- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
What wasted disk space? iTunes doesn't compress songs before putting them on the iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
- Second is the issue of privacy. In iTunes, you have a centralized application that tracks the type of music I put in my iPod. Whenever I buy a new song from iTunes, nothing prevents the iTunes client to tell the server what type of music I have been listening to lately, whether they come from iTunes purchases, CD's or digital files from other stores. Not sure if iTunes is using this to exploit consumer's privacy but the possibility is there and there is no way to work around it.
iTunes doesn't do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
With the sync issue, the problem that I never had (since that by the time I bought my iPod it could be disabled and I did it) is that I don't trust automatic software to synchronize backups. Call me paranoid if you want, but this way of thinking comes from a few disagreeable experiences with such synchronization in the enterprise. While I understand that for the enterprise the amount of data to be backed up is so big that doing manual syncs is not an option, for my own data I rather do it manually.
Apple has a MUCH better track record than Windows software when it comes to backing up and syncing. I didn't trust iTunes much either when I switched, but I've come around. and I'm glad I did. I wasted so much extra time doing it manually.
. I still don't understand your problem with iTunes. iTunes isn't the same as iTunes Store. You can use iTunes and not be connected to any server, you know that right? If you are that paranoid about a server seeing what music you have in your library, then don't connect to the server.
This must be in the Windoze Uzers Guide or something. I have seen hundreds of anti-Apple posts over the last few years whining "BUT I WANNA DRAG AND DROP WAAHH....."
List of Windoze users complaints:
- I wanna fullscreen every app
- I wanna drag and drop my mp3s that I stole
- I wanna load my computer FROM my iPod
- I wanna cut and paste, not copy and paste, files
- I don't like command key why can't it be control key (hint: Mac OS came BEFORE Windows)
- I wanna menu in every window
- I wanna get rid of the Dock and the menu bar
- I want the Trash on the Desktop
- I want the Dashboard widgets on the Desktop
- I wanna change all the colors and sizes of everything
- I wanna call everything a "program" instead of an application
- I want Apple to license FairPlay to all the other music players so I can "CHOOSE"
This must be in the Windoze Uzers Guide or something. I have seen hundreds of anti-Apple posts over the last few years whining "BUT I WANNA DRAG AND DROP WAAHH....."
...
What is boils down to is that they want Apple to develop a more reliable version of Windows.
This must be in the Windoze Uzers Guide or something. I have seen hundreds of anti-Apple posts over the last few years whining "BUT I WANNA DRAG AND DROP WAAHH....."
....
- I wanna drag and drop my mp3s that I stole
......
I really don't understand what's your problem. First was the inclusion of Norton anti virus in an unfair comparison HP/Vista HW vs Mac HW (as if Mac OS was 100% free of security problems), now you are calling all of us who would like to bypass iTunes thieves (you never put music from a CD you bought into MP3???), what's next? Maybe that all those who resist conversion should be shot to death?
First, even if you don't know who he is (and he wants to continue to remain completely anonymous) but since he has been mentioned several times in this thread, I want to publicly apologize to my friend for referring to him as a "Mac preacher searching for converts". Apparently, he wasn't really happy with that description, even though there wasn't any bad feeling from my side. Apology issued let me go to the postings
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
You lost me here. What wasted disk space?
Well, I wasn't clear enough with this. It can be workarounded but at extra work from my side. I do use iTunes to buy both Music and Video (to the surprise of some). When I buy music/video, those files go to a directory that I can change from iTunes. Then, I also have all my other music/audio which is in non Apple formats. If I just import them from their location to iTunes (I am not talking necesarily about raw CD music which of course needs compression), it's a bit messy because from the iTunes view, I get the impression that all those files are in the same directory, which might not be the case. So for clarity, I prefer to copy the file to the place where all other iTunes music is. At that time I am wasting disk space. I would rather drag and drop directly into the iPod. There might be other ways of doing it, but the whole point is that iTunes is interfering with the way I would like to do it myself, therefore, it's restricting my freedom. As I said, I have nothing against those users who love to experience the whole iTunes/iPods thing the Apple Way. But for those of use who want a different experience, we are stuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
iTunes has always allowed manual sync. I still don't understand your problem with iTunes. iTunes isn't the same as iTunes Store. You can use iTunes and not be connected to any server, you know that right? If you are that paranoid about a server seeing what music you have in your library, then don't connect to the server.
From reading the documentation about the way manual sync works in iTunes 7.X I was under the impression that manual sync wasn't allowed in the previous versions. It seems it was but it needed to be done in a different way. My bad.
Regarding the privacy issue. iTunes, the software you have in your PC, has knowledge of all the files you have ever transferred to your iPod (something that if you were allowed to drag and drop wouldn't be the case). When you make a purchase with iTunes store, nothing prevents iTunes to transfer such knowledge to Apple (information that could be used for whatever purpose, including but not limited to marketing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic Frost
iTunes doesn't do this.
That's exactly the same thing that most Google bulls said about the "don't be evil" company when the Facebook had its scandal of violating customer's privacy a few weeks ago. Then, it didn't take very long before Google incurred in similar privacy violations. It was a matter of weeks to have Google following Facebook's missteps. iTunes/iPod gives Apple the ability to track every single tune that I have ever listened to/viewed in my iPod and to send that to a centralized server (be it the iTunes store or another). They might not be doing it now, but they might be doing it in the future. I would just like to be able to drag and drop non Apple music files into my iPod, just in case!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic Frost
Apple has a MUCH better track record than Windows software when it comes to backing up and syncing. I didn't trust iTunes much either when I switched, but I've come around. and I'm glad I did. I wasted so much extra time doing it manually.
The problems I talked about didn't happen with Windows software but with enterprise class software in non Apple UNIX (BTW, it wasn't HP's either). I am very suspicious of automated backup/syncs in general. It's only a matter of time before bugs show up. How severe and whether they could cause data corruption is a different story but any layer of software brings with it the possibility of failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zstepek
As a former Windows user who's computing life has been liberated and improved by the switch to Apple hardware and Mac OS X, I implore you to not simply take a gander at OS X when you receive your friends machine, but rather to jump in and truly see the benefits of working, full time, with a superior OS.
Aren't they already compressed? Or are you referring to uncompressed files such as AIFF?
Well most mp3 player software I used before I found iPod/iTunes took the already compressed 128k to 256k mp3's on my computer and compressed them even further to something like 56k or 64k/sec before putting them on the external player. This is what I was referring to.
Though granted most players now a days are large enough to where this isn't common anymore.
I think I already explained this before. I see two bad things with forcing this way of doing things:
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
Not really. The files are just the same as they were on your PC or Mac - mp3 or AAC.
The database is very small. On my completely full 8GB iPod it's about 2MB. There's also a couple of other files and an Artwork folder should you have that enabled.
And it's not a waste of space since it contains useful information like playlists which you'd need on any media player. The difference is I guess that Apple chose to create these databases on your Mac/PC in iTunes instead of having the media player itself create them, which seems sensible given the limited ability in an iPod, or just run of the file names or ID3 tags (should the file have them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
- Second is the issue of privacy. In iTunes, you have a centralized application that tracks the type of music I put in my iPod. Whenever I buy a new song from iTunes, nothing prevents the iTunes client to tell the server what type of music I have been listening to lately, whether they come from iTunes purchases, CD's or digital files from other stores. Not sure if iTunes is using this to exploit consumer's privacy but the possibility is there and there is no way to work around it.
Nonsense. iTunes has a 'MiniStore' which sits at the bottom of iTunes and will suggest songs to buy based on what you're playing but that's the only time iTunes will phone home. What's more, you can switch it off. Apple also tell you what the MiniStore feature does prior to you using it and they state that they don't retain any data. The data it does send back contains no personal data, just song data. So yes, they COULD collect data and send it back as you're playing music but they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
With the sync issue, the problem that I never had (since that by the time I bought my iPod it could be disabled and I did it) is that I don't trust automatic software to synchronize backups. Call me paranoid if you want, but this way of thinking comes from a few disagreeable experiences with such synchronization in the enterprise. While I understand that for the enterprise the amount of data to be backed up is so big that doing manual syncs is not an option, for my own data I rather do it manually.
Yes, I think you are overly paranoid. iTunes is by far the easiest method of getting songs, playlists, podcasts, videos, contacts or whatever onto an iPod or any other media player quite probably. It's like the difference between using rsync and tar. You can sync automatically or manually - up to you. It's much quicker than having to copy files like it was an external drive.
But, what are you going to lose if it ever fails? All your data is on your PC/Mac already. The iPod is just a backup of that. If the iPod fails, wipe it entirely and re-sync.
If your PC/Mac fails then all you do is plug the iPod in and copy the files out of the /iTunes_Control/Music folder, same as you would any other media player with the exception that it's a hidden directory on the iPod. Surely not a difficult task for such a UNIX god as yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
Again, I don't see any problem that a user wants to use iTunes as its music central/tracker. But for those who don't want, Apple doesn't give you any option to load music into the iPod. If you trust that Apple can do no evil with knowing the type of music you listen to in your iPod, great. I don't. Not because it's Apple, but because it's a large corporation making billions of dollars in profit a year, mostly from knowing consumer preferences. Such monsters cannot be trusted under any circumstances. There have been lately two of those "I am not evil" companies exposing consumer privacy: Facebook a few weeks ago, http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208562130, and Google this same week, http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-facebook.aspx.
Again, you're just being paranoid. There's no evidence of Apple doing what you say you think they might except in the ministore, and then they tell you, which seems fair considering the service you're using - they can't suggest music without knowing what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
Fortunately, Apple today allows manual sync for those users who want to. And if it was truly committed to customer privacy, it would allow a way to put music in the iPod without going through iTunes.
And as I said, privacy doesn't come in to it. Ease of use and features do.
Well, I wasn't clear enough with this. It can be workarounded but at extra work from my side. I do use iTunes to buy both Music and Video (to the surprise of some). When I buy music/video, those files go to a directory that I can change from iTunes. Then, I also have all my other music/audio which is in non Apple formats. If I just import them from their location to iTunes (I am not talking necesarily about raw CD music which of course needs compression), it's a bit messy because from the iTunes view, I get the impression that all those files are in the same directory, which might not be the case. So for clarity, I prefer to copy the file to the place where all other iTunes music is. At that time I am wasting disk space. I would rather drag and drop directly into the iPod. There might be other ways of doing it, but the whole point is that iTunes is interfering with the way I would like to do it myself, therefore, it's restricting my freedom. As I said, I have nothing against those users who love to experience the whole iTunes/iPods thing the Apple Way. But for those of use who want a different experience, we are stuck.
In iTunes you can set it to import music scattered all over your drives into the single iTunes Music folder structure or leave it where it is. It's in Preferences->Advanced->General. You can also ask it to structure the files in Artist/Album folders within that. ie. you have the choice of doing it your way or not. IMHO one single folder with sub folders is the easiest to manage.
If your files are scattered about your hard disk, the easiest way to do that is to switch on both the above options and then click Advanced->Consolidate Library, which will copy all the files in one place and build your library structure. You can then delete the scattered files to get back your space.
So again, I think you're making life harder for yourself by not using features put in place to make things easier.
... I don't see any reason to move to Max OS X. Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux. ...
What an entertaining, may I add amusing, and completely unnecessary post. Use what you like, like what you use. Your quote above, in my opinion, makes your query concerning what Mac OS X is, or isn't, a moot point .
I would like to thank you for, once again, reviving the eternal Ford versus Chevy debate, or my dog is smarter than yours philosophy, et al .
Yeah - I should not have fallen for this troll. In retrospect it was a dead giveaway in the first post.
I should have banned him for cursing at Aegis.
I'll give him credit for obfuscating the troll enough to fool me.
This is my true last posting in the thread. Yours have been the most sectarian postings of all. And you have the power to moderate?; What kind of moderator is he who insults posters who disagree with him by calling us all sorts of disgusting names like thief, etc.
My posting was never about PC vs Mac but an honest attempt to find the truth of the technical reality of Mac OS X. Apparently, too much to bear for cultists like you.
Whether Mac OS X is 70 % UNIX + GUI or 90 % UNIX + GUI, my conclusion from what has been said is that Mac OS X is mostly UNIX + GUI. The discussion has given me enough ammunition to knock down the next Mac fanatic that tries to convince me that Mac OS X is a complete reality of its own different from other UNIXes.
Dude, nobody even understands what point you are purportedly trying to make. When you were asked what would NOT constitute "just a Unix plus GUI", you had no answer.
We've heard obfuscated anti-Apple rants from various PC people for 23 years now. This is nothing new.
I recommend "Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach" by Amit Singh.
Dude, nobody even understands what point you are purportedly trying to make. When you were asked what would NOT constitute "just a Unix plus GUI", you had no answer.
We've heard obfuscated anti-Apple rants from various PC people for 23 years now. This is nothing new.
I recommend "Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach" by Amit Singh.
curious already looked at the important chapter on kernelthread from which Amit's book is partly based and managed to miss all the boxes in the diagram showing everything other than UNIX and a GUI. I can't see how Amit's full book would help unless you threw it at his head (it's quite a large book).
Amit's book is also a few years old now too so there's even more boxes in that diagram of the system architecture. I do hope he's got time for a 2nd edition at some point.
I agree. If Mac OSX offered a high availability kernel under UNIX it'd be more than UNIX. It'd also be a pretty pointless and expensive feature in a desktop OS. Those Tandem boxes back in the 90s were the size of fridge freezers.
What you seem to have a problem with is anything in user space such as OSX's system wide PDF compositing technology, it's object oriented frameworks inherited from NextStep, it's simple networking and discovery technology, it's system wide functionality that is built in to all applications and many more things that make it more than just UNIX + GUI. UNIX is such a little part of OSX. If Apple switched from a UNIX kernel to a Windows kernel, it'd barely matter to a user - it'd sure matter to us geeks though.
If you really want to not use the features which make it more than UNIX + GUI then you're quite welcome to just use it's UNIX core and run X and whatever window manager you fancy on your Mac but then you'd be missing the point of OSX as you have done throughout this entire thread.
As visionary put it, we're explaining 3D to you when you're living in a 2D world.
I haven't read past this point yet and I realize I am very late to this thread, but I just don't get how curious_about_mac doesn't understand the answer to his question yet. He asked if OS X was JUST unix + gui. He has been given several examples of how the frameworks that are neither Unix or GUI add tremendous value to OS X yet says that is splitting hairs. Well honestly what was he personally trying to have answered. Does he want to know what makes OS X compelling for his use? Does he want to know what makes it compelling for the general public? Does he just want to prove to his friend that OS X is Unix with a GUI? Is he just trying to start a thread where he can call anyone who doesn't share his opinion on OS X a Mac Zealot? It has become frustrating to read. I work as a Windows programmer with a Mac on my desk at home. I have been a Mac programmer who has supported cross platform applications for years. I don't remember the last time I had issues with documents from Windows to Mac or vice versa. For someone who so hardcore as to do everything from the Unix command line I wouldn't think that would be such a difficult task. Anyway as several here have suggested, it appears obvious that the original question was one of those that was considered answered before it was asked. Is OS X a Unix OS? Yes? What makes it a better alternative to any other operating system, Unix or otherwise? Depends on what you are using it for? If you want any kind of useful discussion, you should start there with the question. Happy New Year.
First of all, I always referred to him as "mac preacher searching for converts" in an affectionate manner.
We aren't him and it doesn't play well here.
Quote:
In fact, this is an important aspect where those of us who were passionate about the Amiga computer during the its heyday and Mac zealots of all time differ.
Bullshit. Amiga zealotry was no more or less faith based and annoying as Mac zealotry. Been there, remember that.
Quote:
Ours (the Amiga) was truly several years ahead of its competition in the technical aspects (micro-kernel, preemtive multitasking, custom chips for music, graphics, animation and IO, DMA access). It didn't appeal to us, at least not to me, because its UI was fancier, which wasn't, or had nicer gadgets, which didn't since most Amiga extension HW was intended to make it even more powerful with 16 million color cards; acceleration cards 680X0 and so on, but because it was a technology breakthrough in home computer architecture that was matched only several years after by the PC and the Mac. The Amiga passion was never about faith or religious attachment but about technology which was both years ahead of its time and affordable for the average consumer.
Arguably the Amiga was no more or less a breakthrough than the Mac. The desktop paradigm invented at Xerox was finally introduced to the mass market by Apple and Jobs.
That you CONTINUE to advocate that Mac passion is based on faith and religious attachment is trolling.
Quote:
Hadn't it been because of the incompetent management at Commodore (and I say this to you after researching extensively on the matter), the home computer market might have been quite different today. Even Apple was so impressed (and fearful) that it hired some members of the original Amiga team to work in the Mac.
Again bullshit. MS dominated the computer market for a variety of reasons. EVEN IF Tramiel and Jobs held the reins at Commodore and Apple the odds are Gates still would have pummeled them.
Quite different HOW? And in what way BETTER? The mistakes of the past makes us what we are today. That's true of both people and markets.
Quote:
Fortunately, these days there is a reborn interest in telling the history of the personal computer the way it happened, not the way the winners (MS/PC manufacturers/Apple) have been telling it since the mid nineties. Ars Technica is publishing a series of articles on the Amiga. Its last one says,
What the arstechnica articles prove is that there are still a lot of Amiga fans out there and Jeremy is one of them.
Quote:
Anybody who whitnessed the first "Shadow of the Beast" when it first came out in 1989 clearly understood that no home computer of its time could match such display of graphics, animation and sound in a hardware which was essentially from 1985, with minor changes done in 1987.
I did and also the debut of the Macintosh. The mid to late 80s was an exciting time. So are the mid to late 00s.
Quote:
NOTE: For those who didn't this is your opportunity; if you were around in 1989 and can remember the state of home computing at the time you'll be able to appreciate what I am talking about
In 1990 I had a NeXT with many of the same advantages as the AmigaOS with an exceptional GUI and IB. The cost was high but Jobs has always been an innovator in terms of advanced technology. Sometimes he misses the mark (MO drives) but NeXT and Mac computers have always been equally at the forefront of home computing technology.
Quote:
To hear such religious fervor on today's Mac users about a machine which is to a large degree built on a 30 year old OS (with its own implementation of course), which runs on standard industry HW and which has a multimedia architecture that has been the industry standard for ~ 15 years (and which in many ways was pioneered by the Amiga back in the mid eighties) made me very curious about what the hell were they seeing in Mac OS X, other than the very nice UI, that I wasn't seeing.
Since you like to couch it in religious terms:
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Matthew 13:13
If Mac adherents are religious zealots then you are an athiest trying to disprove the existence of something impossible to either prove or disprove and equally tied to blind faith rather than reason.
That you disregard the UI as a technological advancement equal to what the Amiga did simply shows your own biases and Amiga zealotry.
Quote:
Believe me, it didn't work and that's one of the reasons why I started this thread.
"OSX Unix" is too hard to figure out as search keywords? Please.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
If your Mac is not intended to run primarily Mac OS X, but Windows, then I don't see the point of buying a Mac. Not only I am unwilling to pay the premium (for given specs I can get a cheaper HW elsewhere) but if I am to make somebody rich, I prefer to make HP (my former employer) richer than Apple.
Also, as far as I know, if I want to run Mac OS X in non Apple HW, is basically at my own risk because Apple will not support me unless I run it on Apple's HW (a decision that to me makes sense since Apple is primarily interested in selling you both HW and SW).
So to me buying a Mac is all about buying it to run primarily Mac OS X. When you make that decision, you are pretty much locked in to Apple for both HW and SW (although this locked in thing might be less severe than in the past).
The guy was able to make an external USB HD drive work with Widows but not with Mac OS X. Not sure if the guy would have had the problem with a Mac OS X running on Intel hw, although I doubt that's the problem. A USB driver is a USB driver. Besides according to him, the HD was intended to be used by both.
In HW, there is usually a difference between "official support" and "actual support". Third party HW manufacturers are more inclined to make sure their HW works flawlessly with the platform owned by 90%+ of the people than the rest. At the end of the day, this limits the available options from HW that should work well in theory to HW that actually works.
And that without getting with other type of HW like portable audio/video players which have none or limited Mac OS X support. I know, no Mac user would buy any thing different from an iPod!!!!
So you search all the forums to find someone having a hard time doing something and you deduce that it can't be done on the mac? Well, I use several hard drives between my mac and windows machines without any problem. Some are name brand and others are no-names. When I was a consultant I used to take the drive to different clients to transport large files in mixed environments with no problems. Printers are the same thing. Setup is either equal or more cumbersome on PC, never the other way around. I have a Creative mp3 player to record my band with. Works with no problem on my Mac as does my recording interface hardware. I have used several devices over the years for audio recording on both PC and Mac and only had problems with setup and performance on the PC. Now I only record on my Mac. Are there any PC peripherals that don't work on a Mac? Sure. Is it to the point where you are hindered in trying to accomplish something? No. There are enough choices that you have good, cost comperable solutions. Again, as someone who spends more time on PC than on Mac I can say without question that the "closed" nature of the Mac has one huge advantage. Things just work...and work well. You can get things to work on PC and not everything is difficult, but makes a big difference in the user experience even for someone who makes his living on computers and has been using them for 28 of his 38 years. As for novice users, the difference is so big that I can't see anyone recommending anything other than a Mac. This may sound like zealotry to you, but you have to understand that for anyone who has actually used Windows and Mac for most standard computer tasks, this is so obvious that you can't help but be adamant about it. I guarantee you waste way more time trying to get things to work correctly in Windows and Linix than you would waste trying to open a Word doc from your Windows work computer on your Mac.
Comments
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
What wasted disk space? iTunes doesn't compress songs before putting them on the iPod.
- Second is the issue of privacy. In iTunes, you have a centralized application that tracks the type of music I put in my iPod. Whenever I buy a new song from iTunes, nothing prevents the iTunes client to tell the server what type of music I have been listening to lately, whether they come from iTunes purchases, CD's or digital files from other stores. Not sure if iTunes is using this to exploit consumer's privacy but the possibility is there and there is no way to work around it.
iTunes doesn't do this.
With the sync issue, the problem that I never had (since that by the time I bought my iPod it could be disabled and I did it) is that I don't trust automatic software to synchronize backups. Call me paranoid if you want, but this way of thinking comes from a few disagreeable experiences with such synchronization in the enterprise. While I understand that for the enterprise the amount of data to be backed up is so big that doing manual syncs is not an option, for my own data I rather do it manually.
Apple has a MUCH better track record than Windows software when it comes to backing up and syncing. I didn't trust iTunes much either when I switched, but I've come around. and I'm glad I did. I wasted so much extra time doing it manually.
What wasted disk space? iTunes doesn't compress songs before putting them on the iPod.
Aren't they already compressed? Or are you referring to uncompressed files such as AIFF?
. I still don't understand your problem with iTunes. iTunes isn't the same as iTunes Store. You can use iTunes and not be connected to any server, you know that right? If you are that paranoid about a server seeing what music you have in your library, then don't connect to the server.
This must be in the Windoze Uzers Guide or something. I have seen hundreds of anti-Apple posts over the last few years whining "BUT I WANNA DRAG AND DROP WAAHH....."
List of Windoze users complaints:
- I wanna fullscreen every app
- I wanna drag and drop my mp3s that I stole
- I wanna load my computer FROM my iPod
- I wanna cut and paste, not copy and paste, files
- I don't like command key why can't it be control key (hint: Mac OS came BEFORE Windows)
- I wanna menu in every window
- I wanna get rid of the Dock and the menu bar
- I want the Trash on the Desktop
- I want the Dashboard widgets on the Desktop
- I wanna change all the colors and sizes of everything
- I wanna call everything a "program" instead of an application
- I want Apple to license FairPlay to all the other music players so I can "CHOOSE"
- I wanna order parts from Apple
- I want Apple to make a "midrange tower"
and the Grand Prize Winner,
- I wanna "upgrade TEH VIDEO CARD"
This must be in the Windoze Uzers Guide or something. I have seen hundreds of anti-Apple posts over the last few years whining "BUT I WANNA DRAG AND DROP WAAHH....."
...
What is boils down to is that they want Apple to develop a more reliable version of Windows.
This must be in the Windoze Uzers Guide or something. I have seen hundreds of anti-Apple posts over the last few years whining "BUT I WANNA DRAG AND DROP WAAHH....."
....
- I wanna drag and drop my mp3s that I stole
......
I really don't understand what's your problem. First was the inclusion of Norton anti virus in an unfair comparison HP/Vista HW vs Mac HW (as if Mac OS was 100% free of security problems), now you are calling all of us who would like to bypass iTunes thieves (you never put music from a CD you bought into MP3???), what's next? Maybe that all those who resist conversion should be shot to death?
You lost me here. What wasted disk space?
Well, I wasn't clear enough with this. It can be workarounded but at extra work from my side. I do use iTunes to buy both Music and Video (to the surprise of some). When I buy music/video, those files go to a directory that I can change from iTunes. Then, I also have all my other music/audio which is in non Apple formats. If I just import them from their location to iTunes (I am not talking necesarily about raw CD music which of course needs compression), it's a bit messy because from the iTunes view, I get the impression that all those files are in the same directory, which might not be the case. So for clarity, I prefer to copy the file to the place where all other iTunes music is. At that time I am wasting disk space. I would rather drag and drop directly into the iPod. There might be other ways of doing it, but the whole point is that iTunes is interfering with the way I would like to do it myself, therefore, it's restricting my freedom. As I said, I have nothing against those users who love to experience the whole iTunes/iPods thing the Apple Way. But for those of use who want a different experience, we are stuck.
iTunes has always allowed manual sync. I still don't understand your problem with iTunes. iTunes isn't the same as iTunes Store. You can use iTunes and not be connected to any server, you know that right? If you are that paranoid about a server seeing what music you have in your library, then don't connect to the server.
From reading the documentation about the way manual sync works in iTunes 7.X I was under the impression that manual sync wasn't allowed in the previous versions. It seems it was but it needed to be done in a different way. My bad.
Regarding the privacy issue. iTunes, the software you have in your PC, has knowledge of all the files you have ever transferred to your iPod (something that if you were allowed to drag and drop wouldn't be the case). When you make a purchase with iTunes store, nothing prevents iTunes to transfer such knowledge to Apple (information that could be used for whatever purpose, including but not limited to marketing).
iTunes doesn't do this.
That's exactly the same thing that most Google bulls said about the "don't be evil" company when the Facebook had its scandal of violating customer's privacy a few weeks ago. Then, it didn't take very long before Google incurred in similar privacy violations. It was a matter of weeks to have Google following Facebook's missteps. iTunes/iPod gives Apple the ability to track every single tune that I have ever listened to/viewed in my iPod and to send that to a centralized server (be it the iTunes store or another). They might not be doing it now, but they might be doing it in the future. I would just like to be able to drag and drop non Apple music files into my iPod, just in case!
Apple has a MUCH better track record than Windows software when it comes to backing up and syncing. I didn't trust iTunes much either when I switched, but I've come around. and I'm glad I did. I wasted so much extra time doing it manually.
As a former Windows user who's computing life has been liberated and improved by the switch to Apple hardware and Mac OS X, I implore you to not simply take a gander at OS X when you receive your friends machine, but rather to jump in and truly see the benefits of working, full time, with a superior OS.
Don't worry my friend, I'll give it an honest try
Aren't they already compressed? Or are you referring to uncompressed files such as AIFF?
Well most mp3 player software I used before I found iPod/iTunes took the already compressed 128k to 256k mp3's on my computer and compressed them even further to something like 56k or 64k/sec before putting them on the external player. This is what I was referring to.
Though granted most players now a days are large enough to where this isn't common anymore.
I think I already explained this before. I see two bad things with forcing this way of doing things:
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
Not really. The files are just the same as they were on your PC or Mac - mp3 or AAC.
The database is very small. On my completely full 8GB iPod it's about 2MB. There's also a couple of other files and an Artwork folder should you have that enabled.
And it's not a waste of space since it contains useful information like playlists which you'd need on any media player. The difference is I guess that Apple chose to create these databases on your Mac/PC in iTunes instead of having the media player itself create them, which seems sensible given the limited ability in an iPod, or just run of the file names or ID3 tags (should the file have them).
- Second is the issue of privacy. In iTunes, you have a centralized application that tracks the type of music I put in my iPod. Whenever I buy a new song from iTunes, nothing prevents the iTunes client to tell the server what type of music I have been listening to lately, whether they come from iTunes purchases, CD's or digital files from other stores. Not sure if iTunes is using this to exploit consumer's privacy but the possibility is there and there is no way to work around it.
Nonsense. iTunes has a 'MiniStore' which sits at the bottom of iTunes and will suggest songs to buy based on what you're playing but that's the only time iTunes will phone home. What's more, you can switch it off. Apple also tell you what the MiniStore feature does prior to you using it and they state that they don't retain any data. The data it does send back contains no personal data, just song data. So yes, they COULD collect data and send it back as you're playing music but they don't.
With the sync issue, the problem that I never had (since that by the time I bought my iPod it could be disabled and I did it) is that I don't trust automatic software to synchronize backups. Call me paranoid if you want, but this way of thinking comes from a few disagreeable experiences with such synchronization in the enterprise. While I understand that for the enterprise the amount of data to be backed up is so big that doing manual syncs is not an option, for my own data I rather do it manually.
Yes, I think you are overly paranoid. iTunes is by far the easiest method of getting songs, playlists, podcasts, videos, contacts or whatever onto an iPod or any other media player quite probably. It's like the difference between using rsync and tar. You can sync automatically or manually - up to you. It's much quicker than having to copy files like it was an external drive.
But, what are you going to lose if it ever fails? All your data is on your PC/Mac already. The iPod is just a backup of that. If the iPod fails, wipe it entirely and re-sync.
If your PC/Mac fails then all you do is plug the iPod in and copy the files out of the /iTunes_Control/Music folder, same as you would any other media player with the exception that it's a hidden directory on the iPod. Surely not a difficult task for such a UNIX god as yourself?
Again, I don't see any problem that a user wants to use iTunes as its music central/tracker. But for those who don't want, Apple doesn't give you any option to load music into the iPod. If you trust that Apple can do no evil with knowing the type of music you listen to in your iPod, great. I don't. Not because it's Apple, but because it's a large corporation making billions of dollars in profit a year, mostly from knowing consumer preferences. Such monsters cannot be trusted under any circumstances. There have been lately two of those "I am not evil" companies exposing consumer privacy: Facebook a few weeks ago, http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208562130, and Google this same week, http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-facebook.aspx.
Again, you're just being paranoid. There's no evidence of Apple doing what you say you think they might except in the ministore, and then they tell you, which seems fair considering the service you're using - they can't suggest music without knowing what you want.
Fortunately, Apple today allows manual sync for those users who want to. And if it was truly committed to customer privacy, it would allow a way to put music in the iPod without going through iTunes.
And as I said, privacy doesn't come in to it. Ease of use and features do.
Well, I wasn't clear enough with this. It can be workarounded but at extra work from my side. I do use iTunes to buy both Music and Video (to the surprise of some). When I buy music/video, those files go to a directory that I can change from iTunes. Then, I also have all my other music/audio which is in non Apple formats. If I just import them from their location to iTunes (I am not talking necesarily about raw CD music which of course needs compression), it's a bit messy because from the iTunes view, I get the impression that all those files are in the same directory, which might not be the case. So for clarity, I prefer to copy the file to the place where all other iTunes music is. At that time I am wasting disk space. I would rather drag and drop directly into the iPod. There might be other ways of doing it, but the whole point is that iTunes is interfering with the way I would like to do it myself, therefore, it's restricting my freedom. As I said, I have nothing against those users who love to experience the whole iTunes/iPods thing the Apple Way. But for those of use who want a different experience, we are stuck.
In iTunes you can set it to import music scattered all over your drives into the single iTunes Music folder structure or leave it where it is. It's in Preferences->Advanced->General. You can also ask it to structure the files in Artist/Album folders within that. ie. you have the choice of doing it your way or not. IMHO one single folder with sub folders is the easiest to manage.
If your files are scattered about your hard disk, the easiest way to do that is to switch on both the above options and then click Advanced->Consolidate Library, which will copy all the files in one place and build your library structure. You can then delete the scattered files to get back your space.
So again, I think you're making life harder for yourself by not using features put in place to make things easier.
... I don't see any reason to move to Max OS X. Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux. ...
What an entertaining, may I add amusing, and completely unnecessary post. Use what you like, like what you use. Your quote above, in my opinion, makes your query concerning what Mac OS X is, or isn't, a moot point
I would like to thank you for, once again, reviving the eternal Ford versus Chevy debate, or my dog is smarter than yours philosophy, et al
Your quote above, in my opinion, makes your query concerning what Mac OS X is, or isn't, a moot point
I would like to thank you for, once again, reviving the eternal Ford versus Chevy debate, or my dog is smarter than yours philosophy, et al
Yeah - I should not have fallen for this troll. In retrospect it was a dead giveaway in the first post.
I should have banned him for cursing at Aegis.
I'll give him credit for obfuscating the troll enough to fool me.
Yeah - I should not have fallen for this troll. In retrospect it was a dead giveaway in the first post.
I should have banned him for cursing at Aegis.
I'll give him credit for obfuscating the troll enough to fool me.
This is my true last posting in the thread. Yours have been the most sectarian postings of all. And you have the power to moderate?; What kind of moderator is he who insults posters who disagree with him by calling us all sorts of disgusting names like thief, etc.
My posting was never about PC vs Mac but an honest attempt to find the truth of the technical reality of Mac OS X. Apparently, too much to bear for cultists like you.
Whether Mac OS X is 70 % UNIX + GUI or 90 % UNIX + GUI, my conclusion from what has been said is that Mac OS X is mostly UNIX + GUI. The discussion has given me enough ammunition to knock down the next Mac fanatic that tries to convince me that Mac OS X is a complete reality of its own different from other UNIXes.
All the best!
We've heard obfuscated anti-Apple rants from various PC people for 23 years now. This is nothing new.
I recommend "Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach" by Amit Singh.
Dude, nobody even understands what point you are purportedly trying to make. When you were asked what would NOT constitute "just a Unix plus GUI", you had no answer.
We've heard obfuscated anti-Apple rants from various PC people for 23 years now. This is nothing new.
I recommend "Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach" by Amit Singh.
curious already looked at the important chapter on kernelthread from which Amit's book is partly based and managed to miss all the boxes in the diagram showing everything other than UNIX and a GUI. I can't see how Amit's full book would help unless you threw it at his head (it's quite a large book).
Amit's book is also a few years old now too so there's even more boxes in that diagram of the system architecture. I do hope he's got time for a 2nd edition at some point.
(it's quite a large book).
True - I have it right here. LOL
http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/L355785A_UNIX_TB.pdf
Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard combines a fully conforming UNIX foundation with the
richness and usability of the Macintosh interface, bringing multicore technology and
64-bit power to the mass market. The new tabbed Terminal, Ruby on Rails web applica-
tion stack, and powerful scripting bridges make UNIX users more productive than ever.
There are already tens of millions of Mac OS X users?consumers, scientists, animators,
developers, system administrators, and more?making Mac OS X the most widely
used UNIX desktop operating system. In addition, Mac OS X is the only UNIX environ-
ment\tthat\tnatively\truns\tMicrosoft\tOffice,\tAd obe\tPhotoshop,\tand\tthousands\tof\tother\t
consumer applications?all side by side with traditional command-line, X11, and Java
applications. Mac OS X is also the foundation for Mac OS X Server, which makes open
source easy to administer. Tight integration with hardware from the sleek MacBook
notebook computer to the eight-core Mac Pro computer is making Mac OS X the
platform of choice for an emerging generation of UNIX users.
I agree. If Mac OSX offered a high availability kernel under UNIX it'd be more than UNIX. It'd also be a pretty pointless and expensive feature in a desktop OS. Those Tandem boxes back in the 90s were the size of fridge freezers.
What you seem to have a problem with is anything in user space such as OSX's system wide PDF compositing technology, it's object oriented frameworks inherited from NextStep, it's simple networking and discovery technology, it's system wide functionality that is built in to all applications and many more things that make it more than just UNIX + GUI. UNIX is such a little part of OSX. If Apple switched from a UNIX kernel to a Windows kernel, it'd barely matter to a user - it'd sure matter to us geeks though.
If you really want to not use the features which make it more than UNIX + GUI then you're quite welcome to just use it's UNIX core and run X and whatever window manager you fancy on your Mac but then you'd be missing the point of OSX as you have done throughout this entire thread.
As visionary put it, we're explaining 3D to you when you're living in a 2D world.
I haven't read past this point yet and I realize I am very late to this thread, but I just don't get how curious_about_mac doesn't understand the answer to his question yet. He asked if OS X was JUST unix + gui. He has been given several examples of how the frameworks that are neither Unix or GUI add tremendous value to OS X yet says that is splitting hairs. Well honestly what was he personally trying to have answered. Does he want to know what makes OS X compelling for his use? Does he want to know what makes it compelling for the general public? Does he just want to prove to his friend that OS X is Unix with a GUI? Is he just trying to start a thread where he can call anyone who doesn't share his opinion on OS X a Mac Zealot? It has become frustrating to read. I work as a Windows programmer with a Mac on my desk at home. I have been a Mac programmer who has supported cross platform applications for years. I don't remember the last time I had issues with documents from Windows to Mac or vice versa. For someone who so hardcore as to do everything from the Unix command line I wouldn't think that would be such a difficult task. Anyway as several here have suggested, it appears obvious that the original question was one of those that was considered answered before it was asked. Is OS X a Unix OS? Yes? What makes it a better alternative to any other operating system, Unix or otherwise? Depends on what you are using it for? If you want any kind of useful discussion, you should start there with the question. Happy New Year.
First of all, I always referred to him as "mac preacher searching for converts" in an affectionate manner.
We aren't him and it doesn't play well here.
In fact, this is an important aspect where those of us who were passionate about the Amiga computer during the its heyday and Mac zealots of all time differ.
Bullshit. Amiga zealotry was no more or less faith based and annoying as Mac zealotry. Been there, remember that.
Ours (the Amiga) was truly several years ahead of its competition in the technical aspects (micro-kernel, preemtive multitasking, custom chips for music, graphics, animation and IO, DMA access). It didn't appeal to us, at least not to me, because its UI was fancier, which wasn't, or had nicer gadgets, which didn't since most Amiga extension HW was intended to make it even more powerful with 16 million color cards; acceleration cards 680X0 and so on, but because it was a technology breakthrough in home computer architecture that was matched only several years after by the PC and the Mac. The Amiga passion was never about faith or religious attachment but about technology which was both years ahead of its time and affordable for the average consumer.
Arguably the Amiga was no more or less a breakthrough than the Mac. The desktop paradigm invented at Xerox was finally introduced to the mass market by Apple and Jobs.
That you CONTINUE to advocate that Mac passion is based on faith and religious attachment is trolling.
Hadn't it been because of the incompetent management at Commodore (and I say this to you after researching extensively on the matter), the home computer market might have been quite different today. Even Apple was so impressed (and fearful) that it hired some members of the original Amiga team to work in the Mac.
Again bullshit. MS dominated the computer market for a variety of reasons. EVEN IF Tramiel and Jobs held the reins at Commodore and Apple the odds are Gates still would have pummeled them.
Quite different HOW? And in what way BETTER? The mistakes of the past makes us what we are today. That's true of both people and markets.
Fortunately, these days there is a reborn interest in telling the history of the personal computer the way it happened, not the way the winners (MS/PC manufacturers/Apple) have been telling it since the mid nineties. Ars Technica is publishing a series of articles on the Amiga. Its last one says,
http://arstechnica.com/articles/cult...re-years.ars/4
What the arstechnica articles prove is that there are still a lot of Amiga fans out there and Jeremy is one of them.
Anybody who whitnessed the first "Shadow of the Beast" when it first came out in 1989 clearly understood that no home computer of its time could match such display of graphics, animation and sound in a hardware which was essentially from 1985, with minor changes done in 1987.
I did and also the debut of the Macintosh. The mid to late 80s was an exciting time. So are the mid to late 00s.
NOTE: For those who didn't this is your opportunity; if you were around in 1989 and can remember the state of home computing at the time you'll be able to appreciate what I am talking about
In 1990 I had a NeXT with many of the same advantages as the AmigaOS with an exceptional GUI and IB. The cost was high but Jobs has always been an innovator in terms of advanced technology. Sometimes he misses the mark (MO drives) but NeXT and Mac computers have always been equally at the forefront of home computing technology.
To hear such religious fervor on today's Mac users about a machine which is to a large degree built on a 30 year old OS (with its own implementation of course), which runs on standard industry HW and which has a multimedia architecture that has been the industry standard for ~ 15 years (and which in many ways was pioneered by the Amiga back in the mid eighties) made me very curious about what the hell were they seeing in Mac OS X, other than the very nice UI, that I wasn't seeing.
Since you like to couch it in religious terms:
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Matthew 13:13
If Mac adherents are religious zealots then you are an athiest trying to disprove the existence of something impossible to either prove or disprove and equally tied to blind faith rather than reason.
That you disregard the UI as a technological advancement equal to what the Amiga did simply shows your own biases and Amiga zealotry.
Believe me, it didn't work and that's one of the reasons why I started this thread.
"OSX Unix" is too hard to figure out as search keywords? Please.
Vinea
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
If your Mac is not intended to run primarily Mac OS X, but Windows, then I don't see the point of buying a Mac. Not only I am unwilling to pay the premium (for given specs I can get a cheaper HW elsewhere) but if I am to make somebody rich, I prefer to make HP (my former employer) richer than Apple.
Also, as far as I know, if I want to run Mac OS X in non Apple HW, is basically at my own risk because Apple will not support me unless I run it on Apple's HW (a decision that to me makes sense since Apple is primarily interested in selling you both HW and SW).
So to me buying a Mac is all about buying it to run primarily Mac OS X. When you make that decision, you are pretty much locked in to Apple for both HW and SW (although this locked in thing might be less severe than in the past).
here's one point:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/irony/mac...ook-317060.php
Example,
http://www.macfixitforums.com/showfl...&Number=770630
The guy was able to make an external USB HD drive work with Widows but not with Mac OS X. Not sure if the guy would have had the problem with a Mac OS X running on Intel hw, although I doubt that's the problem. A USB driver is a USB driver. Besides according to him, the HD was intended to be used by both.
In HW, there is usually a difference between "official support" and "actual support". Third party HW manufacturers are more inclined to make sure their HW works flawlessly with the platform owned by 90%+ of the people than the rest. At the end of the day, this limits the available options from HW that should work well in theory to HW that actually works.
And that without getting with other type of HW like portable audio/video players which have none or limited Mac OS X support. I know, no Mac user would buy any thing different from an iPod!!!!
So you search all the forums to find someone having a hard time doing something and you deduce that it can't be done on the mac? Well, I use several hard drives between my mac and windows machines without any problem. Some are name brand and others are no-names. When I was a consultant I used to take the drive to different clients to transport large files in mixed environments with no problems. Printers are the same thing. Setup is either equal or more cumbersome on PC, never the other way around. I have a Creative mp3 player to record my band with. Works with no problem on my Mac as does my recording interface hardware. I have used several devices over the years for audio recording on both PC and Mac and only had problems with setup and performance on the PC. Now I only record on my Mac. Are there any PC peripherals that don't work on a Mac? Sure. Is it to the point where you are hindered in trying to accomplish something? No. There are enough choices that you have good, cost comperable solutions. Again, as someone who spends more time on PC than on Mac I can say without question that the "closed" nature of the Mac has one huge advantage. Things just work...and work well. You can get things to work on PC and not everything is difficult, but makes a big difference in the user experience even for someone who makes his living on computers and has been using them for 28 of his 38 years. As for novice users, the difference is so big that I can't see anyone recommending anything other than a Mac. This may sound like zealotry to you, but you have to understand that for anyone who has actually used Windows and Mac for most standard computer tasks, this is so obvious that you can't help but be adamant about it. I guarantee you waste way more time trying to get things to work correctly in Windows and Linix than you would waste trying to open a Word doc from your Windows work computer on your Mac.