Slashdot Mirror
Follow-up To Critique of BeOS & Mac OS X
UnknownSoldier writes: "Scot Hacker has posted a great follow-up to his Tales of a BeOS Refugee entitled Reactions to Tales of a BeOS Refugee. (Hopefully everyone involved in implementing 'Linux on the Desktop' will eventually incorporate the best ideas of Be and Mac OS X for smoother usability in Linux.)"
A guy named Scot Hacker using Unix? No way! This guy was born with a console in his hands!
...and less is more.
Consistency is vital. A `deep' user interface notion is needed, instead of the concept of the user interface as shallow cosmetics.
You cannot get consistency without coordination; consistency, and a deeply uniform structure in all things noticable, limits choice too.
Less is more. Predictable behaviour over in-depth per-widget configuration is required.
You'll never get there by borrowing here and adding there. A larger vision is called for, rather than ad-hock additions of code, no matter how l337 the c0d3 h@x0rZ be.
It's not entirely logical, because going to MacOS X requires at least two things: one, it requires you to purchase new hardware, and two, it requires you to use closed-source software (namely, Quartz et. al.).
MacOS X cannot be used on existing hardware, and the hardware required for MacOS X to be used is undeniably more expensive. (You can make arguments that it is BETTER hardware, but nonetheless it is more expensive.)
Further, while MacOS X is based on the Darwin core, which in turn is FreeBSD-derived, much of the operating system is still proprietary, closed-source software. While that may not bother some, others would be greatly opposed to using it.
Next time Apple releases a new super-duper OS that requires you to buy a new Mac and renew your entire collection of software you bought with your hard-earned cash, I and my headache-making Linux box running on my PII-266 shall taunt you a second time.
I know I'm not saying anything new here so please don't mod me down for being unoriginal, but I am dying for a x86 desktop alternative.
As somone who has been selling custom built computers for at least 5 years and tinkering with Linux and other free operating systems. I become increasingly disgusted when i have to buy a copy of windows forcing my customers to pay an extra $100 for the computer. If only there were an alternative desktop operating system which I felt my customers would be happy with.
Dozings.com -- Its kinda funny... If you're as crazy as me.
buying into a hardware platform that is less flexible than the current x86 standard, is single-sourced, and thus considerably more expensive. If OS X ever makes it to the x86, it will be hard to resist.
-
The funny thing I've noticed is that a lot of the BeOS and Linux types are migrating straight for OSX for exactly the reasons brought up in the article. It's UNIX, it's got a great interface, etc, etc, etc. On the other end of the coin, people who have been with the Mac for decades (me included) have yet to migrate over. I have my excuses - no photoshop, and it runs nice and slow on my 3-year old Blue G3. OSX works fine on my Powerbook, which actually came with it installed, but I downgraded as I didn't feel I had enough disk space to warrant running a 1 GB OS. That's another thing... Macs don't age nearly as fast as PCs do... hell, I'm still using a 3-year old 350 MHz box for professional web design, Photoshop and video editing, and it works just fine. Rendering takes a few more seconds, but it's not noticable. As soon as I went over to OSX, it just got really choppy.
While I think it's great that OSX is getting so much new blood into the Mac, power users at that, I simply don't find that OSX has enough to offer me yet. I won't go so far as to say I hate it, as some of my other iPod-toting hardcore-Mac friends have said, it just has a little more way to go.
NerfOnline - Because Nerf Guns aren't just for kids -
Well it took them 17 years to do it the first time, so don't hold your breath.
Gentlemen, light your flamethrowers.
I don't care if my software is open. Open source hase wonderful advantages, but it's more important to me that software is good. OS X is the best operating system I've ever seen. I don't care if it's closed, I don't care if they had to drive a steamroller through a kitten factory to make it. It's that good.
It's amazing how people will put up with crap software just because it's open source, and denounce great software just because it's closed. Last time I checked, the purpose of open source was to create great software, not to stick to ideals.
there's more than one way to do me.
MacOS X cannot be used on existing hardware
I run OS X on my G3 Powerbook. This was pre-iBook. In fact, OS X runs on most G3 macs (and with the right Darwin kernal, it runs on most PCI PPC macs)
What do you know I wrote a novel
MacOS X cannot be used on existing hardware
That statement makes no logical sense. What can Mac OS X be used on? Hardware that will be released 10 years from now? I wonder how Apple got those screenshots.
I meant x86-based hardware. Sorry for not being specific enough.
My assumption was that the original poster that I replied to was targeting x86 Linux users in his comment.
As I said in a different post, I interpreted the original poster's comments as targeted towards x86 Linux users.
...was that OS X can handle filesizes up to eight exabytes—sorry, I forgot—that's eight exbibytes . More than a gigabyte for every man, woman & child on earth.
Okay, I'm satisfied. Now let's see some ATA10000 drives with that capacity, and I'll finally be able to reload all my MP3's.
As another poster said, it's been a -long- time since Apple came out w/an OS that made you buy a new Mac.
;)
For most current Mac users, it is only OS X that made them do this, and it even runs on a lot of Macs from at least the G3 line onward (I use it on a B&W as well as my new G4).
Seems like a lot of old Mac users complain about OS X, but I certainly like the fact that I've never had the OS crash yet
Christina
It's not entirely logical, because going to MacOS X requires at least two things: one, it requires you to purchase new hardware, and two, it requires you to use closed-source software (namely, Quartz et. al.).
If OSX truly makes you more productive in your business--and I mean "you" personally and not some generic group--then it's worth the price. Too often poor open source advocates (i.e. students) think that it is worth enduring massive hardship just to avoid spending $1000.
I've got it running on an old 7300 with an XLR8 G4 module and 168M and it runs just fine.
I just spent too much time sticking to the OS X band wagon to find out that it was all marketing BS. When it comes to innovation, I wonder what can be said about OS X really.
What has brought OS X is a lickable but sluggish interface that I got tired of using because of its flashy and uncustomizable look, and its feel that is too slow even on dual cpu hardware and too big to show up on something smaller than a 22" display. Also try running a few apps together with less than 512MB. What else has been put into OS X that deserves to be cited but a NeXT reap off framework, unsuccessful because of its lack of language support (C++ library in Cocoa anyone?), a performance bottleneck not only due to its incredibly slow hardware platform (running on mythically faster CPUs) but also because of tons of layers to provide a Carbon Framework to port old apps (Carbon thread API is built on Posix threads, Yuk!) that was put together with bad and quick development (design process? what design process?!?), inexistent compatibility and no support for hardware sold more than 2 years ago (ATI Rage accel or PPC G3.)
BeOS has had a Finder database integration from the start (MS is just catching up with something similar), a UI that is clean and efficient and probably inspired from the original mac one, CLI with POSIX compatibility, one of the fastest OpenGL implementation on Desktop PC, a C++ framework easy to use and FUN to program with (I never had so much fun designing UI sw than on the BeOS.) The OS was also ported and SUPPORTED on both PPC and Intel x86.
So, if I compare the two companies, there is little thinking about which one I would like the Desktop PC to take ideas from.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
As an old time NEXTSTEP and SunOS/Solaris administrator, I was really skeptical about installing OS X on my friend's beige G3 266 Minitower. But, after slapping 512MB or RAM in there, and formatting the stock 9GB IDE drive in UFS, I was amazed at how _well_ OS X (10.1) runs!
This is the equivalent of a Celeron 300 running Windows 2000 pro in 1600x1200 with all the visual effects on. I am surprised that it runs very nicely.
Of course, I am still running openStep 4.2 on a Motorola 68040 25MHz, and it is fine as well. I have OpenStep 4.2 for Sparc on a 60MHz SuperSparc, and it iis quite usefull as well.
it takes my Athlon 1.2GHz to run Win2K reasonably.
Apple and NeXT just made good tight platforms with very solid HW SW integration. Same with Sun and HP on the UNIX side. Bemoan closed platforms all you want, who here does their daily work and surfing on 13 year old HW? I do. How about on 9 year old HW? I do.
Why? Because I use enterprise grade pro-caliber equipment with OSes made by talented people who gave a damn about the concept and execution of Quality. Quality endures. I have a 18 year old Volvo GLT Turbo that has much more character and fun factor than my 2 year old Jeep Wrangler. Why? Quality.
Well anyways, back to the usability myth. I propose that it is just that, a myth. People think something is easy to use because they feel familiar with it, or they "know" how to use it, that's how something ranks high on the "usability" scale. The Mac mantra has always been how easy it is to use... well.. the couple of times I tried to use a Mac it seemed confusing to me and certainly not "easy" Why???? You may be asking??? Because, all I've ever used have been Windows machines and Unix machines. Those are easy to me. But that's mostly beside the point, which is, if usability was so important than why didn't the public migrate to the Mac? Answer, besides the obvious monopoly thingy, is because usability, for the most part, doesn't matter. Period. People learn how to use a machine to do what they need to get done and it becomes easy to do when you know how to use it.
So, you can make Linux the most "user friendly" desktop OS on the planet and it won't matter at all. If you want Linux to matter then you need to come up with a reason for people to use it, a killer app or a killer tool or something along those lines.
Now before you pundits get your panties all knotted up into a bunch, I'm not saying you shouldn't try to design an interface that is consistant and easy to learn, yes, that's important, but it's not the driving force for the public when it comes to using one operating environment over another.
Thank You.
Could someone who has read the article please dig it out of your cache and post it here? It looks like the site got slashdotted quickly.
Closed Source:Filet Mignon::
a) Open Source:Ramen Noodles
b) Log:Bathtub
c) Monitor:Computer
d) USB:FireWire
e) JonKatz:Homosexual
Don't you understand, If you use closed source software you'll be paying for it for all time. It will never end. Just ask the guys who got Windows 3.1 for free. Now they are forced to buy XP with their new computers. They have no choice any more.
How odd...
That's cause I'm not trying to be a troll! I just tell it like it is!
Well, looks like the site is already slashdotted, so I haven't read the article yet, but let me shed some light on a few things.
I'm a UNIX person. I've run Linux, Solaris X86, IRIX (yes I had an Indy) at home. I like UNIX. It's what I do for a living, I'm a SysAdmin.
I LOVE OS X. 10.0.4 blew dogs. It's what came with the new iBook I bought this year. 10.1 is prime time, if not ready for the masses. I recently started a new job and was given my choice between a 500 MHz Intel machine running Linux or a G3 at 350MHz running OS X. No brainer dude. Aqua is hands down the best window manager I've ever seen (I never saw a NeXT machine.) Rendering everything in PDF is just mind blowing, and the ease of application development in Cocoa is equally dope.
Here's the thing though. If you're a hardware hacker it's not for you. Plain and simple, neither was the Indy, or the NeXT, or an Ultra Sparc. There are things you just can't do with workstation class machines that you can with desktops.
However, if you're like me and could give a rip about the hardware and tweeking the hell out of it, well Mac OS X is SWEET! It reminds me of the early days of Linux when I'd download something and actually HAVE TO COMPILE IT! Hehehehe, yes i compiled bash, and the fileutils, and even vim on OS X, no problem at all. And since I can't fiddle with the WindowManager I'm not going insane trying to get the current version of Enlightenment (heh a one word oxymoron there) and all it's assinine libraries to compile. I was always partial to WindowMaker anyway, and here's the upgrade!
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
Well, its a matter of your hardware becoming obsolete. Yes it runs classic really well. OSX requires a bit.. more. Fortunately and unfortunately. Newer hardware supports OSX wonderfuly. Not sure if its anyone's fault really. Just the desires of having a "really cool" OS.
;)
As for the software thing, give it time. Just like how linux and the bsd's went from a.out -> elf, it takes time.
OSX isn't unfortunately suited to the population of mac owners who can only run classic and need them. Luckily, photoshop isn't my biggest need.. yet. And office is finally out, so I'm happy.
Just think of it as X11R6 with a really neet window mangler
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
People who want to run open source software, people who want to develop open source software, or people who want a nice UI and a UNIX backend are the kind of people who should use OS X.
Some people, such as RMS, don't believe in any closed source software. They can stay with Linux, and deal with the fact that another OS runs all the apps of theirs and more (well, not yet, but people are working as hard as they can).
You know, I've bought tons of closed source software, and every day I go to my mailbox and I can't seem to find my bill from Microsoft, asking for my monthly fee for that copy of Windows 3.1 I bought in 1992. Hmmm.... you know, I only recall paying ONCE for all the software programs I bought. Well, off to the mailbox again, I'll see if my Visual Studio Rent has come in.
Speaking as a recovering BeOS user/developer, I can say that BeOS is/was great software. But because it was closed source, it is now orphan-ware, getting more obsolete every day. When I to upgrade to a new machine, I most likely won't be able to run it at all anymore, since the new hardware won't be supported. If BeOS had been open source, it would still be a viable OS today, since the Be developer community would have taken over development when Be keeled over. (indeed, they are still trying to do just this, but Palm couldn't care less)
The moral of the story is this: for certain "platform" types of software that require a lot of time/money/software investment from the user (such as operating systems, APIs, languages, etc), one of the most important "features" that must be considered is whether or not the software product will continue to be supportable and developed. You can either make that guarantee by being too rich to ever go out of business (if you're Microsoft), or by making the code open source (if you're anybody else).
Or to put it more succinctly, it's gonna be a bummer for all the OS/X users if/when Apple goes out of business, and drags OS/X down with it. Users of open source operating systems have no such worries.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Assuming that MacOS X was a viable option on x86, you're still forgetting that you're on slashdot. Suggesting that Linux isn't the way to go will get you nowhere here, my friend.
(wiping tears from eyes)
Finally, something worth reading on Slashdot. I salute you!
Don't worry, it's in the mail.
If I spend $10 to make $100 it is called math.
Have a penis that is?
I have a penis. Johnny has a penis.. CowboyNeal has a penis, but I'll bet you just have a pee pee.
I've been following criticism of OS X on slashdot for a while. It seems that people here mainly reject OS X because either it's closed source or the hardware's too expensive.
Well, criticizing OS X because it is closed source is ridiculous. Choose a product based on quality, not ideology. Linux will never gain many mainstream users because of ethics- people will choose the best product offered to them. Granted, compatibility, available software, and conformity may play into this more than some would want, (perhaps explaining why my parents use MS) but it is still a matter of quality.
The cost of the hardware is a valid issue. However, the computers are well built, especially the laptops. If you're obsessed with customizing beige boxes, then stick to a different operating system. But, regardless, stick to criticizing features, not attitudes.
Because we all know that Apple is going out of business and all..... Have been for the past 20 years. Sigh, back to being a MS drone because then my OS will *never* become obsolete...
I'm sorry but that is the biggest MYTH.
One half of Apple's current lineup of computers, the iMac and the iBook (2 computers that I bet make up the bulk of their sales) have NO expansion slots. No PCI slots on the iMac, and no PCMCIA slots on the laptops.
This is nothing more than a stupid, short-sighted attempt by Apple to make the computer not last as long. In essence, your choices become: 1: buy the much more expensive TiBook or G4 tower, or 2: buy the cheap one and it's obsolete, FAST.
Apple has end-of-lifed the video cards used in the first generation iMac - users of those computers are never going to get accelerated video drivers in OS X. If those were cheapo PCs with slots, you could at least throw a nicer video card in there and solve the problem.
And don't bother posting that it doesn't matter that there aren't any expansion slots because "everything comes built in". Tell that to first generation iBook or iMac owners who like to use the iPod - "sorry, FireWire only". Those computers are less than two years old, and already becoming obsolete.
Would you like to have USB 2.0? I will, and I can add it to my 3 year old Dell notebook via a card and it will work fine. The Apple iBook you buy TODAY can't be expanded with a single new tech. beyond what it ships with. Now which comp. is aging faster, the Apple, or the Dell? Even crummy $700 PCs and $1100 laptops have PCI/PCMCIA.
PCI and PCMCIA slots let you add all sorts of stuff to your computer, in effect, "future-proofing" it by allowing you to expand rather than buy a new computer. A computer without expansion options hardly qualifies as "a computer that ages slower than PCs."
P.S. I don't want to hear about how you can add all sorts of nifty expansion option via FireWire. I don't want 5 boxes hanging off my computer.
For Wintel hardware, supporting the thousands of possible hardware components is probably more than any non-Microsoft company could manage. It consumes a lot of resources and doesn't really impress anyone (whoopee- there's a driver...) Instead, people complain when there aren't drivers. I don't know how much of Be's energy went into supporting so many configs, but even if it was done in the most efficient way possible, it would still complicate things dramatically- both in terms of the install process and the support process.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Yeah, I wonder if Apple considers giving up on hardware and trying to make their money off the OS, following M$'s lead. I wonder how it would play out. I would install Mac OS X on my x86 (and dump win2k, still keeping rh7.1), and I think they could get a lot of converts. You have to figure that they are spending so much money on development for the OS, that they would be a lot more profitable if they got more bang for their buck and increased their OS sales by 500%, say. Software is more profitable than hardware anyway.
OS X is unfinished to say the least. I was pretty excited when I got a new iMac with OS X to play around with. But when I got around to integrating it into my Linux-base environment, it really fell apart.
/mnt/local", the "/mnt/local" directory disappears. The mount doesn't and you can't unmount without rebooting. There is a shareware program that makes it possible to use NFS, but c'mon folks. This is a violation of some basic trust. NFS should just work.
NFS support is severely lacking. You can't even count on a command-line mount of an nfs volume. If I try to mount with "mount server:/local
SMB is nearly as bad. At least you can reliable mount samba volumes. However, it's highly unstable. Changing files on the server will cause OS X to behave unpredictably. Updating an app binary, for example, will cause subsequent execution of that app to fail with bus errors.
NIS? Good luck. Not supported. There is an FAQ for enabling it. But my success with this has been limited at best.
Until they get the basics sorted out, it'll just sit on the kitchen counter as a nice little internet and recipe browser for my wife.
Take a deep breath! You are about to dump core, or something.
You seem to have confused expansion capability with aging, but they just ain't the same.
**As far as being widely useful for getting work done** Macs last longer than PCs. That is what I believe the other poster is talking about.
As far as Mac OS X and its interface, its nice that people used to generally weak interfaces think it is so great, but us long time Mac users are suffering a severe downgrade with Mac OS X and it Just Isn't Worth It for most of us.
iMacs are aimed at Joe-I-just-wanna-browse-the-damn-web. They don't even know what a PCI card is, let alone know how to install one.
I just bought a Powerbook G4, and that has a type I/II PCMCIA slot. But since the Powerbook has a 56-k modem, and a 10/100/1000-baseT ethernet slot already built in, what would you put in it?
SPARK that shit, yo! Blaze it up!
I'm sorry but that is the biggest MYTH.
Gee, I guess that must be why those iMacs and iBooks have decreased little in price despite the fact that newer models have been continually introduced since then.
Sorry, but that's the truth. It's your choice whether or not you want to accept it. Sure you can whine and complain about the lack of expansion, but you'll still be wrong.
Apple has been successfully going out of business for about 15 years.
cpeterso
and in reply:
Apple has been successfully going out of business for about 15 years.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry..... God I hope that reply wasn't serious.
The BeOS guys were always predicting Apple's demise.
It ain't gonna happen.
They survived 1996, which was an absolutely hellish year. If they can survive that (lost 1 billion in a quarter) they can survive anything. Apple makes money, their business is self-sustaining. If they sell the same number of macs every year from 2002 til doomsday, they can go on designing new machines and updating the OS. Hell, the place is run by NeXT guys, who were profitable before the buyout even though they had no real userbase.
In addition, they have a huge pile of cash in the bank. Apple will be around for years to come. They have a unique value to add to personal computers and won't ever have a problem finding someone to buy their product.
Now, if Steve leaves and another Michael Spindler takes the helm, all bets are off, but assuming current management practices, Apple will be just fine.
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Apart from that, hear hear. Know what I care about? I care that my software is open. Photoshop is not 'my' software, I just bought some and use it. I do not have the power to make people like that share their work, even if doing so would help me and help society in general. I just have power over what I do, particularly over what I code up myself.
I'm mac based, so quite a lot of software I use and enjoy is freeware. Of this, very little is truly open source- the most significant OSS to me that I use is Mastering Tools, which was written BY me. That's not so wrong.
So I buy an iBook a year ago and in order to get the hardware I need I have to go buy a whole new computer rather than go out and buy a piece of hardware and install it myself for a fraction of the price?
Look, they already tried and they failed. It may seem like nothing to you, but designing an OS to be compatible with thousands and thousands of different PC hardware is kinda hard.
I'm constantly swapping PCMCIA cards in and out of my Powerbook G4, so I know it is useful. First, I have to use a Cisco aironet card for 802.11b because the airport implementation in the Powerbook G4 sucks shit. Range is horrible with the built-in antenna to I use the Aironet.
Second, I have to use a SCSI controller because the Powerbook has no SCSI port, and I have a lot of SCSI peripherals (that I mainly bought because Macs used to come with SCSI ports...grr). My scanners are the essential things here but also removable storage. And no, I can't just haul off and replace all that stuff with 1394 gear.
Third, you have to use the PCMCIA card if you want a modem that works with Linux. I guess you could use a USB modem, but let me know when you get that to work with Linux and for someone who goes on the road a lot it is too painful to carry another box.
Right there with ya on 9.2.2; I like the UI better, and it supports my printer. I dual-booted for awhile, but when I realized many of my apps were still running in Classic and the native apps didn't run better, I switched back.
I would use OSX anyway, if I didn't also have a Linux box that I can ssh to.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Don't forget that FreeBSD runs all the
desktop environments just as well if not
better than the million incompatible versions
of Linux distributions out there. We should
focus all our wood behind one arrow and just
make FreeBSD the best distribution it can be
for the desktop as well as the server, where it
already dominates.
Gotta love how Macs have the only user base that attack any criticisim of their beloved and POS system like a pack of rabid dogs. Deep down I think they know that Macs suck, but they can't bring themselves to admit it, so they must wildly attack anyone who dares utter a bad thing about it. You don't see anyone else defending our systems to the death, biting and scratching the whole way down. We're confident in non-Mac superiority.
Signed,
Anonymous Coward
That's another thing... Macs don't age nearly as fast as PCs do... hell, I'm still using a 3-year old 350 MHz box for professional web design
This is a nice way of saying, "I can't upgrade my 3-year old Mac because Apple's hardware is too expensive." Right?
"And like that
Now that's laughable, try posting something that's anti-linux in slashdot and watch the rabid dogs come after you!
Let's be straight: you don't want choice or configurability in your hardware or software. You said so, not I.
Fair enough. But it puzzles me why you are afraid of choice. Someone else made the choices for you and restricted you to them - both hardware and software.
That's the way it crumbles, cookiewise.
You want to know a fact? Dell sold more computers over the Christmas season than Apple sells in a year. Think about it. That's a deep thought, baby.
I've long maintained that I had nothing against Linux (or MacOS for that matter). What I do have a problem with is Linux and Mac users.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
It's a shame to, because OS X looks pretty cool.
Black Sabbath
What is this that stands before me?
Figure in black which points at me
Turn around quick, and start to run
Find out I'm the chosen one
Oh nooo!
Big black shape with eyes of fire
Telling people their desire
Satan's sitting there, he's smiling
Watches those flames get higher and higher
Oh no, no, please God help me!
Is it the end, my friend?
Satan's coming 'round the bend
people running 'cause they're scared
The people better go and beware!
No, no, please, no!
The Wizard
Misty morning, clouds in the sky
Without warning, the wizard walks by
Casting his shadow, weaving his spell
Funny clothes, tinkling bell
Never talking
Just keeps walking
spreading his magic
Evil power disappears
Demons worry when the wizard is near
He turns tears into joy
Everyone's happy when the wizard walks by
Never talking
Just keeps walking
spreading his magic
Sun is shining, clouds have gone by
All the people give a happy sigh
He has passed by, giving his sign
Left all the people feeling so fine
Never talking
Just keeps walking
spreading his magic
Behind the Wall of Sleep
Precious cups within the flower
deadly petals with strange power
faces shine a deadly smile
back up on you at your trial
Chill and numbs from head to toe
icy sun with frosty glow
Why'd you go reaching your sorrow?
why'd you go read no tomorrow
Feel your spirit rise with the priest
feel your body falling to its knees
Take your walk of remorse
take your body to a corpse
take your body to a corpse
take your body to a corpse
if you want all remorse
take your body to a corpse
Now from darkness, there springs light
Wall of Sleep is cold and bright
Wall of Sleep is lying broken
Sun shines in, you are awoken
NIB
Some people say my love cannot be true
please believe me, my love, and I'll show you
I will give you those things you thought unreal
The sun, the moon, the stars all bear my seal
Oh yeah!
Follow me now and you will not regret
leaving the life you led before we met
You are the first to have this love of mine
forever with me 'till the end of time
Your love for me has just got to be real
before you know the way I'm going to feel
I'm going to feel
I'm going to feel
Oh yeah!
Now I have you with me, under my power
Our love grows stronger now with every hour
Look into my eyes, you will see who I am
my name is Lucifer, please take my hand
Oh yeah!
Follow me now and you will not regret
leaving the life you led before we met
You are the first to have this love of mine
forever with me 'till the end of time
Your love for me has just got to be real
before you know the way I'm going to feel
I'm going to feel
I'm going to feel
Oh yeah!
Now I have you with me, under my power
Our love grows stronger now with every hour
Look into my eyes, you will see who I am
my name is Lucifer, please take my hand
Evil Woman
I've seen a look of evil in your eyes
You've been filling me all full of lies
Sorrow will not change your shameful deeds
Do well best, someone else has better seen
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Now I know just what you're looking for
You want me to claim that child you bore
Well you know that it must he not be
And you know the way it got to be
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Wickedness lies in your moisten lips
Your body moves just like the crack of a whip
Blackness sleeps on top of your stray bed
Do you whish that you could see me dead
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Wicked World
The world today is such a wicked thing
Fighting going on between the human race
People give good wishes to all their friends
While people just across the sea are counting the dead
A politician's job they say is very high
For he has to choose who's got to go and die
They can put a man on the moon quite easy
while people here on earth are dying of old diseases
A woman goes to work every day after day
She just goes to work just to earn her pay
Child sitting crying by a life that's harder
he doesn't even know who is his father
Sleeping Village
Red sun rising in the sky
Sleeping village, cockerels cry
Soft breeze blowing in the trees
peace of mind, feel at ease
Warning
Now the first day that I met ya
I was looking in the sky
When the sun turned all a blur
and the thunderclouds rolled by
The sea began to shiver
and the wind began to moan
It must've been a sign for me
to leave you well alone
I was born without you, baby
but my feelings were a little bit too strong
you never said you love me
and I don't believe you can
'cause I saw you in a dream
and you were with another man
You looked so cool and casual
and I tried to look the same
But now I've got to know ya
tell me who am I to blame?
I was born without you, baby
but my feelings were a little bit too strong
Now the whole wide world is movin'
'cause there's iron in my heart
I just can't keep from cryin'
'cause you say we've got to part
Sorrow grips my voice as I stand here all alone
And watch you slowly take away
a love I've never known
I was born without you, baby
but my feelings were a little bit too strong
Watch my fucking show!
Why do you have so many old computers? Do you work in a museum or is it your hobby?
you're nuts. MacOS's X are almost completely opaque. i don't care how easy *you* think it is, basic operations are difficult to maneuver around because they require voodoo knowledge of the system that isn't pointed out anywhere useful.
That's the biggest problem with OSX sadly enough. The memory foot print is kinda.. huge. But then again, risc programs have the unfortunate problem of being a little bigger. So the whole PC 128 megs of ram doesn't compare well with a PPC with 128 megs of ram. Hell, with 256 it runs like a dream. With 128, it was running quite well none the less. I just couldn't open mozilla and use finder very well :)
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
yes, but if m$ can do it, apple can certainly do it, and they would have so much larger of a market than they do now. Their development costs per sale would go *way* down, and they could leverage a lot of the pre-existing knowledge on BSD on x86.
Apple will never hit the big time until they can sell business on it. Apple's niche is with the artsy crowd, flower shops, very small mom and pop "craft" type business, folks with "computer phobia". Industrial needs are not met by Apple because Apple is priced for the individual retail consumer. Until there is a generic Apple architecture, Apple will always be a niche product.
hey that's funny I don't know anyone, UNIX person OR Machead that LIKES OSX
N O N E.
At all.
I think we've kinda missed something here. If your needs never change then neither does the usefullness of your hardware - PC or MAC or, heck, Amiga. If it works, it works.
If, on the other hand I now have a need for newer software, different hardware etc, then the question of life span becomes more important.
In this case, though - the statement "Macs last longer than PCs" is clearly BS for the reaons stated in this parent's parent.
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
Actually, it's a way of saying that I've spent tons of money upgrading my G3/350 (New hard drive, new video card, 512 MB of RAM), and there is no reason to warrant buying a new machine right now, except to run OSX. Yes, Apple's hardware is very expensive, but not only do I like my Mac better, but if I wanted to upgrade a Windows box to the point where it had what the Mac came with standard, I'd be spending ALMOST as much money. Make that money difference the cost of running a (by my opinion) superior OS, and it's the same amount of money. Except for OSX, my 3-year old machine isn't old enough to warrant buying a new machine. I can run Photoshop REALLY well, I can play Quake at 50 FPS, and I can even run Final Cut at an acceptable level.
NerfOnline - Because Nerf Guns aren't just for kids -
No, I think that is a way of saying my 3 year old B&W G3-350 gets all my work done just fine. Period.
I too have a B&W G3-350 and I can attest to the fact that it runs everything I use it for (web, email, web design, PHP, mysql, etc) just fine. I bought it 3 years ago for 1500.00 and am 100% satisfied with my purchase. If I hadn't gotten a G4 TiBook from my work, then I would still be using the G3-350 as my daily driver... now it is a server and testing box for my websites.
Ok. As irritating as it is, I am going to have to do a point by point rebuttal here. Sorry in advance.
Point One half of Apple's current lineup of computers, the iMac and the iBook (2 computers that I bet make up the bulk of their sales) have NO expansion slots. No PCI slots on the iMac, and no PCMCIA slots on the laptops.
Rebuttal And this is bad why? The vast majority of people in the world out there DO NOT upgrade their computers. EVER. I worked at a computer repair firm for two years, and I would guess that not more than a quarter of PC users actually get new cards installed into their computers. This, contrary to what most people on slashdot feel, is not a limitation for the vast majority of users. Here, think of it like this. Most PC users, when they're adding new stuff to their computers, will get things that can be plugged into serial, parallel, and usb ports. Not PCI. Not AGP. Not (god forbid) ISA.
Point This is nothing more than a stupid, short-sighted attempt by Apple to make the computer not last as long. In essence, your choices become: 1: buy the much more expensive TiBook or G4 tower, or 2: buy the cheap one and it's obsolete, FAST.
RebuttalAnd this is different from those microtower Dells, Compaq iPaqs, etc, in what way exactly? Furthermore, with laptops, what the hell is the point of a PC card slot on a laptop that has video out, firewire, usb, 10/100 ethernet, AirPort (802.11b), and a 56k modem built-in? I actually just bought a TiBook 3-4 days ago (it's still on its way), and I don't have any notion of what I'll actually use the PC card slot on it for. I've been using an indigo iBook for the last 14 months, and I am currently replacing it only because I am starting to find the screen size limiting (it's a pain to use Project Builder and Interface Builder in 800x600 pixels).
Point Apple has end-of-lifed the video cards used in the first generation iMac - users of those computers are never going to get accelerated video drivers in OS X. If those were cheapo PCs with slots, you could at least throw a nicer video card in there and solve the problem.
Rebuttal Ok. OS X is big. It's a dog on anything less than a 366 MHz G3 with at least 128MB RAM. The original iMac (the bondi blue variety) has a 233MHz G3 processor, and came with 32 mb RAM. The average person is NOT going to run OS X on that thing. They'd be absolutely nuts to do it. Apple knows this. That's a big reason why they will not bother writing accelerated video card drivers for the bondi iMac. No one would use them (or at least they shouldn't). If these people really want to run OS X, they should sell their Bondi iMac off for $350 or $400, or whatever they go for, and pick up the $799 iMac.
PointAnd don't bother posting that it doesn't matter that there aren't any expansion slots because "everything comes built in". Tell that to first generation iBook or iMac owners who like to use the iPod - "sorry, FireWire only". Those computers are less than two years old, and already becoming obsolete.
Rebuttal Ha. Yeah right. I hate to break it to you, but if you can't afford to pick up a new computer every two or three years (the iMac will be 4 next August, and the iBook came out ~one year after the iMac) there is no way in hell you could afford an iPod. The iPod is a toy for those with too much money. Don't get me wrong on this, I'd love to have one, but there's no way in hell I can afford one until I'm out of college (I bought the TiBook because it'll serve a definite purpose. besides, I bought an AVC Soul Player a year ago). These people aren't going to go out and spend $400 on the iPod unless they could afford a new computer anyway. Besides, it doesn't matter, since everything comes built-in anyways, right? ;-)
Point Would you like to have USB 2.0? I will, and I can add it to my 3 year old Dell notebook via a card and it will work fine. The Apple iBook you buy TODAY can't be expanded with a single new tech. beyond what it ships with. Now which comp. is aging faster, the Apple, or the Dell? Even crummy $700 PCs and $1100 laptops have PCI/PCMCIA.
Rebuttal Yet people continue buying iBooks, with their 400 Mbit firewire ports that have devices available for the port today. What idiots! Can you even buy a USB 2.0 card yet? By the way, take a look at your P.S. statement. Hell, I'll quote it here. P.S. I don't want to hear about how you can add all sorts of nifty expansion option via FireWire. I don't want 5 boxes hanging off my computer. But wait, you still want 5 USB 2.0 devices hanging off your computer? I'm confused. It must be because I'm one of those gullible anti-windows mac users (I'm typing this on my self-built coppermine-core system running XP pro right now.).
Point PCI and PCMCIA slots let you add all sorts of stuff to your computer, in effect, "future-proofing" it by allowing you to expand rather than buy a new computer. A computer without expansion options hardly qualifies as "a computer that ages slower than PCs."
Point I just did a search on Micro Warehouse for pc card, and as you can see, basically everything listed is a wireless ethernet card, an ethernet card, a modem, or a usb controller. I HAVE ALL OF THOSE THINGS BUILT INTO MY IBOOK. Jeez. About the only thing I would find useful to buy for a pc card slot would be one of those pc card hard drives (that ibm makes). Even then, I'd rather just burn a cd with the built-in burner. More people have cd-rom drives than pc card slots. Furthermore, let's take a look at the cards I have in my PC right now. 1. An ATI Xpert 2000 (AGP 4x). 2. An SB Live (PCI). 3. A Linksys 10/100BaseT Ethernet card (PCI). 4. A firewire card. There is really nothing else that I am planning on ever adding to this computer. Sure, there are a lot of people out there who need second monitors, but none of them would buy an iMac anyways. They wouldn't be served well by a 15" monitor. The iMac is a consumer machine. The iBook (supposedly) is too (although most business types would probably be fine having one). The Power Mac G4 is a professional machine. Same thing goes for the Powerbook G4. You don't hear people complaining that their Dell Dimension 2100's won't let them install a burner inside the case. If you did, you'd probably ridicule them for not buying a higher-end machine.
You know what, I will go on using my Apple laptop, my Intel/Microsoft desktop, and the god-awful Sun Blade 100 I get stuck using at school, and you can go on using whatever you want to. We'll just call it even.
iRooster, the Mac OS X a
Two comments from the articles stuck out at me.
The first was copying and pasting in Linux. It has gotten *much* better in Mandrake 8.1 Gaming, where I'm at right now. I use KDE, so as a test I opened up Nautilus, copied the text from the address bar and pasted it into both vim and emacs, which would seem to be a pretty good test. With KDE, don't know about gnome, you even sort of get 2 clipboards. If you select text, you can paste it with the wheel or middle button. At the same time you can ctrl+c some other piece of text and ctrl+v it in, effectively giving you 2 clipboards.
The other was using special characters with umlauts in Windows. I believe it is true that Windows itself doesn't support the simple ctrl+U, U to get an umlauted U, but I would swear you could do that in Word and maybe even Wordperfect; I'm not in windows right now, so I can't check to see if my memory is correct, I could easily be wrong. Not the same thing as having the os handle it so that the keystrokes work in things like a command prompt window or in notepad, but still close enough for most people.
Other than that, a lot of the comments seemed to be along the lines of "this matches/doesn't match the way I prefer to work." Unfortunately there is no optimal way for all people to work efficiently. We can talk about mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, etc., but a lot of it comes down to personal preference and whatever the user is accustomed to.
It's a dog on anything less than a 366 MHz G3 with at least 128MB RAM
I was first running OS X on a 266MHz G3 with 192MB RAM. Since then, in different steps, I upgraded the CPU to a 300MHz G3 (mainly because it has 2x the cache that the 266 does) and the RAM to 768MB. The heftier CPU helped a little bit, but the real noticeable difference came with the big RAM upgrade. With OS X, you need 128MB just to get the OS up and running and useable. Consider running any applications and that memory requirement goes up fast. When I upgraded the RAM, I no longer had to deal with the slow UI responsiveness that I had with the smaller amount of RAM. So I'd definitely say that OS X will run just fine any pretty much any speed G3-- as long as there is oodles of RAM for it to consume.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
As far as Mac OS X and its interface, its nice that people used to generally weak interfaces think it is so great, but us long time Mac users are suffering a severe downgrade with Mac OS X and it Just Isn't Worth It for most of us.
Atleast OSX can minimize applications to the dock. MacOS true way. Now then. I just wish I had one of those shiny Dual 800 G4s.
I'm posting this from Mac OS X using OmniWeb. I've been using my brief Christmas vacation to get my home machine running just the way I like... this is the first time I've seriously tried to avoid using Classic or booting into Mac OS 9.2. There's just one thing I can't get working.
I have a three button mouse on my iMac, and I can't find a way to map the buttons to anything other than the default! The left button is "click" and the right button is "ctrl-click," which is fine. But on OS 9 I map the middle button to "option-click," and I can't find a way to do that in X. Does anyone have any ideas?
--saint
(before you ask, option-click switches to the application whose window was clicked on while automatically hiding the application that you just used. It's a great time saver, and I want it to work quite a bit. Not enough real estate on a 15 inch iMac monitor, you know?)
Once upon a time I would have agreed with you on the idea that Macs have longer lives. Back in the day, I remember my friends having to get new PC's very frequently in order to run the latest stuff. My Mac Plus and IIvx, on the other hand, served me for five years with only minor expansions (hard drive and RAM) each.
:-) Aside from adding some more drive space and a burner, there's very little I've done to it.
Now that processors are so fast though, and RAM is so ubiquitous, most people don't need much faster machines. Bandwidth tends to be the key limiting factor in what people can do, especially now that CD burners are so cheap. My Pentium II is going on in to its fourth year right now, and it hardly feels aged when I don't browse the game isles
I think PC's, in general, have reached a point where they all have longer lives. Most people are still very productive with Win95, and until recently they could run everything they wanted on it. I think once upon a time Macs used to have the longer life, which made them a much more worthwhile purchase, but now that PC's have surpassed what people need they've switched to features, like firewire. I think the above poster is right to mention expansion. The capability to add a firewire card to an original iMac would add some extra life to the machine.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Well anyways, back to the usability myth. I propose that it is just that, a myth.
...it's[usability] not the driving force for the public when it comes to using one operating environment over another.
Look here, let's get something straight. When the marketing people talk usability, what they're talking about is the learning curve. And there are several ways to turn a learning curve into usability 'statistics'.
One is the very bottom of the curve: with the most idiotic of users. How easily is it to sit down at a strange system and understand it? No one will argue that new users understand a GUI metaphor far better than the command line-- it takes a brand new user training in understanding the CLI metaphor. For most intents and purposes, then, a UI can't be considered 'usable' until it's graphical.
The next two criteria seem to be at odds with themselves most of the time. The first is how error-friendly the system is: for example, can the system tolerate an error in case? For the Linux CLI (Bash most likely) the answer is no (And yes I know there's an option in Bash to change that but it's not enabled by default- which is what matters to a new user)- compare to DOS, which doesn't care at all. In this particular instance, DOS is more usable. But to turn the tables, Linux/Bash has command line completion, which helps prevent typing errors. However, you can't have your UI out-guess the user-- never let it push the user in the wrong direction.
Complimenting error tolerance is how much power is available- how many options the user can select from at once. This is again a balancing act: give the user too few options and you give them no power, and yet if you give them too many at once they will not be able to determine the ones they want to choose. Nesting options helps, but may add to user confusion (that is, it only helps if done in a logical manner And I don't consider the way Windows does its' menus logical. Why is the dialog for changing file associations nested under the View menu? (This is from memory, I'm in Linux)).
There are other things to consider, I will pass them over for the sake of brevity and to mention the way I would measure usability- being a programmer and not a marketroid. My measure is height of the first learning plateau. On any learning curve, there are plateaus- level-- or nearly so-- periods with little to no learning. Having a low first plateau on your curve means that the user will feel comfortable with some very limited parts of the system, yet have far more to learn to be able to manage it all at once. The "best" (most usable) system would employ a UI metaphor that enabled the first plateau to be as high as possible. This is more true with GUIs than a CLI (compare launching a new program-- from a brand new users' point of view) as well as more true of Windows than Linux (compare program installation- with Linux I still hunt dependencies often).
People think something is easy to use because they feel familiar with it
Without a doubt, the portion of usability that most lay persons bandy about is indeed familiarity, but that isn't too limiting a factor. Sit an aveerage Windows user down at a Mac and let them browse the web- you won't get that many questions. (Probably just "Why does this mouse only have one button?") Sit them down at the Mac and give them a reference book- they'll be able to use it quickly. (I assume, knowing the converse is true, that they will read the book.) The problem with the transition is that in each system the baseline skills are the same-- beginning users have no problem transitioning-- but the power users would flounder. Keyboard shortcuts differ. Mouse command keys differ. The control panel on each system works differently. And so on.
What I'm saying here is simple. Usability is not a myth. Having differed with your introdcution, I agree entirely with your conclusion.
Nope. It's marketing. Joe Sixpack drinks the beer his favorite sports star does, wears the same brand name clothes his favorite TV/film star does, and uses the Operating System he is told to on his favorite TV channel. Once Linux registers on his radar at all, then it has a hope of really making it onto the desktop (getting a "respectable" percentage like Mac- as a Linux advocate I'd settle for 10% in a heartbeat! At least the Mac registers on the major software developer's radar). From there, who knows? And I won't prognosticate about that day at all- because I can't even tell if it will come in a year or in a hundred years. I just hope that the revolution comes before computers get outlawed.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Oh no! Didn't we just have this discussion?
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'd like to reiterate what I wrote earlier in a similar thread which some moron scored down to -1.
I think people have had enough of user interfaces that are based on the twenty-some years old ideas that Windows, MacOS, Gnome and KDE are based on.
Where are the attempts at trying to create somehting exciting and radical?
It's hard enough to convince a Windows-user that MacOS makes you more productive - the interfaces are so similar that it's possible to approach both MacOS and BeOs with a Windows-infused mind and miss out all the good stuff. It's possible to build a user interface that is both obviously different and obviously better - even with Linux, but it seems to me that the Linux community lacks the competence. I would like to be proven wrong.
-- Rolf Lindgren, cand.psychol
I wonder if apple is planning on making the default file system in Mac OS X to be UFS. This could help reduce costs on FS development. This does not mean the death of metadata. TrustedBSD is working on giving UFS extended attributes and ACLs. So maybe Apple could use those for metadata
well, Apple failed time and time again.
what development cost? their whole OS is based on someone else's code.
I'm sorry but that is the biggest MYTH.
One half of Apple's current lineup of computers, the iMac and the iBook (2 computers that I bet make up the bulk of their sales) have NO expansion slots. No PCI slots on the iMac, and no PCMCIA slots on the laptops.
My last Mac was a 1997 PowerComputing - PowerCenter 132, which was a Mac clone. It came with 16 MB, 1 GB, and a 132 MHz 604 PPC. Since then I upgraded it to a 500 MHz G3, 192 MB and a 9 GB SCSI drive. And except for a USB card, I never installed any PCI cards in it.
I'd say that's a pretty good lifespan for a computer, and i think most average users don't add any cards to their computers anyway...
I do have two PCI cards in my G4, a SCSI card and a M-Audio Delta sound card ... but most people wouldn't need those. I wanted a Cube, but had to get the G4 tower. If a user knows they will need PCI, then they wont buy an iMac.
My brother has a 266 MHz iMac, and has no need for expansion, since the iMacs have USB already, he has his Zip drive, Epson printer, Umax scanner, floppy drive, etc. all hooked up.
Also it's ATI who writes the drivers for the video cards, not Apple, so they are the ones that are not going to support the older hardware for OS X.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
It all comes down to this. Do people that keep computers for 4 years actually upgrade them (on average). No. If you dont need your computer to go faster and faster each year till you get a nose bleed then you probably dont even see the need to pop some more ram into it or drop a new 3 Thz graphics card in it. My grandma is using a 233mhz computer for e-mail and web. Does she care that she has 32 megs of ram and a 2 meg video card. No. Will she upgrade to a new video card. No. If she could go back and drop $50 off the price of her computer and take away those expansion PCI slots would she. Probably. Some people dont care about expandibility. If they did they wouldn't buy computers that can be expanded. The fact that Apple has sold that many iMacs and iBooks is proof that people dont give a damn.
The fact that Apple drops support for anything replaced by something new faster than you can say "obsolete". Thus trying to force people to switch to the new stuff, and pay moeny for it. One of the many ways they try to make you pay again and again.
:)
One of many examples I have is when we moved a working environment recently to a new set of boxes, and thus needed licenses for them. We were running in WebObjects, one of Apples products (and a damn sucky one at that, can't scale at all and is just bloated, but we haven't had the time to replace it yet). Our version was 4.5.1, which was replaced a couple of months ago by WO5. Only way they will sell us any license at all is if we buy MAC OS X, In which WO5 is bundled. So right now we are running on borrowed licenses, effectively making us pirates. We are not running on OS X, thank heavens, we run Solaris, and we don't want to waste the time porting to WO5 although a relatively small procedure (or so they say). We would, however, want to pay money the honest way. We'll see.
This same story, with variations seems to be true all the way, with both hardware and software from that company. Not to mention that they are double the cost for the same, or less punch. I'd stay very, very clear of that company if I were you.
Was it just recently that microsoft finally dropped their support for windows 95? After how many years? Now that is taking care of the customers. And the Linux world will of course never ever have such problems.
That's the most concise statement of the problem I've ever seen.
Apple has never tried on x86. What are you talking about? Development cost: you think OS X wrote itself? Sure they leveraged a lot of pre-existing code, but you don't seriously think that they haven't had a lot of people working on it around the clock for years, do you?
Your taunts are pretty faint, from where I sit.
Mac OS X runs fine on older Macs, including my (former) 9600/350, which dates from 1996 and is not even the oldest model (9500/8500/7500 circa 1995) that runs OS X. The price for these is right, too. $300 should do you just fine, especially if you're replacing that tired PII.
Anyone telling you that you have to pitch your software collection is full of crap, too. Some classic apps even appear to run faster on OS X/Classic than on Mac OS 9.
My cash is as precious to me as yours is to you, and I'll bet your PII replaced another machine. Even if you stay well behind the bleeding edge, upgrades cost money, take time, and are generally worth doing. Why should someone else's upgrade be a cause for taunts from you?
it takes my Athlon 1.2GHz to run Win2K reasonably.
I've run w2k on boxes from an old 200 MHz and up with no serious problems. Granted, on the 200 MHz, it was slow when opening lots of applications at the same time, but only stepping up to 400 cured that more or less completely.
Now I run w2k on two boxes, one 500 MHz, and one 1 GHz, and I don't really see the difference. Unless I start up photoshop and a few other heavy apps of course - but really, how does the old Mac behave then?
One thing worth noting is that it will behave a lot better if you give it at least 256 MB to work with, instead of just 128 which strangely enough seems to be some kind of standard out there when buying computers (or getting them from your employer hehe). But it seems you need that to run Mac stuff too, or more, if I read the above correctly.
From what I have seen you need pretty late (and very, very expensive) boxes to be able to run OS X at all, not to mention smoothly, but I have heard that it has been a little better lately. I won't really judge that, only your grossly incorrect statement about windows. That is trolling.
I have similar experience with a 400 MHz Intel box running w2k. Although I didn't need to upgrade it with all that new stuff, apart from some memory. So I don't see what the big thing would be? That is, of course, from promoting your personal preference. :)
Linux is where it needs to be. Hardware support and a robust kernel. KDE is where it needs to be. Spiffy, nice toolkit (thought Trolltech always makes me unsure...), usable, getting better all the time. It even anti-aliases all the fonts on my brother's computer! (Doesn't work on mine). GNOME is where it needs to be. I would add anti-aliased fonts (like in KDE) and beautify the toolkit (a la Aqua), but nonetheless a great environment. Mandrake is where it needs to be. Easy to install, does everything for you, takes you by the hand when you want to do anything. The huge problem is the enormous difference between XFree86 and Quartz!!! XFree is a sluggish system, that doesn't support all the cool stuff that Quartz does, like its vector graphics, PDF thingie and alpha transparency. You guys want Linux on the desktop? Then EVERY DEVELOPER, go and work on Xfree for the next 3 months. GUT IT. Make it as good as quarts, and you've got a Windows killer. I'd do it, but I know next to nothing about graphics :(
Just my 2 cents.
I don't care if they had to drive a steamroller through a kitten factory to make it.
:)
;)
Where the hell did you get that line? It's priceless!
Consider it stolen.
He was talking about iMac and iBook. You'd expect
something better with thousands of dollar more.
OSX requires a bit.. more. Fortunately and unfortunately.
How is an OS that uses more processor power fortunate for the end user? The extra features are definitely a benefit, but I don't see how extra requirements are.
I spent quite a bit of time using it at the local Circuit City here. It's no Apple Store, but it's decent enough for my needs. I just need a computer with MacOS X on it, and no one to pester me. It's PERFECTLY useable on Apple's low end machines. Just make sure you have a bunch of ram and you'll be fine. The interface didn't take too long to learn. The most confusing aspect of it was what the red, yellow, and green buttons at the top-left corner of every window are. If you can learn what those are, then you'll do fine with the rest of the OS. The thing that really struck me as handy was the one click to all the system prefs you could ever need. It's just right there on the dock. Click, and it comes up. Can't get much simpler than that.
The software Apple bundles in is pretty slick too. iTunes is great stuff. The visuals are awesome. But then again, how hard can it be to make an easy-to-use MP3 program? I haven't seen one yet that wasn't common sense to use. The MP3s included are pretty good too. iMovie is incredible stuff. There was a camcorder already attached to the iMac when I got there. I don't think those guys at circuit city would care enough to install drivers and such. Thank god it just works at the mere action of plugging it in. But anyway, I recorded just a bunch of customers walking and I went to edit it with iMovie. I have never used it before, and within 5 minutes I had created a movie that looked awesome. Well, as awesome as it could look. Customers walking isn't too entertaining.
I guess I'm a firm believer that technology should be simple to use. It is to be there to assist you, not to work against you. To that end, Apple's the best. Taking complex technology and making it easy enough for the average person to use. It's the reason why people bother purchasing macs. It's not like they're faster, or that they get the latest and greatest in software first, and it's certainly not price or that it's the latest trend. It's because they do what is advertised. They just work.
A couple other notes: judging from the front page of Apple's website, I think MacWorld is going to be big. Very big. You can catch the live webcast on Janurary 7th on Apple's website.
couldn't care less, Apple's OS doesn't meet my needs.
"This is a nice way of saying, "I can't upgrade my 3-year old Mac because Apple's hardware is too expensive." Right?"
ZIF upgrades, PCI upgrades, daughter card upgrades can be bought for ALL PowerPC's Apple has ever made, and MOST (90%) can be upgraded to a G4 without buying a new machine, and the remaining can be upgraded to G3's.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Just goes to prove some folks have more money than brains.
Of course you must consider too that many (most?) Apple customers look on it as purchasing a piece of decorative furniture. The inside doesn't really matter. Most technology must pass through this phase: radios, TV, stereos - they all endured the "technology-as-furniture" period of their existence. Now it's Apple making the last stand for this long tradition. Philco, Curtis Mathes, Zenith, Apple.
Its quite fortunate for Apple. Imagine all the old computers that must be phased out. Remember the whole era between OS 6 - 8? If I remember correctly, a lot of computers became.. obsolete. Wasn't that the time the PPC came into play? I am quite sure it wasn't Appple's intention to write an OS that requires 128 megs of RAM minimum, but think of all the profit it brings to this smaller computer company.
Unfortunately because it forces others to upgrade. Hell, I had to upgrade my G4 to 256 megs ram and now to get office for OS X.
Esscentially, they created a need, which forces users to spend a little more. I was a little suspect of this type of behavior and waited a little longer until OSX was actually out to get my mac. So Apple earned $1650 or so out of my pocket.
A fair trade for a really good machine, with a good OS from a company that's not doing as well as.. others.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Isn't it better to enjoy what you've got then to live in fear of what might happen?
If you love Linux, great. I don't. I love my OS X box. Apple going out of business? You really want me to worry about that? I haven't worried about losing the Mac in the last 10 years. Apple always had enough cash in the bank, and in the case if it does tank, someone will pick it up. The Macintosh is one platform that will not just fade away. If the tools I use can no longer fulfill my needs, I'll move on to different tools. I'm not going to worry about the company making them going bankrupt.
Duh.
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
Actually, there are a few winmodem chipsets that are supported by Linux these days. Like with any AltOS (including Win2k), you merely have to acknowledge the fact that doesn't have the characteristic of "it runs everything" that Microsoft's flavor of the month does.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The BeOS guys were always predicting Apple's demise.
The BeOS guys were always predicting the abandoment of Linux for BeOS, Be Inc making a profit, Be suing MSFT for squillions and OpenGL hardware support.
Technology changes over time. Nifty new things get introduced. If Apple manages to forget something, or merely succumbs to progress, then you have to trash and entire system when a single expansion slot might save you from this.
Now one might argue against the complexity of opening up a desktop system. However, there is simply no excuse for this kind of narrow minded shortsightedness on a laptop.
Ironically enough, this mentality locks the end user out of using traditionally Mac-only type of hardware (consumer SCSI devices).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you're an operating system development guy who is working on a Windows killer, don't move to OS X... there's nothing left to be done.
Me neither. These Mac people are the worst zealots. They are like the Amiga-forever subculture, only worse. The Mac people are living a pipe dream when they think folks are going to drop 3500 dollars on an overpriced proprietary box that essentially runs a fancy clone of "Windows". Yeah right, I'm really going to waste my cash on that.
Have fun replacing all of your payware.
Although, this is something that you're probably used to anyways.
This talk of "quality" is gibberish. You need what you need, not some self-proclaimed guru's notion of what you need.
Yes, this means that for a great many people a mangey desktop crafted by volunteers is more relevant than your beloved Apple.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Its quite fortunate for Apple.
Of course it's good for the hardware vender, they get to sell more stuff, and it's good for the software developers because they don't have to work as hard to support the older hardware.
So is that your point? Fortunately for Apple it requires a better computer, but unfortunately for the users they won't get as much work out of older systems with it? That's fine, but why should we concern ourselves with what's good for Apple?
...actually, it's painfully easy.
The hard part is getting the world of hardware vendors to work on your behalf.
They would be expending their resources to make your product more valuable with little prospect of reward.
In this situation, there is some value to an OS that is "owned by everyone". The exchange of labor doesn't seem quite so lopsided.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The reason people WILL buy new hardware and all new apps to be able to run Mac OS X is because they make a lot of money with the apps they use on their Mac.
-
It is confusing enough to explain to Joe what a computer is, and yet more confusing to explain what a UI is and worst how to work it, and even worst how to work it on a "computer" to get what you want. I think the whole concept of UI-Computer need to be hide away from the user - the future of today's productivity computer should be called a Secretary.
Rebuttal (pick one):
You're a pointy-eared Linux geek who couldn't use a user-friendly OS if his job depended on it.
You're a PC "power user" who purchases hardware so frequently he's never had to deal with the long-term reliability caused by dodgy "this part is 5 cents cheaper!" components stuck in name-brand systems.
Well, inconsistency is equally vital in Apple's case, at least. Certain types of software often need to present their own, specialized interfaces- entertainment and "edutainment" products are certain examples. (Yes, the Apple UI was always easy enough for a 4 year old, so let's give edutainment the excuse of needing a presentation-oriented interface; giant buttons show up better when projected overhead.)
Apple's problem was that, for a long time, they enforced consistency with no opt-out. There weren't many full-screen Mac games until recently, for instance. Sometimes, the developer wants to do something unusual, and as long as they have a good excuse, they should be able to go for it without *actually* trashing consistency.
The Amiga had a good concept with draggable screens- the Workbench was the main system UI, and programs for the Workbench screen tended to be consistent (a trend broken only recently, as blobby media players and such appear). Programs on their own screens usually had completely different UIs. The user knew when they were entering unknown territory, and didn't have to put up with it on the Workbench.
Yes, there were a few inconsistencies there, too (certain programs would take over the system, rather than providing a draggable screen), but it was a worthy shot at mixing diversity and consistency.
Unfortunately, the trend has been towards programs pretending to be UI enhancements, and if nobody writes for the 'consistent' UI, there's less of a reason to improve it. (Notice how little the Windows look changed in the 5 years before XP?) I'm not sure how to work around that trend, but that's what UI designers are supposed to be thinking about.
My point was it was fortunate and unfortunate. :) But why should we be concerned? To answer your question (briefly)....
.5%, BSD some other amount. If you care less, kudos to you. :)
What to care about
Apple is no Microsoft. There is no perpetual motion of upgrades and contracts for Apple like MS has.
How Apple is making us care about them
Mind you, there are, but think of the home users. MS has such a strong hold. Apple is simply pulling a Microsoft, except they are doing it in my opinion, a nicer way. Apps in OSX and Classic will work the same, mostly without the Classic emulation. And even then, there is good support for complete backward compatibility with it.
Why care at all
We find such ways to combat MS, perhaps we should also find support for Apple, IMHO. A similar thing to care about is that the DJIA is back to 10k. The same reason applies to the WTC attack. Do you care that DeCSS has been found a freedom of speech? Perhaps, perhaps not. The entire mp3 revolution?
Maybe the concern isn't for you. Like microsoft. Point being, if you don't care for MS, Apple's existance, whether or not you like Mac's does affect you. After all, Apple hold's 5%. Linux,
Did you go as far as to educate if you are concerned.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
The real distinguishing factors are not the technology, they are the business positions. Windows comes from a wealthy, ruthless monopolist that knows how to generate a steady revenue stream by controlling APIs and formats. OSX comes from an upscale vendor with a valuable brand name and stylish design. Linux comes from a large group of volunteer developers and has a DYI flavor.
And BeOS? Well, BeOS came from a small company that failed to sell to its one major potential client and somewhat predictably went out of business. That's the reason why most developers wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, no matter what its technical merits may have been.
> and OpenGL hardware support
They got that right, at least.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Suggest you re-read parent post. The whole point of the PC card slot is for FUTURE technologies. Yes, the iBook has built in ethernet, modem, and Firewire. But what happens when you want some NEW technology? Out of luck.
This is the core of the argument - I say "I'd use OS X, but Mac hardware is too expensive". You say - "Mac hardware isn't expensive - the iMac is just $799!"
But when I complain about the iMac's shortcomings, mac lovers say "well, if you need expandability, you need the G4 tower, not the iMac". Funny how that works - the G4 tower is $1700, which damn well is expensive.
The FACT is that the cheapest expandable computer Apple sells is $1700. Even if you accept that the G4 is twice as fast per Mhz, that's still double the cost of x86 hardware. NICE x86 hardware, not junk.
But in a few years when the Linux hype dies down completely and no one cares about it anymore and funding for the various Linux projects dies will the Linux refugees be better or worse acting then the BeOS/Amiga refugees?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
> I don't have any notion of what I'll actually use the PC card slot on it for.
Exactly. That's the point.
Apple has never tried on x86.
That isn't true. For a long time Apple funded their "Star Trek" project, which was a ground-up port of Mac OS to the IA-32 architecture. (Going where no man has gone before... get it?)
Both "Star Trek" and "TNG," the follow-up project, were cancelled.
$1700 is expensive? El cheapo like you are not our target base. Now if you had a real job and earned real money then you would be able to afford this.
;-)
Begging your parents to spend more money on you aint gonna help
not just the UI - it's Making Things Work.
I've used a lot of UNIX machines, a few variants of linux and many PC boxes between work and home. I now have a TIBook and I have to say OS X is my favorite OS thus far because more things Just Work than on any other platform... it comes with great UI tools for many networking tasks if you don't want to waste a lot of time to learn the command line (though if you already know it, it's right there for you). Multiple monitors work as nature intended them too with no fiddling. I tried video creation under PC's and found the xperience exasperating.
I get a combo USB/Firewire CD burner. Under Windows (98, admittedly I've only used NT/98 so far and not used XP so I'm not sure how different things would be) I have to install Special Software. Of course, after burning a few CD's I find that the default is to burn them under a windows format so the can't be read on a mac, and the hidden preference setting to switch to ISO has dire warnings about filename truncation.
I plug the same drive into my Mac and just burn a CD - a handy dialog box comes up to ask if I would like that HFS+ or ISO? No extra software needed.
Windows update feels klunky to me compared to the mac update, though I couldn't say exactly why. Perhaps it's that I've yet to have the mac update fail or render my mac update unusable, as Windows update has done to me in the past.
The only reason you wouldn't want to get a Mac as far as I can see is that your selection of games might suffer somewhat - but in that case just get an XBox or PS2 or Gamecube. That's what I did to stop the rediculous upgrade cycle of PC's. And there are lot of games that come out for the mac so you might not have to suffer that horribly after all (especially true for RTS games which I don't think consoles do as well, or at least the same). As for office software, the Mac version of office has been said to be better than Office XP if you swing that way!
I can boil down all my experiences to this - on my home PC, both under Windows and Linux, I was fiddling a lot more than I wanted to with system settings. With OS X I'm getting more done and fighting the system less, and that to me is usability. I still prefer Linux for servers but for a development box I really like OS X.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
with Mac OS X though, they can take advantage of tons of pre-existing code and knowledge regarding *BSD on x86. *That* is possible for the first time for apple now, and I think the world sufficiently hates M$ enough that they could ride the collective dissatisfaction with m$ to their beneift. I didn't know about the projects you mentioned though. Thanks for the info. How far did the projects get, and what were the reasons for their being cancelled?
why can't apple just completely screw microsoft & offer OS X for the x86 platform .. i'd toss aside my library of software in a second to use the OS, but it may be some time before i'm rich enough to use their hardware. a 3 year old g3 tower still costs far more than a brand new pc. apple may have the os down to a lovely art, but there's no way in hell i'm going to go back to the 15" monitor of an imac to run it.
- tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
sure it's great to just plug-in all these wonderful external drives, but the cost of them ... oh 'n' let's not forget desk space.
... that'd save me a helluva lot more time then the pretty interface =P
sure it's pretty, works great, but i could buy & maintain a decent older car for the cost of an "entry" level g4
- tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
I felt that way until Mac OS X 10.1 came out and the vendors really began supporting it. At that point, almost all my productivity applications (MS Office, Virtual PC, Metrowerks Codewarrior, GraphicConverter, NOW, etc.) had finally been ported over and I didn't need Classic for much. Now I run days at a time between restarts, and if you're were used to Windoze or Mac OS 9.2, that's really an improvement. VPC gives me my Windoze software, and OSX gives a me terminal window with UNIX. OSX is really up to snuff.
It really points out the difference between the Unix philosophy and the Apple philosophy.
:-))
...
(As an aside, I'm quite happy that email addresses are case-insensitive
My only grip with this is : where do you stop?
Everybody will recognize that "John Doe", "John_Doe", "John-Doe" or "JohnDoe" is the same person, should the filesystem be insensitive to underscore, white-space, etc ?
If we have "John Doe" and "Jon Doe", is-it the same person?
Same with "Jhon Doe" and "John Doe"
I think I can make some good guesses at what
we're going to see at the MacWorld. Apple is
pretty much cornered in the PC market and I
think they'll try to sell more hq gadgets
like the iPod. Of course there'll be perfect
integration with the Macs.
I'm pretty sure some of those products will be
presented:
Digital camera
Handheld
LCD Monitor with TV functionality
Less likely:
Beamer
Camcorder
Cell phone with organizer functionality
In the future, Apple's main competitior will be
Sony and not MS.
I have a Mac Plus sitting on the desk next to me that we bought a LONG time ago. Is that "long time" enough for you? I have used MacOSX exclusively since the Public Beta. I dread having to boot into OS9 because of its weak interface. I fully respect your decision not to upgrade (yes *upgrade*). I am however sick of non-converters claiming things like "OSX is good for beginners but us power users need more". If you don't want to use it fine, but do realise that you are being left behind. I'd wager that a lot more people are currently happy with OSX than people who have *tried* it and given it a decent chance but still prefer OS9. It is not the next version of the MacOS, it is the first version of MacOSX. If you keep that in mind and stop trying to turn it into OS9 (like I did after about the first month), you'll have a much better experience with it.
If you've done this (with 10.1, *big* difference) and still aren't happy with it, I'll accept that. I believe that MacOSX cured a lot of the long lived problems with the classic MacOS. Yes, it introduced a few annoyances of its own but with each (free) upgrade that apple puts out their numbers are diminishing quickly. Apple is listening to user feedback. If you have a gripe with OSX, besides "Please kill the Dock", tell them about it.
Simple, they do this they lose MS Office. Linux may have survived without Office but Microsoft's withdrawal would kill MacOSX. Unless we can find a competitor that is *very* compatible with Office, it isn't going to happen.
I can't tell you how disappointed I was when I found out I couldn't put a GeForce2 in my apple //c ...
(Although I do think you have a valid point.)
I really think that Apple's hardware monopoly has completely screwed them -- MS would be in the same boat, but since they (up 'til recently,) have been lenient w/r/t pirating (from DOS up 'til recently,) and since the cost of their software (to the consumer) is 100$~ to 300~, versus Apple's much higher prices. I'd love to have an Apple machine of my own, but since there's nothing I can run on Apple that I can't run on Wintel/Lintel machines for 1/3 of the price, there's no point in throwing my money away.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
They're probably working, since they have jobs.
Have you learned how to use it yet?
>their whole OS is based on someone else's code.
You sand niggers _are_ as dumb as you look.
"Most Mac users aren't regretting OSX. It's helping Apple immensely. And anything that can take a bite out of the Wintel juggernaut should be applauded. "
Yes, BUT! Is it really taking a bite out of the juggernaut? Don't assume it is.
How far did the projects get, and what were the reasons for their being cancelled?
"Star Trek" got far enough along to have a working prototype; I don't know about TNG. As to why, exactly, they were cancelled, I'm not sure. I'm certain it had something to do with putting the engineers where they could do the most profitable work.
That's another thing... Macs don't age nearly as fast as PCs do...
...and I would guess that ~90% of mac expansion slots are unused. I have clients using 7100s as a major portion of their computer use because they work. Granted, they have more powerful computers on the desk of those that actually _use_ their computers, but many users just check their e-mail and weather, and a 7100 does fine. BTW, NONE of their expansion slots are used.
... and since your processor is too slow, you can get another processor. But then you motherboard's socket isn't right, so you need a new motherboard. You then decide that your case looks old, so you get a new case. And you're sick of running out of space on your HD, so you get a 40 Gig. Now you've spent two weeks getting drivers to co-operate, and end up with an "upgraded" computer (and still have the parts to build your old computer exactly the same.) In this time, I've bought myself a new mac, and billed several hours, which you spent fidgeting.
I'm sorry but that is the biggest MYTH.
-- No, actually it is true.
One half of Apple's current lineup of computers, the iMac and the iBook (2 computers that I bet make up the bulk of their sales) have NO expansion slots. No PCI slots on the iMac, and no PCMCIA slots on the laptops.
--
-- My father teaches in the homes. He's taken old versions of Word, thrown them on _really_ old macs (read: pre powerPC) He then puts them in the students' home (of injured and kicked-out students). The school system doesn't care, as the computers are worthless, yet to these students, they are a valuable part of their education.
This is nothing more than a stupid, short-sighted attempt by Apple to make the computer not last as long. In essence, your choices become: 1: buy the much more expensive TiBook or G4 tower, or 2: buy the cheap one and it's obsolete, FAST.
-- I agree with your statement, but not in the way that you intended. The expandability of a computer has nothing to do with the obsoleteness. The problem is that Apple is refusing support of computers that were promised to be fully supported in Mac OS X. I realize these machines are not suitable for 3d games, but when the OS _needs_ acceleration, they should at least put basic acceleration in it.
Apple has end-of-lifed the video cards used in the first generation iMac - users of those computers are never going to get accelerated video drivers in OS X. If those were cheapo PCs with slots, you could at least throw a nicer video card in there and solve the problem.
--
And don't bother posting that it doesn't matter that there aren't any expansion slots because "everything comes built in". Tell that to first generation iBook or iMac owners who like to use the iPod - "sorry, FireWire only". Those computers are less than two years old, and already becoming obsolete.
-- What world are you in? I think that the iPod probably prices itself out of the market of anyone that is still using a 2 year old laptop (the only 2 year old machines without firewire.) I wouldn't take someone with a bondi iMac as a candidate for an iPod.
Would you like to have USB 2.0?
-- No, not really. Firewire does the job better, as it was designed for speed, not hacked for it.
I will, and I can add it to my 3 year old Dell notebook via a card and it will work fine. The Apple iBook you buy TODAY can't be expanded with a single new tech. beyond what it ships with. Now which comp. is aging faster, the Apple, or the Dell? Even crummy $700 PCs and $1100 laptops have PCI/PCMCIA.
-- I've used mac laptops for over 5 years now, and guess how many PCMCIA cards I've used. _NONE_. That's right, I've never used one. I know others that have due to lack of ethernet/modem, but I've always configured mine with both, as I know that I will need that connectivity somewhere.
PCI and PCMCIA slots let you add all sorts of stuff to your computer, in effect, "future-proofing" it by allowing you to expand rather than buy a new computer. A computer without expansion options hardly qualifies as "a computer that ages slower than PCs."
-- When Mac users talk about the length of usability of a Mac, we are talking from experience. I _know_ of 8-12 year old Macs currently in use on desktops of users. I _know_ of LC2s that _just_ got replaced with iMacs. Apple makes machines that are useful without expandability.
P.S. I don't want to hear about how you can add all sorts of nifty expansion option via FireWire. I don't want 5 boxes hanging off my computer.
-- Okay, put them in a drawer, and take them out only when you need them. Also note that I haven't used single expansion in my previous explanations (except for as a solution for those that thought they don't need connectivity in a laptop).
If Apple sold Mac OS X without their hardware running it, it wouldn't be a Mac--and it would show, greatly.
Think of the little inane things that piss you off on any x86 hardware running ANY operating systems it supports. Many of these little things don't EVER occur on an integrated system like SGI IRIX or Macintosh, leaving you to worry about the big stuff--making things or doing something that appeals to you.
You don't buy a Mac for the cost anymore than you buy a BMW or Jag or Porsche for its price tag. Most people expect quality (and receive it) when they put in the extra dollars for a Mac. A PC is built by the lowest bidder, friends. That's OK if you can make it work--but most Joes just want to sit down and play, and the Mac has consistently done that more than any PC I've serviced for my customers.
At the same time, I tell them that I'll build them a great PC if I know they need any computer. Mac zealotism is sooo 1990 and we don't need to play that stupid game anymore.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
These are way too expensive to be worthwhile for many people. I know because I have a 400Mhz Yosemite G3. I may as well buy a new system as invest in an upgrade.
PC's are just a better deal dollar-for-value and they keep on being a better deal years into the purchase.
And if it is important to the user to use their SCSI device, they can buy this OrangeMicro Firewire to SCSI converter which has drivers built into Mac OS X (completely plug and play), and works with most scanners, CD Burners, Zip drives, etc...
And every possible peripheral device that I want to use with my iBook (running OS X 10.1.2), I have been able to. My scanner and printer are USB, as is my Rio 500... my SCSI zip drive and CD burner connect through the orange converter (the CD burner is even supported in iTunes that way!). When I buy a digital camera, there are USB SmartMedia and CompactFlash readers... I am using my Airport card to connect to an SMC wireless access point...
USB 2.0 has no interest for me, because all of it's intended benefits and devices are already available to me through a combination of existing USB and FireWire devices
The only possible thing I might want to add is a faster wireless connection... and that card is easily replacable.
And if we get farther in the future than that, then I will want to buy a new laptop anyway, for the increased processor spead and storage.
So what was your point again?
Well... nobody who drives a steamroller through a kitten factory gets MY business!
I wouldn't worry about it... who ever heard of a "kitten factory"???
Like ISA, PC/MCIA is nearly a dead technology these days. It's more likely that new devices that have yet to appear on the market will have a Firewire or USB interface than a PC/MCIA interface. The only people who will have any use for a PC/MCIA slot are those using older laptops or ultra-portable models that don't have built-in modems, USB, and networking. I agree with you regarding the lack of a PCI slot in the iMac, but putting a PC/MCIA slot on a iBook is a silly idea.
Is is business, but it isn't quite as you put it. It's more like this:
The part that _has_ to work for new hardware is the Darwin/BSD/Mach layer... which is open sourced & currently boots on (some) x86s. The premise is that the 'high' (&proprietary) layers of the OS are sufficiently abstracted from the hardware to simply not care about the hardware. Cocoa Sound APIs go through Darwin layer 'sound' drivers etc.
Apple _explicitly_ bailed on supporting the hundreds of different configurations that were sold during 'the clone wars', but... the open source hackers have fixed the drivers so that 80% of those machines work (and progress continues...). Does that sound like something you could do for Be? IIRC There's a group of people trying to get things running on the Power4 machines... which will be interesting.
If BeOS had been open source, it would still be a viable OS today.
The keyword you use is "viable." Would it really be viable in ten years? I don't have a Mac, so I'm not here to spout Mac lovers slogans, but the whole point of an OS is to get things done. Word processing, gaming, whatever. If Be was open-source, you'd end up with a BorgOS instead. Small parts bolted on as and when needed: "We will adapt." And, as the article in this topic refers to, an OS like that (Linux being an OS like that) simply won't hang together. Be would not be the same. Ten years down the road, it'll be a crashing, feeezing heap. It would get screwed around with so much that you'd probably end up wishing it would have just died, thanks for the memories.
Clinging to the past is a curious geek trait, when technology is all about moving forward. If the Apple cash cow dries up, then Mac users would have to let MacOS go. Change isn't a Bad Thing. Just go out and get the OS that gets the things you need to do done, and leave the past behind.
What on earth are you basing that on? Would you call Linux or BSD a "crashing, freezing heap"? One of the more important potential benefits of opening the source is to improve reliability, not the other way around.
The key point to keep in mind is that while any idiot can go and change the source on his own machine, only the best code gets accepted back into the "official distributions". (assuming the official project maintainers are even a little bit competent, of course)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why? Quality.
I have an old Nikon F2AS 35mm camera. Almost as old as me. I wish things were still built like it, because it is still my main camera today due to very high build quality. It also makes a great weapon.
I hope I can buy a CCD back for it before film is dead.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
I have'nt finished reading "Tales of...", I'm about half way. So far it seems annoyingly biased. He has obviously not attempted to learn Linux enough to complain about it the way he has.
He boasts that OSX can print to PDF from any app. So can Linux. Damn near everything printed in Linux, prints as postscript. Which is easily converted to PDF with the ghostscript ps2pdf script.
I save web sites and save much of what I work on as PDF with it. In fact, I also print from Windows machines to a file stored on my samba server for conversion to PDF when I want it.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
"New technology" very rarely appears. And by the time it does, you have a new computer anyway.
This unforeseen NEW technology you speak of will hopefully connect to your computer via USB/FireWire - in which case the problem is solved.
Yup, you're right, if it doesn't, you're out of luck.
But -- did you buy your computer thinking that you'd be doing something else with it in two years? Or did you buy it because you had specific tasks in mind?
I can't imagine what I might ever want to do with my iBook that I can't right now. If some new device appears and I can't plug it in to my computer, I will still believe that my iBook was a good purchase, because it is the most elegant solution for the jobs I want to do.
But this comes down to bandwagon-jumping. Windows users seem to want to buy hardware for the sake of the hardware itself, whereas Mac users tend to buy computers based on specific needs. The Windows guy may well be able to install the latest-and-greatest (usually also the most unstable) technology, while the slow-and-steady Mac user will win the race.
If I am not mistaken(which I may be :), one of the tenants of the $150 million dollar "investment" Microsoft put into Apple several years ago was to not port there software to Intel/AMD chips. Now I believe that apple now has someone who is in charge of porting Darwin (the kernal) over to Intel chips, but they say that is for testing purposes to test the validity of the code.
. ht ml#x86
http://www.opensource.apple.com/news/qa20010927
Blah Blah Blah.
If I am not mistaken(which I may be :), one of the tenants of the $150 million dollar "investment" Microsoft put into Apple several years ago was to not port there software to Intel/AMD chips.
Who knows? Come next week, we may both be surprised.
[sarcasm]
Yeah, it really really sucks to be an Apple user who is required to buy new hardware every few years because Apple has released new software that's so amazingly cool that the computer police will arrest you if you don't upgrade.
[/sarcasm]
Last time I checked, Macintoshes did not suddenly keel over dead just because Apple released new software. No one is forced at gunpoint to upgrade.
No one ever needs to buy all new hardware to run Linux, because Linux has never come out with anything substantially new from what was done 30 years ago.
People would be a lot happier with their computers if they just bought them to get something done today, instead of thinking they're buying some magic box that will solve all the world's problems tomorrow.
-pmb
No, it's true. At least, it has been until the last year or so.
I used my 1993-era Centris for 5 years. I bought a G3 in 1998 not because the 650 was too slow for the work I was doing, but because it was getting difficult to find the new apps written in 68k code. If Apple hadn't switched to the PPC, I would have gotten another year, or possibly two, out of the Centris. I use the heck out of my computer, and do some casual development. Seeing 10-12 year old Macs doing file or print serving is not unusual. Seeing 6-8 year old Macs doing basic word processing and email is not unusual. But I never see anybody using a PC more than 5 years old. By the time it's 4 y.o. the user is complaining. And even given the larger number of PCs over Macs, I've heard of far more PC components burning out than Mac components. I've got 5 compact Macs (Classics, SE's) in my garage and they all boot and work fine.
Fact: Macs last longer, and are usable longer, then PCs.
Also, expandability does not equal age-ability. The only thing I added to the Centris in five years was RAM. The only thing I've added to the G3 in 3½ years is RAM.
Within the past year, this has changed a little, I think. Processors have reached the point where they're fast enough to do everything required. Apps are not complex enough to use all that speed yet. But I still think you'll see older Macs in service, whereas older PCs will be in the recycle bin.
Constitutionally Correct
Your dad sounds a little like me. Wouldn't happen to know if MS provides disk images of Word 5.1 to registered users, would you? I'm trying to get some of my old 68k machines back in service, but the third installer disk is shot and I don't have a backup.
Constitutionally Correct
You can upgrade the memory and HD in an iBook, same as any Wintel notebook. You might be able to upgrade the optical drive too. You can't upgrade the sound, graphics, display, keyboard, etc. - again just like any Wintel notebook. So, what's the difference?
give me an e-mail address, and I can have you talk to someone.
My e-mail is on my previous post.
-phayd
*Hands up to project management* Fair point. I'd forgotton about that :)
Wheather open-source itself improves reliability is up for debate, though. I think the limited scope of open-source development is the factor that gives the software it's reliability. There is nothing that can be done about it. Without corporate muscle, or millions of competant programmers, you can't expect an OS to do everything. Windows main failing is that it has to try and do everything, and that's what causes it's unreliability at the core. Linux doesn't, and isn't expected to, work on everything. Linux is developed steadily and properly. That's why it's more reliable. That's not because it's open-source, but an indication of good coding. Closed-source software could take the same careful pace if companies wished it. Unfortuantely, working 80% of the time on 80% of products seems to be the target.
I have to use a SCSI controller because the Powerbook has no SCSI port [ . . . ] And no, I can't just haul off and replace all that stuff with 1394 gear.
So don't. But there are alternatives to a PC Card.
Is it so amazing that people won't use products created by child labor in Honduras? Having beliefs and *acting* on them is a quality that not enough people demonstrate these days.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Bullshit.
:)
If I had a fundamental misunderstanding of how _simple_ things like USB and FireWire worked, I seriously doubt that I'd be running Slackware on my X86 boxen. I can tell you that (without a doubt) if it's on the Apple supported hardware list, for something simple like (say) a CD-Burner via FireWire and OS X, all that you have to do is plug it in.
And it really does Just Work. Suddenly, iTunes stops reporting that there is no CD-Burner attached. As soon as you insert a blank CD, it asks you what you intend to do with it - should it prepare it for life as an ISO9660 CD or a real audio CD, to be used in your car and home stereo systems?
Without even a reboot.
I'm quite used to Slackware, and I wouldn't give it up for anything. But it's really REALLY nice to be able to sit down and plug things in, and watch them work properly. Which is exactly what my iBook is for.
Not only that, but it runs UNIX. (And since I prefer tcsh anyway, it's fine with me that it doesn't include bash.
The line "That doesn't even work with Win2K" should tell you something - OS X is a far different beast, and I'm quite glad of it. That doesn't work with Win2K because Win2K, while quite possibly the best Windows available, still sucks as far as operating systems go. (And yes, I know what I'm talking about here, too. I've had to use Win2K on my workstation before, and I'll probably have to again. Shit, I run it on my desktop at home for when I want to play CS and Unreal.)
-clee
Yes, the virtues of IEEE1394 and USB are very potent. But don't forget that there are two parts to every piece of hardware - the hardware itself, and the software to talk to it. Apple might have chosen the less-technically-elegant approach (let's include every driver we can with the OS) but it's much more impressive to the end-user. For example, I've got an iBook with iTunes. (From iApple, apparently. And who says the 'k' prefix on everything from the KDE project is annoying? :)
Someone at work brought in a FireWire CD burner (a Sony, a sweet 16x8x32x model - probably cost a pretty penny) and all I had to do to get it to work with the OS was plug it in. No clicking 'next' on the driver install, no prompts. iTunes suddenly stopped reporting "CD burner or software not found..." and ejected the disc tray, stating "Please insert a blank disc to continue..."
That's the kind of experience that people want from a computer. And so far, nothing - Windows XP, 2000, ME, 98, Linux, or anything else on the x86 platform - has been able to deliver it. Apple, quite simply, has.
-clee
iPod has "early adopter" written all over it. Wouldn't every buyer have been first in line for an iMac?
The Linux hype may die down, and Linux itself may even die off -- but there will always be some open source Unix workalike (there are many more in the pipe with significantly superior design to Linux -- see VSTA for an example).
Even if Win2K takes over the market for new servers -- something which I'm not about to stipulate as likely -- legacy systems are still big business; I know businesses willing to pay big bucks to get off of their old AIX systems onto something running real hardware, and places looking for an OS they can embed royalty-free into their settop boxes and handhelds.
The projects don't rely on external funding, but rather on development hours done by those who use them. Thus, a project cannot die because "the funding" is shut off; it only dies when it is no longer useful to anyone with the time to maintain it or the money to hire someone who can. When you show me a non-Unixlike OS which can replace Linux in every niche it fills (/including/ its zero-royalty licensing terms), I'll then be ready to be concerned about becoming a "refugee". 'Till then, I'll let Linux continue paying the rent and putting food on the table, which it does quite nicely.
Linux has corporate muscle. No, really -- you just don't see it.
While Linus decides what really goes in, a great many of the coders writing patches do it for pay. My employer, MontaVista Software, employs quite a few kernel hackers (particularly linux-ppc folks). While the specific things they work on are dictated by our customer's and clients' needs, it all (or the best of it, rather) goes back in the tree. We have customers. Big ones. Lots of them. Can't say more -- I'm NDA'd -- but trust me, there's profit to be made working on Linux.
Filesystem development is being corporately sponsored -- see Red Hat, Namesys and SGI for examples. MontaVista has been sponsoring work on making the kernel fully preemptible for some time, and we do a great deal of internal QAing (and fixes, the latter being submitted upstream to the "real" kernels) on otherwise rare platforms. There are a great many "big names" putting programmers into this thing, because it's cheaper to hire folks to improve Linux to do what you need than to write your own OS from the ground up (which a great many places building embedded systems used to do), and far, far easier than trying to get your closed-source OS vendor to make the changes you need for you.
The open source model is unique in that it has a wide variety of different agents each with their own private agenda. Rather than one entity trying to build the "perfect OS", each individual group focuses on the thing that's important to them. When the users and the developers are one and the same, it really does improve quality -- I've written apps for myself and apps for other people, and I know which ones work better.
As for the "limited scope" thing... what limited scope? What does Windows try to do that open source software does not?
In many respects, Linux has a much wider scope than Windows. Consider: the same Linux kernel and userspace works not only on x86 systems but also MIPS, PowerPC, PA-RISC, SuperHitachi, StrongARM, Alpha, the S/390, Sparc and elsewhere. While Windows has separate revisions for embedded space and high-end servers, the same Linux kernel is expected to work everywhere -- and does so.
A Wintel notebook has (usually two) PCMCIA slots, which can add just about ANY kind of device to your computer. The iBook has no PCMCIA slots, so you're stuck.