OS X is slow for some people, but not for everyone. You're wife's iBook may seem slow, but mine doesn't. You can't say in general the OS X is slow. It's slow for some people and for others it isn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. It's the same speed for everyone you dolt. Equal machines will run the same version of OS X at the same speed.
At the very least you cannot claim OS X is "fast". There's just no way. How many times do you have to look at that spinning wheel (it's a CD btw) to know that OS X is slow slow slow.
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Strange... I've got the same config but I am more than satisfied with the speed of OS X. Maybe your wife doesn't have enough room left on her HD for adequate swapping? I dunno. Maybe Apple sent you a defective iBook just because you won't buy a new iMac
No. It's the same speed for everyone you dolt. Equal machines will run the same version of OS X at the same speed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You really are an idiot. I specifically said that my iBook (500MHz, 384MB just like your wife's) runs OS X pretty good. How can you tell me that my machine runs OS X slow?
You really are an idiot. I specifically said that my iBook (500MHz, 384MB just like your wife's) runs OS X pretty good. How can you tell me that my machine runs OS X slow?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you're an Apple Apologist? and you've obviously been blinded by RDF
I think that the problem here is that Scott H. is a FUD-Spreader? and has everything covered in FUD-Spread? at his house, so it moves slower for him than it does for everyone else.
Scott, did you ever think that maybe people have opinions that aren't the same as yours? You might think it's slow. I don't, and I know other people don't either.
How am I diluting myself? You may find it slow. I don't and others don't. There are some people who agree with you and there's others that agree with me. Why can't you comprehend that?
<strong>If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>People are more likely to complain than to praise which would explain these warped results. If I saw an article talking about Aqua, I would never e-mail in and tell him how I like it.
To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very true. Statistically speaking, the Register's respondents made up a self-selected sample, a favorite of junk science and bad public opinion pollsters. A random sampling would provide a much clearer and more accurate summary of current user opinion.
Like others here, I had few specific beefs (beeves?) with the Reg's pet-peeves, though the conclusions arrived therefrom seem a little excessive. It seems that the people most unable to adjust to Aqua are the ones who've established the most specific, idiosyncratic workflows in 9; removing spring loaded folders for these folks isn't just a minor inconvenience, it's like removing one of their thumbs, requiring a huge amount of retraining and readjusting which they very much resent.
Maybe I'm just a mellow guy. Not only do I find Aqua pleasant and easy to use (I had evolved a very similar work routine already, and never used spring-loaded folders), but I had no desire to respond to that article and enter that fray yet again. Had I known they were going to trumpet a bunch of angry emails as some kind of definitive look into the psyche of the Mac community, I probably would have forced myself to. As it is, we're stuck with an inflammatory proposition supported by some decidedly half-baked reasoning. Oh well.
It's called "volunteer response". Get a statistics textbook and read about it.
<soap box time>
It's because of sh!t stats like Register.com's that the saying "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics!" came from. Shoddy half-@ss "stats" done by people that don't know what the hell is going on.
Everyone do yourself a favor: buy a stats book, like "stats for dummies" or something. I know you slept through it in school (or simply avoided taking the class). Educate yourself on the extremely common abuse of statistics so you don't fall prey to BS...
[quote]To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.<hr></blockquote>
Pro-Apple apologists would stuff the poll like there was no tomorrow.
Pro-Apple apologists would stuff the poll like there was no tomorrow.
As they almost always do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, that is why there is a science to how you conduct a survey. To avoid the outcome you predicted (Apple Apologists, and btw, you're right), and the outcome that started this entire thread to begin with (the anti-osx crowd)...
This is the way to simplify reality for tit for tat discussions. This is nonsense. I have had those discussions myself every time I found something not mature, defective or missing in X. I still have a lot to say about Aqua, but for me the valuable underpinnings of X outweigh its shortcomings of the GUI on my iBook, while I ditched X currently on my desktop.
Different people find different things lamentable or exciting, sometimes the personal view puts thing more in a false light, sometimes it puts things to shine. Meanwhile Mac OS X offers many things that work speedy and properly and other things that are hardly more than a sketch of things to come.
Depending on the amount of things you work with of both sides your view may be completely different and your personal summary may either be "sufficiently speedy" or "unbearable slow".
However, there are still things that prove both categories to coexist in this OS. To neglect the existence of one means you have a biased view. It is therefore better to describe the exact function that is speedy, or the one that is slow.
It is an old one, but e.g the statement that 2d functions in X are 300% slower than under 9, giving the user stutterly scrolling performance, which greatly hinders a quick workflow, is something that can be measured. Maybe someone could be even "pleased" with this reduced performance, but someone having so small standards may not be interested in this discussion.
You can always argue about the speed of a given copy process, the speed for opening apps, the speed for switching programs and such, but you cannot argue general statements like "I am pleased".
And for all that "hate" the Aqua looks there are themes around and customizing apps for tweaking the OS to better match your needs or taste. . I think much of the taste debate tries to make use of technical arguments to come up with some measurable means. Since Aqua is also looks and function it is sometimes hard to get this straight. I know.
I think we all use Macs for the difference it makes in terms of style, appearance, looks, fashion and design, not only on the hardware side, but also on the software side. It is for this reason this type of discussion takes place, which is unparalleled in the PC world.
And it is especially hard when our co-Mac mates seem to take a stance against us, while all we want is the best Mac experience ever. And some things in X are not quite up to this standard by now.
This is the way to simplify reality for tit for tat discussions. This is nonsense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Writing a piece that draws a line in the sand and paints an "us vs. them" picture (pardon my mixed metaphors) is relatively easy to write and draws lots of reaction. Writing a fair and reasoned analysis (even in a discussion forum) takes skill, patience, and a certain capacity for honesty and self-assessment. Small wonder we see so little of it, eh?
Part of the problem comes from badly worded questions. There's a whole field dedicated to learning to write non-ambiguous, non-leading questions. Oftentimes, in web and media polls, the questions are worded in way that is not much better than:
Do you still beat your wife?
How does one answer that question in a survey? And, even if the response to the question is accurate, the conclusions drawn from that type of poll are many and, often, inaccurate. For example, it could be that:
"Our treatment has helped stop 95% of wife beaters."
or
"95% of respondents reported beating their wives at some point in the past."
All web-polls are shit, regardless of the stuffing of the ballots box. The only way to get a good survey of information from the internet is to require unique identification and even then the results are suspect. Don't believe most of what you hear or read.
The bottom line is this:
Journalists don't know a thing about statistics. And they know even less about psychometrics.
<strong>Part of the problem comes from badly worded questions. There's a whole field dedicated to learning to write non-ambiguous, non-leading questions. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed!
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>Journalists don't know a thing about statistics. And they know even less about psychometrics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes! It's nice to know there are others out there spreading the word about poor statistics!!!
Comments
<strong>
OS X is slow for some people, but not for everyone. You're wife's iBook may seem slow, but mine doesn't. You can't say in general the OS X is slow. It's slow for some people and for others it isn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. It's the same speed for everyone you dolt. Equal machines will run the same version of OS X at the same speed.
At the very least you cannot claim OS X is "fast". There's just no way. How many times do you have to look at that spinning wheel (it's a CD btw) to know that OS X is slow slow slow.
<strong>
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Strange... I've got the same config but I am more than satisfied with the speed of OS X. Maybe your wife doesn't have enough room left on her HD for adequate swapping? I dunno. Maybe Apple sent you a defective iBook just because you won't buy a new iMac
<strong>
No. It's the same speed for everyone you dolt. Equal machines will run the same version of OS X at the same speed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You really are an idiot. I specifically said that my iBook (500MHz, 384MB just like your wife's) runs OS X pretty good. How can you tell me that my machine runs OS X slow?
<strong>
You really are an idiot. I specifically said that my iBook (500MHz, 384MB just like your wife's) runs OS X pretty good. How can you tell me that my machine runs OS X slow?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you're an Apple Apologist? and you've obviously been blinded by RDF
I think that the problem here is that Scott H. is a FUD-Spreader? and has everything covered in FUD-Spread? at his house, so it moves slower for him than it does for everyone else.
This is for you Scott H.
[edit: added homemade picture
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
<strong>
Because you're an Apple Apologist? and you've obviously been blinded by RDF
everyone else.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, maybe that's it
<strong>This is for you Scott H.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that my lime iMac in your FUD spread? That's going to far.
It's funny how you people can't face the truth about OS X. Some people call it FUD but I call it honesty.
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, well I am feeling a little watery.
<strong>People are more likely to complain than to praise which would explain these warped results. If I saw an article talking about Aqua, I would never e-mail in and tell him how I like it.
To be more accurate, a general mac poll must be established which would attract a more evened audience. With this we can truly see Mac users like/dislike for Aqua.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very true. Statistically speaking, the Register's respondents made up a self-selected sample, a favorite of junk science and bad public opinion pollsters. A random sampling would provide a much clearer and more accurate summary of current user opinion.
Like others here, I had few specific beefs (beeves?) with the Reg's pet-peeves, though the conclusions arrived therefrom seem a little excessive. It seems that the people most unable to adjust to Aqua are the ones who've established the most specific, idiosyncratic workflows in 9; removing spring loaded folders for these folks isn't just a minor inconvenience, it's like removing one of their thumbs, requiring a huge amount of retraining and readjusting which they very much resent.
Maybe I'm just a mellow guy. Not only do I find Aqua pleasant and easy to use (I had evolved a very similar work routine already, and never used spring-loaded folders), but I had no desire to respond to that article and enter that fray yet again. Had I known they were going to trumpet a bunch of angry emails as some kind of definitive look into the psyche of the Mac community, I probably would have forced myself to. As it is, we're stuck with an inflammatory proposition supported by some decidedly half-baked reasoning. Oh well.
<strong>
Hmm, well I am feeling a little watery.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Adam11:
<strong>Hello from the 10%.
Cheers
adam</strong><hr></blockquote>
<soap box time>
It's because of sh!t stats like Register.com's that the saying "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics!" came from. Shoddy half-@ss "stats" done by people that don't know what the hell is going on.
Everyone do yourself a favor: buy a stats book, like "stats for dummies" or something. I know you slept through it in school (or simply avoided taking the class). Educate yourself on the extremely common abuse of statistics so you don't fall prey to BS...
</end soap box>
Thank you for your patience
Pro-Apple apologists would stuff the poll like there was no tomorrow.
As they almost always do.
<strong>
Pro-Apple apologists would stuff the poll like there was no tomorrow.
As they almost always do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, that is why there is a science to how you conduct a survey. To avoid the outcome you predicted (Apple Apologists, and btw, you're right), and the outcome that started this entire thread to begin with (the anti-osx crowd)...
Aqua critics= Mac OS X haters
Mac OS X pleased person= Apple zealot
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
This is the way to simplify reality for tit for tat discussions. This is nonsense. I have had those discussions myself every time I found something not mature, defective or missing in X. I still have a lot to say about Aqua, but for me the valuable underpinnings of X outweigh its shortcomings of the GUI on my iBook, while I ditched X currently on my desktop.
Different people find different things lamentable or exciting, sometimes the personal view puts thing more in a false light, sometimes it puts things to shine. Meanwhile Mac OS X offers many things that work speedy and properly and other things that are hardly more than a sketch of things to come.
Depending on the amount of things you work with of both sides your view may be completely different and your personal summary may either be "sufficiently speedy" or "unbearable slow".
However, there are still things that prove both categories to coexist in this OS. To neglect the existence of one means you have a biased view. It is therefore better to describe the exact function that is speedy, or the one that is slow.
It is an old one, but e.g the statement that 2d functions in X are 300% slower than under 9, giving the user stutterly scrolling performance, which greatly hinders a quick workflow, is something that can be measured. Maybe someone could be even "pleased" with this reduced performance, but someone having so small standards may not be interested in this discussion.
You can always argue about the speed of a given copy process, the speed for opening apps, the speed for switching programs and such, but you cannot argue general statements like "I am pleased".
And for all that "hate" the Aqua looks there are themes around and customizing apps for tweaking the OS to better match your needs or taste.
I think we all use Macs for the difference it makes in terms of style, appearance, looks, fashion and design, not only on the hardware side, but also on the software side. It is for this reason this type of discussion takes place, which is unparalleled in the PC world.
And it is especially hard when our co-Mac mates seem to take a stance against us, while all we want is the best Mac experience ever. And some things in X are not quite up to this standard by now.
Sorry for venting so long.
[quote]<strong>
The nonsense starts by always putting it as such simple equations like:
Aqua critics= Mac OS X haters
Mac OS X pleased person= Apple zealot
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
This is the way to simplify reality for tit for tat discussions. This is nonsense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Writing a piece that draws a line in the sand and paints an "us vs. them" picture (pardon my mixed metaphors) is relatively easy to write and draws lots of reaction. Writing a fair and reasoned analysis (even in a discussion forum) takes skill, patience, and a certain capacity for honesty and self-assessment. Small wonder we see so little of it, eh?
Do you still beat your wife?
How does one answer that question in a survey? And, even if the response to the question is accurate, the conclusions drawn from that type of poll are many and, often, inaccurate. For example, it could be that:
"Our treatment has helped stop 95% of wife beaters."
or
"95% of respondents reported beating their wives at some point in the past."
All web-polls are shit, regardless of the stuffing of the ballots box. The only way to get a good survey of information from the internet is to require unique identification and even then the results are suspect. Don't believe most of what you hear or read.
The bottom line is this:
Journalists don't know a thing about statistics. And they know even less about psychometrics.
<strong>Part of the problem comes from badly worded questions. There's a whole field dedicated to learning to write non-ambiguous, non-leading questions. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed!
[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>Journalists don't know a thing about statistics. And they know even less about psychometrics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes! It's nice to know there are others out there spreading the word about poor statistics!!!