Slashdot Mirror
OSX/Win2K Deathmatch
Michael Paci sent us linkage to a pretty good article on CNet where win2k and OSX duke it out on a variety of categories like ease of installation, UI, and hardware support. It's an interesting report and better written then most of the stuff that you'll see like this.
I know Atari made some big mistakes, but it was Commodore who were responsible for the Amiga...
Of course Mac OS X kicks Win2k's butt. With a fat core of pure UNIX (ask the Open Group)at its base, GNU/Mac OS X (as RMS would call it) has rock solid stability, great multitasking and all the GNU goodies Linux users have grown to love. On top of that is an interface that is so sexy members of the Mormon Faith have to get a waiver to use.
Want to talk about serving? Sure you do! Check out the $999 Server version of Mac OS X. Unlike Windows 2000, for $999 you get the whole shooting match -- no need for the those pesky client licenses that Microsoft lawyers love to sue over.
Worried that Mac OS X has no software available? Don't let your heart be troubled. Like X Windows with Enlightenment and Gnome? Mac OS X has got that. Need a good web server? How about Apache and Zeus. Want a browser that doesn't suck? We got those in spades, IE 5.1.1 (well it does suck a little), OmniWeb, Fizilla, iCab and Lynx. Need a word processor? We have Nisus Writer, BBEdit, Microsoft Office and every Macintosh users favorite, Appleworks. Need a rapid application development platform? Got those two, the free Project Builder from Apple and RealBasic. Need graphic apps? How about GIMP and Photoshop. I could go on and on, but I use Macs to make a livin' and not wastin' time on Slashdot.
Sure Mac OS X 1.0 is not the perfect OS. It has some bugs and some features are a little slow. But it is an amazing first step in the journey of putting UNIX on the consumer desktop. Linux developers can learn about an consumer OS by taking a long gander at this amazing first shot.
Why didn't you just use an unattend.txt file? Oh, because then you couldn't bitch about it... nevermind. Easy question & answer.
Yeah, Win2k works nicely for games, as long as you're using a Dx7 or later game.. older games sometimes work, and sometimes have bizarre errors. (Such as leftover artifacts from the mouse pointer, random slowdowns/lockups, or in Thief 1, incorrect camera angles.. that'll make you feel sick, walking one way while looking 12 degrees to the left.. woo! not to mention being twice as far above the ground as you should be.. quite strange, if you ask me)
Gates would just have some of his 'friends' bust
blowjob's nose and split his lip in the parking
lot before the event.
It'd be satisfying to know it had happened but it
would be anti-climatic. Still worth the $29.95
though.
Steve Jobs boasted of 'hacker proof' hardware
back in 1984 at the announcement of the Mac.
That goddamn motherfucker. 'Nuff said.
I'll bet thousands of dollars that an anti-MS'er will see the previous post in this thread, take it as fact and repeat it in some other OS flame war somewhere down the road. Thousands of dollars. Who want's to bet? "You know, I read that MS actually owns Tonka! Yea, it's true.. They put mind control/tracking chips in Tonka trucks so preschoolers will buy Windows when they grow up."
Apologist. Who wants to reboot?
No, he shouldn't have anything to do with apples.
OS X Has some fairly bad UI and GPU support problems. Furthermore, the lack of legit pro software really sucks right now. And don't no dang 'ol input devices or DVDs. I'd give win 2k the upper hand right now because it is at least usable. OS X is very very cool, but not more then a geek toy right now. I guess If all I did was type papers, listen to mp3's and player with my cameras, OS X would rock.... but that's not all I use my computer for
-dair
Can you give me a few examples of PC portables that you would compare with the iBook in term of weight, price and hardware features?
Really, I'm between buying an Dell Inspiron 8000 and an iBook 500...
Sounds like a debian install :)
Therefor, if this 'contest' should be of any significance, CNET should put Win98 in the ring instead of Win2K
I just installed Win2k to play with. Aside from the installer hanging twice, it went fine. No more difficult than Win98SE at all. And um, since when do end users not run Win2k? Standard consumers don't (or aren't supposed to), but business users certainly do, and when IT isn't around, they may be called upon to install the OS themselves.
And just a nitpick, Win98SE is officially obsolete and (as far as I know) is no longer sold.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
If you already have a computer that you will continue to use, and you're not planning on buying a new one, then you're limited to using an operating system that runs on that hardware. If you're in the market for a new machine (either because you don't already have one, or more likely because your old machine has gotten long in the tooth and you feel the need to upgrade), a good rule of thumb is this: choose the applications you want to run first, then choose an operating system that will run those applications, then choose hardware that will run that operating system. Obviously, you may need to make compromises and sacrifices.
If the main app you want to run is Halflife, you're limited to WinME or Win2k (assuming you're buying a new machine and a new OS). Either way, you are then limited to an x86 system (or the more politically correct IA-32).
If you want to run Mozilla and StarOffice, you're limited to WinME, Win2k, Solaris or any version of Linux on x86, or Solaris on Sparc.
If you want to run Photoshop, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook, you're limited to WinME or Win2k on x86, or Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X on PowerPC (however on Mac OS X, Photoshop and Outlook will currently only run in the Mac OS 9 emulation layer, not natively).
Use the best tool for the job.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
So what else is new?
Because XP has just kicked into its copyright-control phase, according to The Register, no longer lets you make mp3 files and refuses to let you play the WMA files it does let you make unless it thinks you have a license to do it.
OSX: iTunes.
If you take a consumer point of view, the gap between OSX and XP is only going to widen. People want to put all their CDs onto their computer. After all, they own both CDs and computer legally, and they go well together! I'd be shocked to see slashdotters contest this as geeks were the _first_ to get heavy into keeping all their CDs on hard disk, compressed.
Compare that to iTunes. Bit of a difference, no?
They certainly should repeat this test after the final build of XP. But they need to include 'making a mix CD of CDs that you own' in the tests. People _want_ to get their music onto their computer for easy random access. There is no denying that.
The difference is, Apple is banking on the good PR from their supporting people's fair use rights- and Microsoft has just put into action their whole copyright control apparatus, complete with the software phoning home to some server somewhere to check up on whether it should bust you- and complete with mp3 being taken away. Sucks to own mp3 playing hardware huh kids?
I give it a 20 percent chance that they literally go through disks deleting files if the security check says you're a bad-boy.
The CNET test is just the beginning. We may see a CNET test with XP against some future version of _Linux_ where they side with Linux! There is only so much you can do blatantly against consumers before you stop winning these sorts of tests.
It's not so much "biased" as it is "just plain stupid." :)
When I read your post, I had been misreading the article as "as easy as throwing a hot dog". :\
I don't see how either of those characteristics is unique to macintoshes :)
That comparison should be run with Mac OS X Server, which is OS X with some consumer stuff removed and some more server stuff (QT streaming server, WebObjects, better GUI admin tools) included.
2. There's an undocumented but by-now-well-known method for enabling full root that should be on any Mac tech site.
;)
4. classic mode is only truly slow for me when booting it, which takes about 5 minutes (I'm on a beige G3/300). Once it's running, it's not so bad. It's fast enough for me to play MacOS games in it (these tend to be buggier than most progams in classic so ymmv). Also, if you quit every classic app, the environment goes to sleep after a few minutes and X is back to normal.
5. Install the dev tools
FWIw, OS X already has voice recognition.
$make && make install $
[localhost:~] guest% gcc
gcc: Command not found.
[localhost:~] guest% make
make: Command not found.
Nor is an X Window package preloaded on Mac OS X, to the best of my knowledge. So for Joe Average User, it's a little more complicated than that.
(I have a Windows 2000 box in front of me, and a Mac OS X box just to my right.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Wow, milage does vary, because my Windows 98SE box was horrible. Crashing, memory leaks, and it was a bear to get Win98SE or NT 4 to install right with my Intel Pro10/100 NIC and my Soundblaster card.
But Win2000 installed just fine, and it's been more stable that Win 98. However, niether of them are close to OS X, like the article says.
i think it's kinda funny that MacOS X will almost immediatly surpas Linux - and shortly thereafter all other Unix-oid systems combined - in finally bringing Unix to the desktop. good fer them.
But MacOS X isn't user friendly enough. You may as well use Solaris or HPUX or some other proprietary UNIX. Sure, it has some open source components, but the bulk of it is still closed. There's no "We want to appeal to all of the hardcore techies out there" notion inherent in OS X, and there never was.
Oh, do you consider "user friendly" to be condescending GUIs? In that case, I guess it is better, but I find these systems absolutely unusable.
And I'm not saying command lines are any more usable. I feel just as restricted on a Windows machine as I do using Solaris. The open source culture of an OS does a lot towards making it more usable for me. This is the distinction between OS X, which has many a friendly graphical interface and some open source parts, being completely worthless to me, and Linux, which has a less polished happy graphical interace, but is completely usable to me.
So, from my point of view "Linux has surpassed all other OS's". But that only matters to me.
Keep your OS bigotry off of my body.
How long did it take them to realize that AppleTalk (a very, very "chatty" protocol) wasn't going to fly and that they should support TCP/IP?
AppleTalk hasn't been "very very chatty" for a long time. AppleTalk Phase 2 took care of that. See this page for details. Here is a story, this time with a bit of humor. Yet another source of info.
One would have thought that such stupid arguments would have died out with Windows 95. That system demonstrated conclusively that all the gui shiny happiness in the world won't make up for poor hardware architecture.
It's not Apple's "spiffiness" that would be an issue in a face off between Linux and OSX when it comes to hardware configuration. The PnP features built into USB and PCI makes such comparisons pretty much a dead heat comparing any two OSes. The real issue is VENDOR SUPPORT.
This is also an issue that was glossed over in the article. The OS with the most vendors onboard will be the one to win a PnP contest. Nothing else really matters.
What would your Macintosh do if I dropped by Matrox G400 into it? The result would likely make Linux look rather good actually.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Win2k does not infact "support nearly everything". Win2k is infact a distinct version from the consumer iteration of Windows. This is an IMPORTANT fact. Trying to deny this does an EXTREME disservice to the novice end user.
Win2k infact counts as "another OS to support". This quite often puts it in the same position as Linux or MacOpenStep when it comes to hardware support.
Win2k does NOT count as a garauntee of good hardware support.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Where is this documented again?
Why should we expect ANYONE to know about this little trick?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Round 1: Installation
> Very much distro dependant, but whatever the
> case not as point and click simple as Win2k/OSX.
You're on crack. Linux installers have been on par with those for WinDOS since at least Redhat 5.0. Not only do the Linux installers support more interesting configuration features, but they also provide for ultra simple "canned" configurations.
Also, the fact that Linux distros are released more frequently means that all of your device drivers will be conveniently contained on the OS media. All it takes is ONE device driver not in place on a Win2k install to quickly make it much more painful than Redhat or Mandrake. Also, it is untrue that drivers for WinDOS are necessarily just a matter of "put in the CD and the OS will find your driver for you". For a novice, futzing with a 3rd party Windows driver may be no less seemingly confounding than dealing with a 3rd party Linux driver.
The same is true for Linux of course. However, if it's not on the OS disk you are likely just out of luck.
MacOS 10 has an edge over both Win2k and Linux for different reasons (they have complete control over the target enviroment).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A friend of mine was getting an error from the 2000 installer that sounds similar to yours. Basically, just before it finished formatting the 30 GB IDE disk (either NTFS or FAT), it would crash with an error message. Of course, it worked fine under Windows 98 and DOS (dunno if he tried Linux). It turned out that he had defective memory. Upon replacement of the DIMM, 2000 installed without complain.
Maybe you should have your memory checked out?
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
For example, for right-hand users the mouse and cursor will naturally gravitate to the top left of the screen, and this is where Apple decided to put the Apple, File and Edit menus. Flicking your mouse to the upper left is an incredibly easy movement, and then - twack! you hit the corner and the menu is there, just under your mouse button. Microsoft decided to put the Start button in the lower left, requiring the user to cramp his/her hand. And the corner pixel is inactive, so you actually have to stop the mouse movement just before the cursor hits the corner -- or go on and hit the corner and then navigate back a few pixels. And then you can click, with your hand in an incredibly unergonomic position. The Win95 UI is full of this kind of design errors.
Essentially, Microsoft has taken the (old) Mac OS UI, removed all the nice usability details, spread the result onto 90% of the desktops of the world, and now even CNet says that it's better than the new-and-revamped Mac OS interface! I think this is disturbing and sad.
For anyone interested in UI design, Bruce Tognazzini has written lots of articles on his website www.asktog.com. Tog was closely involved in designing the Mac user interface, and has a cartload of UI design knowledge as well as a good pen hand.
--Bud
Listen.
/Applications/Utilities/NetInfo Manager
You can enable root... and then root is fully enabled.
Preeching that its not just shows pure ignorance!
How to Enable ROOT on MacOSX
1) launch
2) menu: Domain->Security->Authenticate
3) enter your password (you're an admin right)
4) menu: Domain->Security->Enable Root User
5) follow the prompts
TADA!
You can now su to root, you can login as root, you can ssh as root and you can login to the gui as root...
you can even sudo.
Whatever.
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Step 1. Remove hot dog from package.
Step 2. Heat in hot water until the hot dog is hot!
Step 3. Heh. There is no step 3. THERE IS NO STEP 3!
"File sharing? Windows has built-in Internet connection sharing"
...
If this were at a car-dealership it would sound something like..
"Looking for a truck aye? Well have a look at this Toyota Corolla"
You may be sick of the pointless pissing contests over the "best" operating system platform between various factions of computer users and professionals; me, I'm sick of the civics-uninformed painting generalizations of political ideology like "liberalism" (or communism for that matter) across sectors of the public sphere where it bears no relation. The two are unrelated. And since your point about "liberalism" is itself a gross generalization, this would appear to negate your position on the pointlessness of these debates... you just brought up the ridiculousness of OS debates only to fan the flames of an even more ridiculous political ideology debate. So, what's your point?????
--Maynard
As for the 'commodity pricing,' support costs completely override any benefit in having cheaper hardware. Macs just work.
And finally, what's this 'integration with the rest of the business world'? The truth is, almost all people use 90% of the same applications, with some small utilities to fill in the gaps. Those 90% are usually what one can find in an office suite, and some custom enterprise applications. Custom enterprise apps written in Java will work without a hitch, and VB people deserve to wallow in the shithole they have created for themselves (but just run a PC emulator)... As for the rest of the apps, you'll find an equivalent in the Mac world.
Final question is, why would one switch? Simple: the unconscious 'pain in the ass' factor. Windows is just not human friendly. It's designed to look easy to use, but nothing really makes true sense. The errors like 'SQL Server had an error:Success,' the dialog boxes that just forget what you're doing, the menus that keep changing on you, the stupid paper clip, the start menu with a 'Programs' list taller than your screen (does EVERY application need it's own damn program group?)... Just a big, useless mess by people who couldn't care less how the user interacts with the system, just how the user pays for the software.
In that way, UNIX and Macs are similar: they're written for the user. In UNIX land, the software and the user environment are written for the traind professional who just wants to get their work done. In Mac land, the software and user environment are written for basically anybody with 10 minutes of experience to get their work done. Suddenly, with OS X, both types of users are accommodated (that's why I switched from Linux to Mac OS X: I wasn't into free sofware because it was inexpensive, I was into it because it was the best. Now I have a fantastic GUI on top of it).
How come Windows is the only platform where there isn't a user group, who, having seen the rest of the options (with their own eyes, not the FUD MS puts out), chooses it and stays loyal to it with love? I only hear complaints about Windows, and I only hear adoration and caring for UNIX and Mac.
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Apple did this to "protect" the end user. Very odd if you ask me.
Makes perfect sense to me. If you happen to know
WTF you're doing it takes all of a second and
a half to enable the root account. If you
don't know the difference between sudo
and Jermaine & Tito then you probably
don't have any business stumbling around at
a shell prompt as root anyway.
Disclaimer: I run Mandrake at work
(it's an x86 shop.) I run
OS X at home.
I have far more usable/useful
software for the OS X box. Besides
a growing mountain of OSX native
software (http://www.versiontracker.com/vt_mac_osx.shtml)
I also have access to just about any useful
CLI-based POSIX software and a million
years worth of classic Mac software.
And that's just the cheap/free stuff.
I'd like to take this opportunity to "redicule" all the Slashdotters who can't spell "ridiculous."
--
#19845
It's not wasted effort if it's quicker to write the script than it is to sit through the install.
If it takes you longer to write the script, well, then there's your point.
DNA just wants to be free...
The process took me 45 minutes on a fairly decent machine (AMD600MHz, 128MB Ram, ATA/66 disk), almost none of which was me having to think about questions or read help. That wouldn't be so bad, but the installer litters questions through the install process so you can't just leave it alone for a while to do the install; you have to be there for those 45 minutes (or more; an install time of an hour isn't unheard of), mostly twiddling your thumbs.
What would have been far better would have been an installer that saved all the questions for the start or end of the install process (ie, at the start it asks for disk partitioning and install options; at the end you configure things like admin password).
--
Maybe you have a bad cable.
>and this system is only a couple months old.
Do you think that has anything to do with it???
Sheesh.
-Kevin
I think you're confused. The 68K emulation layer had little to do with OS 7.x per se -- it had to do with the change from 68K architecture to PowerPC.
And how was it bungled, pray tell? It was the smoothest switch from one processor architecture to another! A few things didn't work -- things with depended on a hardware FPU primarily, which a 3rd party came up with a hack for (SoftFPU) -- but for the majority of apps, everything went swimmingly. I was part of the "big change" -- I bought a first generation 7100 -- and moved software from 68K to PowerPC native. The only problems I had were a few FPU-dependant filters for Photoshop.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
The thing that eliminated any empathy with the writers for me was the win2k advocate stating ~"I don't want an FTP server wasting space in my OS"~. A stupid statement because the space taken up is negligible and I (and many others) do want an FTP server.
Start Running Better Polls
Global generalizations are a rediculous liberal myth.
So, are you saying that global generalizations are GLOBALLY a liberal myth? Nice logic.
Global generalizations tend to be used by the ignorant, no matter their political views, liberal or conservative.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Unless MS decides that Office revenue is the only thng that matters, not likely. It'a a sad fact that some people have to buy Windows because of Office. Put Office on Linux and they could loose the Corporate market for Windows desktops very quickly.
I can't see them doing that. If they loose the desktop, they loose their leverage on the server market. It's just not going to happen.
yeah, I'd have to argue their statement above. "It's better at detecting hw" ????? Well maybe the way it goes about it is better, but I think, and I could be wrong, that mabye there are a lot of people with hw that isn't supported that is in OS 9. I have an external USB drive for some backup space (I took cost over speed), and OS X can't see it.
Hm, as I recall they did move a lot of their processing to NT a while back, did they not?
OH YEAH!!! That would RULE!!!
"Twn men entah! One man leave! Two men entah! One man leave!!"
http://www.cam.org/~java/mmax3.htm
Comparing these two is a cute idea for an article, but it might not really makes sense. The two are being targetted for different submarkets, even though they can be used in another submarkete, i.e Mac OS X really targetted towards consumers, graphics pros, anyone, etc., while W2k -seems- more focussed on business use.
Also, regardless of the outcome of this comparison, W2k has been out for some time, while OS X only two months or so. They were both in development for a long time, but I'd have to give the handicap to OS X here because it is more of a new start than Win-whatever. I mean there has been an NT-based OS for years, but a "UNIX-based" OS with the Apple/Mac GUI is new, and Aqua is certainly brand new. Also, I would place more credence in a comparison done by Ars Tecnica than CNET. Makes the difference of whether the comparison is found in the Tech section or the Lifestyle section of the paper, and I don't trust CNET'$ allegiance$ given their 'reporting' of some topics and stories in the past.
Let's combine 'em and call it OS/2K.
Or would that be too warped?
-
If you really want to understand NT in depth, there's about as much to learn, sadly. If not more.
Linux has improved enormously in how much you need to learn or not learn in order to use it effectively. But we're really talking about MacOS X, and in the case of X, most users (including me) agree that you don't need abstruse Unix knowledge to run it. It won't hurt if you want to probe into its guts, but you don't have to do that unless you want to.
A clear advance, no?
D
----
Not a bad metaphor considering how dismal VHS is. It may be a standard, but do you want to watch VHS more than you absolutely have to?
I have moved almost all my home computing to MacOS X. I run Photoshop in Classic, and once you get past the lengthly startup, it works fine. The bundled Mail is very nice, and the OmniWeb browser is my preferred way of surfing regardless of platform.
I would like to see a fully working xemacs, but other than that, I'm extremely happy with MacOS X. True, it's not perfectly fast all the time, but I love the aesthetic experience and accept that life is a bunch of tradeoffs.
D
----
This is exactly why MacOS X won c|net's shootout. It was loads easier to install, supported almost all hardware likely to be used with a Mac, and had a high-quality suite of Internet tools installed. Thus, it was much more like an appliance than W2k.
:-(.
I would say Apple is to be praised for this, since it's what the bulk of the public wants and needs.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the public wants things real cheap, but, well, you can't have everything
D
----
What the heck is the big deal about DVD, anyway?
I have a home DVD player. It's attached to my NTSC television set via a S-Video cable. It sure looks a lot better than shaky DVD played off a puny computer screen.
I can understand that it's a nice feature for a laptop, but it doesn't strike me as something that should be among the top ten gripes about an OS.
After going through four different video cards trying to get my (well, my company's) spiffy new SGI 1600SW monitor to work properly at full resolution on a Linux PC, I'm starting to think Apple's lack of hardware choice is a blessing, not a curse.
By the way, the root password is easily enabled and works great on my MacOS X installation.
You're right about sluggishness in the interface, but quite honestly it's so much prettier than X-Windows I don't really care. And when Linux was in the same stage of development as MacOS X was now, I remember griping about pretty darn poor GUI performance.
Give it time.
D
----
You are probably right that lack of knowledge and prejudice are very real reasons why people hate Windows 2000.
However, you shoot yourself in the foot here. You should not have to read a 300-page tome about the operating system before installing it for the first time.
Granted, scripted installs are great if you're setting up 500 machines at once. But someone who just wants to get their single unit up and running shouldn't have to learn a scripting language to do a routine installation easily. They probably can't, anyway; how do you write the script if you don't have an OS already on your computer?
I'm sorry; if the default installation routine is too clumsy and cumbersome, it's Microsoft's fault, and Microsoft should fix it. End of story.
D
----
How come you fucking jackasses are whining about things in the article's fucking disclaimer? C|Net decided to do a fun little test with a very macroscopic scope and of source slashdot whines either one way or the other. Not everything requires SPEC benchmarks and extensive testing. What do most people really care about anyways? It isn't minute differences in a fucking floating point benchmark, or whether you can use some 5$ soundcard under Windows 2000. Fuck the 5$ soud card in fact I hope it blows out your fucking speakers. News for nerds indeed. I'm going to get back to SPEC benching my Furbies against my Intellivision and Apple][e so I can post the results for slashdot to bitch about.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Agreed - he always seems to be thinking "Hey, I mixed up all this Kool-Aid for you guys, how come you aren't drinking ?!"
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
And that's the point that I'm making. Apple already is a niche player, and a relatively successful one. The parent poster somewhere up this thread was making the point that because Apple's now a "UNIX vendor" there's opportunities for them *beyond* their niche.
I'm saying that's doubtful, there's too many players in the UNIX space that do what Apple might expand into. Those other players do it very, very well and Apple can't hope to move into their space.
And whatever value their UNIX-ness gives them means nothing to the wintel world in the desktop space, and they don't rackmount so they're not getting into the datacenter, either.
Which leaves a hungry microsoft looking for a new market a very threatening proposition. Lose the niche, lose the business.
Break out? Apple's only hope is that they can keep their existing niche market. If I want a proprietary hardware vendor who can sell me an UNIX OS for something other than design/publishing, I've got Sun, HP and IBM who can all sell me low/mid/high-end data processing solutions with decades of experience in doing so in addition to thousands of VARs and other third parties with equivilent depth of experience and products for the OEMs products.
Apple can really talk about the "history" of UNIX and BSD and can probably drum up a couple of people that did something interesting in the brief lifetime of NeXT, but that's it.
They also have ZERO chance of replacing the WinTel hegemony on corporate desktops. Too much time, money and manpower has been invested in that paradigm for it to be changed by the fact that Apple's got BSD under the hood and can now be trusted to mutlitask with some measure of stability.
Apple really needs to hope that a stagnating tech economy doesn't get some hungry Microsofties the idea that they can grow into the design and publishing businesses with the competitive advantage of integration with the rest of the business world and commodity hardware pricing. The day that Microsoft decides it wants do that, Apple will be a nice memory and nothing more.
This has nothing to do with the quality of OS X, Win2k, Sun, Linux, BSD or anything else. It's pure business position.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Now that you mention it, the sleek dynamism of Wilde's grave in comparison could easily represent W2K vs. OSX...
Wrong answer. The guy who designed the Amiga (Jay Minor) has been dead for five years. Chuckie Cheese is owned by Nolan Bushnel, the founder of Atari, who was once Jay Minor's boss (Jay also designed the Atari 400/800). Nolan Bushnel left Atari well before Amiga was founded, and he founded Chuckie Cheese with the money that Time Warner paid him for Atari (a disasterous purchase on their part, but Bushnel got his $$$).
I witnessed usability testing at MSFT a few years ago on a specific product (not an OS, so YMMV) and though it was a nice gesture the testing occurred too late in the development cycle for any real insights to affect the interface. And it didn't look as though the analysis of the data was very deep, I recall the tech missing that the users didn't recognize a widget on a configuration screen as scrollable.
And it seems to me that until recently Apple's done the best job of integrating usability into an interface that's powerful and doesn't make you want to scratch your eyes out. (One exception: the single-button mouse, suitable for children and beginners, constraining for skilled users.) Still, it looks as though they're jettisoning a lot of the basic principles these days.
Funny how both MSFT and Apple seem to stumble the most when they target the consumer rather than the professional.
You know they found a new virus for the Mac, but it is only for those who are stupid enough to use Outlook/entourage.
Wait until MS starts "Up Dating" corporate websites without their permission. Of course it will be in the license that all data on your computer and website is property of MS.
I have used Macs since the eighties and I have not had one virus, worm or trojan horse infecting my computer. There is always a first time.
photosMy Photostream
and Chucky Cheese
photosMy Photostream
Windows does run on the Mac*, and so does XWindows.
*Virtual PC I see they have a new VirtualPC product. For you Intel inclined people.
photosMy Photostream
If the Windows world is so great, why is it that users of the Win OS write worms, trojan horses and viruses to attack their OS? I don't see that in the Mac or UNIX world.
Windows free since 1945.
photosMy Photostream
You don't want to look at people arguing on Slashdot? Why exactly are you here, then?
The Win2k advocate makes this comment:
Do I want a free e-mail account branded with my computer maker's domain name? No, for the same reason I don't wear clothes that say Gap or Tommy on them. I'm not a walking billboard for other people's products, and I won't use my e-mail messages for viral online marketing either.
Hmmm, then I guess MS has completely missed the boat with WinXP and Hailstorm, because thats exactly where they are going. Hotmail and MSN Messenger for everybody, and let MS be the keeper of your online persona.
Matt: File sharing? Windows has built-in Internet connection sharing that's better than any version of Windows to date. Trust us, Windows can do it all.
What a dumbass! He doesn't even know his own OS. Internet connection sharing has nothing to with file sharing, connection sharing is so you can set up your windows box to be a masquerade box for other machines on your network. Sadly, CNet has just managed to illustrate the level of cluelessness of the average windows user.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Sorry. If you are looking for a robust, stable, platform to work with RIGHT NOW and you are choosing between Win2k and MacOS X, the answer is only one: Win2k.
Our IT department is very excited about MacOS and we have been doing lots of testing with OS X, but IMO, it is not yet ready to match Win2k in terms of stability, performance, and application availability. OS X crawls on a G3 with 128MB of RAM when performing simple tasks, why is that? Almost none of the applications that we use aren't out for OS X and we aren't excited at all about running them in the classic environment. System panics/ crashes are frequent.
I could go on about hardware costs as well. G4 powermacs pale in comparison to equivalent PCs in price and performances(yes, Alvitec is good, but we have no use for it).
OS X is a good beginning, buy IMO, as of right now it is no match for Win2k. May be a year from now, we could have a better fight between the two OSes when more applications are ported to OS X and when it hopefully gets more stable and faster.
Yes, my ISP was costing too much money and I am looking for a new host to dump it on. There is another project that is quite interesting as well (but not as simple) WebWare. Basically same thing, but does more
Give me another week or so and PyML will be back and kicking
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Remember the old Netscape vs. IE reviews that they used to do 2-3 years ago... they are back!
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
It seems that cnet are asuming that home users are going to be installing win2k or osx on there computers.
we all know from experience that this isnt the case sure we all format our machines the moment we get them but I would hit my mother with a big stick if she tried it. I dont care how easy it is to install the run of the mill user still cant handle an install. I cant remember the number of times I have had to help my family out with macs and pcs that they have reinstalled.
of course the mac install is better than the win2k install but microsoft have never made a descent installer in the history of the company. osx installs asking the minimum of questions because all it needs is the gestault id of the hardware and it knows what equipment is on the system.
anyway the point of this is that ease of install is a non issue because 95% of the users will never experience it.
oh and as for the internet being so much easier and better and more than the microsoft install who here is suprised. microsoft cripple the software in an effort to get upgrades to advanced server and also who here cares I will not be using eather machine as a web server.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
In other news, thinksecret is reporting that CNET (which owns ZDNet) is closing ZDNet's macintosh coverage section.
So, its a nice OS, we like it, be we won't cover it.
Maybe it was redundant with another CNET news page or maybe they just couldn't compete with the other Mac news sites. I always thought ZDNet was a purely windows organization and never went there for Mac news.
that may or may not be true, however the majority of "Mac boxes" are not MacOS X by a long shot... plus, point to your numbers about "way more Mac boxes". we have IDC numbers at least showing linux up there and surpassing NT.
i think it's kinda funny that MacOS X will almost immediatly surpas Linux
as long as OSX is stuck on Apple hardware, this will never happen... sorry. and don't talk about Darwin, cause you're better off with FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
And by 'wierd bash shell quirks', do you mean the fact that bash is not installed, and you're using tcsh?
--
And by 'wierd bash shell quirks', do you mean the fact that bash is not installed, and you're using tcsh?
--
Apple is moving away from AppleTalk. This is why XP Server won't support it. It will support AppleShare over IP. AppleTalk ruled its roost of the time due to its autodiscovery capabilities. Everything is TCP/IP these days and there are things similar to what AppleTalk did except over IP.
--Mike
Apple invented the true one-click OS installation, and Mac OS X advances the tradition. Not only is OS X the first Unix-based operating system that's easier to install than Windows, but it's the easiest Mac OS installation ever.
i dont buy this at all. from my expirence redhat and mandrake have installations that are much easier than windows. really though this is not an issue for windows. as mentioned in the article, windows is normally sold preinstalled on new machines.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Try Apple.com. I believe the whole site (which has a hell of a lot of dynamic content) runs on MacOS X.
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
Not only would the UI designers and driver developers be in totally seperate departments and under different budgets, but Microsoft has effectively infinite resources.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Or do Mac users like being told what hardware to buy?
I think you're missing the forest here: the hardware is 50% of the reason people buy Macs to begin with. Mac hardware is industry leading in many areas. No, not every area.
Apple was the first to build an all-USB machine. As far as I know, it also was the first to have built-in 3.5" drives, ethernet, SCSI, wireless anteneeas, FireWire. It's also pioneering low-energy and fanless operation. And the tower cases are the easiest to open and work with out of anything I've ever used.
Apple's hardware isn't flawless, but it's not like most Mac users are saying "I want Mac OS X, but oh shit I have to buy a G4 to run it." That's part of the whole package. Apple is a systems company. If you don't like it, then go buy a PC running Windows or Linux. Or build your own, and recompile your kernel every 38 days. That's fine. But not everyone wants that.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
MacOSX: we're better because of A, B, and C.
Windows rebuttal: Your OS sucks because of A, B, and C.
Windows: We have D, E, and F.
MacOSX rebuttal: Your OS sucks because of D, E, and F.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I got the impression that a significant cause of delay in the installation of Win2K was the way in which the installation CD is laid out.
Most CD-ROMs are fairly sensibly laid out, so that files are continuous on the disk. Win2K's CD-ROM appears to be spectacularly fragmented, judging by the incessant seeking the drive does trying to read it. If it spends all its time seeking for the right track, the drive will never get to full speed and reading CDs will take ages.
(That was the impression I got but I'm willing to believe I'm wrong.)
Disclaimer: (everyone else has one so I figured I should too) I am not a Mac fan, but I do own an old Mac that keeps all my new PeeCee's company.
I've been watching Apple attempts at releasing a new OS for a few years now. I even played around with a copy of raphosdy x86. OS/X appears to be the best thing since sliced bread in the desktop/small server area. I played around with it the other day for a little while and was very impressed. Sweet, sweet sweet. There were a lot of things that impressed me. Now if M$ could come out with something as sweet. On the other hand i did find it to be a bit slow (or maybe it as just the crappy mac HW). I would love to see apple release a copy for x86. If they did then I would be the first in line to buy a copy and second in line to hack it up to support 2 mouse buttons and a wheel!
PS: I think that wheel is M$'s only real inovation and its a piece of HW!
Sorry you would be a criminal if you did that on W2K pro. Read your license. I would hate have people in jail because soembody gave bad advice on /.
War is necrophilia.
They were comparing desktop systems. One desktop system comes with apache and allows unlimited connections the other desktop system is crippled by law and may even get you in jail if you are not careful. It's not fair to compare W2K server with MacOSX desktop.
War is necrophilia.
Not only does W2K cost more then linux but you need to buy more expensive hardware as well. I get it now.
War is necrophilia.
W2K crashes no matter who uses it. Where I work the workers are constantly crashing it even though they know nothing of other operating systems. The odd thing is that these are Dells with W2K pre-installed on them. Maybe Dell has not sucked ass enough and Bill G. put in some code in there to make then unstable in Dells who knows.
War is necrophilia.
Wow tell the truth and get moderated down as a troll. Surprises never end.
War is necrophilia.
The Tramiels couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag. Atari couldn't even promote their own stuff yet they had the savvy to destroy Amiga? Huh?
Puh-leeze. Microsoft and Apple destroyed both the Amiga and ST blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs.
Yes, the Amiga was vastly superior at the time and should have at least trounced the Mac once and for all. However, everyone here knows that technical merit has very little to do with winning in the marketplace.
What's that 'window manager' thingy, anyway?
Best Slashdot Co
Windows 2000 won't work well on groovy game machines with highly tuned graphics cards, such as Diamond's AGP 550
Yeah - and that's the Windows 2000 "fan" who writes it ! Diamond is dead for a long while, and the Viper 550 is a quite old graphic card. Plus, Windows 2000 works like on charm on such hardware (it's nVidia chipset, and there's a good driver for all of them on Windows 2000)
Whether you consider the comment out-of context or not, even in the larger context you'll find that the original poster is right here. The reveiwer fails to notice that these apps *are* available under Win2k. The fact that he bundled this comment in with a comment about usability doesn't make his assertions any more valid.
What apps are you discussing here? The original writer of the comment didn't include anything about apps and as for the article; with general conceptual knowledge of the two operating systems; everyone knows that windows basically has more apps. Finding software for the MAC is a pain in the ass. I've never debated that and neither did the article.
And as for the Apache issue, I think the point the poster was trying to make is that an average user can enable IIS and has a *GUI* to configure it. The same is true of ftpd (which I'm sure is why it was added). It would be a hell of a lot easier explaining how to start the webserver to a "newbie" with a GUI as opposed to having to manually configure the daemons in a non-GUI way.
IIS is not Apache (never confuse the two). Having a GUI to configure apache isn't gonna make much difference infact it's quite worthless. You can use "Comanche" which would be the best option if you did need such a thing. If a newbie wants to setup a webserver it's best that they learn how to configure apache by hand. Not only that but a regular desktop user isn't going to be needing apache so there is no point in turning it on. A power user however won't mind editing their own conf file for the webserver process, GUI's just can't cut writing your own config the way you like it. It'd also help prevent people throwing up Apache properly unconfigured. And yes if a newbie wants his own webserver and wants to use Apache he or she must learn it just like any other software program. If they want to use IIS they can also do that, that's what is called users choice.
Linuxconf is not an apache GUI configuration (if it is; i'm sorry I just don't think anyone would be stupid enough to even use linuxconf for such a task or anything else for that matter) program and I don't know what apacheconf is, if you could provide links I'd appreciate it. I don't believe I'm ignorning anything, his points weren't that valid and I believe all he did was selectively pull comments to blow out of proportion.
Mac OS X has four application subsystems: Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and POSIX + X11. Programs that run in POSIX + XonX see the Mac as a mixed FreeBSD/NetBSD box running an X11 server. You can find almost any POSIX + X11 app you need at OSDN Freshmeat
I never debated that. I know this, granted you seem to take in account that ANY POSIX+X11 app will work that's not the case, for some of the apps on freshmeat you'd need to hack up some of the code.
How else are you supposed to share files? Email is out because your ISP says the files are too large to fit in attachments. NFS, SMB, etc. are out because they're platform specific and don't work across dial-up. That's why I run Apache on my Linux box and WinApache on my Windows ME box, so that I can send files to users on other IM services.
File Transfer Protocol otherwise known as ftp. NFS does work across dialup and so does SMB. It just isn't a feasible idea. All you have to do is find an ftp server for windows and start it, add users etc.
Except "any other software program" the user is likely to encounter on a Macintosh computer has GUI configuration.
Yeah and? Most people that ran apache on a mac before this will have no problem. They are the users I'm talking about. New users will just have to learn how to do it. If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.. Just be sure to either sell it (no exhorbant pricing) or submit the source to the apache source tree.
And there is probably some darwin advocate who has probably done it for many of the popular apps. It'd be a straightforward task for a developer with BSD experience, less work on packages that already work on FreeBSD and NetBSD, more work for packages that use Linuxisms.
.html pages. I'll repeat again, If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.
No, that hasn't happened yet eventually it will. It's only a couple of minor changes you'd probably have to make.
Easier said than done. I couldn't get anything out of Freshmeat's list of FTP servers or a Google search for open-source windows FTP server, while open-source windows HTTP server turned up Apache as the second result. Not only that, but HTTP has a lower connection setup and teardown cost than FTP.
You want to transfer files but would prefer not to use the File Transfer Protocol, thats funny. Finding an open source ftpd server is not hard. Go to www.download.com or somewhere, you'll eventually find one for windows. And setting up an anonymous FTP site takes all of 2 mins.
The default settings handle most basic cases of running Apache on a personal workstation, giving you about the same features as the IM clients' built-in file servers have, with the most commonly changed option (at least on the WinApache installations I've done) being which domain name to return to HTTP/1.0 clients.
Default settings handle most basic cases maybe for you and the purpose that you are using it for which is for file transfers. Most people that setup a webserver use it for its purpose and that is to serve
You take what they say out of context and add your own meaning.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
"Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9"; Win2K professional doesn't have the ease of use setting up an internet connection for a "dumb user".
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options.
Windows has ISS (MAC OSX is unix and can run your favorite httpd/ftp/gopher etc servers) and Apache isn't in the ftpd business so why the jab there? Apple isn't in the server game, they are in the user arena and have provided power users the option of server capabilities with a robust backend at the same time allowing "I just want to get my stuff done" users a nice UI. Which is what everyone knows however you've taken it out of context.
The article was more about usability than not. Even though I don't think it was of much substance you've put a new spin on it and have taking it out of context. That is what is known as a zealot and or troll.
There's no front-end for Apache other than a checkbox?
Good! when I used it, I was happy Apple configured it out of the box for me, the ports closed by default, unlike Red Hat.
Apache for mac is simple, click the checkbox, put stuff in the public folder, and there's no step 3.
Actually, I found it PC-biased.
Blithely glossing over how every mac ever made is backwards-compatible with older apps from the beginning, while extolling how Win2k needs some DOS-emulator layer to run 16-bit apps.
OS X supports Appletalk. It's in the Network control panel.
It took them till OS 9. Works quite well, I might add.
Excuse me, but I think OS X is leading in software compatibility. Apple's going to all the trade shows, showing how much better Java2 is on OS X, WebDAV, SSH, better Apache, and can even run original 68k apps for the first mac in OS X.
I'd say OS X leads over Win2k on this.
Much improved, I believe. I use a 68k printer driver, so no problems for me.
I believe Apple's stance on the button issue is this: You can buy a 2 button mouse, and it will run with 2-buttin support in OS X. In the meantime, you can simply upgrade your mouse than the OEM one, which is the best OEM mouse I've ever seen.
When did you use a mac last? 1992? Ah, so you have no idea of the professional hardware setup I have. The OS is far more streamlined for my video/audio editing I do, and I have it customized the way I want it. Windows of any kind would take far too long and would only be too aggravating.
edit .ini files? Is that easy? Can I call MS for help? Is it supported? Is there a GUI frontend for helping me do this? Didn't think so.
And as for linux? How good is their MIDI support? Better yet, up until 2.4, there wasn't firewire support. Name one good DV editor for linux, where I can import DV and edit.
People care about DV. If you can get a PC with premeire or Final Cut Pro, you can save thousands off an avid. DV is still new, but it's not bad. And George Lucas is swearing by it.
Let's all forget our differences, cease to argue all things, never talk to each other again and die off in a hole somewhere! Yeah!
Argument doesn't neccessarily mean pissing match...
Yes, OS X harbors serious some serious software compatibility shortcomings. But OS X's industrywide standards and Unix core will likely deliver the same variety of Mac apps that Windows now enjoys. In the meantime, OS X has power and compatibility where it really counts.
Unlike mem hog Windows, CNET should have also pointed out the differences in things like security, e.g., how you don't need to keep your life glued to the NTBugtraq mailing lists every time something goes bonkers with Windows.
Another small quirk is the licensing issues revolving around when Windows will make the switch and lease its software. That's going to be a nightmare when it rolls out.
Want Root?
The basic thought trend here is that there is no one universal 'tool'.
Except Emacs, of course ...
Steve
---
At least win2k supports appletalk.. At what level you agree with is up to you. But it supports it. OSX does not..
10-100
Was it just me, or did the Windows guy come off as just a bit nasty and petty?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Apparently you're not aware that Win2K is crippled as a web server platform. First, Win2K professional DOESN'T come with Apache. Even if you install it, you are limited to a fixed number of incoming TCP connections (something in the range of 10) that make it utterly useless as a web server. Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not selling you a crippled OS.
Everyone wins!
---
Can you install OS-X on an box not built by Apple? Are there commerical vendors selling non-apple hardware that runs OS-X?
Someone you trust is one of us.
um... no, you can't. The stability of MacOS X comes in part because the only things that can see hardware at kernel extensions (KEXTs). One side effect of that is that nothing in the Classic (Blue Box) environment can see anything in hardware. There are a few shim out there to make certain parts of MacOS 9 think it is talking to hardware (that is how FireWire and USB devices can sometimes see things), but Classic is not a generic solution to this problem.
Summary: if it requires specific hardware drivers it is not going to work in Classic Environment.
I disagree. If you look at the KEXT (kernel extensions) matching routines in the kernel you will find that there is a very elegant way of deciding what drivers control what pieces of hardware, and the whole Device Kit in general is head-and-shoulders above the Win2K driver Kit. And when you start to look at the advantages in OpenFirmware and the Hardware Expert there is no comparison. There is less hardware with drivers for MacOS X, but that doesn't mean that blind luck has anything to do with "Plug and Play" just working.
It is correct that MacOS X ships with the root account turned off... if you need that you just turn it on and give it a password. This is to encourage the use of sudo.
But on the Classic speed issue, for me it runs nice and fast, as long as I have enough physical memory. I suspect that you are running out of memory and are thrashing. The other possibility is that you are trying to run games and are expirienceing the wonder that is software graphics acceleration (there is very little use of accelerated hardware at this point.. but getting better).
AppleShare over IP was introduced with 8.6, and there are tools to use it with earlier systems.
MacOS X can use NFS to connect to volumes if you set it up in NetInfo Manager (they mount on boot), but if you simply use "Connect To" and type in an address it uses AFP (Appletalk File Protocol), not NFS. Do you have real evidence to the contrary?
If you're just loading 1 pc for your personal use, figuring out how to set up an install script is a waste of your time. By the time you're done figuring it out, you could have already installed the OS. I've installed Win2000. It wasn't hard, or complicated for me. However, there's no excuse for me to have to sit there and watch it install. The installer already works with scripts, so why can't the installer ask me all the questions at the beginning. I should be able to insert the CD, answer the questions, and walk away. Win2000 is relatively simple to install compared to many OSs, but there's still room for improvement. OS X has quite an advantage in this area, because Apple controls the hardware design, and there is a much more limited set of hardware that Apple supports. But Microsoft would do well to learn from Apple that they can make installation easier for their customers.
Hahah, this guy finds one instance of incompatability in a linux distro and then declares the argument a wash.
Good lord, what are they teaching in schools now a days. Where's the critical thinking?!
Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it.
I think I should clear this up with you. The freedom to see the source is only one of many Freedoms that Free Software users value. I've included a link to the GPL FAQ for your personal edification.
GNU GPL FAQ
Specific Freedoms advocated by the FSF and implemented in the GPL
hate to say it, buddy, but are you serious? first of all, these comparisons are problematic and dificult enough when compairng two OSs, yet you want them all compared? how do you deal with the fact that many have very different models for many things? second, two words: Installed Base. you may love Linux or FreeBSD or BeOS, but would these really find a place in a comparison of "all major OSes"? There's still way more Mac boxes on people's desks than LInux boxes. and that's to say nothing of FreeBSD or BeOS (which Be doesn't even market any more). what does "major" mean in your proposed comparison? oh, and these comparisons tend to be targeted at non-techies. do you really think Linux or FreeBSD is going to hold much weight agains MacOS X for these people? in terms of things like GUI quality or adding new hardware?
i think it's kinda funny that MacOS X will almost immediatly surpas Linux - and shortly thereafter all other Unix-oid systems combined - in finally bringing Unix to the desktop. good fer them.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
This article should be about Windows XP and OS X, not Win2k and OS X. OS X is a consumer operating system, designed primarily for home users, especially computing Neophytes. Windows 2000 is meant for, and marketed to, working professionals looking for a more stable, and featureful OS than NT4.
;)
Beyond that, it would also be nice to see someone nitpick at XP as Microsoft starts pushing people to use it
install the developer tools that CAME with the OS. then you'll have gcc and make.
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
>Argument for Windows 2000
t ts.html If one studies a user's habits, one often observes that users will click large, labelled buttons far more than the small, unlabelled buttons because on an unconscious level, the user understands that these buttons are faster to access. Compare the large, labelled buttons with big icons that you tend to find in browsers with the tiny, unlabelled icons you find in Microsoft office, and you'll notice that users will tend to use the browser buttons but will avoid using most of the MS Office buttons. The OSX dock has much larger buttons than the system tray, so users will most likely end up using them more and with greater efficiency. Really, one of the biggest weaknesses of the entire windows development world are the small, cryptic toolbar buttons. They are neither fast to access nor useful in graphically explaining most features. Their only purpose is to be mysterious and unusable and intimidate the user by cluttering their environment with even more stuff they won't understand.
>Matt: The year: 1995. The operating system:
>Windows 95. The interface: a taskbar along the
>bottom of the screen, containing a button called
>Start and a series of little buttons
>representing each open program. At the left of
>the bar, a clock and a few little icons for
>launching background programs (the kind of >things Mac folk would probably call plug-ins).
Unfortunately the user is given no choice as whether to have those plug-ins in that corner. Those buttons appear pretty much without rhyme or reason (in other words, at the whim of the developer). The user does not have the option to add stuff to that corner (called the system tray). The icons are almost too small to be discerable. And their smallness presents a drawback I explain in the next paragraph
>If you were unsure about anything on the screen, >you could right-click it, and a menu would
>appear with loads of options, usually including
>a Properties box that explained everything.
If the user will be unsure of what something does, you are supposed to label it. The user should never have right click on something to find out what it does. You don't have to write the entire contents of war and peace in the label, but the label should clearly announce what action the button performs. The icon such as those in the system tray should also be made bigger, because a larger icon will have more detail that will betray the true purpose of the button. OSX doesn't use labels for items in the dock like it should, but at least Apple made the dock icons large enough that the user is able to understand what the icons do. Why make buttons larger by labelling them and giving them big icons? It has to do with something called fitt's law, which states that the time to access a visual target (e.g. a button) is due to the distance to that target and it's size. This link gives a good explanation of the phenommenon. http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFi
>Fast-forward to Windows 2000 and you don't see
>too many changes. Certainly, a few evolutionary
>tweaks have shown up along the way. A toolbar
>appeared next to the Start button that launches >new programs with a single mouse click. Then
>there's bubble help: rest your mouse near an
>item for long enough, and Windows 2000 pops up a
>cartoon bubble explaining what to do (a nice
>feature that, yes, first showed up Mac-side).
>And Windows 2000 sports an adaptive menu feature
>as well, which drops infrequently used items
>from the Start menu to make it easier to launch
> commonly used items.
Many user interface designers have thoroughly bashed Microsoft for the adaptive menu "feature" in office 2000. The same really applies to Windows 2000 as well. The interface should never decide to rearrange itself without the users explicit permission. And just because a user does not often use something does not mean that they won't want to be able to find it when they *do* need it. I don't ordinarily use the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, but that doesn't mean I don't want it in plain sight when I need it.
>Now, some might call this interface dull. In
>fact, it is dull--as dull as having the gas on
>the right and the brake on the left.
Actually, Microsoft tends to do the opposite. They put the break on the right and the gas on the left. I'm referring of course to their ordering of dialog buttons, which puts the affirmative/"go ahead" button (typically "OK) on the left, and then negative/"go back" button on the right. This contrasts with the way that Western culture (as well as the mac) does it. In a car, the left pedal stops the car, the right pedal goes ahead. On an analogue clock, to go back in time, a hand goes to the left; to go ahead, the hand goes to the right. To go back in a book, you go left; when you go ahead in a book, you go right. In web browsers, the arrow button pointing left goes back, and the arrow button point right goes forward. Apple was smart enough to understand this; Microsoft wasn't.
>Not everyone drives a car, of course, and
>likewise, not everyone knows Windows' interface
>(ha!). But at least Windows 2000 is predictable,
>and any enhancements come so naturally that you
> may not even notice that they're there. For an
>operating system, that's a pretty good thing.
Microsoft has shown a complete unwillingness to correct bad interface decisions made in a previous version of their software with improvements made in the next one. Probably because of this "predictability" (not to be confused with consistancy, which *is* a good thing in a UI). How long did it take before microsoft killed the "window-within-window" MDI in Office? Then there's clippy, the talking paperclip. This idea was ill conceived from the start, but it took Microsoft 4 years too long to him. These were ideas that any UI designer 10 years ago would tell you are stupid, but that didn't matter to Microsoft. I've heard microsoft has their own usability people and supposedly there are well funded usability labs, but they are either completely incompetant or the programmers don't take any of their advice or apply any of their data.
As for arguments with CNET's conclusion, Windows 2000 does make far better use of contextual menus, which are UI elements with the fastest access time of all (as they appear right under the user's pointer). Apple should add a second mouse button and improve contextual menu support. However, Windows 2000 has weakness of having pull-down menus attached to each window instead of a menubar at the top of the screen. Menus that are attached to each window are far slower to access than menus on a menubar at the top of the screen because it the user has to spend extra time making sure that the mouse doesn't vertically overshoot the menus attached to the windows. Menus at the top of the screen are impossible to overshoot because they sit right on a border. Such menus are up to five times faster to access than menus attached to windows. Again, this is due to fitts' law.
If CNET took these serious interface factors into account, I seriously doubt Windows 2000 would have won.
Good, but could be better. Win2k is the winner once again with support for practically everything.
Not to be snide, but practically everything in your lexicon must mean the hardware I want it to work on. Win2k doesn't run on anything besides Intel x86 derived chips in approximately desktop configurations. Headless Win2k is a PITA. Scalability is non-existent on the low end (Win2k in a TiVo?), and crippled on the high end by lack of hardware support.
But for an office server, sure, it supports the full range of consumer desktop computing hardware pretty well. Big deal.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
What kind of OSX are you running at home? I've been running it on my PowerBook G3 (FireWire), and it's cool. I agree that the lack of DVD movie support is annoying, but other than that, it works great!
Classic Mode slow? Are you kidding? Once it loads up (takes about 1-2 minutes the first time you do it), Classic apps generally run as fast as under native Mac OS 9. In fact, for some apps that aren't optimized (like IE 5.x Preview), the older Classic app is much faster. I consistantly run Classic apps (Netscape, MS Office, Outlook Express, etc.), and the performance is just fine.
Software? There's plenty. First, I haven't seen any Mac OS 9 software that won't run in Classic. But if you're interested in Mac OS X-native software, here's what I'm running:
* Apple Mail/Address Book -- cool mail tool
* OmniWeb -- beautiful web browser
* OmniGraffle -- awesome simple vector graphics program
* Macromedia FreeHand -- awesome complicated graphics program
* Preview and Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 -- pdf readers
* FileMaker Pro 5.5 -- cool database package
* BBEdit -- text editor that doesn't suck
* Plus tons of utilities.
I'm not saying that everything's out there, but considering Mac OS X is less than 3 months old, I'd say the software choices better than what one would expect. If you're really impatient, take a nap until after the Worldwide Developers' Conference next month. After that, they'll be plenty of software to go around.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Yes that is a feature. When I setup OS X and connected it to my all-PC home network, it automatically detected DHCP and connected my TiBook to the Internet. Win2K required me to install drivers for my NIC and didn't try to detect DHCP, so there is a manual configuration.
Nice to see that the "there is no step three" also applies to Ethernet.
------
James Hromadka
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Yeah, I definitely agree with you on the Apple menu thing. I do like the dock, but I wish there was a customizable apple menu for options I use a little less often.
:-)
The file type/creator associations are something that I haven't tried to deal with, but you're right that there should be some way of manually altering them, although I really hope they make it easier than it is in windows.
The only complaint I had other than the Apple menu is that the whole GUI feels kinda big (not hd size-wise, which is what I think you meant) but that all the icons take up too much space. Once I shrank the dock down, this feeling shrank with it, but it still feels kinda inefficient with screen real-estate, especially when working on an iMac.
As for the other stuff, it's probably because I use the console way too much for my own good
I hope apple does address all those issues you mentioned though (particularly the apple menu one)because an OS like the Mac should be able to balance more customization with ease of use. I think right now that they're still just trying to work out the kinks in the system, and hopefully they'll add obvious things like file type/creator stuff (and groups without netinfo manager) that really do need to be there. We can hope though!
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I don't understand why you think the OS9 GUI is so much better. I was a rabid mac fan (i.e. I got tired of waiting for Copland, then Be, then OSX and jumped ship to Linux) but now that I've gotten a chance to explore the OSX interface I'm really pleased with it. Sure, it's not exactly the same as the old one, but change isn't necessarily bad.
:-). But it's still true to the overall spirit of the mac, which is fun, ease of use, and simple cool factor. I can't really say that any other OS out there has that feeling, and OSX is carrying that core of the Mac in to the future.
A ton of old Mac users feel betrayed or something because Apple threw out a decade+ worth of interface, when in fact a lot of the original good ideas are still there. The menu bar at the top of the screen. The trash can. Drag and drop (works better than it ever did for me in OS9 and before). The control panels. These are the major innovations that still distinguish the mac over windows (well, maybe not the trash can and control panels still) and they're still present.
Well what's actually different besides the looks? Button placement (still getting used to that one). No control strip. File system heirarchy. And the dock. Oh, and the apple menu is diminished (which I don't like either). Overall, these are minor concessions. The control strip will be replaced with dock apps. The file system is a result of unix, and it's a sacrifice that had to be made.
But overall, OSX feels comfy to me. It doesn't quite feel like a mac anymore, but that's because my conception of the mac carries a lot of baggage about performance and bland looks left over from my system 7 days
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
you've got to be kidding.
You wouldn't think a "software developer" would judge the value of an os on the translucent pastel color of the case and button widgets.
So we all know that the only reason MS ports Office to MacOS is to keep alive a toy competitor on the desktop.
And, given the UNIX flavor of OSX, does this mean that MS is prepared to code Office to a UNIX-like API?
And, if so, then, making some albeit big leaps of speculation concerning the outcome of The Antitrust Trial about splitting the behemoth into baby Bills like Office and OS, does this not open up the possibility of Office running on not just OSX, but Linux, FreeBSD, etc.?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I'm typing this on my win2k install which is on a 20gig ATA-RAID partition, it's made out of two 20 gig drives.
I left the rest of the room for linux, or whatever else. unfortuantly i over estimated the ATA driver support in linux and can not install it on this drive.
My controler is from HighPoint technologies and came with my motherboard, HighPoint does support a driver in the form of a 2.2 kernal patch, however it does not support mirroring which is what i am using.
I subsequently added another drive to my regular IDE-33 chain so i could install linux, but it's a much slower driver and is only 6gigs.
A while back a ran a live video webcam from my apartment, i was running this on a win2k P-III 500. i really wanted to move to linux so i could telnet/ssh into it remotly, maybe run some scripts for it etc.. unfortatly my webcam was not supported in linux, and even if it was there isn't any real-time video encoding software i know that will work with Real or Windows media.
An OS is a peice of software that interfaces the hardware so other programs can use it. Most of the comparion was on those apps, not the OS. The apps that ship with an OS are usully not the best for the job, and IMO should not the the mesuring stick for the OS itself. the usefullness of an OS is the number of quality apps it can effeciently run, and the amount of quality quality hardware and can effeciently interface with. nothing else.
-Jon
this is my sig.
And here I was, hoping to read an unbiased review of the 2 os' (oses, osi?), from the beginnings of an installation to the point where all current patches and software are installed and you can call a system "ready". (ready for a non-geek user, for example)
Instead, Cnet gives us a childish debate that reads like two kids fighting over which one of their favorite toys are better. The Mac guy reads like a name dropper, and the Windows guy is no better. Bleh, I'll wait for the SharkyExtreme comparison, I think.
Upgrade your grey matter, cause one day it may matter
OS X runs on Mac hardware... maybe the OS has more 'free' roots to it, but personally it's more important to me to be able to pick and choose the hardware my PC runs with than whether or not the source is open or not.
Shame on you CNET, for not mentioning OS X's biggest flaw: it's a Mac OS, therefor you are severely limited in what hardware you can buy for it.
Or do Mac users like being told what hardware to buy?
The 98 install was worse. It took about 4 hours or so of rebooting and spoon feeding driver disks (4 of them each begging for the 98 disk!) and click through EULA's before finishing with a useless, featureless, generic MS box that my wife wanted. Barf! Barf! Barf! I had forgotten how bad all of that commercial crap was and I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't blame the CD either. The drive used was my best little HP and the CD was the genuine junk complete with 3d picutres.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Did Micro$oft ever publish a piece of software that was actually useful and could sell without the bullshitting by the M$ Marketing department?
For me, the killer app is Apache, PostgreSQL 7.1.2, and PHP. They all run quite well on my G4-Cube running OS-X.
Blah blah blah, run Linux, blah, blah, blah... No.
I use this device to develop software for web deployment on our BSD servers. I also access NT shares (Sharity), use a GREAT HTML/PHP/Text editor (BBEdit), have a wonderful web browser (Omniweb). As a bonus, I have great compatibility because of MS Office and IE. IE Specific pages run fine on the Mac.
Apple has a win because:
A) Aqua is gorgeous
B) MANY software systems
C) Mac hardware rocks
Apple's hardware seems reliable and it is supported. I have always built my PCs, but the aggravation finally hit me. If I get another PC it will be a Compaq professional desktop. I'd pay a bit for less aggravation.
Apple's hardware all works for MacOS X. Their hardware is also gorgeous. the Tibook is wonderful, but a bit big. The iBook is impressive as well.
OS X has some killer apps. The old killer Apps are Photoshop, etc. iTunes is SLICK as whale shit. It supports Unix applications for those that need them.
Sharity is a decent app, just a little weird. v2.4 and v2.5b2 both have different sets of quirks, but it is getting there.
Xtools is good.
BBEdit is nice.
Apple has LOTS of great applications for professionals in the $50-$200 space, which is great.
Alex
That's Chuck E. Cheese's.
$make && make install $
Feh. User friendly indeed.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
There are rumours that Apple will release a dual G4@600MHz Powerbook (the Titanium flavour) with DVD, Wirport, MacOSX and Radeon/GeForce2 build in. If this is true, then I'll sell my left kidney and dump my girlfriend (or sell her kidneys). This is a nerds dream come true...
Revolution = Evolution
And how it looks. I bought a titanium powerbook just because it looks good. And Mac OS X looks damned spiffy as well. This is my first Mac and (assuming it ships ;) probably not my first. I'm well aware that I could have paid less and gotten a similarly equipped machine. But dammit, I couldn't have gotten a setup that /looked/ as good, and that's what I wanted.
How did OS X win that category? OS X doesn't support IPX/SPX, DecNet, NetBEUI...
The people at Apple just now figured out that TCP/IP should be natively supported in their OSes. How long did it take them to realize that AppleTalk (a very, very "chatty" protocol) wasn't going to fly and that they should support TCP/IP?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Finding software for the MAC is a pain in the ass.
Mac OS X has four application subsystems: Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and POSIX + X11. Programs that run in POSIX + XonX see the Mac as a mixed FreeBSD/NetBSD box running an X11 server. You can find almost any POSIX + X11 app you need at OSDN Freshmeat.
Not only that but a regular desktop user isn't going to be needing apache so there is no point in turning it on
How else are you supposed to share files? Email is out because your ISP says the files are too large to fit in attachments. NFS, SMB, etc. are out because they're platform specific and don't work across dial-up. That's why I run Apache on my Linux box and WinApache on my Windows ME box, so that I can send files to users on other IM services.
And yes if a newbie wants his own webserver and wants to use Apache he or she must learn it just like any other software program.
Except "any other software program" the user is likely to encounter on a Macintosh computer has GUI configuration.
Will I retire or break 10K?
for some of the apps on freshmeat you'd need to hack up some of the code.
And there is probably some darwin advocate who has probably done it for many of the popular apps. It'd be a straightforward task for a developer with BSD experience, less work on packages that already work on FreeBSD and NetBSD, more work for packages that use Linuxisms.
All you have to do is find an ftp server for windows
Easier said than done. I couldn't get anything out of Freshmeat's list of FTP servers or a Google search for open-source windows FTP server, while open-source windows HTTP server turned up Apache as the second result. Not only that, but HTTP has a lower connection setup and teardown cost than FTP.
If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.
The default settings handle most basic cases of running Apache on a personal workstation, giving you about the same features as the IM clients' built-in file servers have, with the most commonly changed option (at least on the WinApache installations I've done) being which domain name to return to HTTP/1.0 clients.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And Squeak, of course. Some days, I just have emacs or Squeak go full screen, and I never leave it... Email, coding, irc, you name it.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
heheh! Wish I had mod points today... HILLARIOUS.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Why? For the same reason, many of my friends on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux do: to share files in a cross-platform manner. Throw a bunch your mp3s in a directory, and turn on Apache. I knew quite a few people who did this in the dorms where I lived last year. It beats figuring out that I can't get a file from my friend because he's running Windows (barring getting, compiling, installing, and configuring SAMBA), or vice versa.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
That's a lot more work than just throwing my mp3s in my shared directory. There are a lot of things I could do, but they're all more work than making a link from /Users/rev/Music to /Users/rev/Shared/Music and clicking the "Start Apache" button.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I wouldn't say it failed miserably. Specific products, like NeXTSTEP, OpenStep and NeXT's hardware didn't survive, no. But the ideas behind them, the vision, if you will, is thriving in Mac OS X. It's shipping now, installed on new Macs and ones users have already purchased. Get over it.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Frankly, I don't think they do either. But I don't think they're trying to. You're displaying typical American capitalist thought- all of the market or none of it. That's not the way the market is, or has to be. Apple isn't trying to be Microsoft.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Steve has a monsterous ego. But frankly, it's getting old to hear Mac users whine about how Mac OS X's GUI is the "NeXT way" or just like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, abandoning classic Mac OS' way of doing things.
It's not all that much like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Then again, it's not all that much like Mac OS, either. There are elements of both in there, and it is very much so the bastard child. I liked the NeXT GUI a lot more than Mac OS X's. I could ramble on and on, but let me tell you, as a user of NeXTSTEP (still got 3.3 on my cube), OpenStep, and Rhapsody Mac OS X isn't all that much like the NeXT GUI. Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server were.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better.
By any measure, the NeXTSTEP interface is better than OS 9 or Mac OS X. As a Mac user, I'm sure you know that feeling of having to use Windows- the feeling that you're being held back by it's GUI. That is what a user of NeXTSTEP feels when he has to use Mac OS, X+whatever window manager, or Windows.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
According to NetCraft that server is running WebSTAR on Mac OS, which only runs on classic Mac OS, I believe. It's Apple hardware, yes, but not Mac OS X, the OS in question. :) But bringing that link up, it's interesting to know that Roland's Keyboard shop is also running WebSTAR on Mac OS... a shopping site, a dynamic site.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
...and? In classic Mac OS, you install drivers by copying an extension to harddrive:System Folder:Extensions. :)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I'll have to agree with you on 4. Takes a while to boot, but after that, it's just about as fast as running the apps under real Mac OS 9.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Heh. And Mac OS (classic/X) supports "everything it was designed to operate with" too.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Heh. I present to you the new definition of "user friendly:" it's only friendly if RMS says so! Just like the new definition of "free:" it's only free if RMS says so! Yeah!
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
You'll also want to make a symbolic link from 'cc' to 'gcc' and probably 'c++' to 'g++' or whatever else you feel like. GCC is called 'cc,' not 'gcc.' But then again, if someone competant wrote the makefile, it's all good... otherwise, you might have to change "CC=gcc" to "CC=cc" or something along those lines.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Then install an X window package. A nice, free, rootless one is here. Generally, Joe Average User doesn't want or need X11 apps and the requisite X11 server. I'm starting to believe that Joe Average Whiney-Slashdot-Reader has a much harder time working through this than the rest of the world...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Even my Mac-rabid gf will admit that NeXT's UI was more elegant than Apple's. Also, stop by comp.sys.next.* for more zealous personal preferences... Is there any (free) way to run NeXTSTEP on Intel hardware?
Not free and legally. NeXTSTEP 3.x and OpenStep 4.x run on x86 hardware. You can run in to it on eBay, but it'd probably be easier for someone to give you a copy. I doubt Apple will hunt you down. I recieved OpenStep 4.2 (for all architectures), OpenStep Developer, EOF, and OpenStep for Windows for simply owning a cube as part of Apple's Y2k fulfillment program.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
But with Mac OS X having all the tools I need, it is just a waste of my time to be screwing around trying to get Windows itself (let alone the apps) working, or configuring things under Linux. I ran Linux, exclusively, for 3 years, and one of the reasons I switched to a Mac was that the "cool" factor had worn off, and I just needed to get stuff done...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I've been using Mac OS X since... NeXTSTEP 3.3. The eye candy that showed up in Mac OS X DP3 and has stuck with us doesn't distract the user, in my experience. It doesn't get in the way, and is aware when it should tone itself down. E.g., when I'm running an expensive job (CPU intensive for you kiddies who don't know what that means), and CPU is maxed at 100%, invoking some action that is filled with eye candy, like minimizing a window, the window just pops into the dock, rather than smoothly sucking into the dock, which is what it does when it has CPU time to afford that.
So, no, you're not correct. :)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Who cares what your Athlon box costs? You still have to put up with the same old PC rubbish. Sure, it runs games hella faster than my G4/400, but that's irrelevant to me, because I use my computer primarily for work, not games. But that's fine if you play a lot of games. That's what you use it for. For me, I just want to get stuff done, and it's not worth my time to have to putz with Linux and/or (I pray not) Windows.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
It could quite possibly be that whatever Linux distribution you used has a different setup then what the bash you got has. Check your Linux install (if you still have it around) for dotfiles in your home directory, as well as any default files in etc. Check the bash manpage for more details.
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
Seeing CNET, an Intel-owned company (to a great extent) actually granting OS X the palm.
This sounds like a better story for Plastic than Slashdot, however, as OS X weakly points at the existing open-source projects in the software section. It sounds like it's the first time the CNET people have heard of X-Windows. Where have these people been all these years?
I had to giggle when I heard the Win2k guy say, "well if you have to recompile doesn't that mean that it's not compatible?" LOL! I'll bet this guy wouldn't know a tarball if it came up and bit him on the tuckus!
My sig is too lon
Round 1: Installation
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than
Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking
this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could
spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed
more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
OSX still wins here, but its racing on its own track.
Round 2: Interface
OSX takes the lead for now in the cool GUI department, but those who
accuse MS of stealing ideas from Aqua are overlooking a key point in
the embrace and extend philosophy. Like Win95, 98, and ME before it;
Windows XP will not only adopt new interface ideas, but those ideas
will actually be tested for usuability and integration with existing
user practices.
Apple seems to design on "Make it look cool, and they will come"
MS seems to design on "Make it look cool, and work with the stuff that
didn't look as cool in the last rev, and they will upgrade"
Round 3: Software compatibility
Windows 2000 is the better example of what both companies needed to do
to insure future growth and legacy compatiblity. It wins the match, but
the real winner overall is GNU/ the Open Source Movement.
I'm not saying that to be a Slashdot shill, because it is not the "free"
aspect I'm looking at. It's that OSS is for the most part designed with
portability in mind that it has held to the best ideas for software compatibility,
despite the forks in the roads of OSS history.
Round 4: Hardware compatibility
Same point as in Round 1, OSX deals with its hardware better, but it
has a much more limited range of configurations that it has to deal with.
Round 5: Internet support
OSX is more compatible with the existing Internet infrastucture; because
it is based on much of the same ideas/technology.
Microsoft's flaws were in targeting Windows 2000 more for the Intranet and
plain vanilla business use, than for the space beyond the corporate proxy.
Well of course OS/X is easier to install; all the hardware is [pretty much] the same. The x86 platform lets you choose from thousands of models and makes for every piece of hardware you need. Not only does this give you more choice for your hardware, it cheaper due to competition. A slightly harder, but still easy, installation is a good tradeoff for the choice and price.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Another OS should have been considered in this 'death match': Linux-Mandrake.
Installation:
Although I have not had a chance yet to play with OS X, I just finished setting up my system to dual boot Windows 2000 Professional and Mandrake 8.0. The Mandrake installation was by far the easiest and fastest installation I have ever performed. If you take the recommended install, you click yes a few times, set a root password, and 15 minutes later you have a working system with a boatload more programs and possibilities than Win2K. It just blows me away how fast an easy the install was. Win2K took over an hour on my 400Mhz system and was generally more difficult. I like Mandrake's built-in and easy to use partition utility too.
Advantage: Mandrake
Interface:
With 8.0, Mandrake now has a fully graphical startup. From LILO right into KDE, the scared newbie doesn't have to sit through a scrolling list of cryptic startup messages. Yet pertinent startup info is still displayed on the screen in a manner that should satisfy a pro while not scarting the newbie. Contrast this to Win2K, which first gives you a text-only boot loader (if you dual boot), then a little text startup meter thingy, then when it finally gets to the graphical part of the boot up, there are no status messages displayed anywhere by default to let you know what's going on. Once loaded up, there are quirks in KDE and Gnome that you don't have to deal with in Windows, but there is so much more that I can customize. I forsee KDE and Gnome working out their bugs and quirks, I do not see MS giving us more control over the GUI.
Advantage: Mandrake
Software compatibility:
Maybe Windows and OS X win out here, due to MSOffice and the like, but there really is very little one cannot do on a default install of Mandrake that you could do on one of those others, at lower cost and greater freedom. In the way of development, internet and mail services, you get a whole lot more with Mandrake.
Advantage:Tie (Office apps are a big deal here)
Hardware compatibility:
I have fairly standard hardware, nothing exotic or over the top. Mandrake correctly identified and configured ALL of my hardware. No exceptions. I was thrilled at this. The last Mandrake I installed, 7.1, had all manner of problems in this area (and others). Windows 2000 did not recognize my network card at all, and did not correctly identify my video card, my soundcard, my modem, or my printer.
Advantage: Mandrake
Internet Support
So-called 'wizards' in OS X and Win2K may make some things easier, but you can still do so much more, right out of the box with Mandrake. And the addition of prominent web-based help icons right on the desktop (Mandrake Campus and Mandrake Expert) are a big bonus. There is no need to rely on old, pre-installed help files. When you need up to date help, you can look there. Other networking features of Mandrake were detected and setup automagically during the intall, so there was no need to even configure a Wizard. First time in KDE, I click the Konqueror icon, and I'm on the internet. Contrast that to Windows, where EVERY user must fill out internet connection wizards the first time they venture online. And, as a linux distribution, Mandrake is closely integrated to the internet in many other ways.
Advantage: Mandrake
In my opinion, this latest Mandrake is so very close to being able to be a realistic third choice when the average Joe Computer User buys their next desktop machine. Office apps, games, and a few tweaks here and there, and the choice will be easy. The Freedom that comes with Linux (my reason for trying it out in the first place) makes it that much easier.
Too bad those C|Net folks didn't make it a three-way race with Mandrake in there. That would have been more interesting than that useless fluff piece.
But his *comments* were quite valid.
Whether you consider the comment out-of context or not, even in the larger context you'll find that the original poster is right here. The reveiwer fails to notice that these apps *are* available under Win2k. The fact that he bundled this comment in with a comment about usability doesn't make his assertions any more valid.
And as for the Apache issue, I think the point the poster was trying to make is that an average user can enable IIS and has a *GUI* to configure it. The same is true of ftpd (which I'm sure is why it was added). It would be a hell of a lot easier explaining how to start the webserver to a "newbie" with a GUI as opposed to having to manually configure the daemons in a non-GUI way.
Even Red-hat includes GUI configurations for apache (Linuxconf, apacheconf).
IMHO, you're ignoring some valid points about both factual inaccuracies in the article as well as valid supplementary points made by the poster. I believe that is far more commonly known as a Zealot than the original poster's comments.
Damn, I was about to go out and but a Mac, but I've never thawed a hot dog and I don't fancy learning now
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Mind you, now, I know the man, he's sitting about ten feet from me, and while, yes, he did lose the old scsi cdr and the floppy drive, it's worth mentioning that the old beige G3 is running OSX on an unsupported processor upgrade and god only knows where that RAM came from. Best if you all stay on topic and avoid making yourselves look stupid by assuming people are juviniles.
When making an axe handle the model is not far off.
This article also links to a "Flyweights" competition between Mac OS9 and Corel Linux! Whatever you may feel about Distros, most Linux users feel this is the most flawed mainstream Distro. C|Net Justifies the comparison between these two by saying they both have a 4% market share, so we should compare them. Winner:OS9. Why? Because MS doesn't support Linux.
So in this article C|Net pits OSX against an OS that arguably has a 66% potential market share. WTF? And the contest goes to OSX at the end. Why? Not for any reason consistent with the Linux vs. OS9. That article tells me MS has to support an OS to be worth my while. Here's a contest with an MS OS and they give it to the other guy because - Why? - It has a "unix core"!!!!
In my view the biggest loser in this contest is C|Net.
I have a G4 running OSX (with a small 9.1 partition) and its nice and all but utltimately the following things plauge it.
1 -- No DVD support
2 -- Odd OEM *nix quirks
--No password for root
--weird Bash shell quirks
3 -- Software? Who needs software?
4 -- "Classic Mode" == "So slow you want to die mode"
5 -- Looks pretty not much to do.
W2K has been really stable, mostly fast and it's hard to find something that doesn't run on it.
I use Linux most of my free time but if I need to get things accompished that others need to see I use W2K.
W2K is the VHS of the computing world. It isn't the best, but everybody can use it.
---
This
Dude seriously now. I loved my A500 (with the GVP 240MB HD + 030 chip... 12MB RAM) and my 3000 but Amiga's crashed incessantly.
Guru Meditation was like a friggin' screen saver.
Amiga OS: Hmm 15 minutes, hey time to put up the screen saver. Where are those Flying Toasters? I know I left them... Ahh screw it I'll put up the Guru Meditation screen saver. Ow! What's happening? I can't see, I can't...
---
This
But I did know how to turn on root. I used sudo. No one should have to turn on root, that's the point.
<Nasty_Comments_About_You>So There!</Nasty_Comments_About_You>
---
This
I'll bet this /.er is right
---
This
No No No...
Start at the top of the thread.
There is NO password for root out of the box. This is known.
I used sudo to create a password for root. This is accomplished many ways. The Netinfo route did not work. Using sudo did. I found that on some site or another.
I maintain that you shouldn't have to turn root on. Maybe (because you haven't read the whole thread (which is kind of long by now)) you've missed the point of having to "turn on root". It should be ready to go out of the box like anyother *nix install.
---
This
OK you win. I don't care anymore. I concede defeat or capitulation or whatever.
Netinfo didn't work sudo did.
---
This
Looks awful? Do you mean all that brightly colored spraypaint and the doodads left about? I thought that was just a hardware implementation of the Windows XP interface.
Maybe not through retail or OEM, but they do still offer the upgrade from Win98FE to SE through a link on Windows Update. If you go there using Win98, there's a link that offers the Win98 service pack on CD. Follow that link and you can also order the SE update. And yes, it does work. I ordered a copy early last month and it arrived in less than four weeks.
Yes there is. Try them both and then come back to the class and report what you have learned.
This makes an important point. OSX is a great standard of desktop ease of use which we should all be shooting for. The fact of the matter is that OSX and Linux aren't that far removed in regards to internals. If we can take Linux and create an environment that is as comforting and easy as OSX for newbies, we'll have something.
Mandrake running with KDE is about halfway there. I urge the folks at The Kompany to look very closely at OSX and its advantages, while retaining the good things that make KDE one of the more usable window managers of the bunch.
When we get to the point where the newbie Linux user can be as insulated from the console as the average OSX or Win2KPro user is, Linux will have arrived. With the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field (tm) and the Microsoft Foot Bullet Brigade (Activation, Hardware Fingerprinting, BSA Jackbooted Thugs, Ballmer calling Linux "Communist") making things easy for us, Linux can triumph in the end.
----
http://www.msgeek.org/html/
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
There's plenty to criticise in the Mac but "the generally obscure places Apple had chosen to hide things" isn't one of them. The Mac OS is a lot easier to grok than Windows. On the Mac, there are no spyware apps hiding out with strangely-named registry keys... There's a system folder, and in it are folders for fonts, OS extensions, etc. If you want to turn off a system feature, there's a control panel to let you do that.
When was the last time you tried to disable a Windows box's PC Health Monitoring? MS is the one that hides things from you, not Apple.
hey, to each his own. Glad you like Aqua. I hope I am in the minority, because I would like to see Apple do well.
But here are the things I don't like about it. I am not trying to get into a point-by-point rebuttal match, these are just my pet peeves.
- No customizable Apple menu.
- If you put a folder alias in the Dock, the alias doesn't resolve, so no hierarchial menus from aliases in the Dock... so you can't fake your own Apple menu.
- Difficult to change file type/creator associations. (Even Windows gives you a GUI interface for changing what opens a
- The OS locks you out of doing a lot of things, even with the admin password. (Using the GUI, try to throw out the documentation that's installed with the developer tools. YOU CAN'T. You have to use rootly power and rm -rf it. There are a lot of other useless files that are "protected" like this.)
- The admin user doesn't have the ability to mess with the other user's files. If I am logged in as admin I can't trash files I left on the desktop under another login. On OS9, the Multiple Users machine owner can do that stuff. Under OSX I have to use the console or log out/in to use the GUI.
- Aqua is not as space-efficient as OS9. Windows seem huge, with lots of wasted space on the screen.
- Get Info on a HD icon on the desktop. It doesn't tell you how big it is or how much free space is left. You have to Get Info on a HD icon in a Finder window to learn that.
- There's nothing akin to the Extensions Manager anymore. (I know that there won't be Extensions and Control Panels as we knew them, but I still think that an EM-like control panel would be nice for toggling some system features on and off.)
In the end, I guess I should just say that I am looking forward to the day when I genuinely like OSX. Until then, I will have to amuse myself with its command-line tools, and continue to work in OS9 where I feel more at home.
It's not all that much like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Then again, it's not all that much like Mac OS, either. There are elements of both in there, and it is very much so the bastard child. I liked the NeXT GUI a lot more than Mac OS X's. I could ramble on and on, but let me tell you, as a user of NeXTSTEP (still got 3.3 on my cube), OpenStep, and Rhapsody Mac OS X isn't all that much like the NeXT GUI. Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server were.
Fair enough, I only dabbled with NeXTs back in the day.
As a Mac user, I'm sure you know that feeling of having to use Windows- the feeling that you're being held back by it's GUI.
Sadly I feel more at home in Windows than MacOSX these days.
That is what a user of NeXTSTEP feels when he has to use Mac OS, X+whatever window manager, or Windows.
I have heard NeXT people say a lot of things, but I have never heard someone who liked the interface that much.
Is there any (free) way to run NeXTSTEP on Intel hardware?
Preface: I am a Mac fan too. I've had one since the very beginning, though now I have a lot of other kinds of computers too.
That said...
Apple isn't innovating so much as dusting off its old NeXT technology.
I am very happy with the technical foundation of OSX. It rules. BSD stuff in my Mac! But I hate the new GUI. Apple -- no, STEVE -- threw out a decade of GUI evolution so that he could force his pet project onto us, that being the NeXT way of doing things. NeXT was his baby, and he can't let it go. Steve has an incredibly large ego.
Aqua isn't revolutionary. It's retarded. It may look good when you compare it to the GUIs that you can get for the free Unixes, but if Apple REALLY wanted to make its CURRENT users happy, they would have given OSX a MacOS 9 style GUI.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better. The could have added new features to support the new OS's foundation, but instead they built up a new monstrosity which has, for me, about 10% of the usability of OS9. I suspect that Aqua will be useable a year from now, but only for the people who want to spend $100 on shareware GUI tweaks that Apple/Steve are too pig-headed to build in for us.
Just another Mac guy's opinion...
Since you didn't know how to turn on root, you are clearly not a credible reviewer. The only thing slower than your classic apps is you, moron.
Thats funny. Works fine for me.
I'd still rather have the Apple Menu, though. Can't argue with your other points.
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
"It's not working???? But I don't understand, I clicked the little 'ON' button in the control panel!"
- Toby
Well, make up your mind! When most people use the term, "user friendly," they're referring to users, not developers or techno-weenies. The term was itself coined as computers were becoming useful to people other than "hardcore techies." Apple and M$ don't give a rat's ass whether you buy it or not; there's, what, 100,000 of you and potentially billions of just plain old "users." Users, who, btw, are never going to use anything remotely as complex as Linux.
If you're making the point that you don't find either W2k or OSX appealing, fine. But don't accuse someone of "bigotry" simply because he notes that OSX is soon going to be the most widely-used consumer "*nix" distro and you won't be using it.
--- Submission is feudal.
What would your Macintosh do if I dropped by Matrox G400 into it?
The same thing your x86 box would do if I dropped a gForce3 card into it.... or tried using ISA (or NuBus [gag])
Incompatabilities abound on both sides of the OS/Hardware Wars.
If you're THAT worried about it, you could always write your own drivers. (grin)
MAB
Damn Straight!
-----
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
...would be "Psycho" Steve Jobbs vs. "Battlin'" Bill Gates in a last-man-standing no-holds-barred steel cage match. I'd pay to see that one on pay per view...
-----
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Can't wait for CNET's new article: "Catholicism, Protestantism, and Zoroastrianism: a clear winner emerges among the pretenders!"
Get a life, quit worrying what everyone else chooses, and use/drive/buy/worship what works FOR YOU! Thanks to Bill, Linus, Steve, and the rest. As long as they've got each other to worry about, hallelujah - we've got choices.
If they had said Win 2000, they would have been biased, according to some. and If they said Mac OSX, they are biased, according to others.
Of course, you realize that the only correct answer of this question, of W2k vs OSx is
.
.
.
LINUX!
[runs and ducks to avoid getting hit by airborne vegatables]
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Well actually that's the reason why they don't wannt to port it. It's too hard for them to make it work on so many hardware components.
I come home to my * Wife
*:She's a PII-400 with WinXP and Mandrake.
heuh what version of win2k are you using? It installed my nic automatically and asked me if I wanted to use DHCP or a static IP.
and very secure indeed :)
From the /. text:
It's an interesting report and better written then
most of the stuff that you'll see like this.
Oh, well. All I can see is a passionated FUD between each other and without good points to prove their argument (other than mine is bigger^Wbetter tha yours).
If that's waht is called better written and interesting I don't want to read the others.
This reminds me about the Corel Linux vs Mac OS some time ago in slashdot. Here is the article. (Does it remember you something?)
Linux is good for those who value their freedom (speech and beer)
Your comment is tongue and cheek, I know, but just to be clear: Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it. There are other kinds of freedom, and I doubt you can make platform-dependent generalizations for these.
Back to the article: Of course such comparisons are meaningless, but I found it interesting that they gave the Interface comparison to Windows (by a nose). Their argument was essentially 'we know the Windows interface, it remains unchanged, therefore it's better'. By this logic, OS X will only win when it becomes more familiar (read: Windows-like). Weird.
I think the CNET comparison test is not exactly a very valid comparison.
There's a good reason for this: Windows 2000 Professional out of the box does not have the wide hardware support Windows ME has. This means there could be potential problems with the newer Athlon motherboards running the VIA KT133 and KT266 and AMD 760 chipsets.
I would repeat this test after the final production build of Windows XP Professional is released (August 25, 2001). I believe XP will likely win out since it's likely by the time of the 08/25/2001 code freeze Windows XP Pro will likely include internal support for motherboard chipsets currently available and possibly the much-touted nVidia nForce motherboard chipset, plus full USB 1.1 and IEEE-1394 external device support.
Forgive this flamy title but I just couldn't help as I read to many things in this article that I consider offending to my Geek minority.
:-(
Mac OS X combines the best of Mac OS,
Unix, and entirely new ideas to present the
most versatile, usable interface ever.
I don't like superlatives, especially in an article that lacks arguments to justify them.
It even borrows a few coveted Windows
features (such as menu windows that stay open
when you click them), but not many.
Has this guy ever used RiscOS?
Most of the features he describes, including this one, that are supposed to be new to GUIs were already in RiscOS (maybe even in Arthur, RiscOS ancestor).
But at least Acorn guys were honest and didn't claim they invented these, they admitted they studied them at the Xerox'PARC. Steve Jobs is also known for his numerous visits there, during the early days of the LISA
So please, dear journalists colleagues: Don't consider that the computing era started only when GUI appeared, or you might soon have bad surprises...
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The basic thought trend here is that there is no one universal 'tool'. People need to choose the right tool for the job. We're getting too caught up in 'OS Cults' and not getting the work done most efficiently.
~LoudMusic
Http://www.bigassfileserver.com
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
That said, they need to do it again when Windows XP arrives (and Mac OS X has a few more *nix software offerings available). There will be enough improvements in the interface and usability that the results should be significantly different.
You know something, you are right. There are no major faults in their OS. But then again a monopoly such as Apple, can make the hardware and the software work hand in hand, unlike the boys in Redmond. Why oh why did they have to reverse engineer the IBM pc's bios.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
I'm for a comparison but this is out of line. They say that the Mac's install is easier, and it is. But when the Mac only has to detect and recognize standard Mac components, of course its going to trounce Win2k which is meant to run on loads of more hardware. And I know some are saying wait till it gets ported over because of Darwin. Well when it gets ported and it still installs as easily as the Mac version let me know.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
I didnt know my computer had and AGB port. ...and gigabit Ethernet that comes with new Macs. Apple tossed in an alphabet soup of hardware standards: PCI, AGB, USB, FireWire, IDE, SCSI, and so on--all supported.
this is my other favorite..i stopped reading after this.
If it needs to be recompiled, it's not really compatible, right?
so call it a half truth maybe? I wonder how much work it takes to get stuff to compile on os x
Round 1: Installation
Very much distro dependant, but whatever the case not as point and click simple as Win2k/OSX.
Round 2: Interface
Window manager dependant this time, some love it, others loathe it. Not as consistant as Win2k or OSX.
Round 3: Software Compatibility
Pretty good for server tools and programming, but not so hot for the desktop user. Win2k wins for gaming by a very long way, and just pips OSX in the Office stakes.
Round 4: Hardware Compatibility
Good, but could be better. Win2k is the winner once again with support for practically everything.
Round 5: Internet Support
Fantastic for server tools, wins easily on pretty much everything. Win2k is slightly if you're in a MS environment.
IMHO Linux is playing catchup, and will be for a while in the desktop arena. *nix on the server, Windows on the desktop... a winning combination.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Lets face it -- speed and stability is all important. Yet they're never mentioned in any review. Why? Because most reviewers are just the type of fucking idiots that would buy a mac because "iMacs are green!" Nonsense. Now, I don't particularly like Windows 2000 -- but the fact is, it is faster than OS X by quite a bit. Make no mistake, Win2000 is certainly not fast. Debian Linux, FreeBSD, Amiga SDK, and BeOS are fast Operating Systems. Windows 2000, WinME, Win98, Win95 are pokey OS'. MacOS' are slow fucking Operating systems. A Unix core does not change the fact that the MacOS interface is bloated as hell and inefficient(in that, it uses much more code than necessary to produce the effects). It is also inefficient in that it offers tons of useless bullshit features which DO NOT make OS operating easier, nor allow tasks to get done faster. Simply put: a good improvement on a GUI is one that allows a TASK to get DONE FASTER. NOT an improvement that makes something easier, but one that allows a task to get done faster. If a feature allows a task to be easier, but makes it get done much slower due to bloat, it is not worth while. If a certain improvement can allow a task to be done faster, even after considering the performance hit, then it should be implemented. Otherwise, NO. Hence, Windows animation, menu animation, moving windows while displaying their contents, and unnecessary graphcial decoration are CRAPPY "IMPROVEMENTS". Should developers make buttons change color/tint when hovered over or clicked -- yes. This directs the users attention to their action or impending action. Should buttons be made to look 3D? Yes, to the extent that this distinguishes them from neighboring buttons or space. GUI improvements which offer FUNCTIONAL improvements should be implemented -- not ones which simply offer aesthetic improvements. Aesthetic improvements should only be implemented in and of themselves if they do not hinder overall performance.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
Added to this, the fact that it had preemptive multitasking back when it was first built, and an architecture that forced developers to write stable code, it seems clear that if it wasn't for Atari's marketing, this would be the main competitor to the Wintel PC
I'm sick of the pointless pissing contests that go on day in and day out in this forum where ignorant (l)users argue incessantly about why their OS of choice is superior to all others. Why can't you just choose the one that works best for YOU and accept that what is best for you may not be best for all other users. MacOS is good for Desktop Publishing and Graphic design. Linux is good for those who value their freedom (speech and beer), and Win2k is good for compatibility and for it's ease of use. x-BSD...Well, I've never used it, but I'm sure it's good for something. The point is, find something that works for you and accept that your solution might not work for everyone.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
There are 5 categories, and osx won in 3 out of 5. But the categories are far from equal in importance -- How can the ease of installation process be likened to software issues? Installation is a one-time deal, and software is what you deal with every day thereafter. These categories need to be weighted. I hate to be a win2k promoter...but I don't think this "death match" gave it justice.
From the article:
What's more, the OS X installer automatically finds your hardware and recognizes it. No driver problems (what's a driver?), no hardware conflicts, nada. Don't be fooled by its fancy core; just as it did in previous Mac OS incarnations, Apple designed OS X for your Mac hardware. OS X is even better than OS 9 at recognizing hardware, and it even configures USB printers--no "plug and pray" here.
Well I know I've lost some hardware. I have a beige G3 and I no longer have the built-in SCSI port. My CD burner doesn't work either and it did work in 9.1. So I can't say I have had no hardware problems.
I like the "plug and pray" shot though.
Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
Next you're probably going to tell me that the whole thing is quasi-journalism designed to execute $hitcount++.
You should be more careful, CNET. I believe everyting I'm told.
Is that really fair? If youre a MS Windows user, every interface is going to be confusing and have a steep learning curve! If people would judge interfaces on their usability rather than on a comparison to windows, we'd have much better interfaces.
I was glad to see OSX on top, of course, but what OSX really needs is a "killer app" that makes people want a mac.
First, OS 9 does support AppleTalk over TCP/IP, which is how OS X mounts OS 9 drivers.
My experimentation suggests OS X uses a modified NFS as default for connecting to other OS X machines.
Burn Hollywood Burn
OS X, by default, supports NFS, AppleTalk, and with sharity (which is free for educational people) NetBUI. I have an iMac next to me what has NFS mounts from several SGI's in this room, mounts of NT drives upstairs, and an OS 9 drive of a computer behind me.
Burn Hollywood Burn
...and in the darkness bind them...
My other sig is extremely clever...
That Win2k would have won. The range of games available for the platform.
I am only surprised that no one has seen through what Microsoft had Cnet do. This is pre review to put their own product down. Cnet has the full blessing of Microsoft to do this. You know why because Microsft can say in a couple of Months that we have fixed all the flaws of Windows 2K in the form of Windows XP.
I can almost Guarantee that Cnet's next review will say that Windows XP is better than OS X.
This is what Microsoft wants us to see.
OSX > Win2K but WinXP >>>>>>>(Way Better) OSX.
disclaimer: I didn't post this in Ars. XWRed did. greetz to all the other Ars lurkers!
Symmetric multitasking means all OS X apps can take advantage of two processors in a dual-processor Mac to
That just made me laugh. Reading reviews like this almost make me sick, there's so much misinformation and obfuscation. I'm sure the BF could collectively come up with something *FAR* more comprehensive. Heck, I probably could if I played both sides.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Windows zealot by any means, its just that I can't stand journalism like this. Both of the guys barely know what they're talking about, the Mac guy obfuscates everything, and the Windows guy can barely defend Win2k.
Oh, and I hate it when arguments hinge on simplicity. It seems like none of these journalists are real men anymore, they all want their hands to be held while they're computing because their pussies hurt too much.
BOSTON SUCKS!
Windows has a wider application base and support more hardware.
Yeah, right. Tomorrow. Or next year. Well, in the next century it'll prevail for sure. Because it's so cute!
How is Win 98 any easier to install than W2K? They're virtually identical. On top of that, W2K has a ton more hardware drivers, and you generally don't have to worry about conflicts and other such crap with W2K.
I'd love to see a comparison of the two as servers It's pretty rare that you see a Apple serving anything (especially dynamic websites).
I hardly think that win2k and OSX are "the Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson of the operating system world". They are lightweights. That is compared to an OS/390 system. Compared to that, UNIX systems on AIX (12 processor SAs) are considered "mid range" systems.
I guess they are the heavyweights of the PC-style architecture, but not of OSes in general.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
I'm not totally sure that this is a fair comparison. Most of it is just fine, but when comaring installation and hardware compatibility, of course OSX has an advantage, but this advantage comes at a high price.
When you buy a computer to run OSX, you only have 1 choice of a vendor (do Apple clones still exist?), so of course the OS is going to be engineered to a specific set of hardware. That way, you don't need to worry about hardware drivers, as you have everything you need in the OS. (or at least distributed with the OS)
On the other hand, with windows machines, you have your choice of hundreds of vendors, and thousands of configurations, all having different hardware configurations. This makes it hard on the OS to set up and install.
I think I would rather trade a bit of difficulty of instaltion, etc. for some flexibility. (hey, isn't that why I installed Linux? yeah!)
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
being able to just install is really nice sometimes. the fact that cnet--den of the microsoft whores--is comparing osx favorably with windows 2000 is a strange sign. wait until more apps are ported.
Windows will only get better with more features to look forward to (voice recognition for example). Apple will always be Apple and will always run on Apple only.
Be an Apple and buy a Mango.
Apple Monger
----
This article is pretty Laim, I mean, come on, the guys keep arguing with each other, I can get on IRC to hear this, I don't want to look at it on Slashdot.
And, I don't have much experience installing win2k, because All I have is the upgrade, but yeah, it was pretty easy, just pop in the disk, put in the cd-key, and hit enter a few times after it reboots.
I have never installed any Mac OS, but, does anyone know where I can get a copy from like the 8.0 series? My sisters Mac could use a fresh start. And I would like to try installing Yellow Dog on it first.
Why should I really care. Neither can run on the others platform, and honestly I will never ever own a MAC. Now CNET picked it over W2000, but W2000 is not the consumer version, and OSX is still marketed as such. Regardless, even if W2000 had won, would that be basis for someone to run out and buy it and ditch their mac?
Even if it did better, why would I want to ditch my hardware and then attempt to find products similar to the operating system I do have?
While these types of comparisons may have value to geeks, for the most part they only serve to flood message boards with "My OS is better than your OS" crap.
Okay, maybe one benefit, maybe the loser of a category may see it as reason to change, then again maybe they don't care either.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Uhhh... That's nothing like the 68k emluation layer that Apple bungled so badly in MacOS 7.x is it?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
We compare the new Ford F250 [Win2k] to the Ferarri 550 Maranello [OS X]
- Dan I.
Dear CNet,
CNET's decision: Mac OS X
What do you mean by that?
I thought we are always friends. I know you've taken efforts to make us win on "Interfaces" part.
But I'm not satisfied. You know that.
Can't you be more unethical?
You can kiss my future first-hand Microsoft news goodbye, sucker.
Yours master,
Bill G.
...not only does it depend on the apps, but the price!
My athlon box cost me over a $1000 less than a similarly equipped mac (built it myself)....dual boot, better for games...
...why would i pay extra to loose that???
"Chill, Orrin!"---Trent Lott
Yes, Mac OS only runs on Apple hardware, but "non-standard" and "costs twice as much" are better suited to describe Apple's offerings from 3-4 years ago. With PCI/AGP, ATA, USB, Firewire, PC133, you can do a lot of inexpensive upgrading to a G4, even if the add-ons you buy don't have the smily "Mac" logo on the box. And as for the cost of the computers themselves: I dare you to find a better price/performance value for a laptop than the new iBook. Apple is so far ahead of everyone else with the iBook and Powerbook G4 it's mind-boggling. And compare the prices of high-end G4s with high-end Dells: the price gap for similarly configured systems is not as great as you'd think -- only around $500-600 (The Dell would have a 1.7GHz P4 and the Mac would have a 733MHz G4, to bring up another thread that's been beaten to death). A BYO PC would cost less, but Apple hardware is competing against Dell hardware.
Guns don't kill people - bullets do!
You ever use a NeXT? I owned a cube back in '92. The NeXT GUI is nothing like Aqua. Apple has obviously completely redone the interface and tried to create a new look and feel. Remember the Lisa? Way back when? Lisa -> Mac ... NeXT -> OSX What's the problem?
Oh my God! That evil Steve! If he could only get that "incredibly large ego" out of the way, Apple would be able to really innovate and bring out quality products like Copeland...
Whose? Whatever, so much for a reply....
It's an interesting report and better written then most of the stuff [..].
Like, when exactly?
While we are on the topic of spelling disorders, is anyone else annoyed by the bug in the slashcode that I do encounter more and more often recently which will reload my previewed comment with a page of - as it seems - utterly non-related comments, and make what I have just written unretrievable (unless I remembered before hitting preview and copied my text to the clipboard)?
I'm using Netscape 6.01 ATM, but it does look like a server-side issue.
And yes, I got more than enough karma, so mod me down to OT, go ahead...
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
I was shocked by the word stability in your posting. I used Win98 for 2 years and was pretty happy. But stability certainly isn't a positive point for it. For example I could bring down my system with Netscape Communicator 4.x as many time as I wanted. W2K on the other hand is rock solid for me (your mileage may vary), no comparision with Win98...
Alain
Why are they testing a desktop OS with a workstation OS?
And why test Win2K when they can get WinXP's betas, which are more comparable with the OSX?
If they wanted to do a real testing, they should've gone and tested WinME (bad idea) or WinXP.
WinXP allows you to setup a network connection during setup too. (It's kinda of sad that XP need it for the activation.)
I was very surprised to see that Win2k won on the *interface* match.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Wrong, what you are talking about is a *power* user, which is something between an admin & a user, which is still limited.
A user can't do anything to the system, by default, he only has read access to WinNT & Program Files directories, as well as to HKLM, which mean that nothing will install for him.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
I think they *are* trying to replace the WinTel market. And it's not a secret. Apple's got 5 perecent in the PC market and WinTel has the other 95 (rough figures). Jobs' latest stint is: "5 down. 95 to go." launched right along with the new retail stores. So what else could he mean by that: http://www.apple.com/retail/
Taht is funny. Every market share survey I've seen in the last year or so show Linux and Mac neck and neck with the momentum on the Linux side. I am not talking about total Linux installs just the desktop.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
Firstly, just because MS doesn't ship win2k proffesional with Apache hardly makes it crippled as a desktop OS. The 10 limit connection applies to the shipped IIS, Microsoft's own web server, which only applies to the the profesional. Win2k Server and above has no such problems. You can install Apache with no limits on Win2k.
most importantly hardware support
Really? Then perhaps you could tell how to make the damn thing work with a USR Sportster WinModem? I upgraded my sister's PC to Win98 last week, so she can get USB support, and now every time we re-start, the stupid thing forgets about the modem and we have to re-install the drivers.
Hardware support my shiny metal ass! It's a U.S. Robotics Winmodem, fur crissakes!
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
I would guess from your glib remark that you are not a representive of microsoft. And when I write representive I mean it in the political sense of the word. I know I'm getting off-topic here, but it seems to me that any one of the people I've seen on TV or read about from MS could easily run for any public office. They've taken to heart the basic premise that all politicians know. Repeat something often enough, and people will eventually believe it. I couldn't help but notice the similarities between Gore or Bush and Gates or Balmer whenever they spoke last year.
compasionate conservitive/lock box/innovate
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." Pablo Picasso.
I was very suprised at the results of the 'death match.' Well, not suprised at the result so much as who came up with the results. As an avid (read 'rabid') mac fan, I can only hope that articles like this one can demonstrate once and for all to people that Apple no longer produces the 'etch-a sketch' computer they once did. If I hear one more microsoft representitve say the word innovation one more time I'm going to hurl. The only company out there actually innovating these days is Apple.
'Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.'-Ford Prefect
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." Pablo Picasso.
Microsoft 0wns:
...
Hormel
Tonka
Newsweek
The body of Jim Morrison and the lease to his grave in france
Washington State
The Boy Scouts of America
Nabisco
Mobil
Samsonite
Christy's, of London
Really, I found the article informative to say the least, but to put Linux in a desktop comparison (this link) and compare Win/Mac in the server space, where Linux is at its best, is a little, ahem, biased, isn't it?
Linux *is* user friendly. It's not idiot-friendly or fool-friendly!
i think you misread the post tim-may.
he said: streamlined for video/audio editing
you said: streamlined audio/video is unneeded and just wastes RAM and HD space
you are arguing against what again?
streamlined audio and video editing wastes RAM and HD space? I'm not sure you understood the post.
The Mac has nothing to offer me.
Fine, windows has nothing to offer me. I don't play games, I don't uhm, erm, what is it that windows can do that my mac or linux can't do? Oh yeah make its users spread FUD.
You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
maybe a live model of Natalie Portman advertising Quaker Grits? :)
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
I disagree on your assessment regarding how software compatibility should work. I think this whole concept of ``backwards compatibility through portability'' has been holding us back. Apple is very good at leaping forward and providing an emulation layer. Look at the PPC, when it was launched, it was launched with almost no native software, and I heard (and made) complaints that it was ridiculous that they should make a platform for which there is no native software and have stuff run under a slower emulation.
So what if it runs slower? It runs, and it still runs pretty fast in the grand scheme of things. I'm on a 1999 series powerbook right now, and I can run Netscape with flash, or my older OS 9 version of quicktime to process or play video and it feels just about the same to me. OS X is an advancement that simply couldn't have been made if ``native'' compatibility were a requirement due to the way OS X worked.
Regarding the ability to run a ten-year-old DOS program flawlessly on a Windows 2000 computer, I'm sure you could do the same thing with 100% emulation, say, with a Java applet DOS/PC emulator if someone felt like writing one. I think we can make more progress through emulation (and more thoroughly and easily) than we can by trying to make sure everything works forward and backwards.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
So when are they going to compare all major Oses? Anyone know of a Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. FreeBSD vs. BeOS comparison.
But, one question comes to mind, how can you really compare two OSes on different hardware? Well I guess the proliferation of compatible USB/Firewire/other external devices makes one part at least comprable.
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
It's actually called CEC Entertainment. It's located here in Dallas, TX. I went to a job interview for their systems dept., and as part of it, got the tour. They have a pizza R&D lab (no shit!), and a special stage where they develop all of the animatronics. Cool stuff. Their systems are ancient, and they have no real desire to change that, though. They have an IBM mainframe that they rent, and about 3 guys in the whole dept. supporting POS systems (Point of Sale, not Piece of Sh*t) in hundreds of stores. I said "no thanks".
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
appliance (-plns)
n.
A device or instrument designed to perform a specific function, especially an electrical device, such as a toaster, for household use.
Since PCs are multi-purpose, programmable devices, they are not appliances. A router would be more of an appliance than a PC, except that it's not really for household use.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I don't know what the default configuration is on the Wintel boxes at your work, but that's your problem. Windows NT, or 2000 has file-level acess controls. If users can modify files as a "Guest" (which should be disabled, and is under Win2K, AFAIK), that means the files/directories are open to the EVERYONE group. Open up UNIX, and it'll lay down too.
...and a kernel, and APIs, just like every other operating system ever worth anything (minus some embedded systems, which are only a kernel and some APIs). What are you even talking about? Should it not have a GUI or cmd? What's your idea for the perfect OS, genius? A kernel on a floppy locked in a safe?
Have you ever used Windows NT. [sic] It's basically a command shell and a GUI.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
OK.
.cfg files or .ini files or whatever. I agree that the registry causes problems, but it's not meant to be accessed manually, only programatically, and if more "Power Users" took that advice, it wouldn't crash so much. Also, you are free to use whatever config system you want in anything you write for Windows.
NTFS sucks. Based on... benchmarks? research? security? anything?
The problem with Winnt, the files don't have ownership so anybody with any type of an account can modify them.
Like I already said, NT has file-level permissions, so that isn't true. And, not to reference the API you seem to hate, but here is proof that you can take ownership of objects (files and directories) in NT.
All OSes should have a command shell of some type, the more advanced the better, then later:If the actual OS is 5 megs, it'll be more useful then something that is 650 megs. So, advanced as possible, but also as small as possible... how does that work? One or the other, just like I tell marketing.
I like GUIs but they should never be integrated with the OS...
OK, but that's your opinion. Mac users would probably beg to differ, since they love that integration, and hate the CL. Nobody can really prove that GUI/OS integration is bad. It's really just an opinion.
(I should be able to boot directly to the command shell and be able to start the GUI as needed.)
You can, in Win2K. Ouch.
I don't like the WIN32 api, anything but that. If it was more like an advanced QT api, it would be great.
OK, so in what ways is the QT API better than WIN32? You don't say in your post, so should I assume you don't know? Is it the mysterious "Miscellaneous" classes that add all the value?
OSes must also have seperate configuration files for individual programs. No stupid registry where an accidental crash can lead to all of your configuration being destroyed instead of a few.
Although MS has provided the registry, it is developers that store information there. They could just as easily use
The OS should be limited to controlling basic physical[...]That is it.
Once again, says you. What makes an OS differs from person to person. The DOJ said IE is a part of Windows, where as most don't think a window manager is a part of LINUX. It all depends on where you draw the line. The NT microkernel contained on the NT rescue disk fits on a floppy, and contains enough OS to manipulate the filesystem. Most wouldn't call this a full OS, although some might. You need facts to back up why you think your opinions are true. Also, a filesystem and an OS are two different things. Keep that in mind.
If it does more then this, it is inflated with unnecessary features that slow the computer and boot time down.
Since when is boot time the only measure of a system's functionality. Ever watch an HP3000 or '9000 boot up? Takes ages. No-one calls them bloated, they know the machine is just doing its job, and live with the boot time.
Anyway, come with more facts in hand, and we can really talk.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I know you say you're done "argueing" [sic] with me, but since you once again, supplied absolutely no facts in your post, allow me:
// registered class name // window name // window style // horizontal position of // vertical position of // window width // window height // handle to parent or // menu handle or child // handle to application // window-creation data
NTFS is a propietery FS that is DOS based in structure(although, it is much more complex then the original fat12 fs)
OK, so NTFS is a worse filesystem because it's proprietary? Or because it's DOS-based? It is proprietary, I'll give you that. However, I don't care that it's proprietary. The world is filled with proprietary things. Your car is proprietary. Big deal. The fact that it's DOS-based is wrong. It's POSIX-based, if a filesystem can be OS-based anyway. You still think a filesystem and an OS are the same thing, or are interchangable. So, which filesystem is better? Ext2 isn't journaling, so for a lot of enterprise-level apps, it won't do. Maybe there's a better one out there, but I'll never know if I count on you for the facts.
You're idea is [wrong, stupid?] considering you can't take a boot disk and modify the sh*t out of it
I never said NT was open source, I just said it could fit on a floppy. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. Happens to me all the time (just not yet today). Besides, I never even said fitting on a floppy was any sort of benchmark for an OS' goodness. You did. And I still came up with how NT could do it. And you still can't admit you're wrong. Sheesh. I hope you're not married, or anybody's boss.
GUIs should not be integrated is not an opinion, it is a fact. Nope. Still an opinion, unless you come up with actual evidence. That's what makes a fact. The only reason the GUI and the Posix kernel are integrated is because they can be in NT. There's only one desktop. It allows for the user to be in more control over the OS using a GUI, not less. It allows the OS to provide a more professional and integrated user experience, something everyone admits Linux lacks. Still, though, that's just my opinion, but at least I know to call it an opinion, and not a fact, because I showed up for a CS class in school. Nice job not being able to find any evidence to prove your study, but still mentioning it, like I'm going to take your word. That's funny.
Also, winnt does not boot without a GUI standardly [sic]. If it did, we would be in a whole different ballgame.
What, you'd be even wrong-er? You said it couldn't, I showed it could. I never said it did it by default. Red Hat doesn't either.
Here's how to create a window in Win32:
HWND CreateWindow(
LPCTSTR lpClassName,
LPCTSTR lpWindowName,
DWORD dwStyle,
int x,
window int y,
window int nWidth,
int nHeight,
HWND hWndParent,
owner window HMENU hMenu,
identifier HINSTANCE hInstance,
instance LPVOID lpParam
);
That's ONE line (broken up into several with comments for simplicity, the same as QT. Get your facts straight. Notice the position and size parameters? That's that GUI/OS integration you don't like. It means I have more control over the display of my application than you do with QT:
QMainWindow::QMainWindow ( QWidget * parent = 0, const char * name = 0, WFlags f = WType_TopLevel )
It's a little harder that way, but that's what makes Windows ready for the desktop.
Oh, and here's how you make a connection using Win32. Notice no windows being created. That's because, yep, you're wrong! Again!. Now, I wouldn't be acting like such a jerk about all this if you weren't getting all high-and-mighty-cs-classes about your posts. You have to do research, because if the person replying to you does and you don't, you look dumb, no matter how smart you actually are (which I assume is pretty smart, actually).
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
- The command-line IS more productive on common tasks, you're right. NT has a command-line, and it works OK. For repetitive tasks, it works. The GUI is integrated for a reason. It makes the OS easier to use. Anything you want to do in the GUI, you can do either in scripting, or with commands. If you don't want to use the GUI, don't. Fire up the command prompt right away, and forget the GUI. You're right that the GUI is more prevalent in NT. It is Windows NT, after all. It's the Windows GUI that has Windows on millions and millions of desktops worldwide. It's what makes it "better" not to integrate it that I don't get. If "better" means better preformance, than a visit to www.tpc.org should clear that up. If "better" means more productive, then that depends on the user. I know that %99 of computers out there would never have been bought if there wasn't Windows or MacOS on them when they were bought. Dealing with a GUI has got to be more productive than not using the machine at all. Also, what about older people, non-technical people, and kids? They can't use a command-line like you or I can. Should they be deprived of the personal power and confidence that computing allows them? I don't think they should.
- Win2K isn't as bad as you think, which, from your posts, I can tell is pretty bad. It's really not. It's easy to develop for, reliable, scalable, and TCO is cheap. These are the things companies and people look for when choosing an OS, and 2K has all of that. It's hard to convince a CIO to choose a more expensive or risky solution because it's "better", because cheap and safe IS better to CIOs. (note: I don't mean cheap as in sticker price, I mean cheap as in training, development, database licensing, etc.). What ticks me off is when people bad-mouth a platform that I've been actually using to feed my kids for over 6 years, because of some esoterica like API elegance, or non-existant performance myths like filesystem performance.
- Even Unix zealots admit Unix isn't for everyone. No matter which flavor you subscribe to, it's harder to use, harder to administer, and harder to shop for. That's probably why you like it, in fact. Keep in mind, though, that sometimes the easiest solution is the better solution. Microsoft makes its products, especially Windows, for a fickle base of consumers that will abandon them in a second if they don't like their products. Bob sucked, and nobody bought it. Microsoft is not a brand name, Windows is, and it got that way by being easy to use, and powerful. How powerful is relative. Powerful enough to run NASDAQ. Powerful enough to run Microsoft, the world's largest company. Maybe not powerful enough to cluster in a 186-node Beowulf QuakeIII Cluster, but powerful enough to make a lot of people a lot of money a lot easier.
If that ain't better, I don't know what is.If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
If MS were to make an attack, and squish Apple (which they probably could do, if they stopped making Office) the government would be at their gates with bloodhounds in no time.
Besides, if Apple went under, who would M$ steal all their ideas from?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
which of course is total crap. I just put os x on my girlfriend's computer yesterday, and after installing it, the link light on a switch was dead for the mac (keep in mind that this is with the built in mac hardware). Now I'm going to have to figure out a way to h4x0r that piece of shit. Of course all the documentation is online.
Fuck you apple.
--
slow news day? this is one of those "transparently designed to incite page/banner ad views" stories. don't fall for it.
~jeff
Flame me if you must... But isn't making hardware compatibility an issue here sorta like saying that a Playstation is better because every game will run on every box? I mean come on, the Macs are all the same. Every Mac is just like every other fickin' Mac. They are clones of each other. Making an OS run on a Mac is a programmer's dream come true. You have such a limited amount of hardware that you don't have much to worry about. When you really think about it, Win2k runs is compatible with at least as much hardware if not more by sheer volume! Saying that windows is has hardware issues is just not fair. And besides, Win2k runs on EVERYTHING I've ever tried it on...even obscure stuff. So, next time someone compares OS compatibility lets try not to compare Apples to oranges? Shall we? One other point is that there is just plain MORE stuff you can use for cheaper on a PC. About 100 TIMES more hardware items and at least 1000 TIMES more software. Lets see Apple try and beat that! Oh, yeah, that's right they DID...and their Nazi-like liscensing with 3rd party developers killed that idea! Oh, Darn. I guess I'll just spend 1/3rd the money on a PC and get WAY more bang for my buck...
that's what you get for buying a winmodem.
Reboot macht Frei.
It seems to me that the Windows supporter was conceding to the Apple guy that Windows was not that good at some things, because he couldn't lie. However, the Apple guy never needed to concede anything because there are no major faults in their OS.
MS may support BSD sockets but seems more of a token gesture. To get real server performance out of the Windows socket lib (and you can) you really need to use overlapped i/o with IOCP. If you do, a process is only limited by the number of sockets Windows can support. I believe it's 32k. Apache only sucks on Windows because they didn't feel like retooling the entire socket layer. Remember, there's still IIS.
BTW: is there a paranoia tab for TweakOSX? =)
> like come on computers shouldnt be appliances.
Like, come on, they ARE appliances.
What rock do you live under?
Maury
OS X is "easier" to install then Win2k(but less versatile. OS X has an industry proven BSD kernel where Win2k has a Unix kernel(what is it, can't remember off the top of my head) but sucks because, well, it is not capable of running all windows programs. OS X is more Unix, for the kind at heart. They both have their list of problems such as, on WIN2k, a normal user nearly has just as much control to edit and delete files as the Administrator. Although normal users can't install using the Windows installer or modify the clock, they can still manually do most things that could possibly corrupt a computer. My experience with Mac OS X is limited in this area so I'm not going to respond to its problems.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
CNet is partially owned by Intel, so I am pleased that they said anything good about OSX
don't you mean "partially owned by Microsoft"?
you forgot to mention "the deed to my immortal soul".
Sun=SERVER and PC=shit
youre right they are not appliance .they are just big bloated crap
from a business transaction perspective, AIX machines probably process more than all PC 's combined. they dont sell as many. but they do a helluva alot more
what ? did they puch in two holes instead of one like retards?
You are correct in stating that the installation _procedures_ are virtually identical.
However, Win2k has some quirks that make it annoying to say the least. For example: it falsely identified one of our ATA100 boards as an ATA66 board, preventing it from functioning properly. OTOH, Win98 just uses the bus as it is supposed to.
I have never had a driverv conflict within Win98 that caused it to stop functioning, a truely endemic symptom in Win2k.
Furthermore, if I look at it objectively there are simply more applications that run on 98 than on 2k, which is what an OS is really about, right?
sdijkstra
PS: I think Win2k _is_ a decent server system, although I would trust *nix with that task if I'd taken the time to learn how to use it.
__
Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity.
Hardware support is not _good_ in 98, it is just less horrible than in 2k.
Hope this clarifies my statements.
__
Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity.
Not to be viewed as a troll or anything...for me it is possible to bring down _any_ OS with netscape :)
__
Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity.
This comparison is not fair at all. IMHO, from an end user point of view Win2K doesn't even come CLOSE to the Win98 Second Edition in ease of installation, stability and most importantly hardware support.
Therefor, if this 'contest' should be of any significance, CNET should put Win98 in the ring instead of Win2K
$.02
sdijkstra
__
Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity.
i disagree, osX is an excellent step in operating systems... if apple ever supports intel they could (potentially) take the pc OS market. I'm not sure why everyone looks at OsX as if it where a revitalized version of the failed BeOS. . . the Mach kernel and bsd core are very solid (even in darwin) and the aqua interface is pretty, functional, powerfull, and goes along with the Mac ease of use scheme.