My PC friend and his complaints with Macs

[krimson]

Update from JPL.

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 f**k up. How does ANYONE f**k 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]

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]

Once again, here we are...

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" bull****. 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 bull****. 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]

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

True....

 

[mr_mac]

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]

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.

 

[ingenious]

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)

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.

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? 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... 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... 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? 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.

 

[flyfish29]

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]

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.

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

 

[krimson]

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

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]

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]

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]

Donnie Darko!

 

[quagmire]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

Just watch this and I think no one need reply further to this topic...

 

[Apple Hobo]

Linux zealots suck.

Thank you. That is all for now.

 

[ChrisH3677]

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.