

I used to defend Macs too, but have found the say nothing approach much more effective.

Others have answered the tech questions. Your school really needs to find the budget to upgrade OSX to Panther, or possibly Tiger when it's bedded down. Panther leaves Jaguar in it's dust as far as stability goes.

PS Another trick to get the msg across...Try giving your buddy a nickname like "Flatty" (as in flat-earther). So everytime he says "Macs are crap" just respond, "That's ok Flatty, you believe whatever you like." :D :D

Ah another PS... Programmers know NOTHING about computers! And even less about users.

Capt Underpants
Jun 9, 2004, 10:00 PM
dude... you don't need to say nuthin. It's the old "When you know that you know that you know" situation. Just shrug as if to say, "Your arguments aren't worth arguing." I mean, who still would waste their breath arguing against someone who says the world is flat?

You don't need to defend Macs against Wintels and definitely not against Linuxes. We all know Mac is superior in most areas. If he is too narrow minded to look at it objectively, then don't waste your breath arguing. He'll get the message - and that will bug him even more. Coz he'll realise that Macs are so good they don't need defending! :D

And if he pushes you too much, just hit him with "Hey, it's ok, you have the right to be wrong."

I used to defend Macs too, but have found the say nothing approach much more effective.

Others have answered the tech questions. Your school really needs to find the budget to upgrade OSX to Panther, or possibly Tiger when it's bedded down. Panther leaves Jaguar in it's dust as far as stability goes.

PS Another trick to get the msg across...Try giving your buddy a nickname like "Flatty" (as in flat-earther). So everytime he says "Macs are crap" just respond, "That's ok Flatty, you believe whatever you like." :D :D

Ah another PS... Programmers know NOTHING about computers! And even less about users.

I have never found the say nothing approach to be effective. Usually you have to say something in return, or their argument is considered infallible. I would just say that until he has the chance to use a mac that has not been used by stupid, computer illiterate students, he can have no right to judge them.

Also.... he believes just as strongly in linux as you do in the Mac. You are both steadfast, and it doesn't seem that either of your minds are going to be changed. Maybe you should try making him watch last year's WWDC keynote. That shows off alot of cool panther stuff that he probably doesn't know about. that, or even better yet, you should watch this year's WWDC keynote. There should be some cool stuff there.

KingSleaze
Jun 9, 2004, 10:08 PM
I believe others have made enough of the tech problems of 10.2. Hard drive corruption and limited RAM would answer for some of the others.

Your friends assertion about opening Word 5 times on his Linux box is (to me) a bunch of bullsh**. Unless the application has been bought 5 times, Microshaft has it check for multiple openings/copies. I can more readily believe one app/multiple windows (this is acceptable to Microshaft).

iMac and eMac ARE expandable. The user can easily upgrade the memory. Harddrives can be added via USB or Firewire. What else would he like to add? Is it ESSENTIAL that whatever he wants to add, be installed internally?

Since he seems to be biased and not willing to change, the other solution given, I agree, is the best one. Ignore his rants.

Mav451
Jun 9, 2004, 10:27 PM
...
Ah another PS... Programmers know NOTHING about computers! And even less about users.

Actually, that applies to the PC side as well. Can't tell you how many programmers I bump into who are TRYING to build a system, but don't really get it *_*

Hardware/Software. I have yet to meet someone who is as good a tweaker/builder as they are a programmer.

slipper
Jun 9, 2004, 10:44 PM
your never gonna please everybody, just let him be his naive self.

blue&whiteman
Jun 9, 2004, 11:00 PM
However he despises Macs.

did macs kill his mother or something? I will never understand why so many have this auto anti-mac way about them. off to buddhist hell with all of them!

5300cs
Jun 9, 2004, 11:11 PM
- double post - SORRY ! :o

5300cs
Jun 9, 2004, 11:12 PM
Opening up multiple instances of Word or IE does nothing but steal more memory and system resources, if he really *did* know technical things, he would know that this is stupid, not an advantage. Let's not even go into the reasons why someone shouldn't use IE. If he's talking about IE, he doesn't sound like much of a Linux person.

Linux is not superior to OS X, sorry. He can be as arrogant as he wants, but Linux lacks some important commercial apps (Photoshop, for example.
The GIMP just doesn't cut it.) Linux is not a viable option for the so called "Digital Lifestyle", applications in OS X like iMovie, iDVD & iPhoto. I've never heard of anyone editing video on Linux.

And if Linux is such a fantastic OS, why do you sometimes have to recompile your kernel to get certain hardware support? Can your average Joe sit down and install Gentoo Linux? What about the HURD? When is that going to come into existence?

Linux is good for certain things and is by no means a weak OS (it's a hell of a lot better than m$ will ever come up with) but Linux facists bashing Macs are old news and stuck in the past. They think Mac and cannot look past the old happy Mac icon when the machine starts up and think we're all idiots. True Linux people have already woken up and seen what Apple has done with it's OS & hardware and live and let live.

Or if you want to piss him off, ask him if he has a girlfriend, or how many times he's posted to /. in the past 24 hours. :D

j_appel
Jun 9, 2004, 11:28 PM
I have to admit, I used to hate Macs. I used to say really stupid stuff about them too. Things like, "Why would I use a computer that has a logo with a bite taken out of it. That must mean the computer has something missing." Stupid stuff like that. :eek: I'm just glad I saw the light, and now I can't stand PCs. I've had a few people tell me how stupid Macs are, and when they try to start an argument with me I just say, "Whatever." They then usually leave me alone about it.

ChrisH3677
Jun 9, 2004, 11:43 PM
4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIX
I'd like to see these 5 word programs running. I can't do it on my Windows systems. When I click on the Word icon in the programs menu, it opens another document and displays it individually on the taskbar and calls them "Document 1", "Document 2", "Document 3", "Document 4", "Document 5". I can change that behaviour by going to the Word menu "Tools" then "Options" then the "View" tab, then untick "Windows in Taskbar".

Try this on your friend's PC and watch him gag when all his Words windows disappear into one instance of Word. :)

If on the other hand, each of these supposed new Windows instances on his Wintel displays "Document 1", then he probably has found a way to run separate instances of Word.

As far as Internet Explorer goes... if he used a Mac with Safari with Tabs, then he wouldn't need to run separate instances of the browser! And with Safari, he also has the option of a new window. (It drives me NUTS waiting for a new instance of IE to launch on Windows, when I click "Open in New Window"

On the Mac, QuickTime can have several movies open (command-N).

I really don't i understand why he wants to run multiple instances of apps. That would just chew resources and increase the possibility of conflicts. Ironically, the only app I've found (on my Mac) that doesn't allow me to have multiple windows is Microsoft's RDP app (for accessing Terminal Services). So for it I made a second copy - which has caused a conflict once.

Macmaniac
Jun 10, 2004, 01:00 PM
My friend is sitting next to me so he will type his complaints, I can't explain them as well as he can.
SO THIS IS HIM TYPING!

Hi all. I want to explain further my reasons for my anti-mac feelings.

you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once. In windows or linux i can double click on konqueror or ie, then double click on it again, and two different apps are started. two parent process, with seperate pids and stacks and everything. In 0sX I run the same app and I just get thrown back into the same window of the currently running process. Why?

And yes, there are many reasons to want to do this. Let's say Iim working on an imovie project and my friend wants to check a clip from his project. I'm in the middle of something, and I don't want to save, so I just open up another instance of imovie and open his project. the two instances are completely seperate. And no, 5300cs, its not a memory problem, my computers all have plenty of memory. and my operating systems don't hog it all. my computers are plenty capable of handling two programs at once...

Oh yeah, and Im tired of hearing all this stuff about how only certain versions of macOS are considered "good". First it was that only X was good, and that older versions were no good. well, fine, whatever. then it was that only the newest version, 10.2 was good, and the older 10.0 and10.1 were unstable. OK. now bousozuko claims that only 10.2.8 is good, and the older ones are no good. When I download the newest version of linux, I'm getting the full deal: a good kernel, and good progs to go with it, regardless of the version.

Oh yeah, one other thing: who's complaining about me not being able to run digital editing apps under linux? Ever heard of Wine? its a windows dll emulator for linux. you can run photoshop under wine, office, anything you want. And because its not a true emulator (and it only runs on pc's), you get full speed. Look it up on sourceforge if your intersteed.

My point is that with linux and (to some extent windows) I get the full deal. i don't have to wonder if my linux computer will hang during an export. I dont have to worry about running multiple applications and crashing the os. i can configure ANYTHING on it. And its free. Apple makes me pay thousands for buggy software, then claims its the newest, best thing.

I'll end this with a quote from maddox: (and im paraphrasing): "...i'm tired of people who spend their time matching their outfits to their computers"

OK, thats it, this is all my own, my friend has no responsiblity for what im sure he considers heresy... thanks for hearing me out.

Ok I'm in control of my account again, so read it and reply.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 10, 2004, 01:07 PM
For the record - OS updates are usually around a $100 or so, not thousands.

And it really doesn't matter what system you like best - its all a personal preference and people should stop complaining about which is better. In the end its what you do with the computer that makes it important - and that's up to the individual. There are pros and cons for all machines and pretty much all these arguments have been posted before.....

D

DavidLeblond
Jun 10, 2004, 01:36 PM
you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once. In windows or linux i can double click on konqueror or ie, then double click on it again, and two different apps are started. two parent process, with seperate pids and stacks and everything. In 0sX I run the same app and I just get thrown back into the same window of the currently running process. Why?


When your 2 IE windows are up and one of them crashes, do both of them go away? They do? nuff said.


Oh yeah, and Im tired of hearing all this stuff about how only certain versions of macOS are considered "good". First it was that only X was good, and that older versions were no good. well, fine, whatever. then it was that only the newest version, 10.2 was good, and the older 10.0 and10.1 were unstable. OK. now bousozuko claims that only 10.2.8 is good, and the older ones are no good. When I download the newest version of linux, I'm getting the full deal: a good kernel, and good progs to go with it, regardless of the version.


I use Linux at home, and I fail to see what the difference is. The latest version is usually considered "good." Why? Probably because its the LATEST VERSION.

Look at Windows... what is the best version? XP. When Windows 2000 was out, what was the best version? 2000. When Windows ME was out, what was the best version? ... well... 2000. :rolleyes:


Oh yeah, one other thing: who's complaining about me not being able to run digital editing apps under linux? Ever heard of Wine? its a windows dll emulator for linux. you can run photoshop under wine, office, anything you want. And because its not a true emulator (and it only runs on pc's), you get full speed. Look it up on sourceforge if your intersteed.


Running Windows programs under Wine does not magically make those programs Linux apps.

Ever heard of Virtual PC? Look it up on microsoft.com if your intersteed (wtf does that mean?)


My point is that with linux and (to some extent windows) I get the full deal. i don't have to wonder if my linux computer will hang during an export. I dont have to worry about running multiple applications and crashing the os. i can configure ANYTHING on it. And its free. Apple makes me pay thousands for buggy software, then claims its the newest, best thing.


If you're paying thousands for Max OS X, you're getting ripped off. Windows costs more, and sure Linux is free if your time is worthless. Buggy software my ass. And it is the newest, best thing.


I'll end this with a quote from maddox: (and im paraphrasing): "...i'm tired of people who spend their time matching their outfits to their computers"


My computer is white. I don't wear white. So buy an iMac and paint it beige :P.

krimson
Jun 10, 2004, 01:55 PM
if you hate Mac's that much, then dont use it, and dont buy one.. it's as simple as that.. Let your wallet speak for you.

edesignuk
Jun 10, 2004, 02:12 PM
And it really doesn't matter what system you like best - its all a personal preference and people should stop complaining about which is better. In the end its what you do with the computer that makes it important - and that's up to the individual. There are pros and cons for all machines and pretty much all these arguments have been posted before.....

Well said Mr. A. Arguments like this are a waste of everyones time and energy. Just use what you like and enjoy it :cool:

James L
Jun 10, 2004, 02:17 PM
Dude,

You're friend is very misguided. I don't mean in relation to his computer knowledge, which is obviously pretty good. I am referring to the fact that he feels that the only way to go is to use Linux. If it was so superior than it would be much more common place than windows would be (though I feel it is superior to windblows), and it would be used in the creative industry more than Apple, which it isn't.

But, each is entitled to their own opinion. He to his, and you to yours. If he constantly feels the need to boost his own ego by trashing your choosen computer platform, then simply point out his own weaknesses:

HIM: "Ya know, Apple sucks".

YOU: "You know, that shirt makes you look like a freak".

HIM: "Macs bite"

YOU: "Nice shoes... my mom has a pair just like them".

Finally, get him this:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?N=35&R=8708&act=A03&Item=978076455072&Section=books&Catalog=Books&Lang=en&mscssid=C4GBA4806HU38MK5MU103Q1AM8H3EH27&WSID=150608FDE1857034457C9F8BACECA385DE1B1410

And see if he can find something better to do with his time!

Cheers,

James

DavidLeblond
Jun 10, 2004, 02:17 PM
Well said Mr. A. Arguments like this are a waste of everyones time and energy. Just use what you like and enjoy it :cool:

True, but when someone posts on a mac forum about how much they hate macs its sometimes hard to resist. :)

Mr. Anderson
Jun 10, 2004, 02:20 PM
True, but when someone posts on a mac forum about how much they hate macs its sometimes hard to resist. :)

yes, and in most cases such is considered flame bait and gets wastelanded.....

D

pooky
Jun 10, 2004, 03:28 PM
you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once. In windows or linux i can double click on konqueror or ie, then double click on it again, and two different apps are started. two parent process, with seperate pids and stacks and everything. In 0sX I run the same app and I just get thrown back into the same window of the currently running process. Why?


Ummm, actually you can. It's just not supported in the GUI. Why? Because most users probably don't want to run multiple instances. They see the word icon, they say, "Hmmm, maybe I'll finish that report I was typing," and they double click.

If you want to run multiple instances in OSX, launch the terminal. If the app is a cocoa app, type the following:

/Path/To/Application.app/Contents/MacOS/Application &

For example (using textedit):

/Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit &

If it's a carbon app and it's distributed as a standalone app, type:

/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/Current/Support/LaunchCFMApp /Path/To/Application &

all on one line.

Finally, if it's a bundle (meaning the application is "packaged" in a directory and carries the extension .app), type (also on one line):

/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/Current/Support/LaunchCFMApp /Path/To/Application.app/Contents/MacOS/Application &

This will produce a new instance for most (not all) applications. Still not sure why you'd do this, but there it is.

quagmire
Jun 10, 2004, 03:29 PM
I have to people who hates macs. Both of them said," They are so ********** slow. They are horrible gaming computer. They crash a lot( not knowing Mac OS X is out). Both people do not know the Mhz myth. But, they both admit apple's computer design is great. One of them won a Powerbook G4. Instead of just selling it on ebay, he opened it up removed the HD and the G4 processor, then he took a hammer and smashed the HD, then he let his Gerbil crap on the G4 processor and sold it on ebay.( I tried to buy it from him but, he already shipped it off). The second of the worst thing he did was sell the G4 processor to a windows group that was going to send him a tape of them destroying the G4 processor. The worst thing he did to it was to install an Athlon 64 in it,install a new HD, and installed windows XP on it. When I heard he did that, I grapped his hand, almost crushing his fingers and brought him down to his knees. The other person went to an apple store and admitted that the G5's(old ones) were pretty fast, played games well, and didn't crash on him at all.

bousozoku
Jun 10, 2004, 03:44 PM
...

Oh yeah, and Im tired of hearing all this stuff about how only certain versions of macOS are considered "good". First it was that only X was good, and that older versions were no good. well, fine, whatever. then it was that only the newest version, 10.2 was good, and the older 10.0 and10.1 were unstable. OK. now bousozuko claims that only 10.2.8 is good, and the older ones are no good. When I download the newest version of linux, I'm getting the full deal: a good kernel, and good progs to go with it, regardless of the version.
...
Ok I'm in control of my account again, so read it and reply.

I never claimed that Mac OS X version 10.0 or 10.1 were good, even when I didn't have 10.2 or 10.3 available. However, 10.2.8 and 10.3.4 are stable and reliable in a way that I've never seen from Linux but only from Commercial UNIX and IBM OS/2.

Consider that from one minute to the next, there is most likely a new Linux kernel being created, mainly because the monolithic kernel has to encompass everything. Of course, only certain versions are blessed by Linus. However, no one has to follow his recommendations, and you can never be sure that the combination of things you have will even work, let alone work well together. To a much smaller degree, you have to worry about this in Mac OS X, but the chance is much, much less that things will not work together.

If one small group was in charge of what went into Linux, I could see it as something worthwhile. I've been trying to like it long enough--since 1998--but it just doesn't work smoothly.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jun 10, 2004, 03:46 PM
The best thing to do when meeting people who, for some reason, has gotten a totally wrong image of Macs (often formed back in the late 90's with an unstable Classic OS and poor PowerPC chip development from the boys at Motorola), and additionally refusing to listen when I try telling them that the G3, G4 and G5 is quite capable prosessors and that OS X after some initial problems har grown to a very promising operating system, is just to smile. Do not hate these people or try any further to convince them, just smile, do not laugh, just smile. If you have trouble smiling, just think about the joy of using your Mac, how little trouble you have with it compared to an average PC user and the plain feeling of knowing - deep down - that you are right.

You even get an added bonus: When someone is trying to start an argument and is met by a smile it usually annoys the h*ll out of them... ;)

paperkirin
Jun 10, 2004, 04:10 PM
Well, since this is a mac forum, we all know why we're using macs, so I won't go over that. The reason I have a laptop lying dormant and two PCs sitting in a corner accumulating dust is because Linux has no kind of consistent user interface. Heck, Openoffice.org has a completely different interface to the most common desktop (KDE). Yes, I know that some distros have 'QT-ified' OO, but it still doesn't manage to behave the same, just looks like it should, which is even more confusing, IMO. Linux at current is a usability nightmare. I don't deny that it could have a future, *if* things improve. Developers need to pull together and standardise on one interface, if they want Linux to be seriously considered by home and educational users. It's just too scary for most at the moment.
Kirin

Macmaniac
Jun 10, 2004, 04:24 PM
This thread is not designed to be a flame bait thread, its only to offer a point coumter point for now. Whats interesting is that my friend has now decided to register with Macrumors to post, so you may see his comments in this thread soon instead of through my account. I believe his SN is inx13, well one small step for man.....

rueyeet
Jun 10, 2004, 04:37 PM
OK. I'll take a stab at this.
you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once... You actually can run separate instances of some apps in Windows, in contrast to previous posts, but not the examples you cite. Word and IE both simply spawn new windows for the same process. As noted, you can set both Word and Excel to display open documents/workbooks in the same window or separate ones, but that doesn't change the fact that the program's only running once. And if one IE window crashes, the whole program does. I can't speak to Linux, but I would expect an OS used by geeks who know the difference between a window and a process to make that distinction. I would also expect a consumer OS like OS X or Windows to hide that distinction from users, as they both do.

And yes, there are many reasons to want to do this. Let's say Iim working on an imovie project and my friend wants to check a clip from his project. I'm in the middle of something, and I don't want to save, so I just open up another instance of imovie and open his project. the two instances are completely seperate. I don't use iMovie enough to know whether you can open another window and open the other project in that, which would accomplish the same thing, but I can't believe that you haven't heard of the advice "save early and often." Even if you COULD open a completely separate instance of iMovie, I'd still save my project before handing iMovie over to my friend, because you could still have a power failure/OS crash/other problem. Your friend could mis-navigate and close your instance of iMovie. So you should be saving anyway, which negates the need for the separate instance.

And no, 5300cs, its not a memory problem, my computers all have plenty of memory. and my operating systems don't hog it all. my computers are plenty capable of handling two programs at once...Your computers at home might, but do the school's lab computers that you complain about so have adequate memory for what they're being asked to do? It's well-known that OS X needs plenty of RAM to run well, and not only might the school's Macs not be equipped with it, but they might not be properly maintained in general. And before you say that OS X sucks because your Linux boxen don't need extra RAM to run, I'll point out that each operating system has basic requirements for what Microsoft refers to as a "properly maintained installation". Further, if you're going to do any kind of serious graphics work on Linux, it needs memory too.

Oh yeah, and Im tired of hearing all this stuff about how only certain versions of macOS are considered "good".....When I download the newest version of linux, I'm getting the full deal: a good kernel, and good progs to go with it, regardless of the version.I'm still running 10.2.8 (Jaguar) because it's good enough for me. True, 10.0 and 10.1 were NOT fully mature versions of OS X. 10.2 was, and Panther is better, and Tiger will probably wipe the floor with Panther. Each version provided more features, more speed, more stability. Doesn't each successive kernel of Linux provide the same? Isn't that why you download the newest versions? What's different here?

Oh yeah, one other thing: who's complaining about me not being able to run digital editing apps under linux? Ever heard of Wine? its a windows dll emulator for linux. you can run photoshop under wine, office, anything you want. And because its not a true emulator (and it only runs on pc's), you get full speed. Look it up on sourceforge if your intersteed.Wine doesn't run under PPC distros of Linux? Well, then, I guess those PPC Linux users are just going to have to get along without all those applications, because there are still no native Linux equivalents that truly pass muster.

My point is that with linux and (to some extent windows) I get the full deal. i don't have to wonder if my linux computer will hang during an export. I dont have to worry about running multiple applications and crashing the os. i can configure ANYTHING on it. And its free. Apple makes me pay thousands for buggy software, then claims its the newest, best thing.Funny, the minute I installed Linux and tried to hook it up to my wireless network, there was a bug in the netconfig program. And being new to Linux, I had no idea how to patch it, especially when I couldn't get it on the internet to download the damn patch. So I could say Linux is a pain in the ass to deal with based on my limited experience with a buggy install, just as easily as you can say Macs are a pain based on one--probably faulty--school installation. If the rest of the school uses Windows, who maintains and troubleshoots those Macs? Who makes sure that the students haven't screwed them up? Anyone? Might a lack of proper maintenance have more to do with the school Macs' crappiness than their being Macs?

I'll end this with a quote from maddox: (and im paraphrasing): "...i'm tired of people who spend their time matching their outfits to their computers"Actually, I bought my PowerBook for OS X, so that I have the option to not run Windows and yet have a computer that I don't have to spend any extra time on just to get it working. Someday when I have time I'll dig out my old class notes and see if I can learn Unix, but in the meantime I can run Office and Photoshop with no emulation whatsoever.

I assure you, I only own one shirt that would match my PowerBook, and I haven't worn it in years. Silver just doesn't cut it in a corporate job. :)

ChrisH3677
Jun 10, 2004, 04:45 PM
And yes, there are many reasons to want to do this. Let's say I'm working on an imovie project and my friend wants to check a clip from his project. I'm in the middle of something, and I don't want to save, so I just open up another instance of imovie and open his project. the two instances are completely seperate

Dude! You like never ever ever challenge "Murphy's Law"!! I don't care how sure you are your app is robust, you save regularly and especially when you want to do something else. Use Save As if you're not sure you want to overwrite your older version yet.

i can configure ANYTHING on it. And its free. Apple makes me pay thousands for buggy software, then claims its the newest, best thing.

LINUX IS NOT FREE!

I challenge you to put OSX and Linux in front of anyone and see how long it takes them to become proficient in them. This includes basic maintenance, installing *any* apps etc. The time it takes to learn Linux is worth a lot more than the hundred bucks OSX (or Windows) adds to the cost of a system.

You can configure ANYTHING on it because you are technically very proficient (you're buddy says you wrote your own OS). But I'd bet you didn't learn to do that on Linux the first day you used it.

The only software Apple makes you pay thousands for is the same software that has been winning Academy Awards for the last 8 years or so.

But anyway, as I said elsewhere, you believe whatever you like... :)

bousozoku
Jun 10, 2004, 05:24 PM
This thread is not designed to be a flame bait thread, its only to offer a point coumter point for now. Whats interesting is that my friend has now decided to register with Macrumors to post, so you may see his comments in this thread soon instead of through my account. I believe his SN is inx13, well one small step for man.....

That is good. :) I'm not trying to convert (or flame) anyone, just relay reality.

bryanc
Jun 10, 2004, 05:30 PM
Hi all. I want to explain further my reasons for my anti-mac feelings.

you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once. <snip...> Why?

Actually, you can...just start as many instances as you want from the command line. Some applications will actually start a new instance everytime their icon is clicked, but most will assume that what you meant to do was bring the running instance into the foreground. This is usually a better assumption (when I click my photoshop icon, I want access to Photoshop...if it's already running I'd much rather bring the running app into the foreground than start a new instance of it...I can always open more image windows without having to start another copy of photoshop running). This is basically a UI issue, and I, for one, think the current (bring the running app into the foreground) way is much better. However, if you want your system to behave differently, there are easy ways to accomplish this. If you do this a lot and don't want to have to go to the terminal to do it, make a one line script that invokes a new instance of the app in question and just click on it whenever you want to fire up another copy. (still seems like a weird thing to want to do to me, but everyone is different, and one of the beauties of OS X is it's incredibly powerful and flexible scripting system)


Oh yeah, and Im tired of hearing all this stuff about how only certain versions of macOS are considered "good". First it was that only X was good, and that older versions were no good. well, fine, whatever. then it was that only the newest version, 10.2 was good, and the older 10.0 and10.1 were unstable. OK. now bousozuko claims that only 10.2.8 is good, and the older ones are no good. When I download the newest version of linux, I'm getting the full deal: a good kernel, and good progs to go with it, regardless of the version.


Well, having used OS X since 10.1, I'd say each version has been significantly better than the one before. Having used Linux since 1993, I'd say that's true of Linux as well. Having used Windows since 1990, I'd say that's sometimes true of Windows (but frequently not...ME anyone?).

OS X is a very new OS and is still under rapid development. What continues to amaze me is the quality and quantity of excellent programs Apple continues to give away with their outstanding operating system. So I'd say that you do get 'the whole deal' when you get OS X. And the deal gets better every year.

You may argue that <insert your favourite distro> is a better OS than OS X, but there's no denying that OS X is a very popular Unix...in fact, it's the *most* popular. But certainly popularity isn't proof of superiority (unless you agree that Microsoft makes the best OSes). Everyone has to judge using their own criteria. I've been using computers since 1968, and I've used (and been dissatisfied with) every version of Windows, tons of various Unixes, VMS, OS/2, MTS, CP/M, DOS, AmigaDOS, and many others. By my standards, OS X is the best OS I've ever used. For what I do (I'm a research scientist, which means I use a lot of custom made programs, some open-source stuff (which compiles without difficulty on OS X), video editing (mostly time-lapse microscopy stuff), sequence analysis/database searching, 3D rendering (of confocal datasets), lots of digital image processing, Word, Excell, Photoshop, Keynote (used to use PowerPoint, but Keynote is better), iTunes, mail, Safari and the occasional game) OS X is much better than Linux. In fact, while it may be technically possible, I don't think I could do what I do on my PowerBook under Linux. I used to do most of this stuff in Windows, and it can certainly be done...but it was ugly, expensive, bug-infested, crash-prone and frustrating beyond description.

The only problems I've encountered since I switched to Mac were generally a result of having years of Windows/Unix experience and being used to arcane methods of getting my computer to do simple things. So I've spent hours trying to figure out how to do something, only to have someone come along and show me "look, you just drag this here, or click there and it's done" and felt like an idiot for not seeing the obvious.


Oh yeah, one other thing: who's complaining about me not being able to run digital editing apps under linux? Ever heard of Wine? its a windows dll emulator for linux. you can run photoshop under wine, office, anything you want. And because its not a true emulator (and it only runs on pc's), you get full speed. Look it up on sourceforge if your intersteed.


I've certainly heard of WINE (and have used it under Linux on my PCs), and I wouldn't point to it as a great strength of Linux any more than I would point to VPC as a great strength of OS X. Personally, I hope the people currently porting WINE to OS X succeed, because I like seeing open-source stuff work well. But I'd much rather see native Linux and OS X applications than having to run software that emulates one of the most blecherous messes that has ever been inflicted on the unsuspecting software-buying public (ie, MS Windows). I did download and compile a non-linear digital editing suite for Linux. I spent three days trying to get it to work (to be fair, most of that time was spent adding the required kernel extensions to support my firewire card and then recompile the kernel), and when I did, I found it was almost unusable (and the documentation was in German, so that didn't help).

When I bought my PowerBook, I plugged my video camera into the firewire port an iMovie popped up and I made a nice little DVD of my child's birthday party for the grandparents in about 15 minutes. If I need more power, there's always FCP...(BTW, the reason Adobe stopped making Premier for the Mac is that FCP kicks it's ass and no one was buying it...now only those poor sods stuck with Wintel machines that think Premier is the best solution).


My point is that with linux and (to some extent windows) I get the full deal. i don't have to wonder if my linux computer will hang during an export. I dont have to worry about running multiple applications and crashing the os. i can configure ANYTHING on it. And its free. Apple makes me pay thousands for buggy software, then claims its the newest, best thing.


The only mac running OS X I've ever had any problems with had a defective motherboard. If your systems are as unstable as reported above, there is something *seriously* wrong with the way they're set up. We have 9 macs in my lab running OS X and we've had exactly 0 system crashes since OS X. I've seen a few application crashes but no system crashes. I've had Linux installs that were as stable as OS X, but they were never pushed so hard...our OS X systems are rock solid and we push them very hard.

From my point of view the differences between Linux and OS X are that OS X costs $129, runs everything I want flawlessly (including all the commercial apps that allow me to be compatible with the Wintel universe), requires zero effort to set-up, has automagic support for all the hardware we use, is self-clustering (look up Xgrid and compare to a Beowulf setup), and sports a beautiful, intuitive, consistent interface. There was a time when I'd save the $129 and spend hundreds of hours of my time trying to do it all for free. My time is worth more than that to me now.


I'll end this with a quote from maddox: (and im paraphrasing): "...i'm tired of people who spend their time matching their outfits to their computers"


Speaking as a fashion-impaired geek, I'm not entirely sure I know what an 'outfit' is...but I think titanium goes with everything, so I don't have to worry about it :-)

Cheers

intx13
Jun 10, 2004, 06:34 PM
Hi all, im back. I'm just going to take some time to mention some reactions to the replies my post got.

bryanc, pooky, and rueyeet: I appreciate the facts and information you supplied. I'm happy to hear that X can indeed run two instances of the same task, and I guess the reason the GUI prevents it is to go along with their method of "give em so little power they can't break anything". Thanks for the actual answers to teh question I posed.

DavidLeblond: do your research first. Running two instances of IE when one dies DOES NOT kill the other, unless their tied together (ie if one is the parent, if the other was spawned via a "New... or a Open in New Window). So in fact this coincides with my point, that seperating tasks makes the OS MORE robust, as specific instances can crash and not kill the whole.

Chris H: "Dude! You like never ever ever challenge "Murphy's Law"!! " Umm, I don't know about you, but my operating systems run on more than chance. I've had my linux box (mandrake 9.2) run for months without a crash. I only had to reboot because I wanted to toss in a tv tuner card.

paperkirin: "It's just too scary for most at the moment". I'm sorry an operating system that doesnt smile at you on boot is scary :)

quagmire: I agree, I have no problem with the G_'s. I don't even mind the m68k's when it comes to architecture. It's MacOS that I don't like.

chris H: "LINUX IS NOT FREE!" ... I downloaded Mandrake 9.2 (the iso's), burnt them to cd's, and i was good to go. The distrobution came with OOo, KDE, gcc, kdevelop, and thousands of otehr programs. Now granted, some versions of Linux are not free, but most are, and many of these free versions contain everything to do anything with your computer. From serving (apache) to graphical editing (gimp) its all there. I've never paid a dime for my linux systems.

Mitthrawnuruodo: "The best thing to do when meeting people who...just smile". Oooorrrr, if you truly believed in your own argument, you could try to convince them. REfusing to stand up for your own argument is a statement in itself.

David L: "intersteed (wtf does that mean?)" ooo clever, you caught a spelling mistake...I produce my most humble apoligies to you for such a flagrant fault. I can only hope that I never trespass against you in such a manner again.

James L: I like how you critique my social life because of my technical knowledge. Clearly you are the more advanced computer user, and clearly your view should be heard. After all, social status is completely and utterly connected to technical expertise...

OK, I'll try to summarize my feeling again, so those who feel they'd rather waste bytes by telling me how I should just be quiet and be friends (instead of having an intelligent discussion) will get the picture:

Basically, it all comes down to two things: power and stability. Mac OS limits me. I can't (without using command line apparently) run multiple instances of the same app. I can't do simple things like decrasing the volume from the speakers without corrupting data being exported to a video camera (this is because the volume adjustment is a SOFTWARE interrupt... not just a button on the speaker, and so things get crazy when it gets called). I can't right click without pressing a keyboard button. I can't even write my own operating system on a mac wihtout an emulator or burning it to a disk every time I want to test it... no floppy drives! I can't even reset the damn thing without holding down a keyboard key and pressing a hard to find button for 5 seconds. I can't even get an error report when an app crashes. I just get "so-and-so has unexpectadly quit". I can't do anything that an advanced user might want to do.

Second, it crashes. now I keep hearing that its so stable, that X never crashes, but the fact is, EVERY mac running ANY version of X that I have seen has crashed at some point or another while I was watching someone use it. Now, if you blame this on the techs that service the machine or the users that use it: how can a system that is so stable be crashed by incompetents so easily? Shouldn't it at least be SOMEWHAT difficult to crash it? Linux takes some effort to crash. Linux is used to run hundreds of users across networks at once, it has to be difficult for the average bozo to crash the whole system. But if, as many mac people have told me, the users and techs are at fault for every crash of every mac, then the system can't be admin'd with ease, and so defeats its very purpose. A system that can't be admin'd by the average tech without causing multitudes of fatal errors is no system I'll use.

Now I'm sure this post will inspire mac users everywhere to post and tell me just how long THEIR system has been running. I'm sure dozens of people would love to tell their friends to just ignore me, so if you're considering posting a follow up, please be considerate and check this criteria:
1. Am I addressing a specific concern intx13 mentioned?
2. Do I know what I'm talking about (ie have I used macos for more than a year)?
3. Have I ever used a pc?
4. Do I know what linux is?
5. Do I choose my socks based on the color of my computer?

If you can meet these criteria (answering no for number 5) then go ahead and post and I'd love to hear your thoughts. But idiots can save their blathering for their friends.

Also: the quote from maddox was a joke. I am a typical computer nerd; I have never really cared much for physical appearance. I'm sure that true nerds are the same across the board, and I meant no (real) insult by including that comment. So untwist those panties and let me hear your (well-reasoned, thoughful) comments.

bousozoku
Jun 10, 2004, 06:44 PM
1 - 4: yes
5: hell no

I was ignored, now I feel like I have to go play with Linux in the penalty box. :( :p

DJ Forge
Jun 10, 2004, 07:06 PM
I can't right click without pressing a keyboard button

not with included mouse, but you can use most usb mice with more than one button and map ctrl-click as the right button :)

no floppy drives! I can't even reset the damn thing without holding down a keyboard key and pressing a hard to find button for 5 seconds

ehh, floppy drives. I don't have one in my PC because they will be obsolete in the near future as the price of usb flash drives continues to drop. some manufacturers are about to stop including them as well.

resetting can be done from the apple menu using the mouse, similar to windows and linux.



just a couple of things I could help out on. I don't know a whole lot about os x, since i've yet to receive my powerbook. every operating system and platform has it's ups and downs!

Daveman Deluxe
Jun 10, 2004, 07:09 PM
Basically, it all comes down to two things: power and stability. Mac OS limits me. I can't (without using command line apparently) run multiple instances of the same app. I can't do simple things like decrasing the volume from the speakers without corrupting data being exported to a video camera (this is because the volume adjustment is a SOFTWARE interrupt... not just a button on the speaker, and so things get crazy when it gets called). I can't right click without pressing a keyboard button. I can't even write my own operating system on a mac wihtout an emulator or burning it to a disk every time I want to test it... no floppy drives! I can't even reset the damn thing without holding down a keyboard key and pressing a hard to find button for 5 seconds. I can't even get an error report when an app crashes. I just get "so-and-so has unexpectadly quit". I can't do anything that an advanced user might want to do.

Second, it crashes. now I keep hearing that its so stable, that X never crashes, but the fact is, EVERY mac running ANY version of X that I have seen has crashed at some point or another while I was watching someone use it. Now, if you blame this on the techs that service the machine or the users that use it: how can a system that is so stable be crashed by incompetents so easily? Shouldn't it at least be SOMEWHAT difficult to crash it? Linux takes some effort to crash. Linux is used to run hundreds of users across networks at once, it has to be difficult for the average bozo to crash the whole system. But if, as many mac people have told me, the users and techs are at fault for every crash of every mac, then the system can't be admin'd with ease, and so defeats its very purpose. A system that can't be admin'd by the average tech without causing multitudes of fatal errors is no system I'll use.

Well, I'm not going to try to speak to the issues that are about personal taste (such as the one-button mouse, which I also dislike), but you fail to understand some things...

1. So the volume control is a software interrupt. It's also a software interrupt on Windows. Same on Linux, if you're using a version with a volume control built into the OS. So why not get a set of speakers with its own volume control? Problem solved. Furthermore, I fail to see how adjusting the volume through the OS would corrupt data going to the DV camera, since the volume control and the export tasks reside in separate memory address ranges, have separate processor priorities, and run on separate clock cycles.

2. If the OS freezes, you don't have to press anything on the keyboard. Just hold the power button down for five seconds. However, I've seen the same thing happen to PCs running Windows... yes, I have seen the computer lock up to the point where Ctrl-Alt-Delete even does nothing. Guess what I have to do then if the power switch is controlled by software? That's right, I have to hold it down for a few seconds. Although I do think it would be a good idea to be able to hard-restart the computer from the keyboard, similar to Command-control-power does on those Mac users who have a power button on the keyboard.

3. Crash log reporting is turned on by default. Check ~/Library/Logs/CrashReporter.

4. My current Panther install has never crashed. That said, I have had applications crash. But never the OS itself. I don't know the particulars of your setup, but Jaguar was certainly less stable than Panther. Furthermore, if the configurations of your rigs at the school don't have enough RAM, that can be a source of potential instability, especially when using RAM hungry apps such as iMovie. I don't know who told you that it's the user's fault if OS X crashes, but it's not true. The OS is sealed under a glass case filled with helium.

ChrisH3677
Jun 10, 2004, 07:15 PM
intx13, you avoided my point (and bryanc made the same one) which is Linux is *not* free because the cost of learning it (usually time) outweighs the fact it "doesn't cost a dime".

I do agree with you about Mac crashes. I've had 2 since switching 10 mths ago, and several lockups. No where near as many as Windows tho.

Both myself and the other tech here have tried Linux many times over many years but found it too time consuming to learn.

1,3,4 - yes
2 - 10mths - And I must ask, how long have you been using Macs? You don't sound like, for a tech guy, you know much about them at all.

The main issue I'd have with your arguments is that they are from a very technical point of view. Most people just want to "get in and drive away" they don't want to get tech with their OS (as bryanc pointed out).

So, altho you may be technically right about Linux (well, your distro), that doesn't mean you are right in the broader sense. If you go tell Joe Average "Mac's are no good coz I can't even write my own operating system on a mac wihtout an emulator or I can't even get an error report when an app crashes. I just get "so-and-so has unexpectadly quit"." He'll just look at you stupid.

BTW The fact is, you can get an error report - go to the console then logs. If you had used Macs enough you would know this. So, again, your criteria 2 ("How long have you used Macs") reinforces you don't know what you are talking about coz you haven't used Macs enough so you have no right to tell anyone whether Macs are good or not. (based on your own criteria)

:)

ingenious
Jun 10, 2004, 07:26 PM
Hi all, im back. I'm just going to take some time to mention some reactions to the replies my post got.

bryanc, pooky, and rueyeet: I appreciate the facts and information you supplied. I'm happy to hear that X can indeed run two instances of the same task, and I guess the reason the GUI prevents it is to go along with their method of "give em so little power they can't break anything". Thanks for the actual answers to teh question I posed.


Right.... you do know that the researchers who sent the first two successful missions in a long while to Mars used OS X and PowerMac G5s? Or that the world 3rd fastest super computer ran/runs OS X and uses PowerMac G5s?


DavidLeblond: do your research first. Running two instances of IE when one dies DOES NOT kill the other, unless their tied together (ie if one is the parent, if the other was spawned via a "New... or a Open in New Window). So in fact this coincides with my point, that seperating tasks makes the OS MORE robust, as specific instances can crash and not kill the whole.

Yea, Windows does this, and the other instance of the program stays open, providing the first crash doesn't bring down the bug-ridden OS. :rolleyes:


Chris H: "Dude! You like never ever ever challenge "Murphy's Law"!! " Umm, I don't know about you, but my operating systems run on more than chance. I've had my linux box (mandrake 9.2) run for months without a crash. I only had to reboot because I wanted to toss in a tv tuner card.


But no OS is perfect. That's all he's saying. OS X is the same when maintained properly, same as Linux.


paperkirin: "It's just too scary for most at the moment". I'm sorry an operating system that doesnt smile at you on boot is scary :)

Scary as in hard to use I believe. Also, how long has it been since you used a Mac? They haven't "smiled on boot" since AFAIK 68k days.


quagmire: I agree, I have no problem with the G_'s. I don't even mind the m68k's when it comes to architecture. It's MacOS that I don't like.

I guess each person is entitled to his opinion, but you're just making excuses up there^^^.


chris H: "LINUX IS NOT FREE!" ... I downloaded Mandrake 9.2 (the iso's), burnt them to cd's, and i was good to go. The distrobution came with OOo, KDE, gcc, kdevelop, and thousands of otehr programs. Now granted, some versions of Linux are not free, but most are, and many of these free versions contain everything to do anything with your computer. From serving (apache) to graphical editing (gimp) its all there. I've never paid a dime for my linux systems.

He means TCO, I believe.


Mitthrawnuruodo: "The best thing to do when meeting people who...just smile". Oooorrrr, if you truly believed in your own argument, you could try to convince them. REfusing to stand up for your own argument is a statement in itself.

Or for people who are as closed minded as you, his idea may be a good one.

OK, I'll try to summarize my feeling again, so those who feel they'd rather waste bytes by telling me how I should just be quiet and be friends (instead of having an intelligent discussion) will get the picture:

Basically, it all comes down to two things: power and stability. Mac OS limits me. I can't (without using command line apparently) run multiple instances of the same app.

Because in OS X you dont need to!

I can't do simple things like decrasing the volume from the speakers without corrupting data being exported to a video camera (this is because the volume adjustment is a SOFTWARE interrupt... not just a button on the speaker, and so things get crazy when it gets called).

Right......

I can't right click without pressing a keyboard button.

Ever heard of a 2 button mouse?

I can't even write my own operating system on a mac wihtout an emulator or burning it to a disk every time I want to test it... no floppy drives!

Says who? And who really needs/wants a floppy drive?

I can't even reset the damn thing without holding down a keyboard key and pressing a hard to find button for 5 seconds.

I believe this is to prevent accidental resets.

I can't even get an error report when an app crashes. I just get "so-and-so has unexpectadly quit". I can't do anything that an advanced user might want to do.

What version of OS X are you using? Whenever a program crashes on me in Panther, I always get that option, with advanced options.


Second, it crashes. now I keep hearing that its so stable, that X never crashes, but the fact is, EVERY mac running ANY version of X that I have seen has crashed at some point or another while I was watching someone use it. Now, if you blame this on the techs that service the machine or the users that use it: how can a system that is so stable be crashed by incompetents so easily? Shouldn't it at least be SOMEWHAT difficult to crash it? Linux takes some effort to crash. Linux is used to run hundreds of users across networks at once, it has to be difficult for the average bozo to crash the whole system.

Every OS is bound to have some errors, but my OS X has crashed less than 10 times in a year and I've never lost an Office Document. BTW, the Linux I used crashed constantly.


But if, as many mac people have told me, the users and techs are at fault for every crash of every mac, then the system can't be admin'd with ease, and so defeats its very purpose. A system that can't be admin'd by the average tech without causing multitudes of fatal errors is no system I'll use.


Someone would probably call me an average tech, and yes I can admin a system with no fatal errors.


Now I'm sure this post will inspire mac users everywhere to post and tell me just how long THEIR system has been running. I'm sure dozens of people would love to tell their friends to just ignore me, so if you're considering posting a follow up, please be considerate and check this criteria:
1. Am I addressing a specific concern intx13 mentioned?
2. Do I know what I'm talking about (ie have I used macos for more than a year)?
3. Have I ever used a pc?
4. Do I know what linux is?
5. Do I choose my socks based on the color of my computer?

If you can meet these criteria (answering no for number 5) then go ahead and post and I'd love to hear your thoughts. But idiots can save their blathering for their friends.

1. Yes
2. Yes (OS X for a year this July/August, but who really needs a year to become proficent in OS X? :confused: )
3. Yes, I own one that I wish I could ditch
4. Yes and I have used RedHat and on that Gimp.
5. Uh, no.

ingenious
Jun 10, 2004, 07:30 PM
not with included mouse, but you can use most usb mice with more than one button and map ctrl-click as the right button :)

Actually, a multibutton mouse works out of the box.



ehh, floppy drives. I don't have one in my PC because they will be obsolete in the near future as the price of usb flash drives continues to drop. some manufacturers are about to stop including them as well.


AFAIK, Gateway, HP, and Dell have already.

krimson
Jun 10, 2004, 07:33 PM
Alright, here's my feeble attempt at neutrality.

1. ALL lab computers BLOW MONKEY nutz :rolleyes: While, i've never used Linux, and haven't seen a lab where they were used. I have problems inside every school lab i've been to, whether they were running OS 7-8, or Win 98-XP. I dont think your experience is true to life. Sure we'll all tell you how long our Mac's have been running, XP users will do the same.
Go to someone's house, and im sure you'll fine it much more stable. Also, labs usually have crappy techs that just reformat and install a ghost image when problems arise (wintel).

2. All you Mac people, shame on you.. im sure you've been on the receiving end of the Mac vs PC bashing. You should know better. :)

3. personally, i hate most of the iApps, and I've found better alternatives. iMovie crashed contantly when my friend first got his G5, and it really pissed him off. I fixed his permissions, and it stopped for the most part. That wasn't the last incarnation of iMovie, and i have not used any since.

Seriously, if you love linux for what it does, great for you, keep doing what's good for you. No one is asking you to buy it, if you wanna complain about "crashing", the person you should be complaining to is the lab techs.

BornAgainMac
Jun 10, 2004, 07:44 PM
Sounds like those Macs have very little memory installed. I bet they only have 128 Mb and running some serious memory hungry apps. I wonder what your friend would say if you said Linux crashes all the time at home for you. Linux is way too unstable. Even Windows is better. It's not true, the older versions of Linux were pretty efficient but it would be interesting to see his reaction. I noticed Red Hat 9 Linux was really slow and almost unusable compared to Red Hat 6. The machine had 512 MB of memory. I figured a Pentium III was just too slow for the new Linux GUI, I didn't blame Linux or Red Hat.

I used every version of Mac OS X and except for 10.0, they all were very stable for me on a low-end Mac with 1 GB of memory and at least 20% free disk space. 10.0 crashed twice in 6 months.

It is too bad the school doesn't have someone from Apple to look into the problem with those Macs.

krimson
Jun 10, 2004, 07:45 PM
Right.... you do know that the researchers who sent the first two successful missions in a long while to Mars used OS X and PowerMac G5s? Or that the world 3rd fastest super computer ran/runs OS X and uses PowerMac G5s?5. Uh, no.

To be fair, the vast majority of the PC's used were Wintels.

Steven1621
Jun 10, 2004, 07:50 PM
trying to debate the anti mac crowd is pointless...i just say have fun getting rid of the viruses and spyware on your ugly machine and laugh arrogantly.

PowerMacMan
Jun 10, 2004, 07:59 PM
I used to be a PC fanatic...

Until one day I saw the light...

And now I am a...

Mac FANATIC! :eek:

:D

Gotta love 'em!

Point being, you give him some time and he will see the light.

I converted in just one day.

abhishekit
Jun 10, 2004, 08:06 PM
wow..this thread is still going on. well, i use linux on my two comps at school, and i use mac os x at home. I like both, so I will try to keep emotion out of this.
i would have loved to answer in detail about your two points, but daveman deluxe's answer is pretty much complete and leaves little to add.

but still regarding crashes, i would say it depends on a lot of things. My system (OS X) has never once crashed since last year (time i am using 10.3.x). and still, you can find many users on this forum who have posted threads about crashes. That said, I still maintain that OS X is a very very stable system with rare crashes. As dave said, apps may crash some rare times.
and dude, floppy drives!!! :D , i dint even hear that term since i dont know when...

cheers

mvc
Jun 10, 2004, 08:13 PM
I think a lot of this religious anti - mac stuff is an insecurity thing - some people just don't like a computer that's friendlier than they are. :rolleyes:

These kinds of folk need to be so in control that they can only feel secure when half the operating system lives inside their head and no-one else can understand the cryptic interface. That way they can play I.T. High-Priest for the 'luser' masses and everyone thinks they are a guru.

Electronic ego massage.

Whatever floats your boat :p

Macmaniac
Jun 10, 2004, 08:26 PM
I think this thread has lasted so long because, A. its not a flame war, and B. there is actually some form of intelligent debate.
Oh here is an interesting tidbit, intx13 who is the now 'infamous' friend that i brought here, uses only PCs that he has dragged out of the trash, literally, he found a PC out in the rain, let it dry then installed Linux on it. His fastest computer is I think a 600-700mhz AMD machine. This thread is going to make great discussion in school tomorrow. Also for those of you who are going to post in response to this thread please read the whole thing first, things are being repeated and some questions are redundant. Now back to the debate.

intx13
Jun 10, 2004, 08:36 PM
Thanks for the replies. I was happy to note that everything was more on topic.. makes for much more informative debate.

OK, here we go:

"Actually, a multibutton mouse works out of the box."
What box? Not the box your mac comes in. Cough up the cash for third party hardware... strange for a company that provides so much home-made (or at least not used anywhere else) parts

"Linux is *not* free because the cost of learning it"
A competent sysadmin can set up a linux system within a week of booting up. There is more online tutorials and information available than you can shake a mac at. That said, a competent sysadmin can make linux look and act just like Windows, just like X, just like nextstep, whatever, so that any user can jump right in. I've done it several times. Sure it may be a little more difficult for the sysadmin to begin, but a sysadmin shouldn't be a newbie. Thats why he/she's an ADMINISTRATOR. And I'm sorry if I offend anybody, but if high school students can admin linux in a week (to some degree of profiency), any professional should be able to pick it up. It's really not that difficult guys...

"how long have you been using Macs?"
Too long...

"Also, how long has it been since you used a Mac? They haven't "smiled on boot" since AFAIK 68k days." I was joking. And besides, I've used the old 68k's quite a bit. My point still stands, though. There's nothing "scary" about some text flying by before the gui boots.

"
>Mitthrawnuruodo: "The best thing to do when meeting people who...just >smile". Oooorrrr, if you truly believed in your own argument, you could try to >convince them. REfusing to stand up for your own argument is a statement >in itself.
Or for people who are as closed minded as you, his idea may be a good one."

Close-minded? I'm actually trying to have a conversation/debate with you guys! If i'm close-minded, what do you consider the millions of pc-using programmers/techs that never gave a thought to macs because it just wasn't practical for them?

"And I must ask, how long have you been using Macs? You don't sound like, for a tech guy, you know much about them at all."
Hah, I guess I misrepresented myself. I'm a high school student. My experience with Macs has mainly been in lab use and for film editing, both in and out of school. I'm somewhat familiar with them, but I'm no expert. That's why I'm here...

Nuthin wrong with floppy drives. Say you want to move a file from a non-networked stand-alone comp to one across the room. Do you want to burn a cd? I don't. And although I have a usb drive, I don't want to give it to a friend to run down the hall to another standalone comp, or give it to someone with a document on it. Floppies are dirt cheap, and take little space. I like them. They also let novices write operating systems and test them easily.

So I have to go soon, but I'm seeing one trend here: you guys don't particulatly want to do anything with your comps but what they were designed for. I want to be able to program on my computer, I want to be able to write an operating system. I want other people to be able to do the things THEY want on their computer, even if I don't want to do those things. PC's (especially on linux) provide that flexibility.

OK I'm being kicked off my computer by a family member. Thanks for the input again.

voicegy
Jun 10, 2004, 08:40 PM
I have actually raised the point that since they are school computers weird stuff happens to them when stupid people use them, however he does not buy into that argument, because in his words, "If Mac OS was so great then it would be able to handle this kind of situation."

Oh, this one is TOO easy.

Have him visit a PC lab at a school site. :eek:

DavidLeblond
Jun 10, 2004, 08:58 PM
This is fun!

DavidLeblond: do your research first. Running two instances of IE when one dies DOES NOT kill the other, unless their tied together (ie if one is the parent, if the other was spawned via a "New... or a Open in New Window). So in fact this coincides with my point, that seperating tasks makes the OS MORE robust, as specific instances can crash and not kill the whole.


Why do I need to run seperate browser instances? You keep saying its a good thing, I don't see it. If you're paranoid enough to want to run 2 copies of Safari, just use the command line (you ARE a unix guy, right?)


David L: "intersteed (wtf does that mean?)" ooo clever, you caught a spelling mistake...I produce my most humble apoligies to you for such a flagrant fault. I can only hope that I never trespass against you in such a manner again.


It's good to have a browser with built-in spellcheck. :p


Second, it crashes. now I keep hearing that its so stable, that X never crashes, but the fact is, EVERY mac running ANY version of X that I have seen has crashed at some point or another while I was watching someone use it.


Newsflash, sometimes computers crash. I've seen Linux crash, Solaris crash, Windows crash, AIX crash... hell I've seen a caculator die.


Now I'm sure this post will inspire mac users everywhere to post and tell me just how long THEIR system has been running. I'm sure dozens of people would love to tell their friends to just ignore me, so if you're considering posting a follow up, please be considerate and check this criteria:
1. Am I addressing a specific concern intx13 mentioned?
2. Do I know what I'm talking about (ie have I used macos for more than a year)?
3. Have I ever used a pc?
4. Do I know what linux is?
5. Do I choose my socks based on the color of my computer?


1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I have 2 of them, have built well over 2 dozen.
4. I have run Debian, every version of Mandrake since 7, several versions of RedHat, SuSE, Knoppix, Slackware, Fedora, and various smaller distros.
5. No, I usually choose them based on what pants I'm wearing.

DavidLeblond
Jun 10, 2004, 09:03 PM
"Linux is *not* free because the cost of learning it"
A competent sysadmin can set up a linux system within a week of booting up. There is more online tutorials and information available than you can shake a mac at. That said, a competent sysadmin can make linux look and act just like Windows, just like X, just like nextstep, whatever, so that any user can jump right in. I've done it several times. Sure it may be a little more difficult for the sysadmin to begin, but a sysadmin shouldn't be a newbie. Thats why he/she's an ADMINISTRATOR. And I'm sorry if I offend anybody, but if high school students can admin linux in a week (to some degree of profiency), any professional should be able to pick it up. It's really not that difficult guys...


A WEEK???? Dude, get a new sysadmin. I go through Linux distros like popcorn, and if it takes me more than an hour to set it up I consider it a crap distro.

I don't know about you, but a week of my time is pretty frickin expensive... I think it would be MUCH cheaper to get an XServe :p.

musicpyrite
Jun 10, 2004, 09:17 PM
Oh here is an interesting tidbit, intx13 who is the now 'infamous' friend that i brought here, uses only PCs that he has dragged out of the trash, literally, he found a PC out in the rain, let it dry then installed Linux on it. His fastest computer is I think a 600-700mhz AMD machine.

I find my PCs all over the place, last Saturday I went to the dump, and found a Pentium II MMX, 48 MB of RAM, 3 GB HD; and it has 95 installed. :D It's sad that I have to drag my PCs out of the trash... :rolleyes:

aussie_geek
Jun 10, 2004, 09:17 PM
please delete - double post

aussie_geek
Jun 10, 2004, 09:19 PM
I have been using computers for the last 20 years. Started out with the classic Commodore 64, Amiga, Mac IIFx, MacPlus and MacClassic then the iMac, Dual G4 tower, New Powerbook G4 (latest addition :)), Unix boxes at work (Sun Ultrasparcs) and Windoze computers in the office. You name it i've played on it.

After the end of the day I have always been coming home to my Mac. You just turn it on and bingo - everthing is there infront of you with no problems. The Mac in my eyes is the computer that you enjoy using. It's not about how much ram, how many programs you can have running, its about what you want to do on it.

And for the comments about how many apps open at the same time and multitasking, just remember we only have one brain connected to two eyes and two hands. You are only interacting with one program at a time. You can have other things going on in the background but the frontmost app is the most important.

And with macs with their SUPERIOR multitasking abilities you can do all your rendering and sound processing in the background while having real fun with your Mac instead...

just my 2c

aussie_geek :D

quagmire
Jun 10, 2004, 09:20 PM
Intx3, do you know there is such thing called force quit in Mac OS X? I have two Macs. I have an 400 Mhz Powermac G4 and a rev b 1 Ghz powerbook G4. The Powermac is running 10.2.8, sometimes applications do freeze. A lot of people in my school mistake app freezes with system freezes. When the emacs crash does the cursor absolutely freeze or when you are in an app the rainbow spin wheel pops up? If, the rainbow wheel, does it still do it when you click onto the finder. If yes, the app has simply crashed and if you would go under the apple symbol you will see force quit. You click it and it pops open a window and it list the apps open click the app that is frozen and click force quit and another windows pops up saying are you sure you want to force quit, you click force quit. I am not trying to call you stupid or anything. A lot of people and teachers confuse app crashes and system crashes.

codycartoon
Jun 10, 2004, 09:26 PM
I am not going to read this whole thread but I can tell you that I used to argue the Mac Vrs. PC thing quite a bit with a bunch of filmmakers and artists.

But I try not to do it anymore, as much as they provoke.

While they try and wail on the technical and other aspects of the Mac I simply say this.

"You're computer is a tool, and the only way you could ever measure any tool is by the final product you create while using the tool.

You say that my tool is flawed, you say that Apple's OS is bad, and their hardware is overpriced and poor and yet I somehow seem to create and produce pieces that I like, and clearly represent my vision.

While I have tried other tools, for example Windows and linux. Apple's computers and software are simply what I prefer.

So **** off"

-cody

Fukui
Jun 10, 2004, 10:09 PM
4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIX

Show him this...

bousozoku
Jun 10, 2004, 11:24 PM
Show him this...

You can only do that when the dock is on the right side of the display, though. ;)

Fukui
Jun 10, 2004, 11:51 PM
You can only do that when the dock is on the right side of the display, though. ;)
:D

James L
Jun 11, 2004, 12:08 AM
Sorry dude, my comments earlier where designed to point out that insulting your social skills and wardrobe was akin to you insulting your buddies taste in machines. It was not a direct attack on you, but on your comments about your buddies computer tastes.

Now, having said that, I must say that if I had to chose the opinion of a high school student versus the FBI, NASA, Virginia Tech, dozens of major film production companies, major graphic design houses, every recording studio I have ever been in, and also Electronic Arts the last time I was there I would have to say I would not be on your side of the fence. You can argue your point all you want from your perspective as a high school student... I will go with the movers and shakers of industry, and the decision goes to Mac.

You commented that we are content with a Mac as it does what WE want it to do. Dude, WE are the majority of Mac users. Do you think 99% of people out there could give a rats ass about writing OS code? 99% of people want their machine to easily help them achieve a goal, such as play a game, surf the web, design a webpage, edit a movie, manage their pictures, etc. With that in mind I would say Linux based machines are the sore losers compared to Macs. I have used computers since 1981. I have never cared about having multiple Safari's open, etc. I have designed websites professionally for 4 years, done graphic design for 7. I am the average user of a computer. I surf, I email, I edit pictures in Photoshop (which GIMP sucks compared to), I game, I create movies in Final Cut, I record as a musician. In short, I Get REAL work done DAILY. None of the things you have mentioned amount to REAL work to me. I make approximately $900-$1100 a week at work. I want, and need, a machine that I don't have to screw around with, and that helps me with the goals I need to achieve on a regular basis. THAT is what a machine is designed to do, and none do it better than Macs. I have yet to walk into a design studio, a recording studio, etc and see them running Linux and open source software. Why is that?

Again, I apologize if you think I attacked you personally, but I think your young, high school, views are not in line with what goes on in the real world on a daily basis. While you have safely pointed out that the Mac is not the best machine FOR YOU, the fact that Apple has sold 50 - 60 million of them seems to say to me that it rocks for many people. The true sign of maturity is to realize that there is no one solution that works for everyone. A computer, like a hammer, is a tool. Buy the one best suited to the work you are doing.

Cheers,

James

blue&whiteman
Jun 11, 2004, 12:22 AM
macs use unix now. to say macs suck is to say unix sucks (since most of this seems to be about os level stuff). unix is arguably the best os ever made and free bsd is a rock solid port of unix. free bsd is what osx uses. there is a FULL version of free bsd at the core and throughout osx.

I just don't understand how anyone can be so bothered by a platform of computers..

mac users would not pay more for hardware, tolerate far less software selection and all the other negatives of being a mac user if macs sucked.

macs are the creative platform of computers and dominate virtually all creative markets computer needs. this is why apple has lasted even through the mid 90's.

bousozoku
Jun 11, 2004, 12:46 AM
macs use unix now. to say macs suck is to say unix sucks (since most of this seems to be about os level stuff). unix is arguably the best os ever made and free bsd is a rock solid port of unix. free bsd is what osx uses. there is a FULL version of free bsd at the core and throughout osx.
...


That's not precise enough to be correct but close.

There is compatibility with FreeBSD in Mac OS X and there is a BSD layer, but the kernel is a modified version of Mach 3.0 with the BSD layer above it and finally the media layers.

ChrisH3677
Jun 11, 2004, 12:59 AM
I'm somewhat familiar with them, but I'm no expert. That's why I'm here...

This is what's bugging us dude... you are making claims about Macs/OSX which are being proved wrong - yet you made yourself out to be an expert on Macs by telling us all the things they couldn't do.

you guys don't particularly want to do anything with your comps but what they were designed for. I want to be able to program on my computer, I want to be able to write an operating system. I want other people to be able to do the things THEY want on their computer, even if I don't want to do those things. PC's (especially on linux) provide that flexibility.

We all do different things on our Macs. Some only run in Terminal. Some develop software. Some produce Academy Award winning films. Some run as firewalls or web-servers. Some just type emails. They are very flexible machines.

The things most other people want to do on their computer is... just use them. That's why Windows and OSX aren't designed with techies like you as their main customer.

If you want to get down to the level you do, then Linux is a good choice coz it is a DIYish OS. But if you spent just as much time getting to know OSX, you wouldn't have been here...

Computers and OS makers are trying to make them more and more user friendly. This is the Linux world's single biggest goal. This is why Mandrake exists - because Linux was/is too difficult to use. In another 5 to 10 years, you will lament the passing of the days when you could get really technical with Linux. There's not enough of you guys in the world for any major OS maker to cater to your needs.

You would have loved the 80's. Besides Macs, most computing was real get-your-hands-dirty type stuff. It was a lotta fun, but ironically, the computer I really wanted was... a Mac!It took 20 years til i finally got one, and it was everything I'd always hoped for.

One question... do you run Linux in GUI or command line?

pooky
Jun 11, 2004, 12:59 AM
Show him this...

Why only 3? It took 9 before Word's bloatedness slowed down my comp...

mr_mac
Jun 11, 2004, 01:50 AM
I tought i'd post a comment on this one.

First, i've been a senior Mac tech for 11 years now specialized in software troubleshooting. I've used macs since the Apple II. I've been testing Mac OS versions since 1992. I've tried almost every build OS X has seen.

So, i think i know my OS.

Try this.

I own a real video/audio editing station.
A Dual G5 2GHz, 1,5GB RAM, 480GB RAID, 3 displays, yamaha mixing board, Altec Lansing Speakers.

Typical setup/actual running processes:

iTunes playing a .aiff
Final Cut Pro Importing a 1hour tape
Compressor encoding in MPEG-2
DVD Studio Pro burning a DVD
3 instances of hotline Client downloading/uploading
(Done by command-D (Duplicates the app) on the app and reopening the copy)
Poisoned downloading/uploading
Mail checking email every 10 minutes
ical opened
calculator opened
stickies opened
Photoshop opened
illustrator opened
iChat opened
etc.

Try and do that on your PC running what ever version of what ever system software.

I've never EVER seen my G5 crash. It never shuts down. I put it in sleep mode at night. The only reboots are for systems updates. i'm running 10.3.4. It's been running since september 26, 2003. It's been down for about 8 hours since when i removed the hard drives to create the RAID. (I put the HD in another computer to back up everything, i didn't have enough space, so i went to the office)

I can't understand how Mac Os is not stable.

By the way, sometimes, when i import DV video in final cut pro, i sometimes watch a DVD or i play NeverWinter Nights just for fun...

Volume issue?? where have you seen that?

The crash log can be seen easily by opening the console in the utility folder.

I own several PCs such as a few PII, PIII, PIV and my favorite, a Athlon64 Server. they all do what they are supposed to, but do not ask too much of them. They all run XP SP1 with all Teletubbies visual artefacts disabled.

I can confirm that i get my job done faster, with less frustration on my Mac than on any PC i've seen up to now.

I'll happily (no hard feelings) help you intx13 with any questions you may have regarding macs. I can assure you that there's always a way to get the job done, whatever the job on a mac.

Regards,

Mrmac

KingSleaze
Jun 11, 2004, 02:02 AM
intx13

Congratulations for being able to write an entire OS that fits on A floppy disc. Since most computers come with at least a CD-RW drive, a CD works equally well as a floppy to my mind. A CD will also last longer in use than a floppy.

I like the Mac (and by extension the OS) because I can use it. I don't have to fiddle with it. I could if I really wanted to, but I don't have to. I don't have to write a program to do what I want to with it, because I can buy one. If I wanted to spend my time programming, I'd rather get paid for doing that. Many of my friends that are semi-average computer users at work, don't want to use a computer at home, it would be too much like work.

My time is more valuable to me than spending it trying to make my computer do what I want it to do. The Mac does it. Easily. With minimal fuss.

Since I upgraded from a G3 iMac using OS 9 to a Powerbook G4 using OS10.3.X, I have had ZERO system crashes. Plenty of apps have crashed, never the OS.

You spout on about your proficiency with Linux. I can't believe that your entire proficiency is due to working at it for only one week.

This hammer works for me without having to reforge it. When I need a saw, I'll go buy a saw instead of trying to turn my hammer into a saw.

Many of us Mac users have had to put up with various PC bigots at various times. Their "arguments" seldom change. That's why for some of us, arguing the benefits of one computer over another is just so much wasted breath. They don't actually listen to what they are being told.

Yup, the PC costs less for the basic machine. Several years with a common OS, the manufacturers cut their profits to the bone to sell more machines. Windows took off as it did because it was easier to use than the various other DOS systems available at the time (DRDOS, PCDOS, MSDOS). The first three versions of Windows sucked big time, but it was easier to use than DOS. Since its original issue, Windows has been trying to make PCs as easy to USE as Mac. Because Apple controls the machine AND the OS, to get a PC as capable as the new Mac "out of the box", it will cost more than the Mac.

Right clicking- another Windows "innovation". Apple doesn't sell a multibutton mouse because they want to keep the user experience simple and easy. I can buy a multibutton mouse if I wanted to, and it would work however I want it to work.

aussie_geek
Jun 11, 2004, 04:29 AM
:D

nice one dude :cool:

mateybob
Jun 11, 2004, 06:19 AM
intx13 i would love to heard about this 'operating system' you programmed.. actually id like to what background in computers you really have... i mean im sorry but to hear someone say the things you do and then not know about things such as the unix &... or use ridiculous browers like ie or konquerer.. it kind of reeks of 15 year old kid who thinks hes 1337.. (i reserve the right to be wrong)

what someone said about ALL lab computers sucking is really quite true... ive used labs with unix, linux, windows and macos and they were all equally unstable... youve got to understand that these machines only recieve 1% of the technical attention your home machine would yet are being used constantly by people who have little idea what theyre doing and have little incentive to be careful with them...

ive used macos, windows and unix extensively and linux to some extent and i can honostly say i find macs superior in EVERY aspect that is not related to the overpowering market share of windows..

Danrose1977
Jun 11, 2004, 07:34 AM
You actually can run separate instances of some apps in Windows, in contrast to previous posts, but not the examples you cite. Word and IE both simply spawn new windows for the same process. As noted, you can set both Word and Excel to display open documents/workbooks in the same window or separate ones, but that doesn't change the fact that the program's only running once. And if one IE window crashes, the whole program does. I can't speak to Linux, but I would expect an OS used by geeks who know the difference between a window and a process to make that distinction. I would also expect a consumer OS like OS X or Windows to hide that distinction from users, as they both do.

Thats totally true and the main reason why I despise IE and WinWord.... once one goes they all die.

Strangly M$ decided to build some of their programs in the OS this way and others so that they open multiple instances and therefore have some basic fault tollerance....

Winword.exe expensive word processing solution with a moderate chance of crashing --> No basic fault tollerance
Calc.exe very basic calculator program, almost no chance of a crash --> Opens multiple instances! basic fault tollerance!

krimson
Jun 11, 2004, 10:21 AM
KrImSoN122 (8:10:55 AM): anyways.. hey, is it true some of the people on the MER used G5's?
RL* (8:11:03 AM): Coulda been worse. Oooooh, you should fax her and tell
RL (8:11:15 AM): I didn't know there were G5's.
KrImSoN122 (8:11:19 AM): LOL
KrImSoN122 (8:11:35 AM): this guy on the macrumors forum says that they used alot of G5's on the MER missions
RL (8:11:49 AM): There are some pretty sweet ass G4's right now though! I was working on one the other day and those things are bad ass!
KrImSoN122 (8:11:55 AM): we were debating the Mac's with a linux fanatic
RL (8:12:08 AM): LOL
RL (8:12:23 AM): Linux fanatics are freakin nuts! Watch out, they might byte.
KrImSoN122 (8:12:28 AM): LOL
RL (8:12:33 AM): Bu dum Crash!
KrImSoN122 (8:12:51 AM): nah, the Linux guy was like, Macs suck, because the ones he uses in the COMPUTER LAB at school always crash
RL (8:13:05 AM): LOL
KrImSoN122 (8:13:11 AM): and one of the forum members said, nah, they're so good that nasa used them in the MER missions
RL (8:13:21 AM): Yeah, because that's the best example of any system is what's in the Computer lab.
KrImSoN122 (8:13:28 AM): i was like, ALL computer lab computers blow sheeeet
KrImSoN122 (8:13:36 AM): exactly!
RL (8:13:51 AM): Yeah, I'm with you. I know.
KrImSoN122 (8:14:09 AM): so no G5's at JPL?
RL (8:14:15 AM): I remember Commodore 64's that would ****** up. How does ANYONE ****** up a Commodore 64!?!? Well, the school computer lab sure did.
KrImSoN122 (8:14:24 AM): LOL
RL (8:14:50 AM): Not that I've seen. Our towers are mostly G3's, and the laptops are all G4's. Our power computing is done by SUN systems UNIX boxes.

*AIM SN have been changed*

ingenious
Jun 11, 2004, 11:01 AM
I thought that this *was* the specific advantage. I thought if you run multiple instances in the newer versions of Windows, rather than doing "file/new window" you were crash protected. Not true? :(

Is anything in Windows crash proof? When I was working on Win 98, I'd always keep 2 instances of IE open so that when the first one crashed, I could keep working. Then I'd open another new window and repeat the process.

intx13
Jun 11, 2004, 11:01 AM
Okay, some more comments:

"intx13 i would love to heard about this 'operating system' you programmed.. actually id like to what background in computers you really have... i mean im sorry but to hear someone say the things you do and then not know about things such as the unix &... or use ridiculous browers like ie or konquerer.. it kind of reeks of 15 year old kid who thinks hes 1337.. (i reserve the right to be wrong)"

Good thing you snagged that right, mateybob. Clearly you are a far more experienced computer user, being able to talk about the &, one of the most simple Unix options ever. So to satisfy your curiosity, here's the rundown:
1. Dos programming:
3D engine (C/C++)
3D engine (assembly)
ESCP printer driver
PDF editor (text only...)
simple scripting languages (created in C/C++)
Too many other small applications to count
2. Windows
Simple text games
Fractal generators
Simple text editor
3. Linux
Everything and anything.
Tools for writing operating systems
Small apps to do all sorts of stuff, from organizing files by certain methods to wrapping other programs (just little stuff i find helpful)
4. OS work
A. A 16 bit real mode system (the first I wrote)
B. A 32 bit protected mode system, including multitasking and protection, written entirely in assembly
C. A 32 bit protected mode system with process management, support for piped processes, and availability for multi-users (maybe). This one is still in progress.

I know quite a bit about operating systems and programming. And of all people, how can a Mac user call another user's browser choice "ridiculous" ?? Aren't you all supposed to be open minded and fair??

Here's the question I ask myself: can a Mac do what my PC does? Last night I wrote down all the things my Linux box and my Windows machines were doing. The Windows machine had four users logged on. One was downloading an iso (the full 700+ megs). Another had a 3d game minimized. The user that was up was playing streaming videos online. My linux machine had over 50 programs up, including two emulators, one running DOS, one running my test operating system. A video player was paused. Seven virtual desktops were running. Two programs in development were open. And what is your mac doing? Ooooh, running multiple instances of Word... thats really great. Maybe even running photoshop at the same time.. wow. And that's on the most modern tech! My PC with linux is a 665 Duron, with Mandrake 9.2 running on it, with no speed problems.

So tell me, can you develop programs on your Mac? If QT is busy, can you still play videos (or do you have to click cancel first?) Can you run more than two dozen processor intensive programs at once? Maybe you claim you can, but I've never seen it done.

And enough of this "well you've only seen lab computers" ************. Sure you can blame it on the techs, but the fact remains, I've NEVER seen a Mac doing anything processor intensive while otehr apps are running! Not just at school, anywhere! Whereas I've seen linux at colleges without an ounce of problems.

Also, someone claimed that because I'm not in the film industry, or in the digital editing industry that I can't critique Macs. This is ************. If you're going to market your computers to the general market, then I can critique it all I want. I don't critique Solaris systems because they're not pushed to the general public. But Macs claim to be the next best thing!

Ok, one last thing. I'll keep this simple: Get Off Your High Horse! I'm claiming that Linux and Windows can do anything. They can do digital editing, music editing, programming, operating system development, game playing, ANYTHING. And they integrate together nicely. Now maybe they're not the best at some of these tasks, but they can do them. They provide that functionality. Mac's don't. Now Macs may be the best at video editing, but if that's ALL they do, they're useless. I want power in my computer, I want my computer to be able to do anything anyone elses can. With Linux and Windows, I can. With MacOS, I can't. Don't believe me? Let's have acontest. You name things your OSX can do and I'll name things Linux can do, and we'll see which side can't match the other side. So if you say you can digital edit, I can say "so can I", so noone gets a point. But if I say I can write programs out of the box on mine, and you can't, I get a point.

Now I'm not saying that MAcs don't have a purpose. Sure, they're good at a few things. But my PC can do all those things, and more. So go ahead and market MAcs to the minority, I have no problem wiht that. Push them to video editors, fine. But face the facts: to be a POWERFUL operating system you have to be able to do virtually anything with some degree of functionality. You've got to have something for everyone, to be truly functional.

PS: whoever said this: "to say macs suck is to say unix sucks ". YOU ARE THE DUMBEST PERSON EVER! Stop posting before you embarass your collueges any more. Unix is a time honored operating system meant for experts ONLY. IT was originally written with NOONE but the developers in mind (read up on its history). Don't EVER compare the super-friendly OSX to Unix.

ingenious
Jun 11, 2004, 11:06 AM
To be fair, the vast majority of the PC's used were Wintels.


True.... :P

mr_mac
Jun 11, 2004, 11:21 AM
Weird, i've been creating drivers for usb devices for many years. I've also created a Company management software in C++ (invoices, orders, inventory, rentals, etc.). All created using Code Warrior in the Old years, now using Apple's own coding software.

Multiple users? Never used 10.3??

You want some power?? Try importing a DV stream in one App (Full, no compression), at the same time, encode a 720x480 30fps video file of 30 minutes in MPEG-2 from DV, and play a Game in the mean time. (not solitaire, i mean a game that does 1600x1200 32bit, 4x FSAA.)

When you'll be able to do so, i'll agree that you can do the same thing on a PC than on a Mac.

And Yes, you can write your own OS. Did you know that you can install Linux on a Mac?

Regards,

Mrmac

DavidLeblond
Jun 11, 2004, 11:22 AM
I'm not going to respond to your whole comment, just one part in particular that I find hilarious:


So tell me, can you develop programs on your Mac? If QT is busy, can you still play videos (or do you have to click cancel first?) Can you run more than two dozen processor intensive programs at once? Maybe you claim you can, but I've never seen it done.


You got us. I had totally forgotten about one important aspects of using computers: programming. Its true, you can NOT develop programs on the mac. You see, all the programs that exist for the Mac were grown in labs from bacteria because, gosh darnit, we don't have development tools!

Dude Mac OS X ships with full development tools, just like Linux (and not like Windows which requires you to pony up $500 for the IDE which compared to XCode is a bugfest). In fact, you'd be happy to know that we use gcc too! And I've never seen a Windows box (or Linux box) run 2 dozen processor intensive programs at once either... well not smoothly anyway. You said in your post (paraphrasing) "my buddy was downloading an ISO and streaming video WHILE having a 3D GAME minimized! WOW!" Well when a 3D game is minimized, it is usually not active so yes, I can see that. By the way, downloading a 700 meg ISO is not considered processor intensive. All its doing is "grab packet from network, stick packet on end of file"... if you have a processor intensive app that does that you need to shoot it's programmer.

Really, give it up man. Just because you program doesn't make you the best guy around, most of us (me included) program too. :p

ingenious
Jun 11, 2004, 11:40 AM
Here's the question I ask myself: can a Mac do what my PC does? Last night I wrote down all the things my Linux box and my Windows machines were doing. The Windows machine had four users logged on. One was downloading an iso (the full 700+ megs). Another had a 3d game minimized. The user that was up was playing streaming videos online.

Wow! I didn't realize how spoiled I was in OS X to be able to do all of those things and more at once... without a hiccup... running on 256 MB RAM. Granted, I didn't have a 3d game open, because I'm not really into gaming, and I didn't have four users logged on because I only use 2, but OS X easily does those things.

My linux machine had over 50 programs up, including two emulators, one running DOS, one running my test operating system. A video player was paused. Seven virtual desktops were running. Two programs in development were open. And what is your mac doing?

While I wish I knew how, I don't develop programs, so I can't answer this question, someone else needs to pick this one up.

Ooooh, running multiple instances of Word... thats really great. Maybe even running photoshop at the same time.. wow. And that's on the most modern tech!

Um, you're the one who brought up the "multiple instance" issue.

My PC with linux is a 665 Duron, with Mandrake 9.2 running on it, with no speed problems.

No real speed problems here either, on my 867 PPC G4 with 256 RAM running OS X 10.3.4


So tell me, can you develop programs on your Mac?

Yes. Ever heard of developer tools? Comes right off of the installation disc. Develops in many languages, including Java, Objective-C/Cocoa, Carbon, and more that I don't know about.


If QT is busy, can you still play videos (or do you have to click cancel first?) Can you run more than two dozen processor intensive programs at once? Maybe you claim you can, but I've never seen it done.


If QT is busy, of course you can still play videos! I can edit in iMovie (which uses QT underlayments) and watch a diff video in QT, even a live webstream.
On the processor intensive programs: I've never run more than 6, but that's only because I don't have the need to. (F@H, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes(can be), Photoshop, GarageBand) I run these regularly at the same time, without a major hiccup. ( I do need more RAM) :p


And enough of this "well you've only seen lab computers"

You not accepting this fact is just proof of your wrong sided stubbornness and ignorance (not calling you stupid, just misinformed).

Sure you can blame it on the techs, but the fact remains, I've NEVER seen a Mac doing anything processor intensive while otehr apps are running! Not just at school, anywhere! Whereas I've seen linux at colleges without an ounce of problems.

It's not always the techs, it can also be the students who change settings, etc. It is the techs regularly though. Maybe at those colleges there's bunches of linux geeks who stay up all night to patch those systems.
:rolleyes:


Also, someone claimed that because I'm not in the film industry, or in the digital editing industry that I can't critique Macs. ... If you're going to market your computers to the general market, then I can critique it all I want. I don't critique Solaris systems because they're not pushed to the general public. But Macs claim to be the next best thing!


I'm agreeing with you here. You have every right to critique the Mac even though you're not in the film industry. They "claim," and they're telling the truth.


Ok, one last thing. I'll keep this simple: Get Off Your High Horse! I'm claiming that Linux and Windows can do anything. They can do digital editing, music editing, programming, operating system development, game playing, ANYTHING. And they integrate together nicely. Now maybe they're not the best at some of these tasks, but they can do them. They provide that functionality. Mac's don't. Now Macs may be the best at video editing, but if that's ALL they do, they're useless. I want power in my computer, I want my computer to be able to do anything anyone elses can. With Linux and Windows, I can. With MacOS, I can't.

Take some of you're own advice and get off your "high horse!" Baaah.. Linux and Windows doing anything??!?!? Right...... was Windoze doing that before or after it rebooting the sixth time this morning? Or Linux after you found the correct mouse driver for your third-party mouse? :rolleyes: Linux and Windows integrating nicely is a hoot. Yea right! I just "love" the way Windows networks perfectly with older than XP versions! It's so nice the long hours I spend trying to get each computer to work on something greater than basic sharing... :rolleyes: Macs are the best at video editing. And no, its not ALL they can do. They do everything a PC can do much, much better that Windows or Linux can ever dream about (when it's frozen). Yes, most people want that from their computer. Even the bottom line Macs have plenty of power. Sure, everyone could use more, but there's more than enough there for most things. Macs CAN do eveything "everyone else's computer can." 9.9 times out of 10, they do it better, with more stabilty and ease of use.


Don't believe me? Let's have acontest. You name things your OSX can do and I'll name things Linux can do, and we'll see which side can't match the other side. So if you say you can digital edit, I can say "so can I", so noone gets a point. But if I say I can write programs out of the box on mine, and you can't, I get a point.

1. write programs out of the box
2. digital edit out of the box
3. immune to most virii, etc.
4.F@H
5. MICROSOFT office
6. email out of the box
7. Surf faster than IE
8. network seamlessly
9. stream music over a network, wired or wireless
10. easy configuration of anything
11. easy installation, with advanced settings if need be
12. great user interface
13. UNIX underlaying
14. command prompt
15. best GUI
16. run programs just like the Windows side, from the actual developer
17.change backgrounds on a timed scale
18. run screen savers
19. use printer drivers off of cds (like to see linux do some of these, direct form the manufacturer!)
20. use a built in start up manager
21.Fast User Switching
22.this list goes on and on and on, but I'm ready to be done with this post... :D will add more later if you decide to keep up with the "contest."



Now I'm not saying that MAcs don't have a purpose. Sure, they're good at a few things. But my PC can do all those things, and more. So go ahead and market MAcs to the minority, I have no problem wiht that. Push them to video editors, fine. But face the facts: to be a POWERFUL operating system you have to be able to do virtually anything with some degree of functionality. You've got to have something for everyone, to be truly functional.

Hmmmmmmm a few things?!?!?! how long has it been since you used a Mac? 7 years? :rolleyes: PC doing more?!?! YEAH RIGHT! Push them to more than the minority! Push them to more than video editors! Mac OS X is a very very very powerful OS. I can do anything with more that "some" degree of functionality. Hmm, we do have something for everyone. Just check out the Mac OS X section of Apple.com once in awhile.



PS: whoever said this: "to say macs suck is to say unix sucks ". YOU ARE THE DUMBEST PERSON EVER! Stop posting before you embarass your collueges any more. Unix is a time honored operating system meant for experts ONLY. IT was originally written with NOONE but the developers in mind (read up on its history). Don't EVER compare the super-friendly OSX to Unix.


Who needs to compare them? Mac OS X is a Unix Distro. Apple took the OS for "experts only" and made it into a piece of art that everyone can use. Oh and yes, developers do use Mac OS X. :rolleyes:

flyfish29
Jun 11, 2004, 11:44 AM
Well we all have em, my friend is an ardent PC user, he is all into Linux, and used to be a windows lover, but Linux converted him. However he despises Macs. Well since we are friends we have frequent arguments about Macs however he knows way more about programming then I know( he wrote his own OS) So here are some his complaints, I wonder if you have answers.
1. Macs crash way too much under OS X, of course I know that OS X is stable however he is convinced that OS X is the worst version os UNIX ever, one problem I have with this argument is that our schools Macs don't to well exhibiting OS X's stability. We use iMovie, FCP, and QT a lot and whenever we run programs on them they crash, and crash often. So of course this only convinces my friend even more.
2. Macs are poor at multi-tasking, he complains to me whenever he runs multiple programs on our schools macs. Running iMovie and QT at the same time results in slow performance and crashes and he chides OS X for ruining the best part of UNIX which is well known for its multitasking.
3. When ever we try and move or export large files the Macs bomb, so of course this is more ammo for him.


Why on earth would you want or need five word programs open...I don't understand?

What kind of computers are you talking about running OSX on. I have had OSX iMac since Sept and I have never had to restart due to a crash! Ever! I have had two programs quit probably five times each and had to force quit the programs but never required a restart of the computer, just launch the software app again and I am off and running.

If a mac is bombing then software was updated incorrectly, important files were deleted or programs were added that are not compatible (ie shareware or beta) School computers will invaribly have more problems unless proper care is taken to keep kids from screwing them up- ie passwords, accounts, etc.

ingenious
Jun 11, 2004, 11:47 AM
I used to be a PC fanatic...

Until one day I saw the light...

And now I am a...

Mac FANATIC! :eek:

:D

Gotta love 'em!

Point being, you give him some time and he will see the light.

I converted in just one day.


Same here, well, two days, but still.... :D

krimson
Jun 11, 2004, 11:49 AM
And enough of this "well you've only seen lab computers" ************. Sure you can blame it on the techs, but the fact remains, I've NEVER seen a Mac doing anything processor intensive while otehr apps are running! Not just at school, anywhere! Whereas I've seen linux at colleges without an ounce of problems.


So how many HAVE you used outside the lab??

reaper
Jun 11, 2004, 11:58 AM
It seems to me that there isn't even a point to arguing with this kid. He obviously hasn't ever used panther, since he doesn't even know about fast user switching, and most, if not all of his arguments are misinformed.

Just my two cents, but if you are going to argue, intx13, you should at least get your facts straight or even sit down with the latest os for a little.

- reaper

Fukui
Jun 11, 2004, 01:34 PM
Why only 3? It took 9 before Word's bloatedness slowed down my comp...
Textedit is much faster and smaller, takes less than 1/2 sec to start up new ones...

James L
Jun 11, 2004, 01:52 PM
Let's have acontest. You name things your OSX can do and I'll name things Linux can do, and we'll see which side can't match the other side. So if you say you can digital edit, I can say "so can I", so noone gets a point. But if I say I can write programs out of the box on mine, and you can't, I get a point.


Sure, and then maybe after that we can see if my daddy can beat up your daddy. Grow up.

For all others on this thread, don't let this child suck you into a debate about the pros and cons. Adults realize that you buy the best machine for the job. For many people it is Macs. I don't see rampant use of Linux boxes in most industries I have ever been in. I don't see the secretary using them. I don't see the accountant using them. I don't see the professional game designers using them. I don't see the film editors or musical engineers in recording studios using them. What I do see is an obnoxious little teenager using them to write OS's that nobody will ever use on them. Meanwhile my best friend gets paid close to $80,000 per year to code Mac software. I get paid well in the design industry using Macs and Mac software.

Leave this child to go make his lists on who his friends are, what his favourite movies are, when his pimples are going to go away etc. The rest of the adults can continue to do what we do; have lives, work in the real world, be with our families, etc.

Make a list and have a contest? If you hadn't of told me you were a teenager before I surely would have been able to guess after you said that.

krimson
Jun 11, 2004, 02:08 PM
Donnie Darko! :rolleyes:

quagmire
Jun 11, 2004, 03:04 PM
I just want to point out that a pcworld has rated Mac OS X panther the best OS of the year.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116015,pg,4,00.asp

amols
Jun 11, 2004, 03:21 PM
4. He hates that you can't have two QT programs open at once, or two Internet explorer programs open at the same time. On windows he boasts how he can have 5 individual Word programs open at the same.(This does not mean 5 windows, but 5 individual Word programs open at the same time) This again he says shows why Mac OS has ruined UNIX
:mad:

I use Linux Mandrake on PC and I don't know about Word apps, but I can open multiple browsers at the same time. Mandrake comes with seven GUI web browser apps and two CL browsers. But thats the whole different story. I can open Safari, Firefox, iCab and IE at the same time too, each having their own pros and cons. I can open Appleworks, MS word, Openoffice and TextEdit together, but again, its a different thing. I can't think of anything other than this. May be he was confused by the window management scheme of Mac just as I did when I first used Mac. He may not have found "Cross" on the upper right corner of the window, "Exit" app from menu the Windows style, and all windows must have disappeared, leading him to conclusion that "if you can't close them individually like Windows, you can't open them individually." And if Mac has ruined Unix, how can it be the most famous Unix variant despite its free rivals.

rueyeet
Jun 11, 2004, 03:50 PM
Here's the question I ask myself: can a Mac do what my PC does? Last night I wrote down all the things my Linux box and my Windows machines were doing. [paraphrased:] Windows: 4 users, #1 downloading 700 MB ISO, #2 3d game (minimized) and streaming videos online, #3 and 4 ?. Linux: 50 programs up, including two emulators (DOS and test operating system), video player (paused), 7 virtual desktops, 2 programs in development.

Let's break this down. Okay, so you've got multiple users logged into your Windows box doing various stuff. However, of the four users, only one really has anything intensive going, seeing as it's already been noted that the ISO download isn't particularly processor-intensive, and neither is a minimized (that is, inactive) game. I've watched QT stuff while downloading in the background...and others have noted that their Macs handle this kind of taskload. In fact, this doesn't really sound all that much out of the ordinary.

On your Linux box, you've got a bit more going, since it's more your favorite environment, and your real workhorse--understandable. 50 programs, yes; but how many of those are actually real resource hogs? The Mac can (and with experienced users who've loaded lots of widgets and haxies and utilities and whatever, often does) run a whole bunch of little programs at once too. And paused or inactive programs don't take up whole bunches of resources, so listing those doesn't really go towards proving a system's power.

I'll grant you this....Aqua does not implement virtual desktops. A lot of the Linux fans who've seriously tried the Mac have complained on that one. I think there's a third-party program that does that, but that's not the same as an out-of-the-box solution.

So tell me, can you develop programs on your Mac?....Can you run more than two dozen processor intensive programs at once? Maybe you claim you can, but I've never seen it done.You have a bunch of people at this forum giving you the list of what their Macs can run, and telling you which development environments the Mac comes equipped with, and that their systems are stable. So basically because you haven't seen it with your own eyes, you're calling them all liars? That's not something one does in the rational kind of argument you claim to be having. Be fair. We can just invalidate your arguments with "I haven't seen your machine, so I don't believe you" too.

Sure you can blame it on the techs, but the fact remains, I've NEVER seen a Mac doing anything processor intensive while otehr apps are running! Not just at school, anywhere! Which brings us to the question, how many Macs have you recently seen, besides the lab ones that are acting up so? You're asking us to have real Windows and Linux knowledge before posting, as per your criteria....Do us the same favor, would you? I hereby submit that you do not have enough experience with a proper Mac setup to make performance claims. Preference claims, yes. Performance, no.

But Macs claim to be the next best thing!All computer makers claim their products are the next best thing. I think the problem is that your friend--our fellow forum member--is being forced to defend his own platform of choice every time the school Macs make you say "Macs suck!" to him, so it would be very understandable if he was trying to play them up to deflect your hostility.

Ok, one last thing. I'll keep this simple: Get Off Your High Horse!We will if you will. The forum members have confirmed to you that our Macs can, indeed, do the things you're complaining about. There are development tools for the Mac, and they're included out of the box. Macs can run multiple processor-intensive tasks. They can accomodate multiple users. The hyper-configurability of Linux is a preference, not a necessity. Macs don't "suck" just because they aren't the best computer for YOU.

I'm claiming that Linux and Windows can do anything....I want my computer to be able to do anything anyone elses can. With Linux and Windows, I can. With MacOS, I can't.As many posters have tried to point out, you can. The nice thing about Macs is that you can do all of it with one computer....many a Linux/Unix geek has raved that they don't need a Linux box and Windows box (or dual-boot system) anymore, because the Mac can do all the geeky Unix and open-source and development stuff, and do the consumer and productivity and multimedia stuff too, all on the same computer (and the same boot volume). In fact, this is exactly why I switched.

PS:.....Don't EVER compare the super-friendly OSX to Unix.Why not? OS X is a GUI--Aqua--laid over a Unix foundation. For all practical purposes, OS X *is* a Unix.

We can all agree that Linux is probably the best OS for you, and it does have strengths that OS X, as a consumer-oriented OS, would not have for a hard-core guy like you who wants to write his own OS and see the error logs and whatnot. What we're trying to say here, is that this observation doesn't equate to the very general conclusion that "Macs suck", nor is it sufficient to conclude that Linux in all its many distros is the paragon of operating systems for all people, and all others must bow before it.

If your computers do what you need them to, then cool! more power to you. Mine does what I need it to, too, and could happily do more if I had the time to invest. I don't....and that's what makes the Mac a better choice for me. Therefore, I conclude that my Mac doesn't "suck".

tamara6
Jun 11, 2004, 03:52 PM
You have chosen to use a PC. That is fine with me. Use your PC and be happy. Be happy because your computer does what you want it to do, and you are comfortable using it.

It really is OK for you to *choose* to use a PC, even though a Mac could do all that you need. As we've seen in this thread, the Mac could do all that you are asking of a computer. You have not been *forced* to use a PC because no other system out there will do what you want.

So be happy with your PC and Linux or Windows or whatever OS you want to run. And we'll be happy with our Macs. And remember that life is about choices, and that sometimes really smart people will make and defend some choices that are just beyond your comprehension.

bryanc
Jun 11, 2004, 04:32 PM
Ok, one last thing. I'll keep this simple: Get Off Your High Horse! I'm claiming that Linux and Windows can do anything. They can do digital editing, music editing, programming, operating system development, game playing, ANYTHING. And they integrate together nicely. Now maybe they're not the best at some of these tasks, but they can do them. They provide that functionality. Mac's don't.

The irony here is that this is my primary reason for using a Mac. In principle, I can do almost everything I do on my Mac using a PC, but it's cumbersome, ugly, inconsistent, difficult to set up, and unstable. On my mac, I can do every thing (and yes, that includes multiple CPU intensive applications simultaneously) out of the box without having to spend hours configuring my OS or trouble shooting. And the integration is *so* much better on my Mac than on any of my PCs (linux or windows).

Are you sure you don't have Macs and PCs mixed up? PCs are the ugly beige boxes that run crappy operating systems that require extensive intervention by highly-trained technical support staff to keep them running...Macs are the nicely designed computers that do everything you want them to without any problems.


PS: whoever said this: "to say macs suck is to say unix sucks ". YOU ARE THE DUMBEST PERSON EVER! Stop posting before you embarass your collueges any more. Unix is a time honored operating system meant for experts ONLY. IT was originally written with NOONE but the developers in mind (read up on its history). Don't EVER compare the super-friendly OSX to Unix.

Speaking as someone who's been using Unix since before you were born, OS X *is* a type of Unix. Perhaps you should take a time out and calm down...despite your relative sophistication (compared to your peers), there are plenty of people (some around here) who've forgotten more about computers than you'll ever know. So by all means state your opinions, but learn to recognize when you're wrong.

Anticipat3
Jun 11, 2004, 05:17 PM
All right... Time to answer these misconceptions. This is coming from someone with a Mac and a PC, and my PC runs a Stage 1 Gentoo Linux install and Fluxbox.

you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once. In windows or linux i can double click on konqueror or ie, then double click on it again, and two different apps are started. two parent process, with seperate pids and stacks and everything. In 0sX I run the same app and I just get thrown back into the same window of the currently running process. Why?

Actually, Windows doesn't work that way by default, and neither does Linux. You actually have to make a copy of the program and rename it to launch a new instance. Linux will show a different PID for the different Konqueror WINDOWS, but it's still the same program -- when konqueror crashes, all the windows die.

If you want to run another instance, just make a duplicate of the iMovie.app file/folder.

And yes, there are many reasons to want to do this. Let's say Iim working on an imovie project and my friend wants to check a clip from his project. I'm in the middle of something, and I don't want to save, so I just open up another instance of imovie and open his project. the two instances are completely seperate. And no, 5300cs, its not a memory problem, my computers all have plenty of memory. and my operating systems don't hog it all. my computers are plenty capable of handling two programs at once...

Yes, that is a total waste of system resources. Save your project, then open your friend's. They do it this way to keep iMovie simple for consumers. If you're opening up a bunch of stuff at once and you have a gig of ram, get FCP.

Oh yeah, and Im tired of hearing all this stuff about how only certain versions of macOS are considered "good". First it was that only X was good, and that older versions were no good. well, fine, whatever. then it was that only the newest version, 10.2 was good, and the older 10.0 and10.1 were unstable. OK. now bousozuko claims that only 10.2.8 is good, and the older ones are no good. When I download the newest version of linux, I'm getting the full deal: a good kernel, and good progs to go with it, regardless of the version.

First of all, there ARE many bugs from linux kernel to linux kernel -- there are hundreds of documented cases of breaking drivers from kernel revision to kernel revision. 2.6.2 was particularly problematic for me -- broke my NIC driver. Kind of a big problem. The problems they've been having with ALSA lately are the most significant; it probably onlly works for half the PCs out there. I have NEVER seen 10.2+ Crash for no reason, and I have yet to see a kernel panic that wasn't related to bad hardware or wierd 3rd party hacks.

Next, whoever set up those Macs that crash was obviously incompetent -- OS X is rock solid, and has been since 10.2's release

Oh yeah, one other thing: who's complaining about me not being able to run digital editing apps under linux? Ever heard of Wine? its a windows dll emulator for linux. you can run photoshop under wine, office, anything you want. And because its not a true emulator (and it only runs on pc's), you get full speed. Look it up on sourceforge if your intersteed.

Oh, Please. If you know anything about Linux, you know that WINE is crap -- first of all, to get the versions of wine to use Photoshop or Macromedia Studio you have to pay money, but they also crash like crazy, and run very slowly. Yes, I've used it; I've even used wineX to play dozens of games under Linux... poorly. You can't do any serious

My point is that with linux and (to some extent windows) I get the full deal. i don't have to wonder if my linux computer will hang during an export. I dont have to worry about running multiple applications and crashing the os. i can configure ANYTHING on it. And its free. Apple makes me pay thousands for buggy software, then claims its the newest, best thing.

Blah, I've used both plenty, and the Mac crashes FAR less -- especially if you're running anything GUI related in linux.

tamara6
Jun 11, 2004, 06:45 PM
If you want to run another instance, just make a duplicate of the iMovie.app file/folder.


Actually, I thought this would work, too. I tried it this afternoon, and when I launched iMovie Copy it told me that another user was already using it. Not true, I was using iMovie, not iMovie Copy.

This is how I've always run two copies of the same application on the Mac, and it does seem to work with other applications, chosen at random. But not iMovie.

ChrisH3677
Jun 11, 2004, 07:00 PM
...My linux machine had over 50 programs up, including two emulators...
I want my computer to be able to do anything anyone elses can. With Linux and Windows, I can. With MacOS, I can't. Don't believe me? Let's have acontest. You name things your OSX can do and I'll name things Linux can do, and we'll see which side can't match the other side. So if you say you can digital edit, I can say "so can I", so noone gets a point. But if I say I can write programs out of the box on mine, and you can't, I get a point.

Man!! Do you play in traffic? Russian roulette?

One of your criticisms of the Mac was you can't write an OS on it without using an emulator. So you are obviously dead against emulation. But hang on, you sing WINE's praises (I know it's not an emulator, but even you said it is.), and you say you had "two emulators" running. So are emulators ok or not??

So, if you're going to be objective in your contest, out of the box, means no emulators, no WINE, no DarWINE, no X11, no XFree86. No add-ons. A standard Mac with OSX (with no add-ons) vs a standard PC with Linux (with no add-ons).

Just to clarify the OSX thing... OSX is the whole. Darwin is the OS and it's based on FreeBSD which is based on BSD. Aqua is the GUI which runs over the top of Darwin. Darwin is FREE and available from www.opendarwin.org and will run on x86 machines.

Fukui
Jun 11, 2004, 07:40 PM
Just watch this (http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/snapzprox/images/spx2_panther_expose.mov) and I think no one need reply further to this topic...

Apple Hobo
Jun 11, 2004, 08:00 PM
Linux zealots suck.

Thank you. That is all for now.

ChrisH3677
Jun 11, 2004, 08:22 PM
Searched Google...

Linux crashed... 178,000 hits
"Linux crashed" ... 738 hits

OSX crashed... 23,100
"OSX crashed"... 59

Mac crashed... 176,000
"Mac crashed"... 569

Windows crashed... 354,000
"Windows crashed"... 4,130

Not an overly definitive test but it does prove one thing... Linux systems and apps on them, are not as robust as intx13 makes them out to be (and the obvious that I've always argued, Macs *do* crash)

My experience is the the systems that crash least are the one's that get the most tech attention - whether it's Linux, OSX, Windows or whatever.

PS the latest version of Mandrake claims in it's new features..."Kernel 2.6 : more performance and Reliability" (my emphasis). Also, to get a boxed copy of Mandrake 10 that matches OSX will set you back $US84.90

Also, the Mandrake download site says... "Since Mandrakelinux is an Open Source product, it needs your financial contribution" (their emphasis). And they ask you to pay at least $US66 a year to join their optional club.

More and more Linux distros are charging, so the "free" argument is losing its bite. Mandrake, intx13's seeming preferred distro, nearly went under when it was free.

mateybob
Jun 12, 2004, 02:19 AM
kid you have some serious delusions of grandeur... you are not the tech god you think you are... almost all your qualms about macs stem from a lack of understanding rather than fact.. a lot of this has been said before but ill reiterate..

"Good thing you snagged that right, mateybob. Clearly you are a far more experienced computer user, being able to talk about the &, one of the most simple Unix options ever."

my point is not that & is complicated.. quite the opposite.. the fact that you never realised you could use it just shows how little you understand about mac osx... (or perhaps unix in general)

"how can a Mac user call another user's browser choice "ridiculous" ?? Aren't you all supposed to be open minded and fair??"

internet explorer and konquerer are two of the worst browsers out there.. its just a fact.. i would have thought that some how "knows quite a bit about computers" would use something more serious...

"Here's the question I ask myself: can a Mac do what my PC does? Last night I wrote down all the things my Linux box and my Windows machines were doing. The Windows machine had four users logged on. One was downloading an iso (the full 700+ megs). Another had a 3d game minimized. The user that was up was playing streaming videos online. My linux machine had over 50 programs up, including two emulators, one running DOS, one running my test operating system. A video player was paused. Seven virtual desktops were running. Two programs in development were open."

firstly, yes a mac can do that with no problems what so ever... secondly, there is nothing processor intensive about downloading and the fact thats its a "FULL 700+ MEGS!!!!" doesnt make it anymore so...
i mean what youre describing here is something that computers years ago could do with ease so im not sure what youre so proud of...

"So tell me, can you develop programs on your Mac? If QT is busy, can you still play videos (or do you have to click cancel first?) Can you run more than two dozen processor intensive programs at once? Maybe you claim you can, but I've never seen it done."

thats right, youve obviously never seen it done.. probably because you have never even owned a mac.. kind of goes to show how ignorant you are about the whole issue.. and the answers to your individual questions are (in no particular order) yes, yes and yes..

"And enough of this "well you've only seen lab computers" ************."

why not? its a perfectly valid fact..

"PS: whoever said this: "to say macs suck is to say unix sucks ". YOU ARE THE DUMBEST PERSON EVER!"

no you are the dumbest person ever.. please have a think about what youre saying here.. are you sure you have a clue about the architecture of macosx?

maybe YOU should stop posting before you embarase yourself (oh wait.. to late for that).. youre meaningless tech drivel doesnt really impress anyone.. just because you can "program" doesnt mean you know everything about computers yet alone macs... contrary to your belief there are many serious developers on macosx and on these forums and we can see through your ************..

Danrose1977
Jun 12, 2004, 02:39 AM
Here's the question I ask myself: can a Mac do what my PC does.

A friend of mine told me that his windows machine can do anything my Mac can do, and faster.... I asked him to show me it mounting a disk image without 3rd party software.

Personally I don't think there is any point in arguing these points... people are always going to disagree. You like Win and Lin, I like Mac. Surely there is nothing to discuss!?!? :confused:

Personally I believe that OSx is the future.... for me at least anyway. The average PC user might not care about expose and an aestheticly pleasing OS, but I love it and find it gut wrenchingly awkward to have to use PC's at work (I am a network engineer for a fairly large hosting company www.fasthosts.co.uk). There are benefits to many different OS'es (I'm currently working mostly with win2003 web edition) but surely there is benefit to larger freedom of choice, and it is proven that the market will support multiple OS'es.

mateybob
Jun 12, 2004, 05:04 AM
Personally I don't think there is any point in arguing these points... people are always going to disagree. You like Win and Lin, I like Mac. Surely there is nothing to discuss!?!? :confused:


on most topics i would agree with you... but macosx is just better than windows.. FACT... if you gave every windows user a mac and forced them to use it for 6 months im sure theyd all agree too...
the truth is so many windows users either just asume that macs suck because noone uses them or have some strange HATRED for them... very very rarely is this based on anything factual..

i have a theory that the educational market is really hurting apple... so many kids have to use macs at school... and as ive said before lab computers suck.. ESPECIALLY when they are being used by school kids and maintained by a teacher... and lets face it.. most people dont associate 'educational' with 'cool'.. i dont know but i think that so many people grow up disregarding apple because theyre just some crap they used in school... maybe im wrong ;/

brap
Jun 12, 2004, 05:15 AM
<snip same old My OS is better than yours stuff>
I can't believe this thread is still alive. Maybe everyone just feels the need to vent? Sure he was wrong on a few choice points, but hey, telling him so isn't going to change anything. It's like expecting VOTE BUSH 2004 to instantly rack up support for everyone's favourite Texan.

Makosuke
Jun 12, 2004, 06:52 AM
As pointless as this thread is, after reading through five pages of it I feel driven to post anyway.

What it comes down to is very simple: intx13 is a hardcore geek; he likes doing a bunch of stuff, hacking around with his OS, writing all sorts of code, and cobbling things together on his own. This is fine, and in my opinion, Linux is the best choice of OS for someone who wants to do most of these things.

And indeed, if I had no job and no money, spending a week putting together a solid Linux install on found hardware would be far preferable to even the $130 that a new copy of the MacOS costs. It'd also be fun, and I'd probably feel proud of myself when I finished.

That does not, however, make Linux a superior OS to the MacOS. It might be superior based on your personal tastes, or on some specific thing you personally want to do, but that in no way makes one choice superior to the other.

And this is where intx13 goes completely overboard; instead of arguing that Linux is a superior OS for the, say, 0.3% (give or take) of computer users that are hardcore enough tech geeks that they feel driven to run Linux on their production box and even Xcode isn't enough for them, he's arguing that OSX's inability to satisfy this need somehow outweighs its superiority in a huge number of more commonly used areas in the grand scheme of things, making it an "inferior" OS.

It's this simple: The right tool for the right job.

OSX currently handles media better than any other OS, almost without question. That satisfies, say, 3-5% of computer users. OSX is an exceedingly easy to use OS for the layman, who's satisfied with writing a few documents, surfing the web, sending a few e-mails, and maybe playing a video or looking at some digital photos now and then. Those people make up 90% of computer users, and that is an area that although Linux may theoretically be able to compete in, it cannot without an experienced tech to set it up, and I believe Windows falls short of OSX in as well. The remaining, say, 15% of computer users do tough and varying things with their OS, but aren't so geeky that they're writing their own OS from scratch--I'm in that category, as are many of the engineers I work with, and OSX suits their needs just fine. Windows can handle that too, as can in most cases Linux.

Does this make any of these OSes superior? No. On balance, based on a lot of experience, I think it puts OSX ahead, but just use the right tool for your job and give up on circular arguments with no basis in reality.


Incidentally, if anybody is curious, here's the experience my opinions are based on:

I've worked with computers since the mid-80s (which is when I was old enough to type), and I administer a lab running a mix of Macs (9.2 - 10.3) and Windows (NT4 - XP). I also work with home users that have difficulty understanding the difference between an e-mail address and "the Internet".

If it actually took a week to get a solid linux distro running, that would cost $1000 of my time, which, when added to the $0 cost of the OS, is still $1000, or in the case of my personal use 40 hours I'd rather spend with my wife. A solid OSX box properly configured to a specific user's situation takes me about $100 of work to set up, and a Windows box roughly twice that (though in some cases it's taken a whole lot more, depending on the OS version and hardware). All those numbers are variable, of course, but this is getting back to the TCO point that many people have made and seems to be lost on a lot of Linux users.

Furthermore, I do real work on my Mac. I don't compile my own OS, but I do write LabVIEW code that runs fuel cell development systems and embedded controllers for stand-alone energy systems. I also do a whole lot of video editing (and watching) at home, create DVDs for fun and profit, do subtitling work, download plenty of large CD images, do web development, occasionally write some PHP code, as well as do a whole lot of mundane things that most computer users do. My OSX mac does all these things just fine, and in general stably.

At work, I've been testing; my 10.3.3 Mac (not a really new machine) has currently been up for 61 days and counting; this is my admin box which sees a lot of shaky software (I use it as a tinderbox) and network activity. Of the other OSX machines, I have only heard of a single kernel panic, and that was after half a year of use by a guy who does heavy-duty statistical analysis using UNIX tools in an X11 environment, as well as a whole lot of other stuff.

Our PCs, since I take good care of them, are also relatively stable, and we have NT4 and XP installs that run for months running custom-built test software. The everyday-use Windows boxes aren't nearly as stable, but they work ok as well. But, it takes me more time to keep them running this well, and costs my employer more money as a result.

Point being, many versions of Windows and OSX, as well as Linux, can be made to do what you want them to do. In some cases, some OSes are better for a job than others, or can do it more easily. In others, it's just a matter of preference. But for most normal people, as well as all but a handful of very technical folks, I'd say Macs are just going to do what you want them to with less hassle.

Hence, despite having used a whole lot of OSes, it's the MacOS that I choose to come home to every day. Why is that so hard for some people to fathom?


(Incidentally, I tested: I'm currently running several concurrent CD-sized downloads, a few similar-sized uploads via BitTorrent, playing an MP3 in the background, have two browsers open, am playing two videos with QT, have an iMovie video preview playing with smoothing on, 20 or so apps open, my wife is also logged in at the same time, and I'm typing this, and my activity monitor says the computer is ready to do much more. So yeah, no problem here.)

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jun 12, 2004, 08:20 AM
Mitthrawnuruodo: "The best thing to do when meeting people who...just smile". Oooorrrr, if you truly believed in your own argument, you could try to convince them. REfusing to stand up for your own argument is a statement in itself.


:)

intx13
Jun 12, 2004, 09:07 AM
Okay, this is probably going to be my last post, since I'm getting less and less intelligent responses, and more "maybe if we ignore him he'll go away" responses.

Okay, mateybob, you're first up:
"you are not the tech god you think you are"
As I've already mentioned, I do not consider myself a tech god. I'm a high school student. If I was a tech "god" I wouldn't need to ask you guys tech questions about OSX now would I?

"my point is not that & is complicated.. quite the opposite.. the fact that you never realised you could use it just shows how little you understand about mac osx... (or perhaps unix in general)"
Umm, who said I never realized how to use the &? My point about running multiple instances of a program was that I didn't expect the command prompt to be a necessary tool for such a simple thing. And just to let you know: the & has NOTHING to do with running multiple instances of a program. The & assigns a task to be executed in the background (it forks off a process rather than hanging the terminal while it runs). But as other people here have mentioned, when running programs from the terminal, OSX doesn't stop multiple instances from being assigned their own pids. So please make sure you know what you're talking about before suggesting that others don't know it.

"secondly, there is nothing processor intensive about downloading and the fact thats its a "FULL 700+ MEGS!!!!" doesnt make it anymore so... "
Sigh... you missed the point. Streaming videos and background downloading processes both use the hard drives and internet connections, and the video playing needs graphics juice as well. And the game minimized does INDEED take processor power (I'm not sure who it was that suggested it didn't), as it's consuming cycles whether its up or not. It takes less cycles than if its up, but the point is that its a very hard drive/cd rom drive intensive, processor intensive task running in the background.

"thats right, youve obviously never seen it done.. probably because you have never even owned a mac.. kind of goes to show how ignorant you are about the whole issue.. and the answers to your individual questions are (in no particular order) yes, yes and yes.."
You see, this is why people like you come across as ignorant rather than intelligent. Another user here simply pointed out that yes, a development environment comes with OSX, a fact that I didn't know, and I am glad for his input. But you, on the other hand, just called me ignorant "about the whole issue". If you can't really contribute to the discussion, why bother to post?

"youre meaningless tech drivel doesnt really impress anyone.. just because you can "program" doesnt mean you know everything about computers yet alone macs... contrary to your belief there are many serious developers on macosx and on these forums and ..."
I'm not trying to impress anyone, let alone YOU. And perhaps you could quote me on the whole "belief there are many serious developers on this on macosx"? Of course there are! After all, there are programs for the system! I never said that there are no developers for it.

"on most topics i would agree with you... but macosx is just better than windows.. FACT... if you gave every windows user a mac and forced them to use it for 6 months im sure theyd all agree too... "
Wow, i like the facts present in this argument. Oh wait, this is complete supposition without any basis on reality. Oh well, what more could I expect from the wise mateybob.

"we can see through your ************.."
I can't fool you, can I...


Chris H, next up to bat:
"the free argument is losing its bite"
Not so. In fact, most people agree that the top linux distros are Redhat, Fedora (yeah, i know, im aware of the relationship between redhat and fedora), Mandrake, SuSE, Slackware, and Debian. Out of these, ALL ARE FREE. Mandrake asks for money, but is completely free. In fact, all of the distros will accept money if you send it, but all provide their services free. Mandrake will give you other software if you pay, but the operating system is free.

Apple Hobo:
"Linux zealots suck."
Way to be open minded.

intx13
Jun 12, 2004, 09:43 AM
Makosuke (one of the few intelligent replies to my posts):
"OSX currently handles media better than any other OS, almost without question"
OK, I'm good with that so far.

"OSX is an exceedingly easy to use OS for the layman, who's satisfied with writing a few documents, surfing the web, sending a few e-mails, and maybe playing a video or looking at some digital photos now and then. "
Maybe, but I've heard some pretty strong complaints (mainly superficial though). I guess it can be said that someone who doesn't want to do anything more than type memos and send email can figure out how to use a mac pretty easily.

"Those people make up 90% of computer users, and that is an area that although Linux may theoretically be able to compete in, it cannot without an experienced tech to set it up,"
Well, as your friends here have metioned, I am a fairly young and inexperienced tech. And I set up my first linux box in a week, and had it running smoothly a few days after that. It's really not that hard. Linux can be just as easy to use as Mac OS, and look just like it if you want.

Also, thanks for the stuff about develppment. I wasn't quite up on that.


Calebj14, you're number has been called:
"Take some of you're own advice and get off your "high horse!" Baaah.. Linux and Windows doing anything??!?!? Right...... ..."
Maybe you haven't been using linux for a while, buts its been a looong time since any mouse required drudging up drivers off the internet. And with apt and similar programs, its all automated anyway. And when have you EVER seen linux frozen? I've never seen it happen. Ever. And Linux and Windows DO interface nicely, samba works well for sharing.

1. write programs out of the box - yep
2. digital edit out of the box - nope, you get a point
3. immune to most virii, etc. - Check, as well as immunization to hack attacks (comes with a built in firewall...a good one)
4.F@H - what does this stand for??
5. MICROSOFT office - Comes with the exact equivalent (but OOo is more powerful and free, and can share any kind of document with MS, even powerpoint presentations)
6. email out of the box - of course
7. Surf faster than IE - umm, this depends on your internet connection more than teh browser, so a comparison is hard.
8. network seamlessly - Of course, this is linux.
9. stream music over a network, wired or wireless - yup.
10. easy configuration of anything - nowadays, just about. Some ancient cards might need hard-to-find drivers, but built in drivers cover anything new.
11. easy installation, with advanced settings if need be - oh yeah, Mandrake installer is sooo nice. It's really cool, and has the whole advanced/novice thing.
12. great user interface - KDE is beautiful. And doesn't take up tons of memory with opengl.
13. UNIX underlaying - ditto.
14. command prompt - ditto.
15. best GUI - this is an issue of taste. I can make KDE look like Aqua, but faster and prettier. But again its a matter of taste.
16. run programs just like the Windows side, from the actual developer - i'm not sure what you're saying..
17.change backgrounds on a timed scale - Chuckle-chuckle - only mac users would consider this "functionality"... Maybe a nice little extra, but hardly a reason why OSX is "better" than anything else.
18. run screen savers - yep
19. use printer drivers off of cds (like to see linux do some of these, direct form the manufacturer!) - Umm, ever heard of cups and the Mandrake print manager? It has support for literaly thousands of printers. I have yet to install a printer that required third party software.
20. use a built in start up manager - linux has several of these (GRUB, LILO,...)
21.Fast User Switching - Mandrake can switch in seconds, and even let you log in as someone else within your own user (I assume OSX can as well, since its unix based, but I don't know how far that goes)

OK, here are some of my own:
22. Crash backtracing (without digging through kernel logs)
23. built in server software (Apache)
24. built in ftp software
25. support for running Windows apps (wine)
26. support for developing Windows apps (winedev)
27. advanced image editing (GIMP)
28. Support for all sorts of video formats (mov,mpg,wmv,dv,...)
29. Easy disk burning - two commands can copy a cd to the hard drive and write it to another cd
30. Virtual desktops
31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)
32. Firewall protection
33. Automounting/unmouting (supermounting). Just pop in that usb drive, and yank it out, no need to unmount or drag to the trash or anything. Same thing for cds and floppies.
34. Free upgrades
35. Hundreds of pages of built in documentation
36. The source code to almost any program included in the distro
37. A cool penguin logo :)

"Who needs to compare them? Mac OS X is a Unix Distro"
No, OSX is an operating system BASED ON THE BSD KERNEL. It is not UNIX. Linux is not UNIX. UNIX was written by Dennis Ritchie and friends for himself. In fact, the name UNIX (from UNICS, based on MULTICS) was called that because at first the system could only support one user: Dennis, or someone with his technical knowledge of the system. The new BSD's and Linux are quite a ways removed from UNIX.


flyfish:
"If a mac is bombing then software was updated incorrectly, important files were deleted or programs were added that are not compatible (ie shareware or beta)"
In linux the admin would just set it up so that the users don't have write access to files that, when deleted, destroy the whole system. And programs that are not compatible just won't run, they wont ruin the OS.

Here is my last point: stop complaining that linux is too hard to learn. If we can do it, you can do it, unless you're ready to admit that Windows and linux users (PC nerds) are far more intelligent that mac users. It's really not that hard. I mean come on, mateybob, if I'm such an idiot, and I can manage linux systems just fine, what does that say about you guys, who complain that its too time consuming and difficult to learn?

Ok, this may be my last post. I'm getting tired of having to filter through the ignorant repliest to find the good stuff, the comments that actually adress my issues. As you have seen, I have revised some of my opinions. I now can see that OSX does have developmental possiblities, as well as the whole "multiple instances" thing. In fact, it seems that it's only mateybob and the like who refuse to consider the validity of the other side's opinions. It's a shame that the intelligent people who obviously use this forum are outweighed and shouted down by the morons.

Well, thanks again for the responses. I still believe that pc's will always dominate macs in the market, and i will always choose a pc over a mac, and I doubt any of you will ever do the opposite, but I'm grateful for the posts (some of them).

-intx13

James L
Jun 12, 2004, 10:31 AM
...does anyone really believe that was his last post? We can hope I guess.

5300cs
Jun 12, 2004, 10:48 AM
Makosuke (one of the few intelligent replies to my posts):
...

...

Here is my last point: stop complaining that linux is too hard to learn. If we can do it, you can do it, unless you're ready to admit that Windows and linux users (PC nerds) are far more intelligent that mac users. It's really not that hard.

Well, thanks again for the responses. I still believe that pc's will always dominate macs in the market, and i will always choose a pc over a mac, and I doubt any of you will ever do the opposite, but I'm grateful for the posts (some of them).

-intx13

You know, Makosuke put forth some very intelligent points and you only reponded to those you could (and not very well) then ignored the rest. I'm *still* surprised that you made a snide remark about Mac (not "mac") users matching their clothes to their computers and as if that wasn't bad enough, quoting Maddox, for Christ's sake, which kills your credibility dead on the spot.

I, for one, am glad that you are not thinking of buying a Mac. I'm sure you'd only hate it. Have fun with your Linux box - I used to and still do. Afterall it *is* possible for *some* people to like both platforms...just not everyone.

ChrisH3677
Jun 12, 2004, 11:02 AM
Intx13, let me just re-state what I said before...

This is what's bugging us dude... you are making claims about Macs/OSX which are being proved wrong - yet you made yourself out to be an expert on Macs by telling us all the things they couldn't do.

And now again for the second time you admit you don't know much about Macs hence your "questions" (which to all and sundry were expressed as irrefutable statements of truth).

Again, the TCO of Linux makes it way short of free except maybe for kids who's time is not yet worth money. And again, as you pointed out, distros are asking for money, but not all are yet making you pay. So "free" in monetary terms, is losing bite, ground, whatever. It's disappearing and except for a few obscure distros, will be extinct in 5 to 10 years. I never said it had happened now - no matter what you want to imply.

I thought I'd check your top distros, and stumbled across a page that you should have read read. It's the Top 10 things wrong with Linuxes... it was written in July 2002... seems Linux was quite buggy back then and what's this?!! Apps crashed but not only that, left rogue processes behind! Never! You told us nothing like that never happened coz, Linux, unlike OSX, has always been rock solid, robust and stable. So it seems, if I compared those Macs in your labs which are running a two year old OS, to Linux of the same vintage... Linux wouldn't look real good... the article is at http://people.trustcommerce.com/~adam/top10/wrong.html

I haven't used Linux for a couple of years, and I remember now how much those rogue processes used to annoy me. Does anyone know if that has that been fixed yet?

The article also says about the infallible Konqueror... "I set up RH7.2 boxes for numerous friends and coworkers, and trying to explain why the primary browser locked up so often was quite difficult. I thought 3.0 would save us, but alas - it has an even worse bug". So it seems Konqueror hasn't always been perfect either!

Don't ever join the school debating team.

To quote one of my favorite films (A Knight's Tale)

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been absolutely, found wanting.


The only thing, intx13, you've been able to prove, is that any computer well managed by someone who knows what they're doing, will *most* of the time be very stable.

And I'd never disagree with that.

PS I do understand some of your frustrations - you do get given the impression from Apple, the Mac press and Mac zealots, that Macs and OSX are perfect. They're not. And I don't think anyone here has argued they are. But then there's nothing in computers that is perfect. Gawd! Even my mobile phone crashes!!! Software is buggy simply because of its complexity - I'm sure as a programmer (like me when I was programming), you hate it when something works, coz then you don't know where to start debugging!

Keep it up with Linux, it's a great OS for where you are at the moment, but don't be surprised if you outgrow it one day. And lay off OSX until you can back up your claims with facts. :)

ChrisH3677
Jun 12, 2004, 11:15 AM
BTW Open Office is not 100% compatible with MS Office - it's no where near it. (Even the OSX version of MSO isn't 100% compatible) And OO is also available for OSX (via running X11)

Apple Hobo
Jun 12, 2004, 12:09 PM
Apple Hobo:
"Linux zealots suck."
Way to be open minded.

You should be the last person to tell me to have an open mind. And you continue to prove my point: ignorant Linux zealots suck. You make it too easy, kid. :D

ingenious
Jun 12, 2004, 12:23 PM
Calebj14, you're number has been called:
"Take some of you're own advice and get off your "high horse!" Baaah.. Linux and Windows doing anything??!?!? Right...... ..."
Maybe you haven't been using linux for a while, buts its been a looong time since any mouse required drudging up drivers off the internet. And with apt and similar programs, its all automated anyway. And when have you EVER seen linux frozen? I've never seen it happen. Ever. And Linux and Windows DO interface nicely, samba works well for sharing.
You're right, I haven't used it in a while, since two summers ago, and it was AFAIK RedHat 7. And it crashed numerous times on us when we were running Gimp or just logging on. You didn't say "interface" before- You said "integrate." I meant integrating with themselves and other OSs. The techs setting up Linux for us to use couldn't get the Windows PCs to share the printer consistently to their Linux network. Linux had trouble (only a little bit) on its own network as well.


1. write programs out of the box - yep
2. digital edit out of the box - nope, you get a point
Oh, you're sooo generous... :p
3. immune to most virii, etc. - Check, as well as immunization to hack attacks (comes with a built in firewall...a good one) Someone show him the link for where Linux got more attacks at that place in Britain than Windows or Mac OS X did.

4.F@H - what does this stand for?? Folding @ Home. It works on Linux, Mac OS X and Windows.

5. MICROSOFT office - Comes with the exact equivalent (but OOo is more powerful and free, and can share any kind of document with MS, even powerpoint presentations)
I know about OOo, even used it. But All I was saying was that Mac OS X had something Linux doesn't: an OFFCIAL office.
6. email out of the box - of course
7. Surf faster than IE - umm, this depends on your internet connection more than teh browser, so a comparison is hard. Meant render speed.

8. network seamlessly - Of course, this is linux. ^^^ I haven't seen that.
9. stream music over a network, wired or wireless - yup.
Really?!??! How?!?! This is kind of interesting to know...

10. easy configuration of anything - nowadays, just about. Some ancient cards might need hard-to-find drivers, but built in drivers cover anything new. I'm glad to see Linux may someday compete with Windows.

11. easy installation, with advanced settings if need be - oh yeah, Mandrake installer is sooo nice. It's really cool, and has the whole advanced/novice thing.
12. great user interface - KDE is beautiful. And doesn't take up tons of memory with opengl.

I believe you can turn off OpenGL, but why do it? And I meant easy installaion of anything.

13. UNIX underlaying - ditto.
14. command prompt - ditto.
15. best GUI - this is an issue of taste. I can make KDE look like Aqua, but faster and prettier. But again its a matter of taste.
Panther (Mac OS X 10.3) one Best OS of 2004 and was released in 2003!
16. run programs just like the Windows side, from the actual developer - i'm not sure what you're saying.. I mean run Microsoft or Adobe or Macromedia programs.

17.change backgrounds on a timed scale - Chuckle-chuckle - only mac users would consider this "functionality"... Maybe a nice little extra, but hardly a reason why OSX is "better" than anything else. I find it relaxing.
18. run screen savers - yep
19. use printer drivers off of cds (like to see linux do some of these, direct form the manufacturer!) - Umm, ever heard of cups and the Mandrake print manager? It has support for literaly thousands of printers. I have yet to install a printer that required third party software.

Hmm, didnt know about that. Good for Linux!

20. use a built in start up manager - linux has several of these (GRUB, LILO,...) Are they built in?????

21.Fast User Switching - Mandrake can switch in seconds, and even let you log in as someone else within your own user (I assume OSX can as well, since its unix based, but I don't know how far that goes)
While leaving the first user logged in?!?


OK, here are some of my own:
22. Crash backtracing (without digging through kernel logs)
Someone else answer this one... I ususally don't dig that deep....

23. built in server software (Apache)
24. built in ftp software
25. support for running Windows apps (wine)
26. support for developing Windows apps (winedev)
27. advanced image editing (GIMP)
28. Support for all sorts of video formats (mov,mpg,wmv,dv,...)
29. Easy disk burning - two commands can copy a cd to the hard drive and write it to another cd
30. Virtual desktops
31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)
32. Firewall protection
33. Automounting/unmouting (supermounting). Just pop in that usb drive, and yank it out, no need to unmount or drag to the trash or anything. Same thing for cds and floppies.
34. Free upgrades
35. Hundreds of pages of built in documentation
36. The source code to almost any program included in the distro
37. A cool penguin logo :)

23. Apache.
24. Finder
25. VPC
26. don't know dont program
27. Photoshop or others
28. QT, WMP, RealPlayer
29. Finder
30. VPC
31. obviously
33. works for somethings..... not sure why Mac OS X has you drag it to the trash....
34. free point upgrades (including support from manufacturer)
35. um, yea.
36. if you're not developing who needs it? anyway, the kernel code is available off of developer.apple.com
37. Right..... that's really functionality, but if you install linux and use the startup manager,... the penguin is there.



No, OSX is an operating system BASED ON THE BSD KERNEL. It is not UNIX. Read up on your facts!

Linux is not UNIX. UNIX was written by Dennis Ritchie and friends for himself. In fact, the name UNIX (from UNICS, based on MULTICS) was called that because at first the system could only support one user: Dennis, or someone with his technical knowledge of the system.

cool. i didnt know that.

The new BSD's and Linux are quite a ways removed from UNIX.

Just changed.


In linux the admin would just set it up so that the users don't have write access to files that, when deleted, destroy the whole system. And programs that are not compatible just won't run, they wont ruin the OS.

Same in OS X.


Here is my last point: stop complaining that linux is too hard to learn. If we can do it, you can do it, unless you're ready to admit that Windows and linux users (PC nerds) are far more intelligent that mac users. It's really not that hard. I mean come on, mateybob, if I'm such an idiot, and I can manage linux systems just fine, what does that say about you guys, who complain that its too time consuming and difficult to learn? Oh, yea... a week is easy to learn... Right. It takes me an hour at the most to install and set up a new mac. Less if I don't have to install OS X. To say that Mac users (who per capita are more educated than other OS users... its in a study) are dumber than other OS users is just plain stupid and immature. I didn't say you were an idiot, just misinformed. You spend a week of your time on it and call it easy. Some of us have other things to do in our lives than mess around with kernel codes....


Ok, this may be my last post. I'm getting tired of having to filter through the ignorant repliest to find the good stuff, the comments that actually adress my issues. As you have seen, I have revised some of my opinions. I now can see that OSX does have developmental possiblities, as well as the whole "multiple instances" thing. In fact, it seems that it's only mateybob and the like who refuse to consider the validity of the other side's opinions. It's a shame that the intelligent people who obviously use this forum are outweighed and shouted down by the morons.


Please live up to your own standards. Some of this post was very ingnorant and unitelligent. Thanks for your posts, though. I learned much more about Linux. Hope your views change about OS X,the world's best OS.

quagmire
Jun 12, 2004, 12:24 PM
This thread is turning into a flame war. Intx13, you are the true moron. We respect you for using linux/windows. We don't respect you calling us morons. You are an expert on your OS prefrence and we are experts on our OS. So stop coming by and trying to convert us to linux by saying you know everything about OS X. Most of your points were corrected. I can say teachers screw up with the computers which cause them to freeze. OS X and windows are stable in crash areas without any 3rd party software screwing up the OS. So you can take your big moron ass out of these forums and leave us alone!!!

Danrose1977
Jun 12, 2004, 01:59 PM
This thread is turning into a flame war. Intx13, you are the true moron.

Thats not fair really... and is the kind of comment that does degrade the conversation. The truth is that Intx13 is just a high school kid... very rarely do they have a wide perspective on situations, that tends to come from the mixed experiences gained after school in what those over twenty refer to as real life.

I was a bit upset that Intx13 didn't take a pop at any of my points... and I'm also suprised that he hasn't dwelled on price, as thats another area on which I believe we can "big up" the mac scene. The truth is that for the quality of machine you get from Apple the price is excellent value!!!

tamara6
Jun 12, 2004, 02:41 PM
OK, here are some of my own:
22. Crash backtracing (without digging through kernel logs)
23. built in server software (Apache)
24. built in ftp software
25. support for running Windows apps (wine)
26. support for developing Windows apps (winedev)
27. advanced image editing (GIMP)
28. Support for all sorts of video formats (mov,mpg,wmv,dv,...)
29. Easy disk burning - two commands can copy a cd to the hard drive and write it to another cd
30. Virtual desktops
31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)
32. Firewall protection
33. Automounting/unmouting (supermounting). Just pop in that usb drive, and yank it out, no need to unmount or drag to the trash or anything. Same thing for cds and floppies.
34. Free upgrades
35. Hundreds of pages of built in documentation
36. The source code to almost any program included in the distro
37. A cool penguin logo :)


Others have answered most of these, so I won't repeat.
#26 - out of the box, no you can't develop for Windows. But there are 3rd party development environments that *do* allow you to develop for both Windows or Linux. And I assume you can do the same under Virtual PC, but I have not tried that.

#31 - There are an awful lot of Astronomy applications for OS X. It depends on what you mean. There are the consumer oriented home planetarium type programs and the kind that will control your telescope (and the ccd camera you have hooked up to your telescope). At least one university actually runs a lab that allows students to make observations using a remote telescope (observation requests are done online - the web server is a Mac, the observation requests are processed by a Mac, the telescope is run by a different Mac, and analysis of the telescopic images is done on Macs in a lab room).

As for math equations - do you mean writing documents with math equations? Word with equation editor will do that, or you can use one of the many latex packages that are available (and those are free).

If you mean evaluating mathematical equations, there are several applications that do that, too. Mathematica and MatLab jump to mind quickly. Actually, you'd find that OS X is very popular among theoretical physicists - both because it is so easy to program and because these third party tools are available.

I have been told that OS X is also popular among biologists and other scientists working in the life sciences, but I have no actual experience in this area.

#35 We have something called "Help" which is basically documentation and help files for many, many applications (all of Apple's applications, and most 3rd parties include help files with their apps as well). Some help files are actually online and not on the hard drive, but they are easily accessible. For the more unixy inclined, there are also MAN pages.

Finally, I'd like to address this thing that you've said twice already - something about you setting up your system in only a week. I'm sure that is an impressive feat. And you seem to imply that a more advanced user than yourself could do it even faster. But Macs have been marketed for a long time now as being the most easy to set up computer out there. Just pull it out of a box, plug it in, attach a monitor and there you go. So your comments sound a little funny to us. It's not that we're incapable of doing a more complicated set-up. It is just that we don't need to. And even the least technical among us can set up a Mac in less than an hour. Given that the current Mac OS runs on a unix-like base (I won't get into whether or not BSD is really unix), I think that is pretty impressive. What you do in a week, we do in an hour. Wow.

Elmy
Jun 12, 2004, 03:07 PM
internet explorer and konquerer are two of the worst browsers out there..


As a long time Gentoo Linux user, and soon to be a Mac OS X user with a nice new powerbook, I really couldn't let this one slide...

Konqueror is a very good browser, and the rendering core of Safari IS actually the KDE Web Rendering KPart. My personal favourite is Firebird, the main advantages I can see are the incredible range of extensions and the fact its become the second standard behind IE - and fortuanately its a proper W3C standard.

Mac OS X is extremely powerful from what I have seen of it, user friendly interface on top of a very solid UNIX base, including X11. What more could you ask for? And this is coming from a hardcore Linux user :)

The only thing I prefer about Linux is the extreme customisation you can do with it, OS X doesn't even begin to compare to this really. Theres nothing quite like setting up Gentoo and knowing exactly every bit of software and setting right down to the base OS Level, and being able to change them within plan text files. But from this flexibility (note; NOT power, they are different things) unfortuanately brings a lot of complexity as well. Its basically a tradeoff in my eyes. I love using my Linux system, its ultra-stable and for me, very very usable.

I certainly recognise though that people who want to do hardcore multimedia work in areas such as video and audio production Linux is NOT the way to go at the moment. It will be at least 3 years before it is ready for even medium weight work. I would probably never run Gentoo if my non-computer related work depended on it, I just wouldn't have the time to maintain it. Its a hobby for me really.

If I carry on getting on with OS X I will probably be relegating Linux to server duties. Its great having an old pentium box on router duties and maybe another as a print/ssh/download server sitting in a cupboard.

Macmaniac
Jun 12, 2004, 09:12 PM
First of all I am going to give a pat on the back to everyone who decided to remain civil during this thread. As for those of you who chose to call each other morons, it is unnecessary.

I leave you with two quotes from a very old and wise geek ;)

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.

Who's more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?

ChrisH3677
Jun 12, 2004, 09:28 PM
just will highlight a few...

1. write programs out of the box... yep - in gui or terminal

7. Surf faster than IE.... Safari is faster but Opera is the fastest browser and is available for Linux and OSX among others

10. Easy config of anything.... In Linux, it depends on your proficiency and distro. eg Linspire would be a better choice than even Mandrake for novices. And I notice you say "built in drivers cover anything new" so those PCs you find in the trash, you'd have to search the 'net for drivers... that's not easy for newbies esp if it's an xwindows video card driver they need.

11. Easy installation, with advanced settings... XCode tools & X11 are optional the rest is already there. Mandrake (a user-friendly distro...) protects the novice from all those "do anythings" but then, they can't "do anything", so "anything" is just for the advanced user - just like Xcode is.

17.change backgrounds on a timed scale... I'm sure if you looked, you'd find something in Linux that did this. Linux was the first OS I saw that had animated backgrounds (was it xfish? or xsnow? can't remember now, it's a few years ago)

23. built in server software (Apache)... As does OSX. If you're the OSX you originally made yourself out to be, you'd definitely know this. A tinkerer like you would have quickly discovered it in the "Sharing" options in System Preferences.

25. support for running Windows apps (wine)... On OSx, you can run Windows apps via DarWINE, VPC, RDP, ICA (these last 2 talk to Windows Terminal Server and Citrix Server) BTW Do apps running in WINE support OLE? So if I've got Word and Excel running in WINE, can they talk to each other as seamlessly as in Windows? or as in Windows in VPC?

26. support for developing Windows apps (winedev)... This let's you develop Windows apps? I doubt it. If you wanted to develop Windows apps, surely you'd run you coding tool of choice under WINE. I'd say winedev lets you develop WINE further so it can support more Windows apps and be more compatible.

[i]27. advanced image editing (GIMP)... GIMP is available for OSX (runs in X11) and like Linux, there's plenty of other options including native Photshop.

30. Virtual desktops... Windows, Liunx and Mac all provide this option thru third party products. I've seen various ones under each platform, but the best one by far is an OSX one, "Desktop Manager" (and it's worked flawlessly for me - not bad for an alpha release!)

31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)... plenty out there for both OSX and X11 in OSX

32. Firewall protection... same answer as 23.

33. Automounting/unmouting (supermounting). Just pop in that usb drive, and yank it out, no need to unmount or drag to the trash or anything. Same thing for cds and floppies..... Wha??? So your saying... that when you rip-out that removable media... that Linux magically, faster than you can pull, detects the beginning of the removal so closes all open files on it, flushes any database caches to it, uses AI to decide if you want to "Save" or lose any changes... and all in a nanosecond. I can pull USB drives out too, without using eject but as a wise user, I'd make sure i closed any open files on it first - that's just plain common sense, and I'm sure you do the same thing. And I'm sure you practice the same for floppies and CDs.
Note: OSX has automounting but I still can't see the value in auto-unmounting.

36. The source code to almost any program included in the distro...ah yes, my Mum really needs that! The code included in the distros are open-source. Source code is available for all open-source software in OSX too. It's easily available on the net - the same place you download your distros (with their source included) from.


I am a Linux fan. I tried everything over the last three years to get more of it into my workplace (currently only have a firewall and squid proxy). We did try setting up a Lotus Domino server which worked ok, and a print server which had all sorts of issues, even after Samba 3 was released. I'm always on the outlook for opportunities to ditch Windows, but since switching to Macs, they would be my first choice because the "anythings" you want top do, just always seem easier to do.

When I replace my kid's PC next week with a 4yo iMac (it still amazes me Panther works so well on such an old machine), I will rebuild the PC as a Linux box and have lots of fun experimenting with it (tho late at night which is the only time my time is free).

ChrisH3677
Jun 12, 2004, 09:38 PM
First of all I am going to give a pat on the back to everyone who decided to remain civil during this thread. As for those of you who chose to call each other morons, it is unnecessary.

I leave you with two quotes from a very old and wise geek ;)

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.

Who's more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?

thanks MM. We did get sucked in to his ignorance but I'd like to add another quote of my own...

Stupidity is not contagious, but ignorance is

which is why we jumped on him - we didn't like the idea of him spreading his misinformed views as facts - and i do apologize to him if my bouts of sarcasm were taken in the same way as being called a moron.

intx13
Jun 12, 2004, 10:05 PM
Okay, so I wanted to say a few more things (can any topic truly be discussed to a close?)

"quoting Maddox, for Christ's sake, which kills your credibility dead on the spot."
sorry to offend you :)

"Wha??? So your saying... that when you rip-out that removable media... that Linux magically, faster than you can pull, detects the beginning of the removal so closes all open files on it, flushes any database caches to it, uses AI to decide if you want to "Save" or lose any changes... and all in a nanosecond. I can pull USB drives out too, without using eject but as a wise user, I'd make sure i closed any open files on it first - that's just plain common sense, and I'm sure you do the same thing. And I'm sure you practice the same for floppies and CDs. "
Not quite. It's called supermounting, and basically (I'm not real sure of this, so don't jump down my throat if I'm not 100% right) it only syncs or flushes the drive when a task requests access to it. So as soon as you pop in the drive, Linux sees it and mounts it. Then you open up a file manager window there, and the drive is flushed and read. When you're done, and you yank the drive, the drive is unmounted. Yanking mounted drives only hurts in two situations:
1. The drive is still mounted (if you're using a traditional mount method)
2. The drive is in the middle of a sync
Supermounting only does syncing at certain times, when its requested, so as long as you don't pull it when a file is the midst of saving, you're good. It's REALLY nice, I don't know why other OS's don't do it.

"What you do in a week, we do in an hour."
What I do in a week can stand as a 486DX server for months without a reboot.

Which mentiones another fact (and this goes against Windows as well). Linux can be put on any ancient piece of crap machine and run just fine. CAse in point, I run (I just did the install today) Mandrake 10.0 on a 665Mhz Duron. I can run hundreds of programs on it without a loss in speed. kernel 2.6.# is nice and quick. So why is it that Windows and OSX can't run on ancient (comparitively) hardware? I mean come on, Longhorn (which will rock anyway) needs more ram than some of my comptuers have hard drive space!

"We don't respect you calling us morons"
ACtually, I only refered to a few choice characters with that term. Sorry to hurt anyones feelings..

"While leaving the first user logged in?!?"
Yes, I assume you can do the same in OSX. You grab a terminal, and su to a different user. Then you (in linux) start up konqueror or something. Inside that manager, you are the other user. Any programs you run are run as the other user. It's pretty nice, but its nothing new.

"ignorant Linux zealots suck. You make it too easy, kid."
I laughed when I read this. Don't walk too near Slashdot, dude, or you could get a stuffed penguin thrown at you :)

"Don't ever join the school debating team."
Too late. I guess I should return those awards I won :(

Well, sorry to disappoint those who don't like my views, but I posted again. Thanks for all the input guys and gals.

DavidLeblond
Jun 12, 2004, 10:25 PM
Don't walk too near Slashdot, dude, or you could get a stuffed penguin thrown at you :)

Um, apple.slashdot.org (http://apple.slashdot.org/), dumbass. :D

ChrisH3677
Jun 13, 2004, 02:10 AM
Not quite. It's called supermounting, and basically (I'm not real sure of this, so don't jump down my throat if I'm not 100% right) it only syncs or flushes the drive when a task requests access to it. So as soon as you pop in the drive, Linux sees it and mounts it. Then you open up a file manager window there, and the drive is flushed and read. When you're done, and you yank the drive, the drive is unmounted. Yanking mounted drives only hurts in two situations:
1. The drive is still mounted (if you're using a traditional mount method)
2. The drive is in the middle of a sync
Supermounting only does syncing at certain times, when its requested, so as long as you don't pull it when a file is the midst of saving, you're good. It's REALLY nice, I don't know why other OS's don't do it.

I look forward to experimenting with that when I build the Linux box.

"What you do in a week, we do in an hour."
What I do in a week can stand as a 486DX server for months without a reboot.

From my personal experience, Linux with a GUI runs crap on a 486DX. So obviously some of your arguments about Linux don't apply to this machine.

Which mentiones another fact (and this goes against Windows as well). Linux can be put on any ancient piece of crap machine and run just fine. Case in point, I run (I just did the install today) Mandrake 10.0 on a 665Mhz Duron. I can run hundreds of programs on it without a loss in speed. kernel 2.6.# is nice and quick. So why is it that Windows and OSX can't run on ancient (comparitively) hardware?

You didn't read my post. The absolute latest version of OSX runs fine on my wife's 4yo laptop (which would be about the same age as your 665Mhz Duron)
On the other hand, I gave up on XP last year on a similarly aged PC. It couldn't handle it.
I'll be interested to see how Mandrake 10 runs on my 6yo, 366Mhz PC...

I mean come on, Longhorn... ...needs more ram than some of my comptuers have hard drive space!
:D

"Don't ever join the school debating team."
Too late. I guess I should return those awards I won :(
So why didn't you use the same debating skills that won you those awards when you came on here? Instead you came on with fallacies, uninformed guesses, subjectiveness, lack of knowledge and research of your chosen topic (i.e. "What OSX can and cannot do"), ignoring other's key arguments, personal attacks (your very first post contained personal jibe in suggesting we match our clothes to our computers) etc.

So, again, next time, use those debating skills you say you have and you'd probably get a very different response.

Danrose1977
Jun 13, 2004, 02:45 AM
What I do in a week can stand as a 486DX server for months without a reboot.

That is a good point.... I just checked my Linux boxes at work, all they do is run SNORT all day and night. Currently they have been up for 842 days! (No need to do any updates to the systems as they are on internal network and heavily firewalled).

Having said that my iBook hasn't been rebooted in a month.... she just takes a nap now and then.

I was wondering whether intx13 would be willing to admit that he can see that OSX does work for a whole bunch of people and that it is neither inferior or superior... just different! I ask this as it would clear up the debate and stop it being so agressive, I also wish Mac people would agree the same thing about other OS'es! :)

mateybob
Jun 13, 2004, 04:14 AM
[QUOTE=intx13]
"Umm, who said I never realized how to use the &? My point about running multiple instances of a program was that I didn't expect the command prompt to be a necessary tool for such a simple thing. And just to let you know: the & has NOTHING to do with running multiple instances of a program. The & assigns a task to be executed in the background (it forks off a process rather than hanging the terminal while it runs). But as other people here have mentioned, when running programs from the terminal, OSX doesn't stop multiple instances from being assigned their own pids. "

err well youre the one that said you couldnt run multiple instances of the same program on macosx so CLEARLY you did not think about &... and the very purpose of & is to fork a new process so if you had half a brain youd use it run an additional instance.. i laugh at your attempt to make me sound ignorant with your processes101 speak..

anyway its funny how with your next post you completely nailed your coffin with some seriously ignorant statements that really go to show how you dont know ANYTHING about macosx... next time you adamantly want to criticise something please at least know what youre talking about... almost everything im going to point out here has been said before but ill reiterate anyway just so maybe youll be convinced to give macosx a second chance.. (and you really should)

"1. write programs out of the box - yep"
not anything nearly as good as xcode..

"3. immune to most virii, etc. - Check, as well as immunization to hack attacks "
everything has a built in firewall these days.. also btw you cant be "immune" to hacks..

"5. MICROSOFT office - Comes with the exact equivalent (but OOo is more powerful and free, and can share any kind of document with MS, even powerpoint presentations)"
well so does macosx

"7. Surf faster than IE - umm, this depends on your internet connection more than teh browser, so a comparison is hard."
no actually the speed at which the browser can interpret and render html has nothign to with the connection speed..

"15. best GUI - this is an issue of taste. I can make KDE look like Aqua, but faster and prettier. But again its a matter of taste."
you can make anything LOOK like aqua but a GUI isnt about LOOKS its about FUNTIONALITY... lets see you make KDE do expose...

"17.change backgrounds on a timed scale - Chuckle-chuckle - only mac users would consider this "functionality"... Maybe a nice little extra, but hardly a reason why OSX is "better" than anything else."
you get a point.. actually this feature sucks.. the only time my macosx has EVER crashed was when i was using this...

"23. built in server software (Apache)"
so does macosx (apache).. where do you get your info? does linux also have built in j2ee containers? (really im not saying it doesnt im just asking).. macosx as a couple..

"24. built in ftp software"
please learn to use unix... man ftp is a good place to start..

"25. support for running Windows apps (wine)"
vpc... but as a side note how usefull is this anyway?

"27. advanced image editing (GIMP)"
lol

"28. Support for all sorts of video formats (mov,mpg,wmv,dv,...)"
lol

"29. Easy disk burning - two commands can copy a cd to the hard drive and write it to another cd"
lol

"30. Virtual desktops"
perhaps the only good point youve ever made..

"31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)"
lol.. seriously you make it too easy.. do some research before you criticise...

"33. Automounting/unmouting (supermounting). Just pop in that usb drive, and yank it out, no need to unmount or drag to the trash or anything. Same thing for cds and floppies."
you are an idiot.. i cant even be bothered to argue why anymore.. maybe tomorrow...

"35. Hundreds of pages of built in documentation"
ditto.. omg are you sure youve ever even used a mac?

ChrisH3677
Jun 13, 2004, 05:27 AM
just want to sidetrack a bit....

re #7... Opera 7 rendered the page www.theage.com.au 15 seconds faster than IE 6 Both used the same connection (thru a Billion router modem)

Normally that would be impressive enough as it is...
but Opera was running on an Pentium 166 with 8Mb RAM and running Win95a.

And IE6 was running on a 2 year old Dell box.

I still prefer Safari on the Mac, but that really impressed.

thecombatwombat
Jun 13, 2004, 06:05 AM
OK, I'm not claiming to really know about your friend's credentials here, but like others have said, it seems to me he doesn't know that much about the core of OS X, or of UNIX in general.

I'm a similar convert: 3 years of nothing but linux until I got my powerbook.

Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?

From my terminal.

Macintosh :) > gdb /Applications/iChat.app/Contents/MacOS/iChat
GNU gdb 5.3-20030128 (Apple version gdb-309) (Thu Dec 4 15:41:30 GMT 2003)
Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "powerpc-apple-darwin".
Reading symbols for shared libraries .......... done
(gdb) run
Starting program: /Applications/iChat.app/Contents/MacOS/iChat
Reading symbols for shared libraries ......................................................................... done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done
Reading symbols for shared libraries . done

Program exited normally.
(gdb) quit


I'm running a second instance of iChat in gdb right now. (I'm sure your friend knows all about gdb.)

I'd worked out a lot of other examples, but I'm sure this thread covers them.

I love linux too, but I think willful ignorance is causing you to miss out on a lot.

tamara6
Jun 13, 2004, 07:13 AM
"What you do in a week, we do in an hour."
What I do in a week can stand as a 486DX server for months without a reboot.


Well, fine, but what I set up in an hour has run just fine as a server for just about a year now (it was set up in July, 2003). It is both a web server and a file server (SMB and AFP). And for the past 6 months I've been about 1500 miles away from it. Nothing has gone wrong, and I haven't had to worry about being so far away.

And it is running on a Mac that is about 3.5 years old.

iShater
Jun 13, 2004, 09:14 AM
Actually, that applies to the PC side as well. Can't tell you how many programmers I bump into who are TRYING to build a system, but don't really get it *_*

Hardware/Software. I have yet to meet someone who is as good a tweaker/builder as they are a programmer.

Cause we never met ;)

Macmaniac
Jun 13, 2004, 09:54 AM
Intx13 wrote "Which mentiones another fact (and this goes against Windows as well). Linux can be put on any ancient piece of crap machine and run just fine. CAse in point, I run (I just did the install today) Mandrake 10.0 on a 665Mhz Duron."
Actually I am going to have to prove a point, Mac OS X does run on very ancient Mac hardware, first it runs on all the original iMac G3's at around 300mhz, and if you want to get creative you can install a program called XPostfacto on older pre-G3 macs to put OS X on them currently you can go all the way back to the PowerMac 7300, and the Powerbook 2400. They are currently working on getting it to work on PowerMac models as old as the 4400 series. Now mind you these macs are at least 6-7 years old and they can run OS X decently with a nice shot of RAM and a newer video card, and if you want to put a little extra money into it you can upgrade the processor on most of these Powermacs to G4s.
And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run:)

amols
Jun 13, 2004, 10:22 AM
I just went to the Mandrake website to see if I can download the latest version 9.1 which has a nice new feature called MOL (Mac-on-Linux) which they claim to run Mac OSX at native speed "inside Linux". But when I went to the download page, they said I need to have a 66$/year membership to download it :eek:. WTH... so now the cost of Linux is not TCO but "66$/year+TCO". So much for the free community. And I used to think 129$/18 months is expensive.

dopefiend
Jun 13, 2004, 10:28 AM
I just went to the Mandrake website to see if I can download the latest version 9.1 which has a nice new feature called MOL (Mac-on-Linux) which they claim to run Mac OSX at native speed "inside Linux". But when I went to the download page, they said I need to have a 66$/year membership to download it :eek:. WTH... so now the cost of Linux is not TCO but "66$/year+TCO". So much for the free community. And I used to think 129$/18 months is expensive.

Nah, its free. Your just blind ;)

http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/ftp.php3

amols
Jun 13, 2004, 10:49 AM
Yeah...found it. Thanx. The download link was somewhat hidden. The Mac has really spoiled me. I was distracted by the line on the page "Free Software can only remain healthy with your financial support" :confused:

ingenious
Jun 13, 2004, 02:15 PM
"While leaving the first user logged in?!?"
Yes, I assume you can do the same in OSX. You grab a terminal, and su to a different user. Then you (in linux) start up konqueror or something. Inside that manager, you are the other user. Any programs you run are run as the other user. It's pretty nice, but its nothing new.


OS X lets you do that in the GUI, rolling one desktop over and bringing up the next. I was just making sure I understood what you were saying.

ingenious
Jun 13, 2004, 02:19 PM
Intx13 wrote "Which mentiones another fact (and this goes against Windows as well). Linux can be put on any ancient piece of crap machine and run just fine. CAse in point, I run (I just did the install today) Mandrake 10.0 on a 665Mhz Duron."
Actually I am going to have to prove a point, Mac OS X does run on very ancient Mac hardware, first it runs on all the original iMac G3's at around 300mhz, and if you want to get creative you can install a program called XPostfacto on older pre-G3 macs to put OS X on them currently you can go all the way back to the PowerMac 7300, and the Powerbook 2400. They are currently working on getting it to work on PowerMac models as old as the 4400 series. Now mind you these macs are at least 6-7 years old and they can run OS X decently with a nice shot of RAM and a newer video card, and if you want to put a little extra money into it you can upgrade the processor on most of these Powermacs to G4s.
And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run:)


Actually it runs natively on 233 MHz G3 iMacs.......

intx13
Jun 13, 2004, 05:10 PM
Okay, I'm really getting tired of mateybob and his comments.

"err well youre the one that said you couldnt run multiple instances of the same program on macosx so CLEARLY you did not think about &... and the very purpose of & is to fork a new process so if you had half a brain youd use it run an additional instance.. i laugh at your attempt to make me sound ignorant with your processes101 speak.."

I was talking about running multiple instances WITHOUT use of the terminal. Read over the posts and surely you can see that. And as a side note, I have never TRIED to make you look ignorant, you did that all by yourself.

"anyway its funny how with your next post you completely nailed your coffin with some seriously ignorant statements that really go to show how you dont know ANYTHING about macosx"

I assume at this point you would list the ignorant points I supposedly made, but instead you just copy/pasted my post. Why? I was listing things Linux has, and wanted to know if OSX had the same things. Why do you assume I was trying to fool you or something? How about from now on you let the people who will actually reply to my questions do the talking?

""31. math/science software (astronomy, math equations, circuit emulation...)"
lol.. seriously you make it too easy.. do some research before you criticise..."

Again mateybob, you're either illiterate or you're purposely not reading my posts. I wasn't claiming that OSX didin't have those things, I was just asking. Calm down and use your head. And DOES OSX have these things built in? You haven't said so. You just told me to "do some research".

Combatwombat:
"Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?
From my terminal."

I don't want to have to open up a term just to run two of the same programs.

"it seems to me he doesn't know that much about the core of OS X, or of UNIX in general."

You're missing my points. If OSX is so User friendly, why do you need to use the terminal to do all these simple things? Yes, I know all about gdb. I'm well aware how to use the terminal. But why should you need those things just to figure out why your program crashed?

So I installed Mandrake 10.0, and its really nice. Some stuff it comes with:
1. Audacity (mp3 editor,creator - like acid)
2. kdenlive (digital video editor, more complex and powerful than imovie, but not near the level of final cut)
3. Multiple sessions, so you can log back and forth between users with the F# keys (VERY fast, like less than a second)
4. Supermounting

Now before you flip out mateybob, I'm not trying to fool you or anything, so calm down. I'm just listing some of the cool stuff Mdk comes with.

"And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run"

No question, but can that computer run OSX? I doubt it.

--On the subject of supermounting
"I look forward to experimenting with that when I build the Linux box."

So I just installed Mdk10.0 and it has even better supoermounting. IT's really cool. As far as I can tell, the drive itself is mounted when a sync is requested, but according to fstab it's mounted as "none". The entry looks something like "none supermount /mnt/cdrom /dev/hdc blahblahblah" for the cdrom. I wish I knew the details..

Okay, enough for now. Mateybob, please please please read the posts before you respond. I don't like having to scroll all the way past your responses to find the good ones. I'm not trying to fool you, offend you, upset you, make you cry, or anything of the slightest foul nature. I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion with some people who make (to me uncomprehensible) choices about their computers, and you're getting in the way of that. I'm not telling you not to post, just please think through your thoughts first. If you've never done that before, you'll find a crank on the side of your head. Turn it until smoke and/or sparks come out your ears :) At least thats what I do...

Macmaniac
Jun 13, 2004, 06:45 PM
"And since you love Linux I have seen Linux that runs decently put on a Mac SE which is getting close to 15-20 years old, so old Mac hardware can run what you want to run"

No question, but can that computer run OSX? I doubt it.

With the appropriate modding it can. All you have to do is gut the SE and put the inards of a G4 cube into it, it takes some work, but google around I know a few exist. Do you see Microsoft supporting computers that are 7+ years old with XP? Apple like microsoft is a company that is out to make a profit plain and simple, is it more economical to have programmers spend time getting OS X to work on a Mac Plus, or work on adding new features. They can't cater to the 5% of their install base whose computers are older then 7 years. They want them to buy a new computer so eventually they stop supporting them so if they want to upgrade they have to buy new Hardware. Now with Linux you have a bunch of people who like to program in their spare time, so if they want to get Linux to work on a watch or an Apple II then good for them.
One quick question how is old is your oldest computer running Linux? A 660mhz Duron is not too terribly old, its a lot younger then my 7 year old 100mhz Performa. Heck at that speed it can't have been built more then 4 years ago.

tamara6
Jun 13, 2004, 06:48 PM
intx13,

One place to find out about some of the software available for the Mac is versiontracker (http://www.versiontracker.com and click on the Mac OS X tab). You can search by keywords or by category. If you are curious about this or that sort of software, you can go there and search for it (instead of posting here and risking run-ins with the locals).

By this point, if you have actually read all the posts and not just MateyBob's, you realize that Macs are not as incapable as you thought. I think that was the whole point of this entire thread. Not to convert you into a Mac enthusiast, but simply to inform you that using a Macintosh is a legitimate way to solve many, many problems. You can program them, use them in the arts, use them in the sciences, and use them for personal fun. I really do hope that you've seen all that. And that maybe, in the future, when you meet a Mac user you will consider him (or her) your computing equal, someone that simply prefers a different operating system than you do.

I really don't see the need to continue this thread. We've answered all your questions, comments, and complaints. My advice to you is to simply agree with the above paragraph and then exit gracefully.

Tamara

:)

ingenious
Jun 13, 2004, 06:53 PM
I was talking about running multiple instances WITHOUT use of the terminal. Read over the posts and surely you can see that. And as a side note, I have never TRIED to make you look ignorant, you did that all by yourself.

Okay, I think I get why there's such a misunderstanding here: intx13 is trying to make OS X (unknowingly) behave just like Windows or Linux. Okay, I'll try to explain this one.

OS X, Linux, and Windows, as you know are all totally different Operating Systems. Different Kernel as well (Linux and Mac OS X are similar). Different File Systems, different GUI, and different way of doing things. In Windows at least, it's sometimes necessary to run multiple instances of a program to insure stability, or whatever other reason. In Mac OS X, because of the way the GUI is set up and the UNIX underlayment, it's not necessary to run multiple instances of a program. It's just the way the GUI works. That's why that functionality is not built into the GUI, but accessable from the terminal, where more advanced users can do this if they need to as explained by other posters.

Again mateybob, you're either illiterate or you're purposely not reading my posts. I wasn't claiming that OSX didin't have those things, I was just asking. Calm down and use your head. And DOES OSX have these things built in? You haven't said so. You just told me to "do some research".

There's some scientific software buillt in, like a scientific calculator (very basic stuff I know, but still... :D), but I don't think there's anything else. What I meant above was that software was available.


Combatwombat:
"Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?
From my terminal."

I don't want to have to open up a term just to run two of the same programs.


You don't have to use the terminal. There's an application in the Applications or Utilities folder that does this. Right now I can't remember what's it's called, but someone else will.


On a side note, whenever a program crashes, the Crash Reporter comes up (That is, if you're using Panther [10.3.x]) and it lists the information there.

You're missing my points. If OSX is so User friendly, why do you need to use the terminal to do all these simple things? Yes, I know all about gdb. I'm well aware how to use the terminal. But why should you need those things just to figure out why your program crashed?

Please see the above part of my post.



So I installed Mandrake 10.0, and its really nice. Some stuff it comes with:
1. Audacity (mp3 editor,creator - like acid)
2. kdenlive (digital video editor, more complex and powerful than imovie, but not near the level of final cut)
3. Multiple sessions, so you can log back and forth between users with the F# keys (VERY fast, like less than a second)
4. Supermounting


Yes, I know about Audacity and you've talked about supermounting, but the way your post is written makes it sound like flame bait. Respectfully, I want to point out that you've been on us for acting this way, but here again you're doing it. BTW, OS X will use FUS graphically pretty fast as well.


No question, but can that computer run OSX? I doubt it.

With the application called XPostFacto can it? I don't know. But not natively. That's obvious. OS X is a very graphic intensive OS, compared to Linux.


--On the subject of supermounting
"I look forward to experimenting with that when I build the Linux box."

So I just installed Mdk10.0 and it has even better supoermounting. IT's really cool. As far as I can tell, the drive itself is mounted when a sync is requested, but according to fstab it's mounted as "none". The entry looks something like "none supermount /mnt/cdrom /dev/hdc blahblahblah" for the cdrom. I wish I knew the details..


Hmmm, not sure if that would work on OS X and that's probably why they've not included it yet. It sounds like something that would be used on a server or a desktop whose devices and drives are never removed. It would not work on a laptop as far as I can tell.


Okay, enough for now. Mateybob, please please please read the posts before you respond. I don't like having to scroll all the way past your responses to find the good ones. I'm not trying to fool you, offend you, upset you, make you cry, or anything of the slightest foul nature. I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion with some people who make (to me uncomprehensible) choices about their computers, and you're getting in the way of that. I'm not telling you not to post, just please think through your thoughts first. If you've never done that before, you'll find a crank on the side of your head. Turn it until smoke and/or sparks come out your ears :) At least thats what I do...

Again, respectfully, that's not what your posts have come across as to me. Maybe some of my posts have been the same way, but I've been trying (with the execption of one) to remain civil in this discussion. We all need to "treat others as we want to be treated."


Also, to quell some confusion, could you go to (on one of those lab Macs) Apple Menu> About this Mac and tell us what version of Mac OS X it is?

ChrisH3677
Jun 13, 2004, 06:56 PM
Ok, I'm gunna distill for intx13 what he has found good about Linux which if he said here without fallacious arguments about OSX, would have got little disagreement, only people saying how OSX matches it.

1) Most Linux distros can be monetarily free if you can source them that way (eg copy a mates, have unlimited download and adsl)
2) Linux is a stable and robust multi-tasking OS.
3) Linux provides multi-session environment (alt-1, alt-2, alt-3 etc I believe)
4) Linux distros come with an absolute plethora of applications, utilities and development tools, many of them the equal of commercial software.
5) Linux distros come with emulators and the like to enable running of applications for other platforms
6) Linux runs on the broadest range of hardware and, if not run with a GUI interface, runs on the oldest hardware.
7) Linux distros comes in many flavors ensuring anyone of any knowledge level, (except maybe novices) find a distro that suits their needs.
8) Linux has some useful features (eg Supermounting) not yet available on other OSes

So these are the things that I think intx13 wanted to say. I agree with all of them. But they don't make Linux better than OSX. For almost all of them I could counter how OSX competes and make a list of things about OSX that is why it's so good. But that doesn't make OSX better than Linux. As has been repeatedly said, each to their own.

PS just before anyone else does...
1) OSX has a proven lower TCO than other OSes
2) ditto OSX
3) OSX doesn't do this as far as I can tell. Does have FUS though.
4) OSX comes with a good range of apps, utilities and tools. A plethora of software is available online.
5) Emulators are available for OSX to run other OSes apps
6) OSX runs well on older hardware
7) OSX is suitable for anyone from novice to geek
8) ditto OSX eg Services; built-in spell checker; spring-loaded folders

ingenious
Jun 13, 2004, 06:57 PM
intx13,

One place to find out about some of the software available for the Mac is versiontracker (http://www.versiontracker.com and click on the Mac OS X tab). You can search by keywords or by category. If you are curious about this or that sort of software, you can go there and search for it (instead of posting here and risking run-ins with the locals).

By this point, if you have actually read all the posts and not just MateyBob's, you realize that Macs are not as incapable as you thought. I think that was the whole point of this entire thread. Not to convert you into a Mac enthusiast, but simply to inform you that using a Macintosh is a legitimate way to solve many, many problems. You can program them, use them in the arts, use them in the sciences, and use them for personal fun. I really do hope that you've seen all that. And that maybe, in the future, when you meet a Mac user you will consider him (or her) your computing equal, someone that simply prefers a different operating system than you do.

I really don't see the need to continue this thread. We've answered all your questions, comments, and complaints. My advice to you is to simply agree with the above paragraph and then exit gracefully.

Tamara

:)


Don't forget their business use, or network or internet servers, or gaming, or school work, or anything Windows can do (except program Windows programs without VPC, but can Windows program Mac OS X programs?). (Just pointing this out so intx13 doesnt have to ask.)

tamara6
Jun 13, 2004, 07:33 PM
Don't forget their business use, or network or internet servers, or gaming, or school work, or anything Windows can do (except program Windows programs without VPC, but can Windows program Mac OS X programs?). (Just pointing this out so intx13 doesnt have to ask.)

Actually, if you use RealBASIC you can program for Linux and Windows. And CodeWarrior will develop for just about anything, I think. That's not counting other more-or-less cross platform languages like java, perl, python, etc.

thejazzman10
Jun 13, 2004, 07:55 PM
dude, van helsing was edited using FCP.

also, see my sig.

mateybob
Jun 13, 2004, 08:55 PM
"I was talking about running multiple instances WITHOUT use of the terminal. Read over the posts and surely you can see that. "

this is funny.. ok heres a quote from your first post: "you can't (as far as I can tell) run two instances of one task at once."... whats that? youre an idiot? yes i thought so...

"I assume at this point you would list the ignorant points I supposedly made, but instead you just copy/pasted my post. "

what? if you actually read my post i DID list all the ignorant posts you made AND commented on them.. i dont know what youre talking about here... is basic reading and comprehension perhaps in issue for you aswell?

anyway kudos to you for ignoring 95% of my post and then acting like IM ignorant.. :rolleyes:

at this point id like to get back to the core issue..

"I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion with some people who make (to me uncomprehensible) choices about their computers"

why uncomprehensible? the only point youve made so far that wasnt completely shot down for being flat out false is that macosx does not support virtual desktops.. and youre saying that for this reason using macosx is completely uncomprehensible? ok right..
stop and think.. do you really have a point here or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
ok so you had some problems with macosx and you voiced them and i can respect that but when it turns out that youre wrong on so many key issues maybe its time to admit that you just dont know what youre talking about and go and really learn macosx...

thecombatwombat
Jun 13, 2004, 09:50 PM
Combatwombat:
"Can't get any feedback when an app crashes? Can't run multiple instances?
From my terminal."

I don't want to have to open up a term just to run two of the same programs.

"it seems to me he doesn't know that much about the core of OS X, or of UNIX in general."

You're missing my points. If OSX is so User friendly, why do you need to use the terminal to do all these simple things? Yes, I know all about gdb. I'm well aware how to use the terminal. But why should you need those things just to figure out why your program crashed?


You don't have to, it's possible from Finder even. You're missing my point -- OS X comes with gdb! If RMS was less selective about picking his battles, we'd call it GNU/Mac OS X. This thread's too big to cover everything, but you don't realize how similar OS X and "linux" are. Did you know you can use konq in OS X? You mentioned you can easily copy cds in linux, well mkisofs and cdrecord both work with OS X (command line utilities for something so simple as cd burning?!?!?)

Check out the fink project, http://fink.sourceforge.net.

Look, hate OS X if you want, but really don't claim it should be relegated to a niche and such because of all this stuff it can't do. Did you know it comes with apache and samba by default? I've used supermount -- trust me, OS X's facilities for the same are far better. Oh, and you mentioned CUPS, guess what OS X's printing facilities are? That video compatibility you mentioned, MPlayer and vlc, yeah, both available for OS X. Hell, I use apt to update my powerbook.

There's no point debating that you came into this EXTREMELY ignorant to what OS X can do, not to mention how it does it. It's similarities to other unixes (and don't gripe at me about what unix is, I'm sure K & R will probably agree with me in the modern sense, and it's just senseless) go way beyond the mach kernel. Give OS X a real look and a fair try (no media labs) and I think you'll like it.

ChrisH3677
Jun 13, 2004, 10:01 PM
is that macosx does not support virtual desktops
hey mateybob, even that's contentious as there are virtual desktop managers available for OSX (Desktop Manager being the best). Admittedly virtual desktops isn't inbuilt in OSX but in the realms of this discussion, emulation, add-ons and hacks have been granted acceptable by intx13 (otherwise we'd say the gui is an optional add-on for Linux)

the author of Desktop Manager says...
To implement virtual desktops, I've had to delve into the internals of OS X and reverse-engineer some functionality. There is no official way to implement virtual desktops (other programs have to do equally devious tricks)

here's a link for DM... http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12682

It's the best virtual desktop app I've ever seen for any platform.

ChrisH3677
Jun 13, 2004, 10:10 PM
I think inx13 also misunderstood a statement of mine and others way earlier about error logs. The error logs can be easily viewed in the Console utility. Console is not Terminal. Console is a GUI app for viewing system logs, including application crash logs. Logs are listed in a tree structure in the left window and displayed in the right window when selected. It's a very easy to use utility.

I do agree tho the name (Console) is misleading.

thecombatwombat
Jun 13, 2004, 10:12 PM
hey mateybob, even that's contentious as there are virtual desktop managers available for OSX

The real point should be that "Linux" doesn't support expose. Use OS X for a while, menubar, dock and all, and you probably won't miss your multiple desktops. I don't.

Oh and hey, I remember compiling expocity into metacity the first day I heard of it -- it's not the same.

ChrisH3677
Jun 14, 2004, 12:07 AM
The real point should be that "Linux" doesn't support expose. Use OS X for a while, menubar, dock and all, and you probably won't miss your multiple desktops. I don't.

Oh and hey, I remember compiling expocity into metacity the first day I heard of it -- it's not the same.

Expose is a matter of taste. I rarely use it. I've never use it for application switching because with many apps it's quite slow to spot the one you want - the dock is much easier. I have used it occasionally to show all open images in an app to compare them or switch, but mostly i use it to get quick access to the desktop - and even Windows has had that ability for years. So personally, I haven't found Expose to have any real impact on my productivity.

Virtual Desktops don't improve productivity much either mind you, but they do allow a tidier desktop environment - and if you'd see Desktop Manager with its really cool transitions between desktops; transparent pager; and comprehensive keyboard shortcuts; you'd be impressed i reckon. (the cube is my fave transition - very OSX).

I run a Windows Terminal Services client full screen in one desktop, and my OSX apps in another. I find this much easier to use than a single desktop with Expose.

thecombatwombat
Jun 14, 2004, 12:27 AM
ChrisH3677:

I'm with you that everything here is subjective, just that we should point out that OS X CAN do multiple desktops, and then some. OS X has a rather unique interface, the whole modal concept is unmatched in any other major desktop. (Let's limit that to GNOME, KDE, and Windows please.)

I was one who came to OS X expecting to want my multiple desktops, I used desktop manager for about two days before realizing that it just wasn't useful to me in OS X.

dogsbody
Jun 14, 2004, 01:42 AM
Perhaps someone should surreptitiously inform this young man that there is an MP3 player on the market that people are installing Linux onto [http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/]. Doubtless he will rush out with his pocket money and buy one of these 'wonderful players' so he can try running multiple MP3 desktop sessions and perhaps even multiple instances of the calendar on it.

When he finally gets round to reading the documentation (who, amongst us, actually bothers until we get stuck, and even then...?) he'll see an image of a fantastic program (iTunes) and a slow, dawning realisation will set in (much like that of the gorillas in 2010 observing the monolith) that perhaps Apple made programs are rather splendid. This will instantly lead to the purchase of a Powerbook etc etc and he'll reappear on the forums as 'intx13 reloaded' and help us to convinvingly argue against other Linux devotees in future threads.

Oh by the way, intx13 comments on getting old PCs out of skips etc. Has he ever encountered a Mac that's been dumped.....and if not, does he not wonder why?

tamara6
Jun 14, 2004, 08:26 AM
intx13,

I was thinking last night that no one has really done much to try to explain why someone would choose a Mac over a PC running Linux. We've spent time going over the types of programs available for the Mac, and comparing OS X to Linux. But we haven't shown why one person might prefer one over the other.

So, last night I asked my husband what machine he would prefer. He is a physicist working in a government lab, where everyone is issued a networked pc running some sort of Red Hat Linux. When he is at work, he does his research (which involves C programming and using Mathematica) on his Linux box. When he is at home he continues his research on an OS X machine. So I decided to ask him the standard "all things being equal" question - if you could only have one, which one would you choose, and why.

He said he'd choose OS X (not a big surprise, I guess, I'm not sure if I'd be writing this if he'd picked Linux). Here are his reasons - first, he has had terrible luck getting Open Office to read Word and Excel files that people send him. He says the Word documents open, but most of the formatting is gone, and any equations that anyone has used do not come through. And Excel files just don't open, apparently. (I don't know what version of Open Office he's using, It is up to the computer guy to maintain the system and install or upgrade software, my husband has no control over that)

But the other thing he said relates to something that I don't think many people have touched on here in this thread. An optional install on the OS X system disks is X11. You can run all your old favorite X programs (recompiled on Darwin), on the Mac. This is what he said: "The Mac is the obvious choice. You can have the best of both worlds. If you feel like spending the day in KDE, you can, and if someone sends you a Word document you can just pop out and read it in Microsoft Word." Apparently the X window server integrates seemlessly with the rest of OS X, so you can go back and forth at will.

He then went on to list the things that he really liked about Linux, and the things he didn't like (apparently his version doesn't do the supermounting thing, one of his complaints was that his little USB drive doesn't work with that computer). And naturally he mentioned some of the things he really likes about OS X, and the things he doesn't like (Lucida Grande seems to really bug him). But his overall opinion is that it neither operating system is better than the other at helping him to get his work done. That using either one is a matter of personal preference - and some days he feels more like a Mac person, and others he feels more like a Linux (or at least X windows) person. With his Mac he feels like he can choose. With his Linux box he can't.

Now, I don't know if this helps you any. But I just thought you'd might like to see how one intelligent guy would choose to purchase and use a Mac, over a pc running Linux.

Tamara
:)

amols
Jun 14, 2004, 10:07 AM
Oh by the way, intx13 comments on getting old PCs out of skips etc. Has he ever encountered a Mac that's been dumped.....and if not, does he not wonder why?

Yeah...I wonder how this award winner is going to reply to that.

Darwin
Jun 14, 2004, 10:32 AM
Yeah...I wonder how this award winner is going to reply to that.

They will always find a way :D

laserbeahm
Jun 14, 2004, 03:40 PM
Tell your friend to sit in the corner and ask himself, "why isn't my computer beautiful?"

Hopefully he will devlop some sort of inferiority complex.

dbauer
Jun 14, 2004, 04:53 PM
Tamara6, good post.

You hit on a lot of interesting points. You can run X11 (and KDE for that matter) which really opens up the Mac OS to tens of thousands of apps. It really becomes difficult to argue the better OS at this point because they can be the same. The push over the top is the hardware. I purchased my first mac on eBay last year (a PowerMac 8100) that unfortunately UPS drop kicked. Even in its banged up state, I was impressed with the build quality compared to PC's. I was always impressed with Dell's cases until I saw the Mac. I then purchased a G3 All-in-one and again, the build quality was superior. Finally I decided to purchase a new Mac (an iMac 17") and all I can say is that the big 3 (Dell, HP, and IBM) had better wake up. There stuff is second class. Sure the internal graphics card may be faster but there is no subsitute for aesthetics. I have since sold the iMac and purchased an eMac, which I sold to my Dad, and then purchased a G4 tower. My god, if only Dell would have designed a case so easy to get into, I wouldn't have wasted so much time (and skin) upgrading memory when I was on a contract with a former employer.

BornAgainMac
Jun 14, 2004, 05:22 PM
If you have the money, Mac is a better choice. If you are on a limited budget and want to put together a system for $200 bucks or less using spare and donated parts then Linux is a better choice. I have wondered what a $3,000 top of the line PC would be like with Linux. If Linux really is comparable to the Mac when the hardware is top notch. I remember Linux having trouble using the latest hardware like wireless cards, printers, video and sound cards because the drivers didn't exist yet.

When Virtual PC 7 comes out, I would like to try out Linux again if Microsoft allows non-Microsoft operating systems to run on it. I can't run Virtual PC 6 with my G5.

Macmaniac
Jun 14, 2004, 06:05 PM
Yeah...I wonder how this award winner is going to reply to that.
Just look in school dumpsters I find them all the time;) Its hard to find Macs id dumpsters because the fact remains that we are 5% of the market share so one only 5 in 100 trash drops are likely to have macs in them, besides even when a Mac does hit the curb the local mac cartel is on it like vultures.
My friend pulled a powermac out of the dumpster the other day, the front face plate was gone but it works fine, it still has all the data and programs on it, foolish school. My friend even got a G3 AIO out of the garbage, the screen was dead but he was able to scavenge a display as well and he hooked it up and presto a working computer:)

ooartist
Jun 14, 2004, 09:14 PM
I have used a GNU/Linux disto since '94 and I use it (Linux) still at work (I am a software engineer). What you will learn is your time is money. Linux is great, it is the ultimate work horse OS but man you spend tons of time tweaking here and there just to get simple things up and working. OS X is UNIX with polish and a candy coating and not to mention stuff just works. Linux is a just a little to rough around the edges. Also I promise you OS X can do just about everything Linux can and more.

Look at this screenshot and you can see what I am talking about. Just think how long it would take to get Linux to do (close as possible to) everything in this screenshot. TIME IS MONEY and I make more money when I have more time to do my job.

http://homepage.mac.com/ooartist/PhotoAlbum16.html

ooartist

neoelectronaut
Jun 14, 2004, 09:53 PM
I have used a GNU/Linux disto since '94 and I use it (Linux) still at work (I am a software engineer). What you will learn is your time is money. Linux is great, it is the ultimate work horse OS but man you spend tons of time tweaking here and there just to get simple things up and working. OS X is UNIX with polish and a candy coating and not to mention stuff just works. Linux is a just a little to rough around the edges. Also I promise you OS X can do just about everything Linux can and more.

Look at this screenshot and you can see what I am talking about. Just think how long it would take to get Linux to do (close as possible to) everything in this screenshot. TIME IS MONEY and I make more money when I have more time to do my job.

http://homepage.mac.com/ooartist/PhotoAlbum16.html

ooartist

Wow, that extended desktop is cool. Sure wish I could do that with my eMac. :(

MikeLaRiviere
Jun 15, 2004, 12:56 AM
I apologize if someone addressed this fact already, but I feel it warrants a post. If you wish to run two instances of a program on the Mac OS, do this:

1. Right (or ctrl) click the program icon.
2. Click "Show Package Contents".
3. Open the "Contents" folder.
4. Open the MacOS folder.
5. Open the resulting file that has a terminal-like icon.

Following these steps opens up the Terminal and opens a second instance of the program. As I type this, I have two instances of Safari running (there are two Dock icons of Safari indicating this fact).

To address the general argument against Macs, I state the following.

I'm not sure if I can consider myself a "new" Mac user; I grew up on a Mac. Ever since my parents ditched our Epson box running MS-DOS, I became a Mac convert, using an LCIII. After a number of great years on the Mac (something pre-OS 8, I'm sure someone else knows what OS the LCIII ran), I realized we needed a faster computer. We switched to a 233 MHz Windows 95 box, and I liked it quite a bit. The iMacs at school were cool, and my class and I spent all our time on them playing Nanosaur and trying to hack through the security program. But during this time I learned a great deal more about Windows. This continued for about six years. At one point I bought a used iBook G3 400 MHz off of eBay, but I was unable to load Jaguar, and OS X 10.1 crashed frequently. After a few weeks and an unsuccessful conversion attempt, I sold the iBook. I went through a few more Windows computers. Just this Christmas, though, I received an iBook G4 800 MHz.

I can't tell you how far superior the Mac is to Windows. I'm currently running Windows XP Professional SP2 Beta on some pretty powerful components (a homebuilt box). Two family members are running XP Home (SP1) on Dells, and another is using Windows 2000 on an IBM laptop. XP is a huge advance over 9x, and SP2 has some cool security features. Windows XP is a good operating system.

That said, OS X 10.3 is leaps-and-bounds ahead of XP. The hardware-OS-software integration is unparalelled. Firstly, the iBook 12" is the most well-designed notebook I've ever used. The screen size and resolution provide sharp images; the pixels are indistinguishable, like a CRT but more crisp. The OS is excellent; I had a period of full system crashes, but I determined it to be a peripheral/driver problem. I have not experienced such a crash in three months. As for the PCs, I cannot say the same; my box crashes almost daily (it did earlier today). Hardware problems abound. The quality of the hardware is far below that of Apple's. OS X's GUI is superior to and more intuitive than XP's; I'm talking about Finder windows, folder views, Expose (I really miss this feature when I use Windows), and the uniformity of programs' GUIs. The fact is, if the program is for the Mac, I know how it is going to look, and I know how it is going to work. This fact even extends to shareware and freeware; they integrate perfectly into the OS. Another cool feature is .Mac, which Apple integrates seamlessly into the OS. A great feature of the OS is that I don't have to worry about viruses, hackers, and other intrusions. I've come upon websites that download .exe files or unwanted ActiveX controls, and I silently laugh because they're incompatible and unrunnable. The fact is, OS X is more secure than Windows... far, far more secure. It also can't be ruined the way Windows can be destroyed; I've seen Windows boxes that have been absolutely crippled by viruses, adware, and malware. "Unsaveable" is the word that comes to mind.

Your friend, however, is a Linux proponent. From my limited use of Linux, I would say that its major drawback is usability. I've never been able to set up wireless internet on a number of Linux distributions, and I've encountered numerous hardware incompatibilities. While Linux may be the most agile OS, it is definitely the most immature. I won't argue with its security. I won't argue with its power. But I will argue with its usability. For the beginner through sub-advanced user, Windows XP and Mac OS X are the only options. For security, Mac OS X is the clear winner; you would be surprised at how big an issue this can be for many consumers, based on the number of crippled Windows boxes I've seen. OS X's GUI is superior, no one need argue against this point. Contrary to what your friend has seen, OS X's stability is better than Windows' stability. As I previously explained, it is possible to run two or more instances of a program. Your friend may stick to his WINE argument. Unfortunately, WINE does not flawlessly run Windows programs, as he states. This fact is the reason why Linspire (previously Lindows), a Linux distribution attempting to go mainstream, decided against promoting WINE. And you can tell your friend that if he uses WINE, he is a traitor to the open-source community.

A final comment regarding stability follows. My iBook was running a large number of processor-intensive programs - between 10 and 20 I believe - for four hours, consuming 99-100% of the processor's power, and most of the 640 MB RAM. "Without a hiccup" is how it did. The intent was to tax the hardware and crash the OS, and it didn't happen. I was hoping for a crash, but none came. OS X is hardly buggy when compared to Windows (the registry?!) and Linux (compatibility?!). If your friend continues to argue, make him use your Mac. If he's still not convinced, have him talk to me.

Sorry the post is so long, but that's what happens when someone tries to bring down the Mac.

Mike LaRiviere

bertagert
Jun 15, 2004, 04:29 AM
I apologize if someone addressed this fact already, but I feel it warrants a post. If you wish to run two instances of a program on the Mac OS, do this:...
Ummm...I don't know if anyone has said this before as well, but lets see.

To have two windows open in a browser for instance, why do you have to have two instances of the program open?

1. If in Safari or Firefox, just open another tab.
2. If you want a whole new window, Apple Key + N (just like hitting Ctrl + N in windows.
3. If the original poster's friend wants to see these individual windows in the dock, just minimize the windows. Then you have each icon in the dock just like you would get when you minimize a window and it goes to the task bar in windows.

Why was this so hard for everyone to answer? As for the other stuff, I bet it was ram that was needed and that's why things slowed down or crashed. Again, why hasn't anyone just ask the orinigal poster to go into the emac and do a About this Mac to find out what the emacs are running for ram, processor, and OS version. You guys went way to far without getting the basics. Any other questions, just ask.

dogsbody
Jun 15, 2004, 04:55 AM
Bertagert,

You don't appear to have read the post. The kid has been asked to go into 'About this Mac' and supply information about the OS & hardware, and if you read the posts carefully you'll realise he is talking about running two entirely separate instances of the program, not opening new windows or tabbed browsing. (This means if the application crashes, the other instance continues running - although this is a point of contention visa-vi windows/Linux as mentioned by other posters).

This is why people have had to get so technical, as they are showing the kid that the functionality is there, but you have to know how to access it. Apple has assumed that the average user does not need to do this.

Any other questions, just ask ;)

PS Numerous people have suggested that more RAM was needed too.
PPS Thanks to all the numerous peoples' posts - it's been very interesting reading up about all the other things OS X can do...

bertagert
Jun 15, 2004, 05:13 AM
Bertagert,

You don't appear to have read the post.

Any other questions, just ask ;)

Sorry about not reading through all the post. They all started to look the same. I did leave a clause at the beginning of my post for this reason.

Other questions....hmmmm....how about this, How much could a woodchuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood? The answer to that will get you 5 russian rubles!

dogsbody
Jun 15, 2004, 05:26 AM
I've only encountered woodchucks chucking wood, not wooding wood?

Will that amount of money buy me a Linux Distro?

PS How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? If W = Weight of wood (assuming a constant for 'g' regardless of the woodchuck's location) and p = coefficient of friction against his furry little paws, I'd guess that amount of wood chucked (wc) would be something like:

wc = (W/pt) * P

Sorry - P = productivity measured in "chucked-kg" per second

MarkCollette
Jun 15, 2004, 09:59 PM
bryanc, pooky, and rueyeet: I appreciate the facts and information you supplied. I'm happy to hear that X can indeed run two instances of the same task, and I guess the reason the GUI prevents it is to go along with their method of "give em so little power they can't break anything".


Keep in mind, that's just the behaviour of the Finder and the Dock. You could easily make a third party tool to do the behaviour you prefer. For example, a script could be made, and you could drag the application icon onto that script's icon, and it would then create the new process for you. I've seen countless newbies use web browsers, who double click on web links, thus causing the page to load, stop, and then load again, and I've seen countless newbies continuously click on application icons until the program has loaded. It's like they don't see the hourglass or beach ball or whatever. That's probably why the Dock and Finder default to multiple clicks merely bringing forward the existing app. Plus, you have to remember that the dock is a location to start new programs, and track existing programs, which is different the the windows Start bar, which has those operations separated.



Chris H: "Dude! You like never ever ever challenge "Murphy's Law"!! " Umm, I don't know about you, but my operating systems run on more than chance. I've had my linux box (mandrake 9.2) run for months without a crash. I only had to reboot because I wanted to toss in a tv tuner card.


I believe he was refering to the application potentially crashing, or the user accidentally closing the wrong one, etc. Not the OS crashing. Anyways, that's covered above by the example of how to execute more than one process of the same application.



chris H: "LINUX IS NOT FREE!" ... I downloaded Mandrake 9.2 (the iso's), burnt them to cd's, and i was good to go. The distrobution came with OOo, KDE, gcc, kdevelop, and thousands of otehr programs. Now granted, some versions of Linux are not free, but most are, and many of these free versions contain everything to do anything with your computer. From serving (apache) to graphical editing (gimp) its all there. I've never paid a dime for my linux systems.


He was saying that there is a cost beyond dollars, which is your time. Since you're younger, you are luckily free from that constraint of life, but when you get older you'll see that it really is a big factor. I'm only 24, but I live on my own, etc., so I've seen that transition occur over the past few years. If I play around on my debian system, configuring postfix or djbdns or whatever, then that is that much less time I can work, or study... Count yourself lucky that you missed the years where xfree86 on Linux required you to hand enter your CRT monitor's refresh rates if you wanted anything better than 640x480! There comes a point when you'll have explored all the intricacies of the software, and then you'll just want to get a task done as quick as possible, and at that point, a system that requires you to micromanage will probably seem less appealing, even if that micromanaging comes with more control.



Basically, it all comes down to two things: power and stability. Mac OS limits me. I can't (without using command line apparently) run multiple instances of the same app. I can't do simple things like decrasing the volume from the speakers without corrupting data being exported to a video camera (this is because the volume adjustment is a SOFTWARE interrupt... not just a button on the speaker, and so things get crazy when it gets called). I can't right click without pressing a keyboard button. I can't even write my own operating system on a mac wihtout an emulator or burning it to a disk every time I want to test it... no floppy drives! I can't even reset the damn thing without holding down a keyboard key and pressing a hard to find button for 5 seconds. I can't even get an error report when an app crashes. I just get "so-and-so has unexpectadly quit". I can't do anything that an advanced user might want to do.


I described a method above to graphically execute multiple processes.

I'm surprised you can't decrease the volume without using so many CPU cycles. But, since I'm sure that your PC uses external speakers, then you could always use external speakers on the Mac too, thus giving you hardware volume control. Plus the sound will probably be better.

You can get an external floppy drive, or you can write your image to the hard-drive, and use the open firmware's multi-booting capability, since you're willing to reboot anyway. The hard-disk will be much faster than the floppy anyway. Although, I'd recommend using something like bochs or vmware, like most kernel programmers do.

I fully agree with you that the one button mouse on the Mac is useless, but I also think that a two button mouse just doesn't cut it either. Actually, it's since I've used X11 (first in Solaris, then Linux, now OS X) that I can't go back to the limited two button mice. So, I always buy a three button mouse, or even better, where the middle "button" is a scroll-wheel. Anyways, the point is, when you get a prepackaged PC, like the Mac is, you tend to have to get a better mouse anyways.

You can reset from a menu, or you can reset from a button that's on the top right of the keyboard. This is actually something that's always been easier on a Mac than a PC. What's hilarious is when newbies reset a PC when they're trying to open the CDROM drive ;)

If you need to get better errors when applications crash, then you should install the free development software, and the debugging libraries. The docs explain how to trap errors to the debugger, and log errors, etc.



Second, it crashes. now I keep hearing that its so stable, that X never crashes, but the fact is, EVERY mac running ANY version of X that I have seen has crashed at some point or another while I was watching someone use it. Now, if you blame this on the techs that service the machine or the users that use it: how can a system that is so stable be crashed by incompetents so easily? Shouldn't it at least be SOMEWHAT difficult to crash it? Linux takes some effort to crash. Linux is used to run hundreds of users across networks at once, it has to be difficult for the average bozo to crash the whole system. But if, as many mac people have told me, the users and techs are at fault for every crash of every mac, then the system can't be admin'd with ease, and so defeats its very purpose. A system that can't be admin'd by the average tech without causing multitudes of fatal errors is no system I'll use.


I find this quite surprising. I've never had to do any special administration on my Mac, and it just works. I agree that if a typical technician can't maintain it, then that's bad, but at my University they have labs of Macs that just work, so potentially your school's techs are particularly inept. If your samples are all from the same sampling pool, then many occurances have no more significance than a few occurances, as it can still be from a single, propogated, fault. You have to take samples from a completely different pool to see if there's an actual trend.

MarkCollette
Jun 15, 2004, 10:33 PM
I'll try to only respond to points I haven't already in my other posting.


"Linux is *not* free because the cost of learning it"
A competent sysadmin can set up a linux system within a week of booting up. There is more online tutorials and information available than you can shake a mac at. That said, a competent sysadmin can make linux look and act just like Windows, just like X, just like nextstep, whatever, so that any user can jump right in. I've done it several times. Sure it may be a little more difficult for the sysadmin to begin, but a sysadmin shouldn't be a newbie. Thats why he/she's an ADMINISTRATOR. And I'm sorry if I offend anybody, but if high school students can admin linux in a week (to some degree of profiency), any professional should be able to pick it up. It's really not that difficult guys...


I use Debian Linux, and Fink for Mac OS X (which is a port of Debian's package management system), so as far as I'm concerned, there is no actual difference in adminning the box, for all of my server or developer needs. But, admins and developers are grossly outnumbered by users, who tend to not have a week to get a box up and running for their typical needs, which I will simply assert is easier to do on a Mac, given my experience with Debian, an older RedHat, Mac OS X 10.2.8, and various versions of Windows.



"And I must ask, how long have you been using Macs? You don't sound like, for a tech guy, you know much about them at all."
Hah, I guess I misrepresented myself. I'm a high school student. My experience with Macs has mainly been in lab use and for film editing, both in and out of school. I'm somewhat familiar with them, but I'm no expert. That's why I'm here...


I've never had nearly as good of a computing experience using a lab computer, as when using my own boxes, no matter what platform, so I fail to see the relavence. Sure, the lab computers at my university don't crash, but they're always slow, and never have all the software I want, etc...



Nuthin wrong with floppy drives. Say you want to move a file from a non-networked stand-alone comp to one across the room. Do you want to burn a cd? I don't. And although I have a usb drive, I don't want to give it to a friend to run down the hall to another standalone comp, or give it to someone with a document on it. Floppies are dirt cheap, and take little space. I like them. They also let novices write operating systems and test them easily.


Umm, it took me several moments to even think of when I've had to resort to a floppy drive, on any computer, in the past few years. First off, all Macs come with ethernet, and most new ones comes with wireless built-in. Plus, they all can write CD-RW, so you're not wasting a CD for each reiteration. Hell, I can't think how 99% of my files would even fit on a floppy disk. Even the Linux kernel has to be totally stripped down to fit on a floppy, especially since the 2.4 and even 2.2 days. Oh, and the nightmares I still have of when we were hacking the openbsd kernel in my operating systems course, and we'd have to wait to write the kernel to the floppy, and then wait for it to load off the floppy on reboot... ARGH! In the end we just put the last known good image on the floppy as a rescue disk, and booted off the hard-drive as we developed. We lost many a brave soul in that class ;)



So I have to go soon, but I'm seeing one trend here: you guys don't particulatly want to do anything with your comps but what they were designed for. I want to be able to program on my computer, I want to be able to write an operating system. I want other people to be able to do the things THEY want on their computer, even if I don't want to do those things. PC's (especially on linux) provide that flexibility.


Hehehe... That's why I have multiple computers :)
Started out on Windows, since that's what my family used, then made it dual boot linux (well, actually solaris x86, then linux). I found that when I wanted to program C/C++ for work, that I needed to use Visual Studio, and when I started picking up Java, Linux was barely supported. And when I wanted to play the occasional game, linux was useless. Same with web plugins, and pretty much any multimedia or fun thing. Then I needed a server, so I got a separate linux box for that. Eventually, Windows sucked too much, and Mac OS X married a useful GUI to a UNIX system, so I figured why not give it a try. I never thought it would become my primary desktop, and that my windows box would sit there atrophying for months, unused.

Hmm, did I have a point? It's that no one here would ever bother with Linux on the desktop, especially after we wasted so much time on it before. But, many of us do use it for server tasks. Best tool for the job.

thatwendigo
Jun 15, 2004, 10:55 PM
The mac-basher has been thoroughly dealth with by everyone else, but I thought I'd weigh in on something else he's dead wrong about. The WINE API layer for Linux is certainly not an emulatoer, as he said, because the acronym is a self-referential shortening of Wine is Not an Emulator. However, it is patently untrue that it doesn't run on the mac, because there is a porting projecct with early release code that is doing just that.

The Darwin kernel that Apple made Open Source has attracted its own coterie of programmers interested in the technologies, and many of them are localizing installers and makefiles from Linux Distributions and making any adjustments necessary. One of the star projects of the OpenDarwin (http://www.opendarwin.org) group is the DarWINE project. (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) Yes, that's right, they've got an alpha build of WINE running under the Darwin kernel on PowerPC hardware.

A quote from Jim White, who heads the porject:
One thing that should be made perfectly clear at this point what is working (a bit slowly and with significant bugs) is Winelib. That enables suitable WIN32 applications to be compiled and run under Mac OS X with X11. Work on incorporating X86 emulation is in the investigation phase.

Given that WINE does build and run under Mac OS X now, what would be really cool is if someone who works with Darwin/X86 would try it out and see if they can get an X86 .EXE to work.

MarkCollette
Jun 16, 2004, 02:43 AM
I highly doubt that videos are any "smoother" on one platform or another. It is usually just a question of whether you meet the minimum requirements. For the PC, that means having a decent Tualitin P3 or Tbird B or C (Socket A Tbirds, not the SLOT A's) for the AMD side. For the Mac the question would seem to be whether or not you have enough RAM (provided your not running anything less than a G3)--correct me if I'm wrong.

So yeah, a 5-year old PC/Mac is sufficient for smooth video playback.


I'm quite surprised that you don't believe me.

The two main differences in video playback that I found, between my 333 MHz G3 iMac running Mac OS X and 400 MHz K6-2 running Windows ME were:

1) Using quicktime, on both machines, to view a video that had a lot of fades between shots. The, errr, model was dancing and then the view would fade from one angle to another. On the Mac it worked flawlessly, but on the PC it would miss a second or two of video during the fade sequence.

2) Trying to watch Star Trek Enterprise television episodes, which were encoded in various versions of 3ivx, divx, xvid (don't know much about codecs). I installed the appropriate WMP codecs on the PC and installed VLC on the Mac. The video worked fine on the Mac and was unusable on the PC.



Anyway, you mention that you use VLC on Mac. Well, VLC also exists for the PC. In fact, it uses quite a bit less CPU cycles than WMP9.0 or Media Player Classic...however, Media Player Classic is still more flexible in playing codecs. B/c VLC is a stand-alone player, the codecs it uses for DivX and Xvid are sometimes outdated -_-.

I understand that it just be that all the software on the Mac was better optimised than the Windows software, and not be an issue of one CPU being better than the other. Keep in mind that this is in reference to which systems are better: Mac OS X, Windows on x86, or Linux on x86. In the end, it's which complete platform is superior.

ChrisH3677
Jun 16, 2004, 04:17 AM
am trying to download Mandrake 10... after several finally find a mirror that works.

then noticed something a bit disconcerting on their download page... a bit of very Windows-esque logic... the following message...

HOW TO START: see at the end of the page

See the end to start!! That's as bad as Windows's click Start to stop. :D :D

I hope this is just a bit of humor on Mandrake's behalf - coz if the Mandrake distro uses this logic... it aint gunna be easy!

ChrisH3677
Jun 16, 2004, 09:33 AM
stuff it! now who said Linux was free and friendly? After 4 hours downloading the first iso (694)Mb, I lost the connection to the download site with only 90Mb to go and there's no resume option. grrr :mad:
And then I would have had to build the CDs from the ISO anyway.

And the Linux crowd still don't get it. They want to get into the mainstream desktop market, want to stay "free", but really... haven't got a clue about user-friendliness. And the only distros that are (supposedly) very user-friendly, are not "free" anyways (Linspire, Xandros). :confused:

Interestingly, I read an article about Mandrake describing it as "being for newbies" and experienced users would find it too "dumb". Well that's all well and good if you want to pay for it, but I wanted to experience it the way our friend intx13 has. But so far it's already causing frustration and I'd hardly call downloading 700Mb iso's "for newbies"!!

And then even if I do get the 3 iso's and cut them to CDs... I've still got to install it and then remember all Linux's quirks. Hardly user-friendly or "for newbies"!! :eek:

I also read an article that effectively said, "real Linux users" don't use the GUI much because it's too restrictive. To do anything, you've got to get down to command lines. :eek: :eek:

All those who want a computer that they have to drive thru command line to get the most out it, please raise your hand? Hello? Anyone?

Ok... how about, who wants a computer that they can take out of the box and start using straight away? And can get the close to the most out of only thru the GUI? Yet still have grunt, power and features to burn if wanted? And a terminal interface for that other 2% to fine tune with? :D

DavidLeblond
Jun 16, 2004, 10:35 AM
stuff it! now who said Linux was free and friendly? After 4 hours downloading the first iso (694)Mb, I lost the connection to the download site with only 90Mb to go and there's no resume option. grrr :mad:
And then I would have had to build the CDs from the ISO anyway.

And the Linux crowd still don't get it. They want to get into the mainstream desktop market, want to stay "free", but really... haven't got a clue about user-friendliness. And the only distros that are (supposedly) very user-friendly, are not "free" anyways (Linspire, Xandros). :confused:

Interestingly, I read an article about Mandrake describing it as "being for newbies" and experienced users would find it too "dumb". Well that's all well and good if you want to pay for it, but I wanted to experience it the way our friend intx13 has. But so far it's already causing frustration and I'd hardly call downloading 700Mb iso's "for newbies"!!

And then even if I do get the 3 iso's and cut them to CDs... I've still got to install it and then remember all Linux's quirks. Hardly user-friendly or "for newbies"!! :eek:

I have Mandrake 10 on my PC, and I have to say they've come a long way. Previous versions have had piss poor hardware support. With version 10 it seems they finally support all of my hardware. I can honestly say that my PC with Mandrake on it finally runs better than the same PC with Windows XP on it.

However, your point about having to download 3 CDs is a good one. I think what the Linux distros need to do is to reduce their bloat. intx13 calls it a feature having 50 different calculators to choose from when you install Linux, but having such choices makes downloading the ISOs a pain and makes installing a huge headache. Probably 80% of the packages in todays Linux installation I have no use for, and I'm willing to bet most others don't either.

If I were you, I'd download the first CD only and install Mandrake from that. I believe you can tell the installation program to ignore the other 2 CDs. I don't think there is anything of any use to you on them. If I'm wrong, then Mandrake really needs to get their **** together.

Mav451
Jun 16, 2004, 12:59 PM
I'm quite surprised that you don't believe me.

The two main differences in video playback that I found, between my 333 MHz G3 iMac running Mac OS X and 400 MHz K6-2 running Windows ME were:

1) Using quicktime, on both machines, to view a video that had a lot of fades between shots. The, errr, model was dancing and then the view would fade from one angle to another. On the Mac it worked flawlessly, but on the PC it would miss a second or two of video during the fade sequence.

2) Trying to watch Star Trek Enterprise television episodes, which were encoded in various versions of 3ivx, divx, xvid (don't know much about codecs). I installed the appropriate WMP codecs on the PC and installed VLC on the Mac. The video worked fine on the Mac and was unusable on the PC.




I understand that it just be that all the software on the Mac was better optimised than the Windows software, and not be an issue of one CPU being better than the other. Keep in mind that this is in reference to which systems are better: Mac OS X, Windows on x86, or Linux on x86. In the end, it's which complete platform is superior.

Well, if there is one thing I know, is that Windows is horrible at handling codecs. Even installing them in the wrong order can render a video useless (until all codecs are uninstalled, and reintroduced one at a time). This is why I've switched to VLC (and also why I only have 2 of the most prevalent codecs installed, Divx 5.1Pro and Xvid 1.0). Have you compared VLC to VLC? As that would be the closest apples to apples comparison.

WMP (and I hope you weren't using 7.1, 8, or 9, though 7.1 has the least bloat) are horrible media players to begin with. This is why I keep bringing up MPC (now @ version 6.4.8.2) and VLC.

I also hope other "intangibles" or at least assumed intangibles did not find their way into the test. I know Macs are typically eqiupped with more RAM, but I wonder how much RAM was in the PC as well--I know the diff between my P1 233 with 64 compared to 256 was HUGE, just to keep this in mind.

*edit*
Ok, unbelievable. I can't believe that you are using QT as a source of comparison between a Mac and a PC. QT is hardly what I call an optimized app for the PC world--hell, this is the one of MANY reasons MPC (Media Player Classic) exists! It replaces the clunky QT interface with the easier MPC, and eliminates to requirement to install the bloated QT application in the first place.

mateybob
Jun 17, 2004, 07:40 AM
i love these anti apple people... you can prove them wrong on every count but do they admit they didnt really understand? no... do they go and give apple another chance? no.. so what do they do? they run off and go bag out apple elsewhere.. :rolleyes:

SiliconAddict
Jun 17, 2004, 11:18 AM
Send him to http://www.xvsxp.com/

I think the site is probably the most nonbiased Mac site (The guy admits on the site he's a Mac user.) I've ever seen. The compairsons between XP and OS X are pretty much spot on with only a few small issues.

Unless this idiot is totally not even trying to be impartial he should agree with this site. Otherwise take this advice on this numbnut......

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

mateybob
Jun 18, 2004, 08:40 PM
that site is an interesting read but the scoring is just stupid... i know macosx wins but it really should have won by a lot more... a lot of great things on macosx are not even scored (such as everything to do with unix) and the weighting of points on other things is just dumb... i mean expose is worth 1/1000 points...

Les Kern
Jun 18, 2004, 08:59 PM
Being a district director of technology I can say without doubt you might need a different person in that position, or at the very least he/she needs to have some more support. While it's obvious that computers in schools have to do more things more often and it might lead to a crash, the fact yours crash "often" and "a lot" leads me to think they are not set up right. My lowest ram is 1GB, and a high of 4GB for instance, and that alone goes a long way to keeping them stable. If computers crash a lot, and this goes for any platform, folks tend to blame the machine. The rest of the complaints are either silly or innacurate.
Whatever.

Darwin
Jun 19, 2004, 02:42 AM
that site is an interesting read but the scoring is just stupid... i know macosx wins but it really should have won by a lot more... a lot of great things on macosx are not even scored (such as everything to do with unix) and the weighting of points on other things is just dumb... i mean expose is worth 1/1000 points...

Well I'm sure we all know OS X deserves more points but isn't it suppose to be a fair comparison?

It would be unfair if we included all the cool features that Windows didn't have wouldn't it? ;)

SiliconAddict
Jun 19, 2004, 11:54 AM
Well I'm sure we all know OS X deserves more points but isn't it suppose to be a fair comparison?

It would be unfair if we included all the cool features that Windows didn't have wouldn't it? ;)

And it would be unfair to include all the powerful tools included in Windows that to the best of my knowledge OS X does not have. It swings both ways. There are some seriously powerful admin tools in XP and 2K that X doesn't have. Off the top of my head MMC, WMI both of which are powerful in their ability to allow remote admin of a system and its apps.

OS X is geared more towards the individual. Windows has the business in mind more then then home user and it shows in its tools.

Darwin
Jun 19, 2004, 01:49 PM
And it would be unfair to include all the powerful tools included in Windows that to the best of my knowledge OS X does not have. It swings both ways. There are some seriously powerful admin tools in XP and 2K that X doesn't have. Off the top of my head MMC, WMI both of which are powerful in their ability to allow remote admin of a system and its apps.

OS X is geared more towards the individual. Windows has the business in mind more then then home user and it shows in its tools.

Of course, it does go both ways and I agree on that

I guess there is much depth to go into when comparing these OSes

Kingsnapped
Jun 19, 2004, 02:04 PM
I don't have time to read the whole thread... or type a good response, but I gotta let you know I'm in the same situation (as of the first page of posts anyway.).

Our school has an emac lab with underpowered 10.2 emacs with 256 of ram. When I carried my powerbook around school, it was easy to see what a mac supporter I am. When these POSes in the lab crashed on FCP (all the time :( ) people would ask me how stupid I am in saying "I've crashed this thing (my PB) twice"

Cheap schools are creating a new generation of mac haters.... I propose that apple donate dual G5s to all the schools they can!

Fukui
Jun 19, 2004, 06:15 PM
Cheap schools are creating a new generation of mac haters.... I propose that apple donate dual G5s to all the schools they can!
Well, at least the have OS X. 99% of macs in UCI are still Beige 233MHZ OS9 machines!

Jimong5
Jun 19, 2004, 11:12 PM
Theres no excuse in application useage. Dual 867 1 GB ram did this:
http://tadepec.dyndns.org/dock.jpg
it was getting slow, but was still useable.


and, for the multiple application thing is easy. Just a plain old command D gets the job done.