Read a typical rant here.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-mac-osx-lion-starcraft-2-and-mouse-movement.1286944/
It's probably more legitimate than
http://kottke.org/98/11/my-mac-sucks
but, I only know about these things third hand.
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.
People having no idea an nagging about PPC - and even making a FAQ, arrrrrg
- Thread starter Cox Orange
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-mac-osx-lion-starcraft-2-and-mouse-movement.1286944/
It's probably more legitimate than
http://kottke.org/98/11/my-mac-sucks
but, I only know about these things third hand.
There are some Mac "quirks" that actually are features and take getting used to.
The mouse acceleration thing is one of those. I find the "Mac way" of doing things superior especially for fine work like in Photoshop. If you need to get across the screen quickly, move the mouse quickly and it will go. If you want to do fine detail work, move the mouse slowly and you can position the cursor much more exactly than in Windows.
I bought a DLSD from a forum member here that Ubuntu installed on it. I still have the Ubuntu HDD as I know he put a lot of work into getting it to work, but I lasted about 12 hours with it. One of the biggest annoyances to me was that movements on the trackpad were completely linear-i.e. moving your finger a certain distance moved the pointer an equal amount every time. IMO, this it terrible on a trackpad. I have an old Compaq Armada(133mhz Pentium to give you some idea) where the touchpad is about the size of two postage stamps, and the touchpad works similarly in it. Back when I used it regularly, I loved it because I was the only one who could actually use the computer
. On the rare occasion I try to use it now, however, I end up plugging in a mouse.
I guess there's no right or wrong way, but Apple did bring the mouse to personal computers and I tend to think that they usually get it right. As I said, I much prefer the Mac way, especially after using it for several years.
Another somewhat contentious point is the font rendering on Macs vs. PCs. Back when I used iMac G3s in the school computer lab(probably running 8.5 or 8.6, as they were mostly tray loaders and I doubt any had ever been upgraded), I had a hard time using the Macs because I thought that all the text was "blurry." I was use to the crisp rendering in Windows. Higher screen resolutions have made fonts more "crisp" in Macs(they even look great to me under OS 9 with a decent video card on a 100ppi Cinema), but they maintain the fidelity to print that has always been the hallmark of Apple font rendering. Now that Macs are virtually the only things I use, I think that renderings look like crap in Windows. I also think its telling that Windows has increasingly been moving toward a more "Mac like" font rendering.
As for the rest of the video-he does actually have some decent point in regard to software ability, but you still can't get around the fact that a G5 is a beast when running software appropriate to it. Throw CS2 or a contemporary version Final Cut on it and it will tear through things with ease-especially on a Quad. Heck, even a high spec G4 is great, although not generally as fast as a G5.
All the stuff about upgradeability, though, is a pile of crap. He keeps going on about the FX5200, but most of us who use G5s regularly realized that these are terrible cards. I know a lot of folks like to run 9600XTs in their G5s, which are great cards(although I usually end up putting them in G4s). The 9600 Pro has dual DVI(if you'd prefer that) including one dual-link port. I absolutely love my 6800 Ultra, which has two dual links. There are plenty of Mac cards that don't require flashing, although flashing generally isn't a big deal(I flashed my FireGl, which flashes beautifully into an X800 XT, in a G5 running OS X). Plus, there's the whole fact that even if a card has an ADC port, ADC ports are DVI ports and can be converted as such using a passive adapter.
BTW, with regard to the whole pronunciation of OS X-I go back and forth between saying X and 10. I think Apple consistently(in keynotes and such) calls it OS 10. The "X" is, of course, the Roman numeral 10 and also designates it as a successor to OS 9. To me, though, "X" also has merit because it was also chosen to indicate the Unix underpinnings. I find it awkward to say "OS 10 10.5.8"(for example) so will often instead say "OS X 10.5.8." Of course, I guess I could just say "OS 10.5.8" which would be unambiguous and also not start a war. Personally, I usually just say Leopard .
The mouse acceleration thing is one of those. I find the "Mac way" of doing things superior especially for fine work like in Photoshop. If you need to get across the screen quickly, move the mouse quickly and it will go. If you want to do fine detail work, move the mouse slowly and you can position the cursor much more exactly than in Windows.
I bought a DLSD from a forum member here that Ubuntu installed on it. I still have the Ubuntu HDD as I know he put a lot of work into getting it to work, but I lasted about 12 hours with it. One of the biggest annoyances to me was that movements on the trackpad were completely linear-i.e. moving your finger a certain distance moved the pointer an equal amount every time. IMO, this it terrible on a trackpad. I have an old Compaq Armada(133mhz Pentium to give you some idea) where the touchpad is about the size of two postage stamps, and the touchpad works similarly in it. Back when I used it regularly, I loved it because I was the only one who could actually use the computer
. On the rare occasion I try to use it now, however, I end up plugging in a mouse. I guess there's no right or wrong way, but Apple did bring the mouse to personal computers and I tend to think that they usually get it right. As I said, I much prefer the Mac way, especially after using it for several years.
Another somewhat contentious point is the font rendering on Macs vs. PCs. Back when I used iMac G3s in the school computer lab(probably running 8.5 or 8.6, as they were mostly tray loaders and I doubt any had ever been upgraded), I had a hard time using the Macs because I thought that all the text was "blurry." I was use to the crisp rendering in Windows. Higher screen resolutions have made fonts more "crisp" in Macs(they even look great to me under OS 9 with a decent video card on a 100ppi Cinema), but they maintain the fidelity to print that has always been the hallmark of Apple font rendering. Now that Macs are virtually the only things I use, I think that renderings look like crap in Windows. I also think its telling that Windows has increasingly been moving toward a more "Mac like" font rendering.
As for the rest of the video-he does actually have some decent point in regard to software ability, but you still can't get around the fact that a G5 is a beast when running software appropriate to it. Throw CS2 or a contemporary version Final Cut on it and it will tear through things with ease-especially on a Quad. Heck, even a high spec G4 is great, although not generally as fast as a G5.
All the stuff about upgradeability, though, is a pile of crap. He keeps going on about the FX5200, but most of us who use G5s regularly realized that these are terrible cards. I know a lot of folks like to run 9600XTs in their G5s, which are great cards(although I usually end up putting them in G4s). The 9600 Pro has dual DVI(if you'd prefer that) including one dual-link port. I absolutely love my 6800 Ultra, which has two dual links. There are plenty of Mac cards that don't require flashing, although flashing generally isn't a big deal(I flashed my FireGl, which flashes beautifully into an X800 XT, in a G5 running OS X). Plus, there's the whole fact that even if a card has an ADC port, ADC ports are DVI ports and can be converted as such using a passive adapter.
BTW, with regard to the whole pronunciation of OS X-I go back and forth between saying X and 10. I think Apple consistently(in keynotes and such) calls it OS 10. The "X" is, of course, the Roman numeral 10 and also designates it as a successor to OS 9. To me, though, "X" also has merit because it was also chosen to indicate the Unix underpinnings. I find it awkward to say "OS 10 10.5.8"(for example) so will often instead say "OS X 10.5.8." Of course, I guess I could just say "OS 10.5.8" which would be unambiguous and also not start a war. Personally, I usually just say Leopard
.
BTW, with regard to the whole pronunciation of OS X-I go back and forth between saying X and 10. I think Apple consistently(in keynotes and such) calls it OS 10. The "X" is, of course, the Roman numeral 10 and also designates it as a successor to OS 9. To me, though, "X" also has merit because it was also chosen to indicate the Unix underpinnings. I find it awkward to say "OS 10 10.5.8"(for example) so will often instead say "OS X 10.5.8." Of course, I guess I could just say "OS 10.5.8" which would be unambiguous and also not start a war. Personally, I usually just say Leopard
Ever since I first got into looking at macs and wanting one, I saw snow leopard and though it was OS X Snow Leopard. I was 10 at the time and didn't know much info about OS X or Macs in general, let alone their history. So I figured it was just X, and had nothing to do with 10, until I got one and it had Lion and I saw the version number was 10.7, then I figured out the X was really a 10. However, I still find it easier and more fluid to say Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Mac OS X Lion, OS X Mountain Lion, OS X Mavericks (especially this one), OS X Yosemite, and OS X El Cap. This is just my opinion on pronouncing the name...
I feel as though the video creator is coming from a strictly PC viewpoint. From a person who is surrounded by PCs that may have shipped with XP but are now running 7, 8.1, or 10 without a problem, being limited to 10.5 appears to be a serious downfall. I would rather have a dual 2.3 GHz G5 over a PC that shipped with XP or Vista any day...
Yeah the thing about XP shipping PCs on 7/8/10 is that the people don't leave them stock. Replace the processor, GPU, RAM, throw in an SSD, it just doesn't really imply "Oh my computer came with XP and it's now on 10 " I have a computer that is bone stock and shipped with XP now it's on 7 and can barely handle it
This guy clearly has his opinions about PowerPC hardware... he has a lot of blatantly incorrect information as well, unfortunately. A lot of the stuff he says seems like he almost did research, but just skimmed the results. He knows about flashing video cards, yet thinks that you have to do that for any card? Huh? And he says it has "like five Firewire ports" while focused on the TWO that it has... and what is he on about with the mic input?
Regarding the mouse acceleration, it comes down to what you're accustomed to. Coming from the Windows world, I personally can't stand the mouse acceleration in OSX if I'm using it for more than a few minutes (unless I'm using a trackpad). Fortunately it's quite easy to disable so it's not an issue (another thing he apparently never bothered to research).
Regarding the mouse acceleration, it comes down to what you're accustomed to. Coming from the Windows world, I personally can't stand the mouse acceleration in OSX if I'm using it for more than a few minutes (unless I'm using a trackpad). Fortunately it's quite easy to disable so it's not an issue (another thing he apparently never bothered to research).
I have a Powermac G4 that's more or less stock(I added RAM, upgraded the GPU although could easily drop back down to a Rage 128 or 2MX that would have been original) and that has installed(and will run) 6 different versions of OS X(Public Beta-10.5) as well as OS 9. If you draw timeline parallels to Windows, that's roughly Windows 2000(OS X PB/10.0/10.1), Windows ME(OS 9), Windows XP(10.2-10.4) and Windows Vista(10.5). I'm also fudging a bit, as it technically does meet the requirements to run 10.5 but most of us know that the 867mhz G4 cut off is somewhat arbitrary and any AGP-based G4 can run it without trouble. Pretty much any "graphite" case G4 can run this same sequence of OSs, although installing 10.5 on a Yikes! takes a fair bit more work than it does on a Sawtooth and later.
I think my early '08 Macbook tops that in versions of OS X, though. It shipped with 10.5, and will continue to be supported in 10.11. That's 11 versions of OS X, or for the same Windows timeline that's Windows Vista(10.5, 10.6), Windows 7(10.7, 10.8), Windows 8(10.9, 10.10) and Windows 10(10.11). The ability to run all these versions of OS X isn't the exclusive territory of that particular model, either-I think late '07 MBPs will, as will the aluminum Macbook, all Unibody Macbook Pros, and I think all the aluminum iMacs. Heck, I could install Yosemite on my Mac Pro 1,1(shipped with 10.4), albeit with the upgraded GPU(non-flashed!) currently installed. It has a bunch of RAM in it now-much of it aftermarket. I have some "correct" RAM in terms of specs and could probably get it to 10gb, although I don't have any with the correct heatsinks so would need to transplant it. I've also installed an SSD, which makes the computer really peppy despite not being much newer(and as per Geekbench not a whole lot better) than a G5 Quad.
I took a bare stock accept for RAM upgraded Windows XP Pentium 4 Dell desktop from 2004 and put Windows 10 on it, and it ran better than XP ever did, including the RAM upgrade. The computer now has a slightly better graphics card, but it isn't support beyond Vista, so both the integrated and PCI GFX cards aren't supported, so I'm locked into minimum resolution and some graphics issues, but other than that, it runs fine. The processor is a 3.xGHz H T model. I'm about to receive a supposedly dead Dell desktop from my Grandfather, which I have no information about. Being that Windows 10 ran so well on the P4 machine, I may be able to breathe new life into this "broken" computer. I'm guessing either the HDD broke or the PSU failed. They ran that computer 24/7 in extremely dusty conditions, so I wouldn't be surprised if the processor overheated as well.
Well I'm going to stop rambling before tapatalk crashes for like the fifth time in the time it took for me to write this.
I tried this, right after posting, but the title is not editable after clicking "more options" still.
I think he was meaning with the Tapatalk app on a mobile device, not in the browser on a computer.
No, I actually meant the advanced editor when you press the edit button on the website, or at least that's what I though it was called.
Hmmm…I wonder if that's not because the WYSIWYG editor has been turned off in my preferences.
This is what I see…
Nope I tried turning it off and on and you can't edit the title
You can edit the title of the thread, it is just in a different place than on the old forums.
Above the right side of the original post there should be a cog wheel icon, next to the Watch Thread link, that contains the edit option.
As for the subject of the thread, it is just sad what some people put out there that gives the wrong info.
I agree with your point but I am sure that the person is the type that makes generalizations like "Computers that came with XP can run 10" judging by his attitude in the video.
I saw that a few months back. There's no question he's a PC fanboy.Without being mean, this is total crap:
"You need another PC to install the OS" - Whaaaat????
More of these gems can be found in the video.
I first was angry about the video, now I want to cry.
PS: oh you can't edit the title anymore on the new forums?
You mean, because I haven't changed it yet?Someone else gets to explain how to edit the thread title, for once
Well I didn't bother anymore and thought now that all have responded and the title has been there so long, why change it...
No, it's because of how many times I've pointed out that Thread Tools menu to someone asking how to edit a thread title ever since MR switched to Xenforo. It's even a bit strange to see someone else point it outYou mean, because I haven't changed it yet?
Well that probably means, it is not just that people are used to the old style, but that it is not easy to find. Also, while we are off topic , why does the site jump to the Copyright, when one hits the red bar on the right side? I would find it more logical to get from the top of the site to the last post.
, why does the site jump to the Copyright, when one hits the red bar on the right side? I would find it more logical to get from the top of the site to the last post.
It's been brought up before in the Site and Forum Feedback section. To be honest I think we could easily do without those arrows, and it's certainly not a hugely liked forum feature.Well that probably means, it is not just that people are used to the old style, but that it is not easy to find. Also, while we are off topic