Reply to the mac-skeptic:
Macmaniac's friend said:
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
