When Steve came back to Apple, he rounded up all the technologies Apple was hemorrhaging and cancelled every one that nobody could argue a use for. AppleScript had its turn on the gallows, until someone at Apple pointed out that it held together publishing workflows among Apple's biggest customers. Then the rumor got out that Apple was thinking of killing AppleScript and Steve found out firsthand just how crucial a technology it is. Since then, Apple has done a great deal of work on improving and promoting AppleScript.
Not every Mac user uses AppleScript, partly because Apple has historically been pretty bad at letting people know it even existed (they're getting better). The people who do use it - mostly in publishing and design houses - live and die by it. The key here is workflow automation. You can write AppleScripts that watch particular folders and run against any file moved or saved into those folders; you can script applications like GraphicConverter that do sophisticated image processing; and you can talk to and run scripts on other Macs via AppleScript over IP. You can script Photoshop and Quark, saving a great deal of drudge work doing common operations. You can even use AppleScript Studio and FaceSpan to create applications and utilities with AppleScript (most of which are internal, but some of which have been released as shareware).
I'm sick of hearing that Windows sucks, and XP is unstable, and all this non-sense. Any problems in windows are just as many in OSX. I've had some really weird stuff happen to me while I was using freebsd, and the same when I was using windows.
Windows still sucks!
Weird stuff happening while using FreeBSD != I'm smart and know how to use a computer.
ALL modern desktop Operating Systems will have their issues. The big gripe that I have is when a server OS has issues. That is why we have migrated away from Windows 2000 Server to Linux. All this while having Microsoft as a customer
You are also incorrect about Adobe being able to drop their Mac line. This would certainly fragment the publishing market. This is something that would be terrible for Adobe, Microsoft and Apple.
How many users are advanced enought to code scripts tho? Not many.
But those that can appreciate the benefit and those that can't certainly aren't hindered by the ability. Mac OS X is such a good OS because it scales well across user types. Novice users will have an easier time making sure it's stable and secure (as you admitted yourself, it takes skill to keep a PC running smoothly) and advanced users have a lot of power under the hood. Windows fails on both counts. Sorry.
I have also believed that windows is far inferior to a Mac for many reasons. To me, windows is like an annoying dog: forever panting, lapping and buzzing around desperately trying to please. macOS is more like a cat. it just waits for you to do something.
My Mac is important to me and my platform of choice becuase I do not (and never have) see it as a computer. For me on a personal level it is simply an extension of me. Its not my workstation, tool or equipment (excuse unfortunate sexual overtones here!) its my partner, collaborator, colleague and self.
That said. Apple's success is vitally important for me. Not becuase I want bragging rights or need to feel good about it (I do anyway), but becuase unless apple continue and furthermore prosper there will come a day when there will be no more macs. More macs sold = more money for R&D = more insanely great innovations.
I loathe not just Pcs and their constant software conflicts, BSODs, BIOS tinkering, patches etc but also the windows mentality of conformity, homogeousisation, eradication of individuality. the whole one size fits all approach with no face, soul, spark of creativity and the opression of any sign of difference. we are creating generation after generation of children who are taught to conform, to not question to be slaves to the beige box and the corporate mindset.
having said all that, I sense apple sitting on their laurels again and congratulating themselves on releasing X without imploding. If X does not evolve more quickly I have a feeling that Longhorn will be the windows OS that finally nails apple.
Having said all that, I sense apple sitting on their laurels again and congratulating themselves on releasing X without imploding. If X does not evolve more quickly I have a feeling that Longhorn will be the windows OS that finally nails apple.
Uh...Apple has never been more productive. You call the Panther update "resting on laurels"? I don't think so. And Longhorn, if it's not delayed again, will come out when OS X is at 10.6. Let that sink in a little. That's Mac OS X 10.6. As if it wasn't ready to kick longhorn's ass right here, right now.
It's not what Apple has done, it's what Apple has done lately. Methinks the iMac spec bump hit certain people the wrong way. This IMO, has been a very productive year for Apple in many ways: the software, the OS, the notebooks, PowerMacs obviously, the iPod and iTunes obviously, even developer relations have generally been on the up.
It is hard to understand how Longhorn will be able to effectively compete with OS X. The release date is nearly 3 years away and gives Apple all sorts of time to continue their very rapid OS development pace. It is quite conceivable that Microsoft is right now lifting ideas from Jaguar and Panther. MS is very likely trying to figure out to integrate Expose into Longhorn, but in a way that doesn't blatantly copy Panther's functionality.
By the time MS figures out how to integrate OS X's functionality while keeping backwards compatibility and migrating to a new file system, Apple will have 2 and perhaps 3 new OSes released. Then Microsoft will have to delay Longhorn once again to integrate new functionality.
Perhaps Apple might paralyze Windows development all together and keep Longhorn in a perpetual development cycle.
I am being somewhat facetious, of course, but Microsoft seems to have a real dilemma. They have to compete with OS X on the desktop, Linux on the server and maintain compatibility with numerous manufacturers, now having to support 3 differing chip platforms, IA-64, x86-32 and x86-64. With the next XBox going IBM, they have just added PowerPC to boot.
Now, I know that MS is big and has a huge amount of resources, but managing their very large code base and porting it to a variety of platforms will get unwieldy very fast.
They need to commit to a single platform and focus on making Windows secure, stable and a pleasant working experience in that order. Focusing on backwards compatibility, and the numbers of manufacturers, not even mentioning the different chip platforms they are now desiring to support, will take away from the goals of security, stability, etc.
Microsoft had their chance with the Itanium. They could have refocused and redesigned Windows, keeping security and stability paramount. 32 bit x86 code could be run in emulation as Apple did with Classic for OS X. A more relevant example would be the migration of the Mac OS from the 68k processor to PowerPC.
Microsoft wouldn't commit and Intel is paying the price. However, Microsoft will also pay a price.
Apple is very nimble at the moment. They have a powerful partner in IBM. Though Intel and AMD have managed to keep pace with the PowerPC, even surpassing it in speed for the past several years, the party is over. Apple has already made the very tough moves. OS X and the PowerPC are about to turn on the afterburners.
The only question is thus--Will Microsoft and Intel fare as well in their upcoming transitions?
Apple nearly went under due to poor decisions. But they were able to make the transitions fairly seamless. Now, it is time for Microsoft and Intel to face the consequences of their own decisions, whether good or bad.
As for myself, I will be investing in Apple based hardware and software. The future is far more secure than over on the other side.
After all, I would hate to invest in a Boxx Opteron system that will become obsolete should Microsoft commit only to Itanium as a 64 bit platform. Committing to the Opteron only would be betting AMD against Intel. That is a bet that I would not want to make.
Hence, while Windows on PCs are reasonably useable now, I have no confidence that Microsoft will be able to keep up with Apple's torrid development pace. Neither do I see Intel being able to keep up with IBM regarding chip development either. AMD isn't even in the race.
I was the sole network admin at a High School. We had roughtly 250 PCs most running Windows 98, due to costs. We had a Windows 2000 Server and 2 NT SQL servers. How many serious problems did we have in 3 years? None. Nothing crashed, nothing burned. Nothing went down for more then a day that wasn't related to a Hardware Issue. I could ghost out a bad machine with in 20 minutes and it would be back up.
I think alot of the negativity towards Windows is the fact that most places that I have done work for have had horrible setup's that are either to complicated or not done properly. Its the real lack of quality of work that I see from these network admins. I feel confident that I could manage a 550 PC network just fine. Sure would it would take awhile to get everything flowing perfecting from the previous admin, but once I've fixed all the bugs from him, stability is not an issue. If you have a compentent person in charge then you will have a stable network. I really feel this is why so many people are ill towards windows, becuase incompetent people set them up.
x86-32's days are numbered. With in 5 years that platform will cease to exsist. IA-64 is going to die very slowly too. More companies are interested in AMD's opertron then the IA-64. XBox only runs a modified Windows Kernel. Its not a full OS. Its only the Kernel, only only requires maybe a 4th of the code windows does. The Ports of Windows are only there for special reasons. AMD will most likely be the big bridge from 32 to 64 bit on the x86 platform. AMD hasn't lost to the G5, you can't even say that, since the fact that neither have fully optimized software for them. I haven't heard of reports of programs lagging on the Athlon64, however I have heard of issues with Photoshop CS on OSX and G5. It's too elary to say this and I will not even begin to claim which is better.
One of the strenghts of Windows is the fact that it can work so seemlessly on so many different types of hardware. It also doesn't specify that yu have to replace an entire case for certian parts like IDE cables like Apple does. The reason that windows was so successful is the fact that it can run on many platforms and it could allow people to use it no matter what system they had. They could easily swap out a hard drive for another IDE drive without even thinking about it. Also the vast amount of customization you get with windows, it lets you use lesser hardware for one task, or more hardware for another. Dropping support for the vast majority of hardware would cripple the PC industry. If anything they need to add more built support for more hardware.
I don't really like the fact that since XP has been out there have been 4 OSX releases, I think it was 4, but anyway, thats what 129 dollars per release. Thats quite a bit of money if you ask me. Unix has also been in developemnet longer then Windows has. The fact that they keep releasing revisions that cost doesn't really appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to the common user. Considering most users don't think they should upgrade if they don't really need to, and most don't.
The last thing I am going to say is that many people that use a computer don't want to learn how to use it. They don't want to learn how to take care of it or anything else. They treat it like their car, and just pay someone to do it for them. Atleast thats the impression I get from most of the people I meet here at the Tech Support Center for MSU where I work.
I was the sole network admin at a High School. We had roughtly 250 PCs most running Windows 98, due to costs. We had a Windows 2000 Server and 2 NT SQL servers. How many serious problems did we have in 3 years? None. Nothing crashed, nothing burned. Nothing went down for more then a day that wasn't related to a Hardware Issue. I could ghost out a bad machine with in 20 minutes and it would be back up.
Based on my experience I would say you either have an advanced case of Alzheimers or just very selective memory. Then, of course, we all know the plural of anecdote is data.
Quote:
AMD will most likely be the big bridge from 32 to 64 bit on the x86 platform.
Strange then that the largest pc distributor doesn't use AMD chips, and the largest chip mfg denies having and x86-64 development program in place.
Quote:
I haven't heard of reports of programs lagging on the Athlon64, however I have heard of issues with Photoshop CS on OSX and G5. It's too elary to say this and I will not even begin to claim which is better.
I've also heard the Prince Charles buggered his manservant. However my saying this in no way indicates any prejudicial judgement on my part. Your even handedness is magnificent to observe. You are truly solomonic. blah blah blah. How about some facts next time bobo.
I don't really like the fact that since XP has been out there have been 4 OSX releases, I think it was 4, but anyway, thats what 129 dollars per release. Thats quite a bit of money if you ask me. Unix has also been in developemnet longer then Windows has. The fact that they keep releasing revisions that cost doesn't really appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to the common user. Considering most users don't think they should upgrade if they don't really need to, and most don't.
There have been two OS X releases since XP. Unix development vs. Windows development shouldn't have much to do with the number of revisions, as OS X releases largely touted things like Quartz Extreme and items related to it such as Expose.
No one says that you had to upgrade from one revision to another, and just as people haven't neessarily upgraded from 98/ME to XP, the same will apply for XP to Longhorn, as well as Apple's prior and future OS X upgrades. Also, the update from 10.0 --> 10.1 was free I thought.
II haven't heard of reports of programs lagging on the Athlon64, however I have heard of issues with Photoshop CS on OSX and G5.
The report is that Photoshop CS lags on both OSX and Windows, regardless of processor architecture. Including Athlon64 (gasp!!). Chris Cox (Adobe programmer) has stated that there are time increases in certain filters due to bugs being fixed and algorithms being tweaked for accuracy instead of speed.
Quote:
One of the strenghts of Windows is the fact that it can work so seemlessly on so many different types of hardware.
Windows doesn't work seamlessly. A dialog that says "Windows has detected new hardware" is a seam. A dialog that says "Which driver do you want to use with this hardware" is a seam. Suddenly forgetting how to use your sound card when you change your CD-ROM is a seam. The irony is that the vast variety of hardware that you are referencing largely works with the Mac as well. Oh there are some things that don't, mainly internal expansion cards, but on the whole I would have to say that MacOS does a much better, much more seamless job of working on many, many different types of hardware.
Unless by "different types of hardware" you mean the x86 box from Dell, and the x86 box from HP, and the x86 box from Gateway, etc.
Quote:
It also doesn't specify that yu have to replace an entire case for certian parts like IDE cables like Apple does.
You do realize that, in the midst of extolling the virtues of Windows (the opening "it" in your statement above) you suddenly switched to a completely unrelated problem (as if Windows is somehow responsible for PC makers not replacing an entire case?).
Quote:
The reason that windows was so successful is the fact that it can run on many platforms and it could allow people to use it no matter what system they had.
Did it run on Amiga? Did it run on Atari? Did it run on the Mac? No. It ran on ONE popular platform, the x86. That's it. (The high-end RISC boxes don't count because they did not contribute to Windows success).
Quote:
They could easily swap out a hard drive for another IDE drive without even thinking about it.
How is this different than the Mac? Oh that's right, it isn't.
Quote:
I don't really like the fact that since XP has been out there have been 4 OSX releases, I think it was 4, but anyway, thats what 129 dollars per release.
No. There have been three since XP was released, the first was free, the second two were $129, if you wanted to pay for them. If not, no problem.
Quote:
Unix has also been in development longer then Windows has. The fact that they keep releasing revisions that cost doesn't really appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to the common user. Considering most users don't think they should upgrade if they don't really need to, and most don't.
Read your last statement please, and think about that. I like the fact that there have been 4 releases of OSX since March 2001. I don't have to upgrade each year if I don't want to, and I never feel like I'm getting behind because I know that next year there will be another release. Most people don't upgrade, they don't have to. But if they want to they can. How can this possibly be bad?
Quote:
The last thing I am going to say is that many people that use a computer don't want to learn how to use it. They don't want to learn how to take care of it or anything else.
Absolutely. And that's why the Mac has always been the choice of people who don't want to bother with registry corruption, viruses, dll conflicts, IRQ settings (historically), acres and acres of incomprehensible options buried in dialog after dialog... you know, all that "customizability" that you were extolling a few paragraphs ago?
I don't mind using an Operating System with low market share, but I wish that some other company would take over Microsoft's place and make a more pleasant OS.
I can't stand Unix/Linux (excluding Mac OS X) for usability issues.
I like Unix/Linux for stability and open source code (half of the Mac OS wouldn't have been open source without Unix/Linux).
I think Windows is easier to use than Unix/Linux, but is just as ugly.
I dislike Windows for it's lack of stability and open source.
I like Apple because they make products that are pleasant for me to use.
I think Steve Jobs is cool because he's the only person that is in charge of a company that can make so make great products that I like.
2 bit x86 code could be run in emulation as Apple did with Classic for OS X. A more relevant example would be the migration of the Mac OS from the 68k processor to PowerPC.
For most of its early life the Itanium was unacceptably slow at running x86 code. At the moment, it doesn't look like a mainstream CPU (it's far too big, power hungry, has only shipped in low volume and has low software availability). The 68K emulator appears to be a work of genius (probably aided by the PowerPC's large number of registers compared to the 68K) : does anyone have any further details on its development ?
Quote:
It also doesn't specify that yu have to replace an entire case for certian parts like IDE cables like Apple does.
Hard drives aren't the best example: Macs have been able to use every IDE drive around for years. Non-Apple DVD-Rs versus the iApps/Final Cut and video cards are better examples of Mac owner's hardware buying incoveniences.
Quote:
Also, the update from 10.0 --> 10.1 was free I thought.
Probably because 10.0 wasn't especially practical for daily use?
Comments
Originally posted by scavanger:
How many users are advanced enought to code scripts tho? Not many.
Applescript is not that hard to learn, since it uses English syntax .
Not every Mac user uses AppleScript, partly because Apple has historically been pretty bad at letting people know it even existed (they're getting better). The people who do use it - mostly in publishing and design houses - live and die by it. The key here is workflow automation. You can write AppleScripts that watch particular folders and run against any file moved or saved into those folders; you can script applications like GraphicConverter that do sophisticated image processing; and you can talk to and run scripts on other Macs via AppleScript over IP. You can script Photoshop and Quark, saving a great deal of drudge work doing common operations. You can even use AppleScript Studio and FaceSpan to create applications and utilities with AppleScript (most of which are internal, but some of which have been released as shareware).
Check out <http://www.apple.com/applescript>. It's really a wonderful technology.
Originally posted by scavanger
How many users are advanced enought to code scripts tho? Not many.
Complain all you want, but would this be possible with even 100 PCs?
Originally posted by scavanger
I'm sick of hearing that Windows sucks, and XP is unstable, and all this non-sense. Any problems in windows are just as many in OSX. I've had some really weird stuff happen to me while I was using freebsd, and the same when I was using windows.
Windows still sucks!
Weird stuff happening while using FreeBSD != I'm smart and know how to use a computer.
ALL modern desktop Operating Systems will have their issues. The big gripe that I have is when a server OS has issues. That is why we have migrated away from Windows 2000 Server to Linux. All this while having Microsoft as a customer
You are also incorrect about Adobe being able to drop their Mac line. This would certainly fragment the publishing market. This is something that would be terrible for Adobe, Microsoft and Apple.
Originally posted by scavanger
How many users are advanced enought to code scripts tho? Not many.
But those that can appreciate the benefit and those that can't certainly aren't hindered by the ability. Mac OS X is such a good OS because it scales well across user types. Novice users will have an easier time making sure it's stable and secure (as you admitted yourself, it takes skill to keep a PC running smoothly) and advanced users have a lot of power under the hood. Windows fails on both counts. Sorry.
My Mac is important to me and my platform of choice becuase I do not (and never have) see it as a computer. For me on a personal level it is simply an extension of me. Its not my workstation, tool or equipment (excuse unfortunate sexual overtones here!) its my partner, collaborator, colleague and self.
That said. Apple's success is vitally important for me. Not becuase I want bragging rights or need to feel good about it (I do anyway), but becuase unless apple continue and furthermore prosper there will come a day when there will be no more macs. More macs sold = more money for R&D = more insanely great innovations.
I loathe not just Pcs and their constant software conflicts, BSODs, BIOS tinkering, patches etc but also the windows mentality of conformity, homogeousisation, eradication of individuality. the whole one size fits all approach with no face, soul, spark of creativity and the opression of any sign of difference. we are creating generation after generation of children who are taught to conform, to not question to be slaves to the beige box and the corporate mindset.
having said all that, I sense apple sitting on their laurels again and congratulating themselves on releasing X without imploding. If X does not evolve more quickly I have a feeling that Longhorn will be the windows OS that finally nails apple.
Originally posted by spooky
Having said all that, I sense apple sitting on their laurels again and congratulating themselves on releasing X without imploding. If X does not evolve more quickly I have a feeling that Longhorn will be the windows OS that finally nails apple.
Uh...Apple has never been more productive. You call the Panther update "resting on laurels"? I don't think so. And Longhorn, if it's not delayed again, will come out when OS X is at 10.6. Let that sink in a little. That's Mac OS X 10.6. As if it wasn't ready to kick longhorn's ass right here, right now.
Enough already, spooky.
By the time MS figures out how to integrate OS X's functionality while keeping backwards compatibility and migrating to a new file system, Apple will have 2 and perhaps 3 new OSes released. Then Microsoft will have to delay Longhorn once again to integrate new functionality.
Perhaps Apple might paralyze Windows development all together and keep Longhorn in a perpetual development cycle.
I am being somewhat facetious, of course, but Microsoft seems to have a real dilemma. They have to compete with OS X on the desktop, Linux on the server and maintain compatibility with numerous manufacturers, now having to support 3 differing chip platforms, IA-64, x86-32 and x86-64. With the next XBox going IBM, they have just added PowerPC to boot.
Now, I know that MS is big and has a huge amount of resources, but managing their very large code base and porting it to a variety of platforms will get unwieldy very fast.
They need to commit to a single platform and focus on making Windows secure, stable and a pleasant working experience in that order. Focusing on backwards compatibility, and the numbers of manufacturers, not even mentioning the different chip platforms they are now desiring to support, will take away from the goals of security, stability, etc.
Microsoft had their chance with the Itanium. They could have refocused and redesigned Windows, keeping security and stability paramount. 32 bit x86 code could be run in emulation as Apple did with Classic for OS X. A more relevant example would be the migration of the Mac OS from the 68k processor to PowerPC.
Microsoft wouldn't commit and Intel is paying the price. However, Microsoft will also pay a price.
Apple is very nimble at the moment. They have a powerful partner in IBM. Though Intel and AMD have managed to keep pace with the PowerPC, even surpassing it in speed for the past several years, the party is over. Apple has already made the very tough moves. OS X and the PowerPC are about to turn on the afterburners.
The only question is thus--Will Microsoft and Intel fare as well in their upcoming transitions?
Apple nearly went under due to poor decisions. But they were able to make the transitions fairly seamless. Now, it is time for Microsoft and Intel to face the consequences of their own decisions, whether good or bad.
As for myself, I will be investing in Apple based hardware and software. The future is far more secure than over on the other side.
After all, I would hate to invest in a Boxx Opteron system that will become obsolete should Microsoft commit only to Itanium as a 64 bit platform. Committing to the Opteron only would be betting AMD against Intel. That is a bet that I would not want to make.
Hence, while Windows on PCs are reasonably useable now, I have no confidence that Microsoft will be able to keep up with Apple's torrid development pace. Neither do I see Intel being able to keep up with IBM regarding chip development either. AMD isn't even in the race.
I think alot of the negativity towards Windows is the fact that most places that I have done work for have had horrible setup's that are either to complicated or not done properly. Its the real lack of quality of work that I see from these network admins. I feel confident that I could manage a 550 PC network just fine. Sure would it would take awhile to get everything flowing perfecting from the previous admin, but once I've fixed all the bugs from him, stability is not an issue. If you have a compentent person in charge then you will have a stable network. I really feel this is why so many people are ill towards windows, becuase incompetent people set them up.
x86-32's days are numbered. With in 5 years that platform will cease to exsist. IA-64 is going to die very slowly too. More companies are interested in AMD's opertron then the IA-64. XBox only runs a modified Windows Kernel. Its not a full OS. Its only the Kernel, only only requires maybe a 4th of the code windows does. The Ports of Windows are only there for special reasons. AMD will most likely be the big bridge from 32 to 64 bit on the x86 platform. AMD hasn't lost to the G5, you can't even say that, since the fact that neither have fully optimized software for them. I haven't heard of reports of programs lagging on the Athlon64, however I have heard of issues with Photoshop CS on OSX and G5. It's too elary to say this and I will not even begin to claim which is better.
One of the strenghts of Windows is the fact that it can work so seemlessly on so many different types of hardware. It also doesn't specify that yu have to replace an entire case for certian parts like IDE cables like Apple does. The reason that windows was so successful is the fact that it can run on many platforms and it could allow people to use it no matter what system they had. They could easily swap out a hard drive for another IDE drive without even thinking about it. Also the vast amount of customization you get with windows, it lets you use lesser hardware for one task, or more hardware for another. Dropping support for the vast majority of hardware would cripple the PC industry. If anything they need to add more built support for more hardware.
I don't really like the fact that since XP has been out there have been 4 OSX releases, I think it was 4, but anyway, thats what 129 dollars per release. Thats quite a bit of money if you ask me. Unix has also been in developemnet longer then Windows has. The fact that they keep releasing revisions that cost doesn't really appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to the common user. Considering most users don't think they should upgrade if they don't really need to, and most don't.
The last thing I am going to say is that many people that use a computer don't want to learn how to use it. They don't want to learn how to take care of it or anything else. They treat it like their car, and just pay someone to do it for them. Atleast thats the impression I get from most of the people I meet here at the Tech Support Center for MSU where I work.
I was the sole network admin at a High School. We had roughtly 250 PCs most running Windows 98, due to costs. We had a Windows 2000 Server and 2 NT SQL servers. How many serious problems did we have in 3 years? None. Nothing crashed, nothing burned. Nothing went down for more then a day that wasn't related to a Hardware Issue. I could ghost out a bad machine with in 20 minutes and it would be back up.
Based on my experience I would say you either have an advanced case of Alzheimers or just very selective memory. Then, of course, we all know the plural of anecdote is data.
AMD will most likely be the big bridge from 32 to 64 bit on the x86 platform.
Strange then that the largest pc distributor doesn't use AMD chips, and the largest chip mfg denies having and x86-64 development program in place.
I haven't heard of reports of programs lagging on the Athlon64, however I have heard of issues with Photoshop CS on OSX and G5. It's too elary to say this and I will not even begin to claim which is better.
I've also heard the Prince Charles buggered his manservant. However my saying this in no way indicates any prejudicial judgement on my part. Your even handedness is magnificent to observe. You are truly solomonic. blah blah blah. How about some facts next time bobo.
Originally posted by scavanger
I don't really like the fact that since XP has been out there have been 4 OSX releases, I think it was 4, but anyway, thats what 129 dollars per release. Thats quite a bit of money if you ask me. Unix has also been in developemnet longer then Windows has. The fact that they keep releasing revisions that cost doesn't really appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to the common user. Considering most users don't think they should upgrade if they don't really need to, and most don't.
There have been two OS X releases since XP. Unix development vs. Windows development shouldn't have much to do with the number of revisions, as OS X releases largely touted things like Quartz Extreme and items related to it such as Expose.
No one says that you had to upgrade from one revision to another, and just as people haven't neessarily upgraded from 98/ME to XP, the same will apply for XP to Longhorn, as well as Apple's prior and future OS X upgrades. Also, the update from 10.0 --> 10.1 was free I thought.
Originally posted by scavanger
II haven't heard of reports of programs lagging on the Athlon64, however I have heard of issues with Photoshop CS on OSX and G5.
The report is that Photoshop CS lags on both OSX and Windows, regardless of processor architecture. Including Athlon64 (gasp!!). Chris Cox (Adobe programmer) has stated that there are time increases in certain filters due to bugs being fixed and algorithms being tweaked for accuracy instead of speed.
One of the strenghts of Windows is the fact that it can work so seemlessly on so many different types of hardware.
Windows doesn't work seamlessly. A dialog that says "Windows has detected new hardware" is a seam. A dialog that says "Which driver do you want to use with this hardware" is a seam. Suddenly forgetting how to use your sound card when you change your CD-ROM is a seam. The irony is that the vast variety of hardware that you are referencing largely works with the Mac as well. Oh there are some things that don't, mainly internal expansion cards, but on the whole I would have to say that MacOS does a much better, much more seamless job of working on many, many different types of hardware.
Unless by "different types of hardware" you mean the x86 box from Dell, and the x86 box from HP, and the x86 box from Gateway, etc.
It also doesn't specify that yu have to replace an entire case for certian parts like IDE cables like Apple does.
You do realize that, in the midst of extolling the virtues of Windows (the opening "it" in your statement above) you suddenly switched to a completely unrelated problem (as if Windows is somehow responsible for PC makers not replacing an entire case?).
The reason that windows was so successful is the fact that it can run on many platforms and it could allow people to use it no matter what system they had.
Did it run on Amiga? Did it run on Atari? Did it run on the Mac? No. It ran on ONE popular platform, the x86. That's it. (The high-end RISC boxes don't count because they did not contribute to Windows success).
They could easily swap out a hard drive for another IDE drive without even thinking about it.
How is this different than the Mac? Oh that's right, it isn't.
I don't really like the fact that since XP has been out there have been 4 OSX releases, I think it was 4, but anyway, thats what 129 dollars per release.
No. There have been three since XP was released, the first was free, the second two were $129, if you wanted to pay for them. If not, no problem.
Unix has also been in development longer then Windows has. The fact that they keep releasing revisions that cost doesn't really appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to the common user. Considering most users don't think they should upgrade if they don't really need to, and most don't.
Read your last statement please, and think about that. I like the fact that there have been 4 releases of OSX since March 2001. I don't have to upgrade each year if I don't want to, and I never feel like I'm getting behind because I know that next year there will be another release. Most people don't upgrade, they don't have to. But if they want to they can. How can this possibly be bad?
The last thing I am going to say is that many people that use a computer don't want to learn how to use it. They don't want to learn how to take care of it or anything else.
Absolutely. And that's why the Mac has always been the choice of people who don't want to bother with registry corruption, viruses, dll conflicts, IRQ settings (historically), acres and acres of incomprehensible options buried in dialog after dialog... you know, all that "customizability" that you were extolling a few paragraphs ago?
I don't understand it, but I don't mind.
I can't stand using Windows, so I don't.
I like the way the Mac works, it's pleasant.
I dislike Microsoft, I wish it would go away.
I don't mind using an Operating System with low market share, but I wish that some other company would take over Microsoft's place and make a more pleasant OS.
I can't stand Unix/Linux (excluding Mac OS X) for usability issues.
I like Unix/Linux for stability and open source code (half of the Mac OS wouldn't have been open source without Unix/Linux).
I think Windows is easier to use than Unix/Linux, but is just as ugly.
I dislike Windows for it's lack of stability and open source.
I like Apple because they make products that are pleasant for me to use.
I think Steve Jobs is cool because he's the only person that is in charge of a company that can make so make great products that I like.
I like Cocoa because it makes things taste good.
Alexander the Great
2 bit x86 code could be run in emulation as Apple did with Classic for OS X. A more relevant example would be the migration of the Mac OS from the 68k processor to PowerPC.
For most of its early life the Itanium was unacceptably slow at running x86 code. At the moment, it doesn't look like a mainstream CPU (it's far too big, power hungry, has only shipped in low volume and has low software availability). The 68K emulator appears to be a work of genius (probably aided by the PowerPC's large number of registers compared to the 68K) : does anyone have any further details on its development ?
It also doesn't specify that yu have to replace an entire case for certian parts like IDE cables like Apple does.
Hard drives aren't the best example: Macs have been able to use every IDE drive around for years. Non-Apple DVD-Rs versus the iApps/Final Cut and video cards are better examples of Mac owner's hardware buying incoveniences.
Also, the update from 10.0 --> 10.1 was free I thought.
Probably because 10.0 wasn't especially practical for daily use?