Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft's Windows 8 to Include an App Store Too
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What are you talking about? How does your comment fit into anything I posted?Right. So none of you guys are computer users then? Or anybody to that matter.
roadbloc was pointing out to MorphingDragon that y'all were talking about yourselves while you were having your little discussion. But MorphingDragon said you weren't talking about "users". I believe roadbloc was joking around saying that by MophingDragons statement, you guys must not be computer users, nor anyone else.
Except there's something called registry editor; better that than trying to find and edit pliant files.
Right. So none of you guys are computer users then? Or anybody to that matter.
We were talking from a engineers perspective, what we talk about has little reflection on "users". Are most users going to deploy settings across a multitude of different computers?
plist format -
com.companyname.programname.settingtype.plist in either /Mac OSX/Library or ~/Library
Open up with an XML editor and you're gravy.
registry tree
ClassType/SettingType(May end here for OS level stuff)/CompanyName/ProductName/SettingClass/Version/endkeys
And thats if you follow the recommended format.
Last edited:
You're clearly nitpicking now. Engineers and home users are both still users at the end of the day.
How? We werent discussing how easy it was to edit the settings. Would you like to scroll back to see what we were discussing?
Engineers are still users yes, but most engineers will be more experienced than home users and more importantly, most home users dont have to manage deployment of these settings on hundreds if not thousands of computers.
The registry is easier to work with than plist files, personally, I find it quicker.
Which while it might be fine on a user per user basis, is a whole different story for mass deployments. Whereas I can fully script a solution using sed/awk/grep for plain text files (XML files are not as bad, but not as good as key = value type configurations).
Sure you can always just write a .reg file and hope it'll work. What if the key is under HKEY_USERS though and needs to be applied to every profile ? Load the reg on a network server and modify the logon script for everyone ? There's no way to guarantee a user's hive will be loaded (like say the user isn't logged on).
And regedit.exe doesn't even start to address file locks on user.dat and stuck hives after a log off ("Windows cannot load the user's registry" errors at log on on Terminal Services or Citrix, resulting a user accessing his profile with a temporary hive containing none of his preferences... ARGH!)
The fact is, from a systems administrator point of view, the registry is a pain.
Right. So none of you guys are computer users then? Or anybody to that matter.
My point was from the view of the systems administrator. Last I checked, system administrators were computer users and people that matter.
Of course if you've never done Windows systems administration, you don't quite know the pain it is. I'm not talking about desktop support here, I'm talking true server administration for massive Citrix/Terminal Services deployments, Exchange, AD, etc..
Thank god all of that is behind me and I never have to touch it again.
I find sed/awk/grep quicker. Maybe you just have to work on this Unix skills.
That's one of the things that Windows does better than Mac OS X.Window management is something i clearly think W7 beats SL at (SL was a clear improvement from L though*). In fact, its one of the few things that makes me wish i was using my windows box more often.
As for slow-down, not sure what you are referring to here. My macbook and imac are hardly any better, in fact, id say its worse (but i think that has a lot to do with me running a distributed environment, rather than relying on local installs - but still).
* note to self: turn on minimize to icon, that'll help some (yes, i really need this reminder. i reminded myself far too many times already, this time im putting it in print
----------
Who cares, i'd take the new task bar over Expose any day of the week. Heck, you can run a hundred windows and still find what you're looking for in a heart-beat. I really cant say the same when im using the mac (this may be due to me being a poor Mac-user, what do i know. even if that is the case, it just goes to show that MSFTs implementation is more "user friendly" in the end).
Image
Oh noes, am I a MS fanboy 'cause I just praised a feature of MS product?!
I wouldnt call AD and exchange true server administration.
Personally I use Python to dynamically build the registry hive at login, It takes a lot of effort upfront but little maintenance is required afterwards.
Last edited:
I wouldnt call AD and exchange true server administration.
Then you've never had to dabble in repairing a edb datastore that got corrupted on an Exchange 5.5 server (where all the mailboxes are stored on a single edb datastore).
Exchange can be dead simple, but then it won't be reliable. Planning storage/failover and high availability of Exchange can be as complicated as anything else out there.
Same for a massive distributed AD forest (not just a single domain with 1 domain controller assuming all 6 roles).
Frankly, people say Unix is complicated and Windows is easy, they've never done Enterprise grade Windows and it shows.
Then you've never had to dabble in repairing a edb datastore that got corrupted on an Exchange 5.5 server (where all the mailboxes are stored on a single edb datastore).
Exchange can be dead simple, but then it won't be reliable. Planning storage/failover and high availability of Exchange can be as complicated as anything else out there.
Same for a massive distributed AD forest (not just a single domain with 1 domain controller assuming all 6 roles).
Frankly, people say Unix is complicated and Windows is easy, they've never done Enterprise grade Windows and it shows.
I only entered MS Administration properly when Server 2003 came out, so I wouldn't know.
But 2 years ago I said screw it all as well, I just work in house at a Law Firm now while I do Game/Web Media and Networking at University.
I find Unix is a strange form of quality control, you have to know what you're doing to utilize it effectively, but trained monkeys can and do administer MS systems, and I got paid to fix them ALLZ!!11!11!
If anyone is suing Apple it would be the companies that contribute to the Linux kernel like Red Hat.
Not sure. Microsoft couldn't even get one OS to work.
The only difference between Mac OSX and iOS is the windowing and interface system anyway, so you could just call it one OS.
Not sure. Microsoft couldn't even get one OS to work.
Right because Lion's so incredible many users compare it to Windows Vista.
Those users don't understand the first thing about what was Vista's issue to begin with then.
(Hint: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Vista-Capable-lawsuit-against-Microsoft-now-a-1265319.php This was Vista's issue. People getting a Vista "Capable" computer prior to Vista's release and then finding out the computer couldn't run the Aero GUI).What's so wrong with Lion ? New gestures are fun, Mission control is an apt replacement for Expose+Spaces, launchpad is questionable but completely optional and there's good work under the hood (especially the overhaul of the OpenGL support).
Not much else has changed.
Doing fresh installations using only the software that comes with Lion, we've seen many intermittent issues. Audio cutting out, speaker icon going gray, video corruption, Safari locking up, folders disappearing... granted we are aware of some of the workarounds to address those issues but I see no reason to support an OS when it appears to need workarounds just to make it run right using Apple OS on Apple hardware from the start, it'd be like asking a buyer of a new car to implement workarounds just to use their brand new car. I'd understand if this was an issue involving 3rd party hardware/software but this is within Apple only.
We've heard "backyard techs" claim there may be something wrong with the machines but all of the Macs are 2011 models, not refurbs. I proved a few times that when I let them or me install Lion, all sorts of issues show up. As soon as we go back to Snow Leopard, it works like a champ. None of the issues I mentioned exist. We tried the upgrade and fresh install methods, it doesn't seem to make any difference either way.
My take on Lion is that using terms reserved for Microsoft products, I honestly don't believe Lion's issues can be resolved with a few minor patches, something like a Service Pack update is required to address the severity of these issues. Right now Snow Leopard is reliable plain and simple, Lion is like gambling. You might get lucky and find that you have little to no issue whereas some may experience more annoying issues that will impair productivity and reliability.
I have no doubt that Apple will get it right eventually but I also doubt it'll come anytime soon. Apple's currently preoccupied with other projects not limited to iCloud, iPhone 5 and iPad 3. Again it wouldn't make sense for them to rush out update patches that only address a small amount of the problems with Lion. The better solution is to simply wait, work out all the major and minor bugs, then deploy the fix as one huge update. IMHO Lion is on-par with a beta product, not a genuine retail release.
We've heard "backyard techs" claim there may be something wrong with the machines but all of the Macs are 2011 models, not refurbs. I proved a few times that when I let them or me install Lion, all sorts of issues show up. As soon as we go back to Snow Leopard, it works like a champ. None of the issues I mentioned exist. We tried the upgrade and fresh install methods, it doesn't seem to make any difference either way.
My take on Lion is that using terms reserved for Microsoft products, I honestly don't believe Lion's issues can be resolved with a few minor patches, something like a Service Pack update is required to address the severity of these issues. Right now Snow Leopard is reliable plain and simple, Lion is like gambling. You might get lucky and find that you have little to no issue whereas some may experience more annoying issues that will impair productivity and reliability.
I have no doubt that Apple will get it right eventually but I also doubt it'll come anytime soon. Apple's currently preoccupied with other projects not limited to iCloud, iPhone 5 and iPad 3. Again it wouldn't make sense for them to rush out update patches that only address a small amount of the problems with Lion. The better solution is to simply wait, work out all the major and minor bugs, then deploy the fix as one huge update. IMHO Lion is on-par with a beta product, not a genuine retail release.
Last edited:
None of which is on the level of the blunder of Vista Capable. All new OSes have issues. Rarely does a company approve hardware as a "capable" when it in fact isn't.
Well you're missing something critically different. With Vista, Microsoft has to support a much wider variety of hardware configurations. Apple on the other hand has only to support the hardware they produce. By comparison Vista or any version of Windows must be more robust in its hardware support than any OS X product.
A PC can be a cheap e-Machine only a few hundred bucks worth, to a full blown power workstation. Many PC users own value-machines because they're cheap, from Costco, Kmart, Best Buy, wherever. Apple has no such value equivalent, their hardware configurations don't vary nearly as much and never has to support more than 1 chipset at any one time.
A PC can be a cheap e-Machine only a few hundred bucks worth, to a full blown power workstation. Many PC users own value-machines because they're cheap, from Costco, Kmart, Best Buy, wherever. Apple has no such value equivalent, their hardware configurations don't vary nearly as much and never has to support more than 1 chipset at any one time.
Again, you fail to grasp the "Vista Capable" debacle. It was all about the Intel GPU of the time being unable to run Aero. That's it. Microsoft could have easily flagged it and not granted the sticker to OEMs using that GPU. But they did.
Microsoft might have a large array of hardware configurations to support, but in the end, they are responsible for their certification programs. Their programs failed the consumer in this instance, creating a lot of ill will and bad press and eventually, Vista's reputation.
This has nothing to do with the Lion issues. Hence why you're not seeing "Lion is Apple's Vista" anywhere in the serious tech press.
That was an issue for some but not all. For consumers after value-products, I'd agree with you since IGP (the Intel Extreme Graphics line) was more common in that environment but many users of that era were still using AGP video cards that didn't exhibit those issues. A simple Geforce 2 MX card was more than capable of running Aero and I think it was a $30 upgrade at the time from most OEMs. Those running GF3, GF4 or any Radeon card was more than capable of dealing with Aero.
I see where you're going with your comment regarding Vista's rep but your explanation isn't entirely correct, I'd go as far as to say it's more incorrect as anything.
The origin of the Vista issue started before Vista went to retail. I, as many other developers that were active in testing Vista were completely taken by surprise when MS said they were looking to make Vista go to Gold, which none of us believed it was ready for. We knew it was dog slow, and in dire need of tuning but somewhere in MS, someone made the call to let it go, IMHO "unfinished' and thus released a subpar product. Our company has thus skipped over Vista and moved from XP to 7 with zero issues.
Vista has an issue with Aero, but Lion has no such equivalent, only a wallpaper of Andromeda instead of Aurora. Vista's key problem is that using it proved to be counterproductive towards business use. Meaning for each security improvement it offers over XP, it costs users additional time with completing their work due to constant interruptions. When users decided it would be best to simply do away with the UAC to avoid being hassled, it literally took away any need to continue using Vista, they'd be better off using XP instead.
When a Mac user fresh installs Lion and encounters intermittent sound issues but none in Snow Leopard, I see that to be an even bigger issue than Microsoft failing to implement proper certification programs (which is more of an external issue with 3rd parties) since Lion's issue is completely internal to Apple and 100% within their ability to control without fail.
You are right about how Vista may not be the best comparison to Lion but Windows ME is. Lion incorporates a lot of unwanted changes that most users don't want or need and it's proven to be very unreliable.
Last edited:
But it's what led to the Vista debacle and the reputation the OS got. End of story. You can continue on ranting, it doesn't make Lion Apple's Vista.