My PC friend and his complaints with Macs

[James L]

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....WSID=150608FDE1857034457C9F8BACECA385DE1B1410

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

Cheers,

James

 

[DavidLeblond]

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

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

 

[Mr. Anderson]

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]

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]

My side of the pc user about macs...

I have to people who hates macs. Both of them said," They are so F***ing 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]

...

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]

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]

My arguments.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Reply to the mac-skeptic:

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]

Back from the dead and living large

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]

1 - 4: yes
5: hell no

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

 

[DJ Forge]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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? )
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]

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]

Alright, here's my feeble attempt at neutrality.

1. ALL lab computers BLOW MONKEY nutz 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]

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]

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]

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]

I used to be a PC fanatic...

Until one day I saw the light...

And now I am a...

Mac FANATIC!



Gotta love 'em!

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

I converted in just one day.