Slashdot Mirror
MacWorld Expo Report, Part II
Yesterday, I reported on the Jobs keynote and his ability to expand his reality field to encompass and entire ballroom. Today, do people still feel energized by his talk? Some were still pumped just to a part of the show, gasping and oo'ing and enjoying the melodrama of it all, but the next day there was a collective vibe of "well, was that it?". This is not to say that they were disappointed by it, but they perhaps wanted something more. The rumors had been flying for months about a flat screen iMac, and since that was what Apple brought forward, it was going to been seen as an evolutional, and thus anti-climactic, step, even if it was daringly packaged.
Many noted that they were expecting a speed bump for the G4 towers, but with Seybold coming up in February, many expect Apple to announce their tower update then to a more professional audience.
At the Tuesday keynote "The Power of X", Phil Shiller and Avie Tevanian talked about OS X and what it means to apple and to the future of the Macintosh platform. Apple is stressing how stable and crash proof OS X is and what this can means to the "Apple Faithful". They discussed the kernel, the media layers, security and the user interface and how it all works together. What they've done with their BSD derived core is really impressive. As part of the keynote, Tweak Films showed off an OS X based deep ocean wave visualization app that they assert they ported from Unix in weeks, with significant functionality gains.
The show floor itself was bouncy fun. For me it was a nice change from the austerity of a Linux exposition and it's focus on sheer functionality, capability and commerce. Large exhibitors included Alias|WaveFront, Adobe (not having anyone at this conference arrested, I noted), FileMaker pro, Microsoft and a number of other software development houses. As I walked the floor, I made a mental note of applications that were available for both Windows and the Macintosh. The reality is that there isn't much that is specifically for the Mac intosh, with the obvious exception of the hardware from apple, with all the vendors one ends up asking, what is unique here?
What Apple has that is unique, and sadly Windows and Linux both lack, is cohesion. Everyone with devices and software for the Mac seem to work so well with each other and the OS. We should strive to emulate that cohesion whenever practical for open source software. Before, the apple story was cohesion without stability or power. Now, with BSD at it's core, you can bet that Apple will be able to attack Windows, SUN and Linux on the power front. A year from now it will be interesting to see how many people are running apache to serve pages from their Apple machines, and I will be unsurprised if someone is giving an apache serving presentation at the next Apple WWDC.
Please note that I have posted some pictures of my trip to MacWorld, with some pictures of the new iMac and of the keynote.
I gotta say, that running Virtual PC on one of those, would certainly solve a lot of my problems.
Join the Free Software Foundation
There is no MicrosoftWorld.
Look out the window.
/me holds his head in his hands and weeps quietly.
They that would sacrifice their
I believe this to be not because MS are big, but because they have not been original nor innovative enough to make their customers and users anxiously await the next release. Typically the Linux user knows a lot more about his system, compiling software, configuration etc than the windows users where it's already done for them. The Linux user stays more up to date about what's happening in the community. As does Mac users, new designs, innovative interfaces, ease of use and a powerful platform creates a stronger sense of community spirit than "GODAMN /%&#/%& Word crashed again" ever will.
I am a Linux newbie and have used Macs VERY little, but, those OSes / platforms are a whole lot more interesting to follow than Windows. Oh? What's that? New Windows release? So soon? Oh, so they've basically pathed it and applied makeup, wow...
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for people who are Windows boosters. Where do they go for their community?
Umm, that's about as useful as having meetings for non-alcoholics, non-Mensa qualifier get-togethers, or picnics for people who don't run marathons. Try looking into the majority/minority dynamic sometime. See, there's no need to seek out fellow Windows users when practically anybody can give 10 friends a call and 9 of them will have some Windows experience. C'mon chrisd, do try harder next time.
For nearly 24 years now Apple has been in business. Maybe 25. For 19 years Apple has been making UIs. For something like 17 or 16 of those years, Microsoft has been copying Apple; if not copying per feature, copying per functionality. More or less, Apple unleashed UIs and mice, with the Lisa, in 1983.
Why the heck do Linux developers copy Windows? A copy of a copy? Why not *pick* to copy Apple's HCI and adopt it for the Linux desktop? It's been finalized for *years*. It's not new. It's older than Linux itself, I think. Especially now that Apple has more or less relegated OS 9 to standby status, many people are mourning the loss of their great OS.
At this rate, Windows will copy OS X, and then Linux will copy Windows...
At least *learn* everything Apple has so daringly decided to throw away with OS 9, and then start adopting OS Xisms, and shortcircuit Windows *altogether*.
Of course, the problem is that most people don't have access to a Mac and don't know what it's like to use a Mac and don't understand the Mac gestalt, otherwise they'd be using Macs already...
GPL Deconstructed
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/freemaya. This looks too, too cool. A free, non-crippled version of Maya for home use. You can't use it in any commercial setting, and there will be a maya watermark in the videos it produces, but even so, to have such an amazing app available for free is something truly awesome.
(I'm not sure at all of the platforms supported, though... I'm keeping my fingers crossed.)
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Do any of you have an ideas that can be implimented to bring the cohesion that will obviously strengthen opensource? Can some functionality be added to SourceForge to help this?
DOBBS: Apple Computer today launching its flagship desktop computer, the iMac, Apple hoping the new product line will lead it out of a slump in the computer industry. The original iMac produced three years ago helped to revitalize the company. CEO Steve Jobs unveiled this new lines of computers at the annual Mac World gathering in San Francisco, and he joins us from there now. Steve, good to have you with us.
STEVE JOBS, CEO, APPLE COMPUTER: Good to be here.
DOBBS: The reception, there's been a lot of talk about the new product line. The fact of the matter is, you've got another winner on your hands?
JOBS: Well, we'll find out soon enough. We just launched it today, so we'll see the orders start to stream in over the next month and we're hopeful.
DOBBS: Now, there were also a number of people looking for the G5 introduction, some other products as well and some disappointed about that. When do we see that?
JOBS: Well, you know, we introduced an all new iMac which is a huge seller for us.
DOBBS: Right.
JOBS: We introduced the new I-book today and anew digital hub application called I-photo, which is sort of the missing link in digital photography. You can't do everything in one day, so we'll just have to wait for that one.
DOBBS: Give us a sense of when.
JOBS: You know, we can't talk about unannounced products, but.
DOBBS: All right. I know a number of people watching you and following you very carefully were, hopefully were looking for that product introduction. One of the things that you have to struggle with at Apple, and despite the fact you've done a terrific job since you came back, driving the company ahead, restoring its stock price. Your stock is up almost what, 60 percent over the past year.
The fact is, you're still locked at five percent of the market. Are you going to be able to break Apple out of that? Because you get ringing endorsements for the innovation in products, for the new marketing and everything else, but still you're at five percent. When do we see the breakout?
JOBS: Well, I'd say a few things. Number one, our share of the personal computer market is larger than either Mercedes or BMW's share of the automotive market. So just to put that in perspective.
DOBBS: Sure.
JOBS: But one of the things we're doing to increase our market share is we've actually opened 27 retail stores in the U.S. And what's interesting, is those stores, those 27 stores in the month of December alone had 800,000 visitors and 40 percent of the customers that bought a computer at our stores didn't own Mac when they bought it.
So, I think we're starting to see a little bit of optimism about that, and I think we're going to really focus on that in the next year or two to try to get our market share up a little bit.
DOBBS: Well, as you try to drive that share of market, at the same time you're in an industry caught in a recession and a tough recession. Do you see the computer industry, the PC industry itself recovering anytime soon?
JOBS: Well, you know right now the winners are going to be the survivors.
DOBBS: Right.
JOBS: Because it's a pretty tough industry right now.
DOBBS: Yes. JOBS: But yes, I think what we're focused on right now is that we see the next great age of personal computing coming, and that is where the personal computer becomes the digital hub for all these other cool little digital devices we have, like digital camcorders or digital cameras.
DOBBS: Right.
JOBS: DVD players, et cetera, and we're doing a lot of work in that area, and we're getting a lot of good feedback.
DOBBS: OK, well Steve Jobs, as always, it is good to have you here and much continued success.
JOBS: I have to show you one thing before I leave, Lou.
DOBBS: Do we have time?
JOBS: Check this out.
DOBBS: If you can show it to us in two seconds in two seconds.
Oh, that's cool. I will admit that's cool, Steve.
JOBS: Thanks.
DOBBS: Designed, I understand, inspired by the sunflower?
JOBS: We want to keep the flat screen flat.
DOBBS: You got it. Well again, all the very best Steve.
JOBS: Thanks.
DOBBS: Keep promoting -- Steve Jobs.
JOBS: Wait, I'm not finished you fat fuck. The new imac is also inspired by large breasted women.
DOBBS: Shut up you turtle-neck-wearing hippie. I thought you just liked little boys anyway.
JOBS: Fuck off pig. Isn't it time for your six martini lunch?
DOBBS: Ironically I ate an entire roasted pig for lunch today. You smoke a lot of marijuana don't you, Steve?
JOBS: Hell yeah, dude. It inspires me to open up my mind and let the karma flow. I do alot of TM too. It roxors.
DOBBS: TM? Ah yes, transcendental meditation. I can imagine you running around with your fairy friends. You must drop acid, too. I used to do that back in my younger days. Oh, the stories I could tell.
JOBS: Lou, I love acid. I didn't get to where I am today by ignoring the health benefits of regular acid trips.
DOBBS: So Steve how did you really come up the with iMac.
JOBS: Alright Lou, just don't eat me. Ha-ha-ha, mind if I smoke...
DOBBS: Go ahead.
JOBS: I dreamed of the new imac while I was having a wonderful acid trip. Jonathan Ive and I went out the the desert and we ate peyote and this awesome acid. While I was smoking some weed to take the edge off I had this wonderful vision. I had a pair of dragon wings and I was flying through a canyon when a distant mesa began to transform into a giant breast. I could smell the colors. It was just like when I had discovered Aqua. Then the giant breast erupted in a explosion of milk that glomed into a giant LCD. Then I realized my purpose for being here on Earth. I must make a new imac. Then Jon and I had sex.
DOBBS: Well, that's a great story Steve. Thanks for being with us today.
JOBS: Anytime, want a hit?
DOBBS: Yeah, thanks. And now, let's turn to Wolf Blitzer for the very latest. His show begins in just a few minutes. Wolf, tell us what's up.
***
"Feel free to make any improvements on this transcript." vm
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
*grin*
Oh well.
It's still a serious question. Has no one ever considered that, when developing a UI, that you should try to beat the king of the hill, not match king of the hill?
Where Windows is king of the hill in mass, and Mac is king of the hill in skill or something.
GPL Deconstructed
I view all the moans from other Mac users in much the same way I remember the horror people expressed at the transition from OS 6 to OS 7. I am thrilled to be able to have a command line and all the power it offers at my finger tips, and the stability is very welcome. It is just fun to play with again, especially since it is so much more customizable. The system is still fresh, and has great potential. People should try to think of it as it will be in a year or two, with a bit more polish, and a lot more software. I hope that the linux community will be able to gain valuable stuff from OS X, just as we can gain from *nix. As long as Apple continues to show a willingness to respond to what users want, I have a lot of optimism for the system.
Mac users love their computer environment and are very very faithful to Apple. Linux users love their OS and realize if something doesn't work it's usually their own fault, but it can be resolved with a little work.
Ciryon
My office is now 100% Window-less as of about 6 months ago, but we're instead 100% Mac OS X (currently 10.1).
It's great. I don't miss Windows at all, and the myth that you "can't get applications for the Mac" is such a load of cr@p.
In fact, the new Office for Mac OS X is, in my opinion, much BETTER than the Windows version. Networking has been faster, too, and that's important to us.
You'd never believe it, but it's cheaper too. No more calling for technical support or having someone on duty to fix problems with our systems.
You just don't need it with a Mac because the hardware and software is so well integrated.
The machines themselves have been CHEAPER for us. $1199 iMacs as clients and G4s to handle some of the heavier loads. It's worked great.
And by the way... that 22" Apple flat screen is not only beautiful for working with, but it impresses customers too.
I know it seems like a detail, but people have gotten the impression we're an upscale successful business because they see those screens and comment on them.
I know I seem like a troll ranting about this or that, but I just want to get the word out, because I'm a very pleased Apple customer...
and I'm laughing at myself for ever having used Windows for so long.
Apple is moving in the right direction In the 80-90s apple grabbed many artists and musicans with its beautiful multimedia software. Still to this day, many musicians I know will not touch anything that is not an Apple. Put recently, I've seen musicians switching over to windows because of the huge popularity. Still there are enough musicians and artists interested, and a few other niche folk to keep Apple afloat. In this game however, marketshare is important and they need more customers. Where to get them?
Windows has business pretty well covered. Even though it might not be the best option for the business, people know the software. Suits like what's comfortable. Sure apple might get a few of the suits, but not very many, they really just don't care.
What market is left? Well geeks naturally! I've had a chance to use OS X a bit, and I think its a very nice OS. You can definitly see the UNIX incooperated and it still supports tons of old Mac software. Well Linux is really just UNIX anyhow but for an x86. Who cares what the processor is so long as it plays l33t games. Plus as geeks we like sticking it to Intel as well, and frankly I'm ok with that.
I like where Apple is going and if they would let me build my own system, drill a few holes in the side and overclock the processor into toast... I'd already have one.
Rob
With Mac follows cohesion from the main Apple offices and the Jobby the friendly CEO.
The cohesion within the Linux community is different entirely, although present nonetheless. Go here for an example.
To hold the two side by side is entertaining, but nothing more.
A colleague of mine just traded his win2k/linux laptop for a 12" white iBook with MacOSX.
Though reluctant at first I have to say I was impressed.
In short, this is quite faster than what I expected after reading many comments, it is also cheap, has 5 hour battery life, an included DVD/CDRW drive, MSIE (like it or not, it is quite more functional as most other browsers and its only cons are : -1- it's Microsoft -2- it may still have backdoors)...
Now with Virtual PC or OfficeX it becomes an obvious choice for the hardcore multi-environment worker.
Mass-Porting Geek know they may quickly get some of their predilection Free Software up and running on this machine.
My personal favourite is Interface Builder which I have known for years...
So, this is both sexy looking and a seriously tempting alternative to other worl.
But no, it has nothing to do with a community but rather with a unique feeling/identity. The community is the consequence.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Being Mac faithful has been a hard thing. It's so hard to justify a company locking down it's software to just use its hardware. It's so difficult to watch Apple make silly little choices like the dock and know that it will latch on to that choice until the next complete revision of the OS.
But, hey, it does cool stuff. I mean, just putting my machine to sleep is cool -- the power button pulsates in a white glow to let me know that it's on but down. It looks alive ... like it is breathing.
And since I've been running 10.1, I haven't crashed. I've had to restart about four times in four months -- three times for system upgrades and once because I shut the computer down because I was going to be out of the house for a week -- and every time I realize that I've left my startup preferences all wrong, that I haven't been keeping up with my changes in my work flow. I'm still learning how I use it.
OS X is so rediculously stable (compared to all of my previous Mac/Win9X experiences). And it is so easy to use (compaired to my previous Linux/BeOS/BSD eperiences). Sure, there are imperfections -- the dock sucks when compaired to the ease-of-use of the Apple menu, etc, but it's not as confusing as any random X Windows client nor as difficult as and version of Microsoft's ... thing.
I'm a satisfied customer, and everything that I've seen so far has just made me want to be more of a customer. And that can't be all bad, can it?
--Mike
Is that there are so few thing needing to work together. Every now and then Apple decides that certain hardware are too old and will not be supported by the latest OS. Whereas Linux has support for hardware that's pushing 20 years old, not to mention the various hardware platforms it works on.
The same can be said about the apps - I'd bet if we round up all the Gnome and KDE developers and hold a gun to their heads and get them to develop a single GUI environment that breaks any compatibility with X Windows they deem fit, they can come up something just as cohesive.
Kill'em! Kill'em all!
Well nuts, there went my rant. Stole it from me whole cloth.
Well, I have more rants than just that... like how I wish more of the OS/2 technology saw emulation in other systems, since I've long felt that it was the best PC operating system. The object technology simply made for a more pleasant experience, whether you were doing basic things like surfing the web, or scripting your environment like a good little *nix weenie, or doing office work.
MacOS provides a different set of pleasant user experiences, a generally more consistent set, but nonetheless it lacks a number of things OS/2 had.
And all the people working on KDE and Gnome blithely ignore them all, and try to copy - feature for feature, and with less original thought than Microsoft used in following Apple - Microsoft's interface.
--Matthew
This coming from someone with the id "ringbarer"? I think you may want to tone down with the acid...
Might be offtopic but... One could argue that Windows is so big and so omnipresent today, it doesn't *need* floorshows to sell. Floorshows are for people/technologies who need mindshare. The network effect of 80 million Windows users is far greater than any floorshow or website community can ever manage. And don't forget that a lot of people who go to Linux/Mac floorshows are also Windows users (if only occasionally) and therefore de facto members of that community.
Yes OSX is probaly the best alternative to windows. The problem, however, is that Steve Jobs needs to port it to PC's, otherwise it will always just be a niche.
This funky message board is just another example of why open source and home brewed apps dont quite make the grade.
That's exactly what I do. I'm currently running Civ3 in its own window that way. The terminal window gives me access to UNIX, and I have all my productivity applications accessible through the dock.
Or (*gasp*) create something original. Just because Apple has had windows and icons and menus for 18 years doesn't mean that Linux needs to. Linux has lots of strengths (the community being the main one); it is those strengths that Linux should build upon to differentiate itself.
Just because someone would develop it doesn't mean anybody would use it. For every one person who wants some cohesion between all the different apps they use in Linux there's five who say they want it their way or no way. If you pool Linux users, some are using KDE, some use GNOME, others just use WindowMaker, some may just to twm or no GUI whatsoever. If you poll Windows users they're all using Explorer and Mac users are all using Finder. Some say the lack of choice is a detriment (these are the people who use one of the above mentioned graphical kits and will continue to use it no matter what).
Why would KDE and GNOME developers need to break X compatibility in the first place? Both toolkits are abstracted from X enough so that both toolkits are pretty portable and only use X on Linux because that is what everbody else uses and some apps talk directly to Motif or Xlib which some people feel they can't live without.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
There is no MicrosoftWorld.
/. are interested enough in the Microsoft World to think about VBits (http://www.vbits.com) There will be three this year and they are all HUGE.
Perhaps not enough people on
Why? Because if all goes well At MacWorld Tokyo the product I've been waiting for for a year is supposed to be demoed and released. It's Microcode Solutions' hardware-assisted PowerPC emulation for x86 PCs. http://www.microcode-solutions.com/home.htm
;-)
Some people are very happy with the new iMac announcement. Some are waiting for the G4 Tower speed bump that should be announced at the next expo. But all of us MacOS lovers who defected to the Dark Side over the years for one reason or another might be made happy by the little PCI card and software package that should be released soon.
Currently we x86 users are limited to running OS 8.x on 68k Mac emulators, the best of which is the GPL'ed Basilisk II. This works great for playing older Mac games (there are a lot of great ones never ported to Windows or Linux) and using any 68k-compatible Mac apps for a great level of interoperability, or just the cool factor of running so many OSes off one machine. It runs blazing fast with 68k code--but the obvious problem is that anything remotely recent is PPC-only, and OS 9 and OS X are far out of reach.
But the PPC emulator to be introduced at Macworld Tokyo will change all that. To MacOS, it will be indistinguishable from a real iMac. A cheap software-only version will be made available, but it won't run all the newest stuff; the jewel in the crown will be the hardware-assisted version, which will have a real, fast G3 processor and RAM on a PCI card. It should run anything an iMac will run and at native speeds or better (depending on processor).
Any OS 9.x operating system will run full-speed on it and it's very likely that OS X will be made to run on it too, although by all reports OS X on an older model iMac is no speed demon.
Since the Mac's VirtualPC has run all the latest Windows OSes for some time, it's only fair that PC users should finally be able to run the latest Mac OSes, OS X in particular. And with this G3 and RAM card, running the MacOS on an equipped x86 box will be a lot smoother than the Mac's current all-software VPC emulation of x86.
Before dismissing it as vaporous, the Microcode Solutions website may be Spartan, but the man behind it coded the first fully functional 68k Mac emulator for x86, Fusion, and has already released a rudimentary PPC Mac emulator for old Amigas equipped with PPC cards, through Blittersoft.
To some this won't mean much. But personally, I've always loved the MacOS, ever since I used System 7 many a year ago. But I didn't want to be locked into expensive proprietary hardware, or not be able to run Windows games. But if all goes well at Macworld Tokyo, a properly equipped PC may now be able to run Linux, Windows, and even OS X if the G3/RAM card and emulator are purchased. If there's demand, maybe the emulator software part of the package could be ported to x86 Linux.
It will be interesting indeed to see if Microcode Solutions comes through at Macworld Tokyo, and it'll be even more interesting to gauge the reaction of Macworld attendees if they see OS X running well on a PC. And that is very likely, since Jim Drew has been talking about his new product and answering questions about it on all the Mac-related emulation sites and forums, and even gave out pricing information--$349.95 for the fully-functional package with the PPC card, or $49.95 for the cheapo software-only emulator that will be far more limited in its abilities. $349.95 (plus OS purchase price, because you're not a pirate) to run OS X at native iMac speeds on a commodity "Wintel" box, with all its advantages, sounds pretty damn good.
And before any zealots start modding this down, it's valid news about an upcoming Mac expo, which definitely seems to be related to this thread. I may have defected to the Dark Side, but I still want all that creamy Mac goodnes. Having your cake and eating it too might be possible in a month and a half.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Part one... low level stuff:
;)
It would be nice if distros would install a SSL cert for the system. Make the user database use LDAP. It would make it easier for people to manage the system securely. When the user want to do web publishing all they do is turn on the web server and they automatically get secure WebDAV with authentication. This is one part of integration that would really help Linux.
Part two... applications:
Get applications like StarOffice to take to other applications and to each other. Foundations like gnome-db and gstreamer are great!
Part three... iDVD!
Since the Ogle people have figured out most of the DVD spec it would be awesome if some programmer more experience than me in video work used gstreamer and GIMP to make a DVD authoring package. That would be awesome!
Bazaars are nice for open-air developer types. But users always felt more comfortably in the inside of a building.
Most plain desktop-users will come to Linux moving from the Cathedral of Evil, so understandably they will feel more at home using Windows imitations.
Regarding Apache for MacOS X - it is installed by default, and individual users can share "~/Sites" (equivalent to ~/public_html) using the GUI control panel.
The best part about this is that Apple configured httpd.conf so that it includes the appropriate user configs as extra files; you can edit httpd.conf yourself without fear of the changes being lost. Furthermore, you can replace the apache binaries if you need to upgrade. Apple provides ( understand ) an apache module to better work with the non-case sensitive file system which should also work with newer versions, but worst case is that this is lost.
I added Tomcat yesterady, apache.org have a binary download.
GregPlagiarize:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
Apple does do this, its frustrating. I upgraded tp MacOS X 12 months ago and put a floppy idisk in my drive last week to find out that it is not supported any more.
But you can always roll your own kernel.
As a long time Linux/Unix user as well as a current (allbeit recent Mac [os x naturaly] user) I am offended by you arrogance and you obviouse lack of a conceptual understanding both of the timeline involved with all of this technology and the implications of what you have said.
First of all, Linux (the os) is in no way based on either apple or microsoft's products. It is clone of Minix which was a scaled down version of the Berkly Software Distribution of Unix which in turn ws based on Bell Labs' Unix which predates by years either Apple or Microsofts' prodigal children.
While you claim that Linux has spent years copying microsoft who was inturn coppying Apple and that they not only coppied the UI but more so the functionality I think it is important to note that for years now Windows, Which is unstable as hell compared to any
Unix , has been far more stable than the traditional Mac OS.
Granted OS X finnaly brings incredable stability to the Mac platform it was only by dittching the last ten years of OS research and basing the while thing of a modified BSD UNIX platform that this could be accomplished.
Further more To say that Linux's UI is ripped from Microsoft who in turn ripped it form Apple is an ignorant statement. All three ripped the very concept from an in-house windowing environment developed by Xerox.
Meanwhile, whilst Microsoft and Apple have been busy worying about their precisouse GUIs Linux and BSD have been busy creating the most rock solid OS's available and for FREE no less.
Not to mention that if one is to examine the availability and stability of Window Manager's for XFree86 (the most common GUI for Linux) one would find quite a few WM which are both far more creative and more aestheticly pleasing than anyting MIcrosoft and Apple have to offer.
-David Prude
drp01@hampshire.edu
All the Apple shops I've come across have had problems just like you get on Windows networks - wrong versions of drivers, printers disappearing from the network, servers not responding, somebody still has to manage the backups, etc etc. The only difference being that it's harder to find Apple sysadmins.
Yeah, OSX was a quality piece of work. Geez. How are you Mac zealots handling the concept of file extensions these days?
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
Just found out I can run OS/2 Warp on Virtual PC 5.0 too. b0nus. Would a PowerMac G4 be better, cause I'd want to put some extra IDE drives on it (essentially gut my PC)
Join the Free Software Foundation
OK, after seeing the pictures taken by the author of the article, I do now admit that the new Mac is pretty darn cool piece of hardware.
Personally, with my PC, I've learned to appreciate USB and 1394. I now longer buy internal periferals except for audio card, video card, HD, and CD-ROM drive. It's just too time consuming for me to open the box and install stuff. Plug and play serial buses is what I, as a professional, appreciate. I also find the floppy drive useless and totally unreliable. The only time it's useful is on an obsolete machine that can't boot from CD. That's it.
So therefore, I've come to the conclusion that Apple is doing all the right things.
I wonder how many people missed the information in the Pop-Up on the MacWorld website.
I almost closed it as another X10 or other spam. It actualy had something to do with the convention.
I wonder if it was a mistake putting real information in the pop-up as most people are contidioned to kill pop-ups on the spot without even looking at them.
The truth shall set you free!
You can easily add a second IDE drive (bracket and cable are built-in) and if you need to add more, Promax makes a card called Turbomax that gives you two more buses.
When something doesn't work they don't think it's the Operating System's fault. They believe it's their own fault or perhaps they blame it on "the computer".
ok, so far i can follow you.
Mac users love their computer environment and are very very faithful to Apple.
...although they know, that if the system crashes, and it _does_ crash a lot (on 8.x and 9.x), _it_is_ the fault of macOS ("the computer"). and still they go for mac? whatever the pricetag? that is not just faithfulness, that's a religion. and religions suck.
One thing I always wondered:
Isn't OSX's dispay engine vector based? Very cool but isn't that a fairly big disadvantage when it comes to display photographic images like jpg's etc? Do they have a way around it or am I wrong in general?
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
People join user groups for more than tech support. People join user groups because they are proud to be users. They want to meet other users, because they hope to meet interesting people like themselves.
Why are there no masses of Windows fanatics? For the same reason that there are no masses of fanatical Yugo owners. There are Volkswagen clubs and such for other manufacturers.
For the most part, people use Windows because they have to or because they haven't used the alternatives. They usually don't do it by choice. They usually aren't proud of it, and they would usually rather NOT hang out with other Windows users.
t'nera semordnilap
Not at all. That's the beauty of having Darwin as open-source--people have already gotten OS X to run on unsupported hardware, including G3 and G4 upgrade cards, by adding support. That's why I can't see what could stand in the way of OS X working on one of these PCI card/emulator solutions.
But let's say Apple decides to add things into the upper layers in the near future that only work on G4's--entirely unlikely for several reasons, but for the sake of the argument let's assume so--the latest version of Mac OS X already has a much better performance and is better optimized than the first releases, and it's entirely unlikely that software makers will make any apps that will only run on a new G4-only version of the OS and not on the current version. That seems extraordinarily unlikely.
Plus, even though Apple is the worst company in history when it comes to screwing over their recent buyers (only slightly exaggerating) by obsoleting their hardware with no support, they're not about to screw over every single person who bought a G3 iMac just recently, and who will continue to buy them new until stocks run dry--at least not til 2 years or so after they bought their Macs.
So, *if* the card lives up to what has been implied, a buyer can expect to be able to run any version of MacOS released for at least another year and half or two. And even if Apple *does* really screw over all its iMac and G3 tower customers, which is unlikely since they're selling G3 iMacs this minute at Apple stores, who cares? Running the latest version of OS X should be enough for anyone for a while.
And there's nothing preventing a G4 card, either. G4 upgrade cards are already rampant in the Mac community.
Again, no one has seen this product in action yet, so I can't say anything for certain about it. But as for what's been recently implied by its tight-lipped author, Jim Drew was recently asked in an emulation forum what software and OSes it would support, and his coy reply was [paraphrasing] "It's an iMac-based emulation. What can an iMac run?"
There's a lot of promise if this product is pulled off right. It'll be the closest thing to a unified, all-in-one solution for PC and Mac in one box since many years ago when Apple had their DOS/Windows card option of a 66MHz 486 card with 16MB RAM back when a 486-66 with 16MB was actually a decent PC. VirtualPC on a Mac doesn't really cut it for convergence because the one strong point of Windows (since Office and such run on Mac) is its huge gaming compatibilty, but you need real hardware with graphics acceleration to play most decent newer games. But if you can have a good x86 rig with Windows for gaming, Linux for real work, and Mac OS X for work, interoperability, and eyecandy, all in one box--that is, as Cartman would say, hellasweet. And all without buying overpriced Mac hardware which Steve will obsolete all too soon. $349.99 for this PPC card package, that I can use with all my standard x86 hardware? $800 for a G3 iMac? I know which one I'd put my money on, since (I presume) they'd both be obsoleted about the same time.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Not that I'm claiming I know anything about X Windows works, but surely at least some of the slowness of GUI on Linux is attributable to X Windows with all that X client/server communication? And really how many people run X remotely now that the speed of running GUI locally VS over the network is so different?
On a slightly different subject, I don't know why just because computers are much faster now means every new OS come with tonnes of GUI animations, and even worse transparency stuff. I'd prefer my Athlon run like an Athlon, not like some 386 with an ISA unaccelerated video card thank you very much.
Kill'em! Kill'em all!
The statement that Mac users *love* their computers is just plain silly. The only person I know outside the computer industry that owns a Mac is my Uncle. He bought a Mac without knowing there was any difference between it and an IBM clone. That is, he didnt buy a Mac, he bought a computer. This doesnt boil down to being faithful, rather ignorant. I wouldn't be suprised if a large majority of new Mac customers arn't buying Macs because they are making informed decision, rather an uninformed one.
All your base are belong to us!
I don't have the box in front of me, but I think Civ3 requires DirectX 8. Does VPC have any problems running the more modern apps/games requiring DirectX?
, Apple's really firing on all cylinders these days, but don't forget that a little over four years ago things weren't quite so rosey, and it was pretty common to speculate just when Apple would expire.
As a long standing Mac user, I remember those days clearly.
Threats cause folks - the so-called Macfaithful in this case - to join together against the preceived danger. Call it a herd instinct, a crowd mentality, whatever; external threats focus your attention.
The Windows crowd is dominant now, and hence have no reason to exhibit such unity.
A message from our sponsor
the MacOS crash is a funny thing - you can FEEL it coming, so you're usually pretty well prepared. Coupled with that is the fact that most Macs restart pretty quickly, and a crash is MUCH less annoying than it is under Windows. You're right though, Macs (Classic macs) DO crash quite a bit.
That was classic intercourse!
I've also packaged tomcat for fink, along with cocoon and the apache/tomcat warp connector. OSX rules. ;)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Where do they go for their community?
The Windows world, creators and consumers alike, has long been ruled by bean counters and eschews any need of "community".
After all, they have "money".
"Provided by the management for your protection."
How is this insightful. This is a bunch of bullshit. I know hundreds of people in my day to day life who LOVE Windows. They are all converts from the crappy days of Mac OS 7.5/8. You make a blanket statement with absolutely no fact behind it and you get modded up.
Floppies sure seem to work.
We have USB floppies on OS X machines at my work, and I bought one for my Grandma, and all her floppies worked in the floppy drive.
You can feel a mac crashing because it slows to a halt and then completely locks (at least in the old pre-OSX days). You then had to try to restart it without having to yank the power cord. My Windows PC on the other hand may crash a program once in a while but I can reopen it immediately. I don't have to restart. And if I did, my Windows XP restarts in less than one minute. My Linux server on the other hand doesn't crash apps or the system. Matter of fact, I haven't even touched it in months. It just sits there running. My only regret is that it is only my email server right now. I am working on migrating my other servers soon.
Then, is was revolutionary and exciting, todays it's just another product launch.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
F.Y.I. Apache is installed on all versions of OS-X. It is the single largest distribution of a UNIX (like) operating systems on the planet now. The new iMac is the most beautiful UNIX workstation I have ever seen and as soon as I can I am gonna buy one!!
Oh dear, I was trying to be reasonable about it but, and I'm only going to say this once, Windows 2000 (at least the 7 workstations and servers I look after) crashes PLENTY, if not as much as the classic MacOS. But far worse is the complete lack of rational to the crashes - an app will work perfectly for a week and then come over all faint during an ovcernight render. With the MacOS, we find that you experience a problem, determine the cause, fix or disable the offending item and that's it, PROBLEM SOLVED. Certainly, some iterations of MacOS are notorious for memory leaks but if you use the good ones along with decent apps, you can keep a Mac running for weeks between crashes no problem.
That was classic intercourse!
You've said it all! I use Macs here at school and at home, and when I have to drop down a level and use a windoze machine, it puts a big damper on the whole computer using experience.
Notice how Apple used FreeBSD.
If your argument is, in effect, Linux should copy the best, then why waste your time with some Linux....why not just use FreeBSD?
Apple used the best, you should do no less.
Civilization III for the mac should be out soon. IIRC Macplay is doing the port.
--- C00l
This is easy to do when your OS and your hardware both come from the same company. As an example, how many people had any hardware/software compatibility issues with their Commodore 64? At least until the later years, everyone had the exact same amount of RAM, same graphics and sound capabilities, same plugs, etc. If you developed hardware or wrote software for the 64, it was easy to make it compatible with all of them because they were all the same "rubber-stamped" machines.
PC's are so scattered about because there are a bajillion different hardware configurations, and each with a (slight or major) different OS revision than your next-door neighbor's PC.
So if you want cohesion, you have to give up variety. The mac has it going for it that everything comes from one place, which is good for now so long as you agree with what Apple puts out. And I'm not knocking on the mac, it's a cool machine, especially since they finally put out a decent OS, but I'm just pointing out that in order to have "cohesion", variety will suffer.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Some people already have drilled holes in the side...
Check out the BlueIce G4
And overclocking is just a matter of jumper settings for many machines. Surf over to XLR8YourMac for more information
The folks at Apple are geniuses. Here's why.
:) But Linux has a real *nix thing going on. It is percieved as being unfriendly. Anytime someone makes a "Friendly" distro the community complains. The Linux community is more interested in Flame - Wars.
1 -- The make you run their OS on their hardware. IT HAS TO WORK. They know what you have.
2 -- They practically force 3rd party developers and manufacturers to "Do the Apple Thing" Subsequently things look a like, work alike and keep the "Apple Vibe"
3 -- They make users fanatics. They create a niche whrere "creative people" _need_ an Apple. You're not going to be creative on a PC; _Are you?_
------
Now Linux has fanatic users, sure. And Linux will run on a million different different machines. Sound? Who needs sound?
Vi vs Emacs
KDE vs Gnome
Enlightenment vs Sawfish
RPM (et al) vs make
Red Hat vs Everyone else
No sense of community like Mac has. More of a taunting older brother (UNIX) with a smart alecky sibling.
----------
Windows is a horrible mess.
DOS, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, NT, W2K
More bad publicity than anything I have ever seen. If I was MS I would pull Outlook off the shelf and send everyone on the planet a copy of Eudora or something. Even things that are not Outlook/Explorer related tend to get lumped into an MS problem (see also AIM.)
Users _don't_ want to get together and talk about their computers. (Some wold argue that is becuase they are busy using them, others would say it is because they are busy rebooting!) But in any event I see little pride in owning XP SP1.
----------
Apple has created a "Vibe" about their product. Created a myth that their products are the only thing that can do certain things.
Truth be told -- Apple makes excellent products and _NOW_ has an excellent OS to go with their _cool_ hardware. And let's face it Anything you can do on a Mac you can do on any PC (Lin/WIN). You could even be... creative. But the perception persists because Apple has made their marketing work so well that _YOU_ believe it.
This
My guess is that we won't have a major tower announcement until the Apple show this summer. At that time, I would expect the G4 towers to become the G5 tower, as Motorola will be ready to ship in quantity during that timeframe. Why spend cycles updating the towers for faster G4s when new G5 models are just around the corner?
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Really the biggest problem with OS/2 that I had was the ease with which the user desktop could be corrupted. Hopefully in the process of emulating the UI, that wouldn't be emulated.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why not *pick* to copy Apple's HCI and adopt it for the Linux desktop?
Did it ever occur to you that the Mac UI is not the be-all and end-all of user interface design? No, because the Mac UI is 'holy' and many proponents of it adopt a 'holier-than-thou' attitude, yourself included. I can't deny that MacOS 9.x is pretty good from an HCI point of view, but is it as good as some Mac disciples make it out to be? Hardly.
There are actually quite a number of areas where MacOS 9.x is deficient compared to other systems, from a usability point of view. Let's list a few of the major ones, shall we?
What isn't mentioned is the side effect this causes - when every directory is opened in a new window, the screen rapidly fills up with windows, overwhelming the user. It is possible to tell the Finder to close the previous directory window when opening a new one, but only with a non-obvious keyboard modifier when double-clicking. Also, if the previous directory window has been closed, it is now impossible to navigate backwards. Other systems (Windows included) have found solutions to this problem - why hasn't the Mac?
There are more usability problems than this - these are just the first that came off the top of my head. Note also that both Windows and the Linux GUIs have avoided all these problems, and also come up with some good ideas that Apple hasn't even touched on - like the universal viewer application (Explorer, Konqueror, Nautilus), or thumbnailing of all pictures, not just the ones that the creator app decided to attach a thumbnail to.
Perhaps it isn't such a good idea to be blindly copying the Mac after all?
Don't even get me started on OS X, right now it's an ill thought-out usability nightmare. I'm sure it will get better, but right now it's the last place to be looking for usability ideas. It's pretty, yes, but pretty does not equal easy to use.
Of course, the problem is that most people don't have access to a Mac and don't know what it's like to use a Mac and don't understand the Mac gestalt, otherwise they'd be using Macs already...
Suuuuure. When you finally wake up and pull your head out of the sand, be sure to let us know, ok?
In the meantime, the rest of us can get on with using and improving our GUI experience, pulling the best ideas from existing GUIs as well as inventing new ideas. Blindly following anyone is a seriously poor idea.
Sure there is. Ever heard of Defcon?
...aside from the 'usual' crashing.
I was once a tech at headquarters for a sizable multinational corp. (over 400 systems in those offices, mostly executive and admin). We had a couple dozen Macs that were serviced seperately by an outside contractor.
Although the Macs were use constantly, we never even met one of the Mac techs! And I was there for almost 2 years. We simply never needed any Mac repairs.
same post, about a month ago
-Jon
this is my sig.
> Don't even try to go there. Ensured obsolescence has always worked much better for Microsoft, and by extension, Intel, than for Apple.
I think that's totally mistaken. Apple sells, as Steve likes to point out time and again, "the whole widget." Therefore, Apple has direct profit to be made by obsoleting their own hardware as quickly as possible. Even in Mac-rabid forums like MacSlash there are plenty of Mac users willing to acknowledge that Apple's OS doesn't ever seem to support hardware older than 2-3 years very well compared to what it could.
For example, at Macslash I recently read a complaint that OS X only half-heartedly and barely supports a top-of-the-line beige G3 that was quite expensive and touted at the time by Apple itself as being the Mac of the future with a long lifetime ahead of it, and yes Apple promised buyers that it would be supported by the next-gen operating environment. So, this particular user pointed out that despite its ATI card Apple refused to provide an accelerated graphics driver support for it, so that OS X redraws like crap. Apple provided very broken ADB support so that he couldn't use any of the stuff that came from Apple with the beige G3 when he bought it, so Apple told him to get a Firewire card and new peripherals. He replaced a drive with another Apple drive and it refused to work, so Apple told him to just get an IDE card since they never put real full SCSI support into OS X.
You see, Apple made a promise to people who bought top-of-the-line beige G3's for a very hefty sum that they would be supported by the new OS, and that their G3's would have long useful lifespans. Even their ad copy said so. That was a half-truth, at best. Just a few months later those beige G3's were obsoleted by the newer, cheaper, faster, fruity ones we all know and love, and are now known as "Old World" (i.e., unsupported) hardware.
Apple's behavior in this example shows a fundamental lack of respect for its buyers. Those Old World G3's had built-in obsolescence and yet continued to be touted as prime new machines right up until the New World rollout. Why? Because Apple is going to make a lot of profit every time a user upgrades his Mac, so there's every reason to make that be as soon as possible.
Other specific examples abound. How about the very expensive 68k lines Apple continued to sell and push the Hell out of right as they were ready to roll out PPC and obsolete the fuck out of them? How about all the machines--some of them just a couple years old--that went completely unsupported after System 7.5.5, which is why Apple just went ahead and put that OS release up on its Website for users of those systems to download, since they'd never be supported again? How about the TAM [Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh], whose special wow features that got people to pay ungodly sums of money for this beautiful limited edition hardware soon were completely unsupported in any new versions of the OS (after 8.5 or 8.6, can't recall exactly) despite the fact that coding support for its little buttons and doo-dads would have taken a single programmer all of a day?
How about the Wallstreet (I think that's the right one, going from memory) PowerBook G3, an arm and a leg in its day and now can't even run OS X despite the fact that even cheap older iBooks--which cost a lot less--can? Going back into the mysts of time, remember the overpriced, and soon outpowered IIfx, with its notorious lack of compatibility with sooooo much hardware?
Apple just doesn't care about supporting a product at all any longer than it has to, since the user will come back and buy new hardware. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft which, for all its numerous faults, tries to support every piece of hardware it can right in the OS. Pick any random PC, and if it's got enough RAM in it and the processor is fast enough (the requirement is very low for 98SE and Me, but a bit more for WinXP since it's so different) the odds are either WinMe or WinXP will boot on it without any problems, and that furthermore almost all of the hardware will be supported "out-of-the-box" despite the fact that there are hundreds of different makers--and if it isn't supported instantly, it's going to be something nonessential, and a driver file download will make it work. Microsoft even wanted to write its own new drivers for the Voodoo cards for WindowsXP after 3dfx went under, since there were so many Voodoo users out there, but nVidia (picker of the 3dfx corpse) wouldn't let them use the source code for the existing drivers, plus a few bits were licensed from others. But the point is, as evil as Microsoft is in some ways, they were actually prepared to write drivers for an obsoleted and bankrupt hardware company's products so that they'd work well enough under their new OS, since so many users were out there.
Apple has never done anything remotely similar. Whereas Microsoft deliberately tries to include support for every piece of hardware they can, even if it's old and obsolete or weird or rare, even though they don't make the hardware and have no control over its hundreds of makers, Apple does exactly the opposite. Apple has total control over all the core hardware and a lot of the other hardware, and yet they don't make any effort to support older hardware a moment longer than they think they need to. For Apple, it's just about trying to make things just obsolete enough to induce a full system upgrade in a neat 2-3 year timeframe. That's because Apple gets money directly from the hardware and Microsoft doesn't. Apple always wants you to buy new hardware; Microsoft wants you to buy new software. So it's in MS's best interests to support as much hardware as possible. It's in Apple's financial interests to support as little hardware as possible.
This is why I was able to install Win98SE recently on an ancient Packard-Bell piece of junk from 1990-1993 or so, and it detected all the hardware correctly and loaded all the right drivers--even for the cheesy video and audio chips I'd never even heard of. I could have easily installed WinME on it instead using the switch to remove the minimum requirements during install, but WinME's "extra features" (which I dislike, but which are well-geared toward stupid home users) would have slowed the old beast down. I can even install WinXP on some very old hardware if I wanted to--it would run slow, but it would run. The point is, the hardware support is there, inbuilt, despite astounding variety of core components and makers in the x86 world. But with only one maker of core components in the Mac world, the hardware support is not there.
Built-in obsolescence, indeed. MS is guilty of bloat and mediocre to poor coding--but not of deliberate and calculated failure to support hardware just to get people to buy more. that's Apple's MO.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
This is faulty logic. MUGS have existed since the release of the Macintosh - even when apple was king of the hill. there were no DOS 3.1 user groups.
I think you made a very interesting point here, and I think that's one of the things keeping Linux and the whole Open-Source development initiative behind. Apple is a company, and as such the CEO (and perhaps a few other people) can make decisions such as "We stop supporting this altogether because we need to do this to go ahead". I think this kind of thing is real hard to do in the Linux/Gnome/KDE case because it's almost impossible to prove that old hardware/software HAS to be abandoned. There will always be a lot of voices, and a lot of developer wanting to add a patch to support all those old boxes.That allows Apple to keep on with it's politic of hardware/software integration which is it's major technical advantage over everything else.
One guy making the decisions makes for a lot of bad decisions, but at least one choice is made, instead of all choices concurrently developed.
I don't have much to add.
Try these on for size -
1. Kernel debuggers are good.
2. Bootloaders should indeed understand filesystems.
3. Design first. Design well. Redesign. Fix design. Redesign again. THEN implement.
4. Seek and incorporate input from a number of external sources.
5. Centralized source control improves life by an order of magnitude.
I find it INCREDIBLY amusing that my "closed-source, proprietary OS" is easier to debug than the "hacker playground" of linux. But, as RMS says, gnu is superior, right?
It is obvious to me that you haven't spent much time around the GNOME Usability Project (aka GUP) or the Usability Lists. First, the GUP folks tend to head in a more Mac-like direction than in a Windows one (e.g. instant-apply preference dialogues, menu-bar at top of screen). Secondly, these guys think *a lot* (some say too much ;-) about what makes a usable, intuitive desktop. Just check out the lengthy debate about whether to include a close button in an instant-apply dialogue, if you want to see an extreme example. In short, the GUP people are doing lots of work (including a Human Interface Guideline) to make the desktop a more usable experience for the end user, and GUP is not blindly following anyone (though they tend agree more with the Mac people). Check out GUP. It's pretty interesting (and exciting).
~~~~~~~~~
dissertus scribendo latine videri volo.
Do you have anymore info about running OS/2 under Virtual PC? I don't see it as a supported operating system.
Has anyone here used a MAC? Or even searched the forums at Apple? There are enough PROBLEMS with software and hardware there to choke a donkey. I have yet to use a MAC and not have some strange OS/HW error.
Fix? Never have I recieved a solution from the Apple Forum. Proof? Look up this. G4 half chime, does not book, RED LED on mobo with power. I have reset the PMU, removed the battery, changed HD's, changed VID. Only think not changed was the MOBO. Now, there are only about 400 people with the same problem. This is a g4 desktop with AGP. No answer, and no help for ANY of us users. The MAC "experience" is as painful as windows. At least I can play games on the Winblows box. MAC hardware has NEVER been top quality after the first G3 arrived. Once Apple when PCI and ATA, they had no need to engineer ANYTHING!
I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for people who are Windows boosters. Where do they go for their community?
:-)]
Hmmm... In the 15+ years that I've been working with computers, I don't think I've ever met anyone who was a Windows booster (who don't also work for Microsoft), and certainly none of the people I've met who have had to manage or support a Windows network have been real fans (myself included). At best I'd say people were neutral. [That's not MS-bashing, that's a true observation!]
In my experience, most people who do praise Microsoft do so for their business success (which is another issue, which I won't go into here) rather than the merits of Windows.
But, that aside, it seems to me that non-technically-savvy Windows-users would not be interested enough to want to attend a UG or convention, and technically-savvy Windows-users know enough about the problems with Windows that are hard to deny.
Linux fans can rally around the Open Source warcry; Mac users can bond over the cohesion of their systems. What can Windows users use as our mantra? "BSOD"? "Buffer Overflow"? The best we can use seems to be "market-share".
But the people with enough passion for the technology (who would be likely to organize/attend a convention) don't really care about Market-share, in my experience. We're motivated more by Cool-share.
With Microsoft's current totalitarian licensing scheme (e.g., forcing people to create a Passport account), the message that they send is that Microsoft isn't interested in cultivating user loyalty; they're more interested in developing subordination as a means to get to our money. [Okay, that _is_ a little MS-bashing, and a slight rant.
But that's just my opinion.
-- D.
I always thought it was:
:)
Mac Faithful
Linux Geek
Microsoft Certified
Also, Microsoft is the Company, Linux is the Movement, and Apple is the Mothership
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Whoever marked this as flamebait--what kind of crack are you smoking and where can I get some? This post hits it right on the head. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's flamebait! MOD PARENT UP you non-CSMs!
in check. Please.
Yeah, I was overdramatic.
You totally ignored my point. That Linux copies Windows. Instead you attack the Mac OS UI.
I've only used a Mac for 11 months now, and a PC for 7 years before that. I've played with Linux for a few years in college, and am running a server right now.
Sure, the Mac HCI isn't *perfect*. So improve it, that's a good idea. I'm just saying following the Mac HCI is a better start than no HCI or the Windows HCI.
I have to agree that blindly following anyone is a seriously poor idea, but the problem is that Linux UI people seem to be blindly following Windows, or no one at all.
GPL Deconstructed
From what I've read about X (I still use 9.2 because I have an older machine, but may upgrade shortly) it solves this problem quite nicely. But most "members of the Mac community" remember the crashes, not fondly, but well.
sulli
RTFJ.
this is pure flamebait. most of what he is naming off is wrong, not a problem, or worse in windows. (start button/menu bar grabing focus unexpectedly at the touch of a modifier key, that's BAD).
unix copy/paste functionality, and overuse of context menus are two VERY BAD THINGS linux get's stuck with. who's idea was it to make the entire menu bar accessable only through a context menu in gimp?
btw, the way to navigate up through directories in the finder is by cmd-clicking a window's title. odd modifier key, yes, but a very nice and well implemented feature.
The Finder-Using 3 button mouse assign option click to 2nd and control click to the 3rd button. option click to navigate forward, control use contextual, Command click in the Window's Title bar to navigate backwards.
Contextual Menu-if a user doesn't know what this is he also probably doesn't need a two button mouse.
Keyboard navigation-Mac OS 9 has great built-in options for optional input such as feet devices and speech command. And keyboard menu navigation has been an option for as long as I remember (Mac OS 6.x)
PEBCAK \'peb-kak\ abbr Problem Exisits Between Chair and Keyboard : common IT help desk diagnosis
I was at MacWorld and watched the Virtual PC Demo. They should OS/2 Warp running on a G4 with all the Windows running at the same time (95,98,NT,2000)
It was pretty cool.
I hope it's fast on a new iMac...
:)
Your Technology General Contractor http://www.birddogdigital.com
Ha ha!
Oh come on. Comdex had something called Windows World for years. I think they've dropped the name, but the theme persists.
sulli
RTFJ.
I think we can agree there is nothing negative about copying another OS which happens to belongs to them. And yes, they are same people working on the OS. Even more: they are the same people working on the same OS .
They fixed that in Windows XP. The start menu button now extends fully to the bottom left corner and the task buttons extend to the bottom of the screen. This even works when you use the classic theme instead of the Fisher-Price one.
DCMonkey
After the initial hi-res, dynamic feeling appeal of the dock wore off, I too found myself not liking it very much; I felt like I had to work against it. Using the Dock felt strange, hard... much like the dumbfounded feeling I had the first time I tried to be productive with OpenSTEP (that wasn't around for long).
Funny thing is, now that I've gotten used to the dock, I can't really get along without it. Dare I say it--I like the dock. I start seeing everything as a dock now.
Now when I have to look at a windows machine, that plain old windows taskbar with the silly Start button has become another (albeit dry, waste of space, single-function) dock.
Even though there are things I would like to change, I am much more productive than I ever was forever trying to configure Windows so it it would actually work as promised or spending hours reading, configuring, compiling, installing and then finally working with a X Windows application (that worked as promised!).
--Hell is Microsoft Word, Windows and a deadline.
Raskin had a completely different model for a user interface. He didn't want a mouse or a GUI. His concept was the ultimate keyboard-driven word processor. The result was not the Mac, but the Canon Cat, which lasted six months on the market before being discontinued.
I think that USB floppies are supported, but that the built in floppies on old machines (such as on my 8600 and maybe the beige G3's) are not supported.
I can mount a floppy in my USB drive, but not the built-in, under OS X.
Yeah.... If you make a poll to windows users you will realize that 90% of them hate the OS, they use it because there are afraid of change..
Other things are: when somebody rants about apple, you can notice that almost the same 90% have never used a mac or even seen one in realtime.
You will never see a windows community, because there will be too much people crying or sad to know that others have the same problems
jg
You are my new god of rational thought.
The menubar style of Windows apps is from X. The Mac menubar cannot be done in a point-to-type environment, also it was more of an X design to not have a particular app be "active" but to have them all be equal. Turning open windows into an icon with 1:1 mapping between each icon and each window is from X (this is how Windows worked before '95). Keyboard navigation was exactly copied from the CDE/Motif environment, including the Alt+Tab (MicroSoft improved this by making Alt+Tab go to iconized windows, CDE required the mouse to open an iconized window), and the meaning of ctrl and shift on navigating lists of items.
In fact I see a lot more of X in MicroSoft's interface than Macintosh. The main thing taken from Mac is desktop icons (ie icons that do not correspond to windows). Also the keyboard bindings could claim to be copied from Mac, though at the time almost all X applications were copying the Mac bindings as well (one big difference is that the X applications, and most MSDOS ones, used the "Alt" key, MicroSoft's insistance on using "Ctrl" resulted in a huge mess and is mostly responsible for the claims that X appliations are inconsistent).
In the pictures linked from the article, there are a bunch of people protest.
What are they protesting? Lack of G5 chips?
*ponder*
"...you can steal my woman, but you ain't done nuthin' smart."
Sorry my friend, that's just funny.
Talking about emulating Mac OS on Windows reminds me of one of those $400 cars with $2000 worth of stereo equipment in them.
Obviously you don't use your machines for much production work.
HAHAHAHA!!!
You just made my day. Thanks.
" Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc."
you are right but the toy you call windows has none of these either.
use a REAL platform like a sun starcat.something that can handle a REAL load without crying like a little beyach.
SUN is not like MS,a platform that all of a sudden can handle a plain word processing program without crashing and call it stable.
how did it feel to have that shoved up youre arse?
I imagine you are one of those sub-geeks i was talking about earlier. people who love computers too much but yet are not that bright enough to undestand em
He must have had the same experience that I did. It was like they carpeted over a previous show without breaking it down first. I nearly faceplanted about nine times just walking around. I swear one of the lumps under the carpet was human-sized. Anyone seen Woz recently? I'm beginning to worry.
"I like to play with things a while... before annihilation!" Ming the Merciless
Here's a thought: The original revision A iMacs had most of the 'guts' (CPU, ROMs, etc) on a daughtercard that was connected to the motherboard through a PCI-type interface. What if Mr. Drew has just bought up a bunch of old revA iMacs (or just the obsolete daughtercards) and has created some glue hardware that connects them to the PCI bus? The emulation code would need to make the PC hardware and memory look like Mac stuff to OSX. However, as you would be running on real Apple hardware, there should be no problem getting OSX to install/run.
Hmmmmm...
why doesnt Microsoft start one of their own, it could be called "WINDEX"...hell, they could afford to buy the name
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
In the past, I have interacted with (read: flamed ;-) a great many Windows fanatics. One thing that most of them had in common was virtually complete ignorance of any other OS.
It was in the Wired Review
"You can load DOS, Linux, OS 2, Windows 2000, 95, 98, ME, XP Home and Pro, and of course OS X and Mac OS 9. You can run any combination; RAM is the only limiting factor. While this trick has other uses, the popular purpose is to impress people who have trouble running just one operating system on their PC. And it really is impressive."
Join the Free Software Foundation
I don't want there to be hard words between us. You threw the first punch by 'accusing' me of arrogance, ignorance, and a lack of understanding. All three accusations may be true, but I doubt it.
I never claimed Linux is based on Apple or Microsoft products. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the KDE and FVWM95 UI and window manager both are *clearly* copying the Windows UI and interface. I was not addressing the underlying code base (Minix, VMX, BSD, or Mac OS 9) as all of them are quite distinct.
You are talking about stability and underlying core OS. I am not. This alone should flag a warning that misunderstanding is imminent, since we aren't talking about the same thing.
I never said that the UI was ripped or otherwise. Xerox did not create a HCI or a set of useability guidelines. Apple did. Apple does. They have one for OS 9 and they have one for OS X. Microsoft has one too. Linux, however, doesn't (though the GNOME usability project has just been brought to my attention. Except that they have adopted NeXT's paradigm, so it's still more accurate to say that they are using NeXT and Apple's work)
Anyway, I'm sorta embarrassed to ask, but why does your writing style seem so... unpolished? You cannot spell precious (precisouse) and you aren't even talking about the same topic I am (human usability, human computer interface, user interface guidelines), instead talking about stability and window managers and OS kernels and cores, and finally, aesthetics.
I'm hoping you're seriously considering taking some speech and presentation classes, as well as writing, communication, and philosophy classes, otherwise I suspect you're wasting your money in college.
GPL Deconstructed
You're right. Do you know why? Because I'm not looking at what they're talking about, but what they're producing. And what the gnome developers produce in general suggests that they don't get it, but are simply copying Microsoft (please see the flagship, Evolution: instead of being an attempt to design a new PIM from the ground up with an eye towards usability, it's an attempt to design a new PIM that looks, acts, and tastes like Outlook).
No, they clearly don't. Designing around Fitt's Law is a hallmark of Mac design, and I don't see any such attention in Gnome. Just to refresh my memory, when using gnome-panel: if you drag your pointer to the edge of the screen (the bottom edge if the panel is on the bottom, etc.), can you click on anything? Or do you have to adjust your pointer away from the edge by a few pixels first?
--Matthew
On topic, I can't wait to get one of these new imacs for home and edit home movies and put them onto DVD on a comptuer that looks like a desklamp. And with OS X, I'll finally have a home machine the rest of my household can use.
I advise all relatives to buy Macs. One parent has an iBook, the other has a Windows 98 box. Which one do you think I spend more time helping with computer problems?
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I'm certain you meant to post a link to the research supporting this assertion rather than leaving it as another unsupported opinion masquerading as factual conclusions. While I recognise slashdot is infamous for this sort of thing, I'm interested in reading any material that supports this claim.
Jeff Watkins
"Daddy, I want a purple iMac. And I want ice cream!"
-- Unidentified 7-year-old to his father.
Actually, the way I reason this is if OS X can run nearly everything that will compile and run on Free-BSD (its nearest Unix relative), then OS X is a unix. That OS X can run more than merely what is available for Free-BSD is an advantage rather than a limitation.
The core of Mac OS X is BSD Unix with a Mach microkernel. This means it will run anything that will compile on your favourite flavour of BSD and many things that will compile on Linux and Solaris. You can run Apache, Tomcat, PHP, or your favourite open-source service on OS X. In addition, one may run Office and Photoshop in addition to these fine Unix applications.
For those of us Unix geeks who prize getting work done rather than merely working, Mac OS X is an ideal choice. For example, I can fiddle with .rc files to turn on sshd; or I can simply check a box in the Sharing control panel to turn it on. For many, that's the hallmark of the Mac OS: getting work done however you feel comfortable.
Jeff Watkins
"Daddy, I want a purple iMac. And I want ice cream!"
-- Unidentified 7-year-old to his father.
The thing is that the GNOME-ers working on GUP (GNOME Usability Project) know that several things aren't quite right, or even close to right, in the current GNOME interface. The goal of GUP is to make things right for GNOME 2.
You speak as someone who has never used a Mac in an attempt to become even vaguely good with one. There are several basic assumptions in your post that indicate to me that you are trying to apply PC flaws into the Mac interface: they simply do not exist.
For instance, I use a trackball that has 2 buttons regularly, I have also used single button mice all the way up to mice with 6 buttons on them. I use Linux and Windows regularly.
In all of that, I've found that having more than one button on the Mac simply isn't necessary! The design doesn't require it: contextual menus can be activated, the system can be navigated, and everything that you would want the second button for is trivial to do without the contextual menu.
That is just one example.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
The only problem with that, is it's a box that lists applicaions verticaly, which wastes alot of space (text flows horizontaly). Sure you can make it narrow, but then you get no text, only icons.
Then there's the fact that it's movable (more wasted memory muscle). Having it movable seem like a good idea. But the only reason it is movable is because it easly gets in the way of things. The taskbar isn't easly movable (not by default). But it dosn't need to be because it's never in the way of anything.
If you could make it horizontal, so it could slide along the bottom and not take up much room like the windows task bar, then it would be OK.
IMHO, the taskbar wins hands down. Evidence of that is the bad knock-off: the Dock.
The taskbar seem to be one of the few good ideas that MS had (unless they coppied it from someone else which wouldn't supprise me).
Last year's PC Expo is summarized here.
The next one will be held June 25-27 2002 at the Javits Convention Center in New York.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Actually, Civ III Mac is out now, they're selling copies at MacWorld.
Especially since it doesn't sound like you use it.
It's nearly all there. BSD.
Not only can I compile and run BSD and Linux apps (with the obligatory recompile), but I can boot into single user mode, command line, and UI less.
Aqua is just a UI. If you really want to play with the OS without the UI, download Darwin for x86. It's BSD. Honest. Truly. Apple didn't close the source. It's still there on Apple's site, still available for download.
As to your other question: "I guess the real question that would answer this is: "What percentage of Apple Applications can Yellow Dog run without installing the Apple OS?"
Yellow Dog cannot run any Apple applications. It cannot run DVD player or Photoshop or Fire or Office.
What do you mean to ask? "What percentage of source that I can compile on Yellow Dog can I compile on OS X?" I suspect the answer is much closer to 100% than it is to 50%, given that we're talking about source.
Otherwise your question is akin to asking, "What percentage of Windows applications can Red Hat run without installing the Windows OS?"
Red Hat doesn't run Windows applications. It runs Linux applications.
Anyway, the resource fork hasn't gone away, it's been transmuted into the concept of a Bundle. Mozilla.app is really a structured directory; in Finder view it's an executable, but it really is a folder, with resources, executables, localization data, metadata, etc.
Your other criticism of Applescript is pretty hollow too. Applescript is akin to a systemwide API to allow programs to be scripted. Each program has a dictionary (if the developers of the program think to make one) of hooks, exported exposed functionality, that Applescript can use to manipulate the program.
It's similar to a shell script but different, since with OS X we also have shell scripts; it allows application automation, in a manner similar to how CLI programs have command line options, except because it's a system wide API, there are certain universal set of assumptions that programs follow by implementing Applescript support.
GPL Deconstructed
I see, so your complaint is with my statement that 'all' KDE and Gnome developers are blindly copying Microsoft.
Fine, let me amend that statement: all the developers who have code currently being used in the Gnome and KDE projects are blindly copying Microsoft.
The point is, the general direction and focus of Gnome is to provide something 'just like that successful software vendor, Microsoft.' That's exactly what Microsoft did, s/Microsoft/Apple. And they were willing to completely change the interface to try something better (if only a little better), something Gnome doesn't seem willing to do.
Sure, GUP may evince some minor improvements to the interface, but as long as their discussions are about whether dialogue windows should have close buttons or not, rather than what major, sweeping changes to Gnome need to be undertaken, they will never make Gnome even competitive with Windows, much less actually usable.
--Matthew
" It's just something they have to use, wether they like it or not. "
last time i checked... nobody forced a gun to anybodys head, forcing people to buy sony, dell, gateway, hp, compaq, et al.
Actually, you can. Option-Shift-click the zoom box, and voila! Other zoom effects include icon size (Option-click) and label width (Shift-click), and there's also app ordering/palette placement/etc. via Applescript .
PEBCAK \'peb-kak\ abbr Problem Exisits Between Chair and Keyboard : common IT help desk diagnosis
Yes, the close-button-discussion was a bit silly, but the GUP people *are* putting a lot of thought into making the interface better. You should applaud their efforts rather than criticize them. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "major, sweeping changes." Some think those changes are already occurring; others think that the interface shouldn't be too different from Windows* or OSX under the strategy of embrace and extend. In any case, I think you'll find that GUP will bear fruit in the upcoming GNOME2 and the applications that use its framework. Cheers!
~~~~~~~~~
dissertus scribendo latine videri volo.
Ah...well then, just make it more obvious, and docking feature so it snaps into place like the taskbar and you have the best of both worlds.
I think the key fault here is making some of there features more acceable/obvious. Or maybe I just need to read the manual.
Of course, there's still the issue of having dupicate info since the app menu will be there, taking up vaulble space which could be put to better use.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to criticize them. What they're doing is great.
All I'm saying is that their efforts don't appear to be having much effect in making Gnome be anything but an attempt at wholesale copying Windows. Because, as far as I can tell, the Gnome vision is to be like Windows.
Maybe GNOME2 will really reflect greater attention to user interface design, but my point is that it looks like they are accepting the major decisions that Windows (as opposed to OS/2 or MacOS or they themselves) made, and then fretting about the little stuff. I really don't think they can do anything new or impressive if they ignore the big ideas that IBM and Apple had.
Put more personally, doing it how they're doing it they won't make an interface that makes me long for it when I'm using something else. And that's exactly what Apple and IBM did.
--Matthew
Sorry, but I perfer being able to go to a store buy a piece of HW and know that it'll work in my computer.
/ports/ on mac computers at schools, but never seen an actual firewire DEVICE except for over in the mac area in CompUSA. And one or two devices online.
If I need something I buy it and it works.
Firewire? Haven't seen a single firewire product, seen some firewire
That and I still say that oSX is a serious move in the wrong direction. Something that is to be used for clicking on an application to run said application should NOT count as being a serious (or even a moderate) drain on your systems resources.
Usable is nice, but, uh, heh. Shouting out "We care more about style then function!!!!" is kinda inane.
Of course apple makes computers for people with a sense of 'style' and who care about how their computer 'looks'.
Well:
A: Fuck said people. Anybody who likes form over substance has yet to get out of that 4 year old 'oooh, pretty shiny thing!!!' phase.
Sure I like pretty shiny things too, but I keep my pretty shiny things seperate from my Do Shit Fast things and I have enough guts to admit it.
B: STOP trying to claim that your OS is superior just cuz it looks pretty.
You can chop a turd into little round pieces and paint it pretty colors, but it don't make it an edible meal. Just a prettily painted piece of shit.
Hang it on your wall and call it modern art, but don't claim is has superior nutritional value just because it looks pretty.
And don't claim that OSX is a superior OS just because it does all the same stuff as any other half assed GUI, but just with pretty transparencies and fancy colored boxs.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
As an intriguing point for this thread, Don Box brought an iBook running OS X to this past summer's TechEd conference to give his presentation on XML/SOAP interoperability... (forgot the VGA adapter cable, though...)
I didn't see Palm or Handspring in the Macworld (well, Palm representative spoke for a moment about Palm Desktop for Mac OS X during Jobs' keynote). Instead they selected to participate in CES in Las Vegas.
As a Gnome developer, I happen to agree with your assertion of what Gnome currently looks like. Very much attention has been given thus far towards underlying technologies, and very little attention has been given towards creating a beautiful desktop environment. Developers had a strong idea of what they wanted, but so much of that was dependent upon the Bonobo object mode that it hasn't been feasible to do yet, certainly without breaking binary compatibility. Eazel was definitely on the right path and made a shell that, in terms of usability, far surpassed anything done yet on Linux. Now I feel that much of the project is again focusing so much on user-invisible libraries again that Gnome 2.0 will not meet the real expectations again, and we will end up making 2.0 into merely a faster and more beautiful version of what we already have, with a few other cool additions such as Pango, which will not affect many of the current userbase. I hope 2.0 will be more than that, but that is my fear at the moment.
... And we don't need more coverage like this.
Altough OS X is based on BSD, it's running FreeBSD. FreeBSD is mainly for intel, now for mac ppc.
If they had chosen OpenBSD, they'd have 10 platforms and very high security. (strong crypto from canada)
If they had chosen NetBSD, they'd have 30 platforms to choose from.
The main point limiting the porting is Aqua. Even though Aqua can be ported easily, it's a speed issue for computers with slow graphics cards.
So Intel / AMD is the most likely port, then SUN Sparc and Alpha.
Classic would not be possible on other platforms due to the Mac ROM.
By comparison, my KAOS operating system is easier to port as it's based on OpenBSD and is prototyped in Java2.
It won't be available in Java2 due to speed issues, but I can get it over to whatever quickly.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
"We're the only company that owns the whole widget - the hardware, the software and the operating system. We can take full responsibility for the user experience. We can do things that the other guy can't do."
-- Steve Jobs 01/02
But the PPC emulator to be introduced at Macworld Tokyo will change all that. To MacOS, it will be indistinguishable from a real iMac. A cheap software-only version will be made available, but it won't run all the newest stuff; the jewel in the crown will be the hardware-assisted version, which will have a real, fast G3 processor and RAM on a PCI card.
Well if it has a G3 processor, the hardware version is not really an emulator, is it?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.