hence the flight of fancy i mentioned. i was flying quite high.... yeah, the only way it would be possible is some sort of 30W max power three- or four- cores on one die :: a secret not yet revealed anywhere yet except in a "i'll show you mine, you show me yours" session between iSteve and Paul Intelollini
look, it was just mainly for the graphic mockups yeah, you know, it flowed well, iBook CoreSolo iBook CoreDuo, PowerBook CoreQuad...........
OT, but OO.o is meant to compete with/directly replace the business app, MS Office. Thus it looks and behaves like Office.
To me, it seems to look behave a lot more like the WordPerfect Suite of the very late 90's. I use WP Suite 8 and I adapted to OO.o easily. My sister is familiar with the Microsoft Office family and had a hard time with it.
I won't use Microsoft's Office product simply because I have better things to do with my money than spend $300 per computer to do something that I already can easily do that's already paid for.
Quote:
Linux UI's as a whole are very customizable, perhaps to a flaw, but look at art.gnome.org for a variety of themes which best Windows XP's fugliness.
Does the flexibility of the various Linux UIs make the system easier to use and easier to maintain? So far, it doesn't seem so, even with the latest iterations. Last time, with the latest Fedora Core, I upped the screen resolution limit for a new panel and the control panel applet suggested that I log out or restart the X server to see the changes. WTF? I had similar arcane experiences with recent SuSe. I'm rooting for Linux, I use it for a server, but for desktop use, they need serious usability improvements, IMO.
Does the flexibility of the various Linux UIs make the system easier to use and easier to maintain? So far, it doesn't seem so, even with the latest iterations. Last time, with the latest Fedora Core, I upped the screen resolution limit for a new panel and the control panel applet suggested that I log out or restart the X server to see the changes. WTF? I had similar arcane experiences with recent SuSe. I'm rooting for Linux, I use it for a server, but for desktop use, they need serious usability improvements, IMO.
Yay i'm steering the thread even further off into space. But I wanted to say I agree with how you stated of linux being used for desktop use. Unfortunately you are completely correct. IMO they need to rewrite X in order to have it compete with windows / apple in a mainstream way. But then again who is they . I like linux. I'd rather use it than windows to be honest. But it is just lacking in certain compartments. This is why I have to have a mac. The CLI in windows is not strong enough to use full time. You can't easily cut / paste. You can't resize it easily, You can't have process apps like tail constantly running (glad they made a GUI app that works like tail in windows). All these things just make my job harder. Linux can do everything the mac can except 2 things.... Fireworks / Photoshop. I think it would be in Adobe's Best interest to sell these apps for Linux. But for now... an apple desktop (preferably an intel) will do. And I say preferably intel because the intel desktop I have from ADC is working like a charm. It does what I need it to for being a backend web dev.
The question is; which predominates? And for whom?
Considering those purchasing mainframes were managers who didn't need to use the machines, the answer is: Whatever is cheapest and can get out the door soonest, working or not.
Considering those purchasing mainframes were managers who didn't need to use the machines, the answer is: Whatever is cheapest and can get out the door soonest, working or not.
The question is; which predominates? And for whom?
True. While Windows has a maintainability issue, and Linux has a usability issue, I think there are significant defficiencies in OS X that need to be handled.
The network code in OS X could use help, same goes for the task handling, and there's memory use, on all counts I would say that OS X is third place of three contenders.
As for the network issue, if a program like iTunes tries to do a podcast update, it can easily peg the CPU even if the response hasn't come back yet. So the computer is blowing cycles as load instead of idlling to wait for a server response. The Windows version of iTunes does not have this problem.
For task handling, I see the spining disc far too often when switching between tasks. The computer seems to sit there before following through with the requested operation. I do have plenty of memory, about three times what I typically need on a Windows or Linux computer, with some free, but I still get the spinning wheel. Even simple things like widgets waste memory, a single widget usually takes 15-30MB of memory despite being what should be a much smaller program.
True. While Windows has a maintainability issue, and Linux has a usability issue, I think there are significant defficiencies in OS X that need to be handled.
The network code in OS X could use help, same goes for the task handling, and there's memory use, on all counts I would say that OS X is third place of three contenders.
As for the network issue, if a program like iTunes tries to do a podcast update, it can easily peg the CPU even if the response hasn't come back yet. So the computer is blowing cycles as load instead of idlling to wait for a server response. The Windows version of iTunes does not have this problem.
For task handling, I see the spining disc far too often when switching between tasks. The computer seems to sit there before following through with the requested operation. I do have plenty of memory, about three times what I typically need on a Windows or Linux computer, with some free, but I still get the spinning wheel. Even simple things like widgets waste memory, a single widget usually takes 15-30MB of memory despite being what should be a much smaller program.
I would agree somewhat on the first, more on the second, but very little on the third.
Networking on the Mac has been pretty good. Most of the efficiency issues have been fixed. The main problems are indirectly related, such as Windows shares, etc.
Task switching has been, and still is to some extent, a problem. A lot of these are finder related. Until Apple rewrites the Finder these problems will remain. There are other issues as well, but mostly they aren't much of a problem.
As far as memory goes; this is something that isn't always an OS problem. Widgets, Safari, etc., are program related. Sometimes they are the result of memory leaks. So, I guess you could say that it is memory related, but not OS related.
Windows also pounds the HD pretty hard. They have more memory problems than the Mac does. Opening too many programs or windows can freeze the machine. The more programs open, the slower it goes. We don't have those problems. There are others as well.
Both OS's need a lot of memory, and Vista will need more.
Windows also gets slower each version, while X gets faster. While some say (and in some cases correctly) that X was slow to begin with, the fact is that the two are going in different directions.
As far as Linux goes, it doesn't have nearly as many services to begin with. The proposals for the new kernel have been so negative, that so far it hasn't gone anywhere. The fear is that the services being proposed will slow it down such a great extent that it will feel bloated.
By the way, Linux these days already feels bloated. It's become a more common complaint.
Whatever, it doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't dominate due to how good it is any more than Windows.
I take it you haven't read the book.
The book is an outdated rant by a bunch of gents from the MIT AI lab and the long defunct (deservedly so) and terribly over the top Thinking Machines Corp. At the time it had it's place and was valid. And you can take that seriously about after about 8 computing generations? Now it's about relevant to OS X as a Model T owners manual is to a Lotus Elise.
It's got to be bad! It still has a steering wheel and internal combustion engine! I hate it!
The book is an outdated rant by a bunch of gents from the MIT AI lab and the long defunct (deservedly so) and terribly over the top Thinking Machines Corp. At the time it had it's place and was valid. And you can take that seriously about after about 8 computing generations? Now it's about relevant to OS X as a Model T owners manual is to a Lotus Elise.
It's got to be bad! It still has a steering wheel and internal combustion engine! I hate it!
The fundamental design of the UNIX toolchain, administration, security design (or lack thereof), file system, and design philosophy are unchanged (run until it breaks then hack it to the next iteration).
You make it sound like UNIX has fundamentally changed since 1969. The only thing which has changed has been the number of bug fixes.
You could make Windows bug-free and it would still suck.
Comments
look, it was just mainly for the graphic mockups yeah, you know, it flowed well, iBook CoreSolo iBook CoreDuo, PowerBook CoreQuad...........
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
OT, but OO.o is meant to compete with/directly replace the business app, MS Office. Thus it looks and behaves like Office.
To me, it seems to look behave a lot more like the WordPerfect Suite of the very late 90's. I use WP Suite 8 and I adapted to OO.o easily. My sister is familiar with the Microsoft Office family and had a hard time with it.
I won't use Microsoft's Office product simply because I have better things to do with my money than spend $300 per computer to do something that I already can easily do that's already paid for.
Linux UI's as a whole are very customizable, perhaps to a flaw, but look at art.gnome.org for a variety of themes which best Windows XP's fugliness.
Does the flexibility of the various Linux UIs make the system easier to use and easier to maintain? So far, it doesn't seem so, even with the latest iterations. Last time, with the latest Fedora Core, I upped the screen resolution limit for a new panel and the control panel applet suggested that I log out or restart the X server to see the changes. WTF? I had similar arcane experiences with recent SuSe. I'm rooting for Linux, I use it for a server, but for desktop use, they need serious usability improvements, IMO.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8030/
Originally posted by JeffDM
Does the flexibility of the various Linux UIs make the system easier to use and easier to maintain? So far, it doesn't seem so, even with the latest iterations. Last time, with the latest Fedora Core, I upped the screen resolution limit for a new panel and the control panel applet suggested that I log out or restart the X server to see the changes. WTF? I had similar arcane experiences with recent SuSe. I'm rooting for Linux, I use it for a server, but for desktop use, they need serious usability improvements, IMO.
Yay i'm steering the thread even further off into space. But I wanted to say I agree with how you stated of linux being used for desktop use. Unfortunately you are completely correct. IMO they need to rewrite X in order to have it compete with windows / apple in a mainstream way. But then again who is they
Amusing book on the subject of how UNIX went wrong:
http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf
Originally posted by strobe
Amusing book on the subject of how UNIX went wrong:
who said irony is dead?
those guys had no idea what was to become of mac os...
Originally posted by tubgirl
who said irony is dead?
those guys had no idea what to become of mac os...
Huh?
I don't think even perl could parse that last sentence. In case you're suggesting UNIX evolved beyond its past faults, think again.
Originally posted by strobe
The fundamental problem with Linux is the programming methodology of its users. Don't design, just hack.
Amusing book on the subject of how UNIX went wrong:
http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf
Instead of writing a 360 page handbook, they could have started work on a new OS.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Instead of writing a 360 page handbook, they could have started work on a new OS.
To be used by as many people who use NewOS, Hurd, BeOS, and NiftyOS combined--namely no-one.
Originally posted by strobe
To be used by as many people who use NewOS, Hurd, BeOS, and NiftyOS combined--namely no-one.
BeOS Had potential... just not enough backing :-/
But OS X has obviously been the strongest UNIX so far... and you say faults... compared to what? What faults?
Originally posted by emig647
BeOS Had potential... just not enough backing :-/
Potential to do what?
Whatever, it doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't dominate due to how good it is any more than Windows.
Quote:
But OS X has obviously been the strongest UNIX so far... and you say faults... compared to what? What faults?
I take it you haven't read the book.
The question is; which predominates? And for whom?
Originally posted by melgross
Everything has strengths and faults.
The question is; which predominates? And for whom?
Considering those purchasing mainframes were managers who didn't need to use the machines, the answer is: Whatever is cheapest and can get out the door soonest, working or not.
Originally posted by strobe
Considering those purchasing mainframes were managers who didn't need to use the machines, the answer is: Whatever is cheapest and can get out the door soonest, working or not.
Not when it comes to mainframes it isn't.
That's the pc business you're talking about.
Originally posted by melgross
Everything has strengths and faults.
The question is; which predominates? And for whom?
True. While Windows has a maintainability issue, and Linux has a usability issue, I think there are significant defficiencies in OS X that need to be handled.
The network code in OS X could use help, same goes for the task handling, and there's memory use, on all counts I would say that OS X is third place of three contenders.
As for the network issue, if a program like iTunes tries to do a podcast update, it can easily peg the CPU even if the response hasn't come back yet. So the computer is blowing cycles as load instead of idlling to wait for a server response. The Windows version of iTunes does not have this problem.
For task handling, I see the spining disc far too often when switching between tasks. The computer seems to sit there before following through with the requested operation. I do have plenty of memory, about three times what I typically need on a Windows or Linux computer, with some free, but I still get the spinning wheel. Even simple things like widgets waste memory, a single widget usually takes 15-30MB of memory despite being what should be a much smaller program.
Originally posted by JeffDM
True. While Windows has a maintainability issue, and Linux has a usability issue, I think there are significant defficiencies in OS X that need to be handled.
The network code in OS X could use help, same goes for the task handling, and there's memory use, on all counts I would say that OS X is third place of three contenders.
As for the network issue, if a program like iTunes tries to do a podcast update, it can easily peg the CPU even if the response hasn't come back yet. So the computer is blowing cycles as load instead of idlling to wait for a server response. The Windows version of iTunes does not have this problem.
For task handling, I see the spining disc far too often when switching between tasks. The computer seems to sit there before following through with the requested operation. I do have plenty of memory, about three times what I typically need on a Windows or Linux computer, with some free, but I still get the spinning wheel. Even simple things like widgets waste memory, a single widget usually takes 15-30MB of memory despite being what should be a much smaller program.
I would agree somewhat on the first, more on the second, but very little on the third.
Networking on the Mac has been pretty good. Most of the efficiency issues have been fixed. The main problems are indirectly related, such as Windows shares, etc.
Task switching has been, and still is to some extent, a problem. A lot of these are finder related. Until Apple rewrites the Finder these problems will remain. There are other issues as well, but mostly they aren't much of a problem.
As far as memory goes; this is something that isn't always an OS problem. Widgets, Safari, etc., are program related. Sometimes they are the result of memory leaks. So, I guess you could say that it is memory related, but not OS related.
Windows also pounds the HD pretty hard. They have more memory problems than the Mac does. Opening too many programs or windows can freeze the machine. The more programs open, the slower it goes. We don't have those problems. There are others as well.
Both OS's need a lot of memory, and Vista will need more.
Windows also gets slower each version, while X gets faster. While some say (and in some cases correctly) that X was slow to begin with, the fact is that the two are going in different directions.
As far as Linux goes, it doesn't have nearly as many services to begin with. The proposals for the new kernel have been so negative, that so far it hasn't gone anywhere. The fear is that the services being proposed will slow it down such a great extent that it will feel bloated.
By the way, Linux these days already feels bloated. It's become a more common complaint.
Welcome to the world of the "modern" OS.
Originally posted by strobe
[B]Potential to do what?
Whatever, it doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't dominate due to how good it is any more than Windows.
I take it you haven't read the book.
The book is an outdated rant by a bunch of gents from the MIT AI lab and the long defunct (deservedly so) and terribly over the top Thinking Machines Corp. At the time it had it's place and was valid. And you can take that seriously about after about 8 computing generations? Now it's about relevant to OS X as a Model T owners manual is to a Lotus Elise.
Originally posted by Hiro
The book is an outdated rant by a bunch of gents from the MIT AI lab and the long defunct (deservedly so) and terribly over the top Thinking Machines Corp. At the time it had it's place and was valid. And you can take that seriously about after about 8 computing generations? Now it's about relevant to OS X as a Model T owners manual is to a Lotus Elise.
The fundamental design of the UNIX toolchain, administration, security design (or lack thereof), file system, and design philosophy are unchanged (run until it breaks then hack it to the next iteration).
You make it sound like UNIX has fundamentally changed since 1969. The only thing which has changed has been the number of bug fixes.
You could make Windows bug-free and it would still suck.