Slashdot Mirror


Mac OS X Switcher Stories

spid writes "Tim O'Reilly posted an interesting article about people switching from other OSes (Mac OS, Windows, Linux) to Mac OS X. The resounding consensus is that most folks appreciate how, compared to these other OSes, Mac OS X 'just works.' O'Reilly also makes an interesting point that UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's 'switch' campaign."

706 comments

  1. Linux... by Malduin · · Score: 1

    ...just works! I guess with an underlying *nix core, things seem to just work better. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a version of Windows with a *nix core?

    1. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called WinNT and it has a VMS core

    2. Re:Linux... by stalbott972 · · Score: 0

      Strange I thought it was called Lindows, but maybe thats just my deranged imagination for the morning.

      --
      Only 8 away from being prime (569919 - 569927) And mom told me I'm unique!!! Sheesh
    3. Re:Linux... by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Linux only "just works" if you're prepared to wade through manuals and waste hours screwing around with config files. OS X isn't perfection incarnate but it beats to Linux in terms of usability by miles. A novice can use it and that's the point.


      Now there is a 'nix based OS that shows it can be done, the Linux distros should follow suit. It is no wonder that Linux "isn't on the desktop" given the current attitude of RTFM that pervades.

    4. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had to wade through manuals.

      Troll.

    5. Re:Linux... by diamondc · · Score: 1

      Have you even tried the latest Mandrake.. or even RedHat? If you just want to read email, browse the web and play mp3s then you never have to edit config files.

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    6. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I've had the chance to play with OS-X (along with X-Darwin) and I can say that there is absolutely no motivation for me to spend that kind of money to switch over, as there are NO APPS FOR THE MAC that I need that I can't get for free for Linux. Attention Photoshop Bigots: I'm not a graphic artist hence I don't give a rat's a**.

    7. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the current attitude of RTFM that pervades.

      RTFM attitudes Linux Zealots are all about. You see, Linux users make the mistake of investing their choice of OS with some extra significance. This leads to Linux becoming tied into their sense of self-esteem. Criticize Linux, and you criticize the Linux user himself (since it is invariably a "he").

      I detect a level of bigotry in the Mac community too, but since Mac users on the whole are already successful individuals, as opposed to the basement-dwelling stinking neanderthals that use Linux, the RTFM factor seems much lower.

    8. Re:Linux... by MadAhab · · Score: 2
      I don't consider the hours I've spent screwing around with config files to be a waste. I consider it "getting to know my software". Once upon a time, people expected to put some time into that sort of thing before using ANY piece of software. Now people are too lazy, I guess.

      But the reason I don't consider it a waste is that the software does what *I* want it to do, not what some marketroid wants it to do. And I know it will continue to do what I want, instead of having my preferences thrown out the door next time someone decides that maybe, after all, I really do want spyware, upgrade nagging, submission to mailing lists, silent upgrades to important system components, their web browser as the default, their messaging software installed with an audio driver upgrade, email programs that execute code against my will, etc, ad nauseam. In the end, I get back that time I've invested from systems that don't crash, and things that don't magically go wrong when I install some unrelated piece of software.

      So while I'll probably have OS X machines around, I'm also going to have FreeBSD and Linux machines installed somewhere, too. And I'll keep R-ing The F-ing M.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    9. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I whole-heartedly agree.

      I've been playing around with DV-editing and (S)VCD creation under Linux and let me tell you, it has been an uphill experience all the way. It -can- be done, but mere mortals won't have the time nor patience to futz around with all the pre-1.0 libraries and stuff you'll need to do it. You can do it--get Kino, brave the command-line mess of transcode, or the jungle that is Cinelerra--but it is a nightmare, plain and simple.

      After pulling out my hair getting it all to work on linux (and creating shell scripts to automate the process), I went to my friend's place with my digital camcorder. I plugged it in to his iMac and was amazed--it all "just worked". OS X didn't ask for "driver disks" and then to be rebooted a zillion times (like windows). No kernel recompiling was needed (like linux). My camcorder was recognized and BOOM! iMovie worked like a dream. iMovie alone is reason enough for me to dump Linux and get a Mac for video editing. There are no decend video editors under Linux (Cinelerra is a jungle, BCAST 2K crash-prone and buggy, Kino far too limited), and the ones I've used under Windows were just plain junk.

      After seeing the how darned EASY it was on the Mac I seriously questioned all my effort to get things going under Linux. Sure it can be done, but at what cost? It works so easily on OS X, and with no effort at all.

      So yes, I've considered switching. Considered it very seriously.

    10. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Mac "just works" if all you need is a one-button mouse. :)

    11. Re:Linux... by umStefa · · Score: 1

      I am a new Linux user and have tried both the new Mandrake and Red Hat. Mandrake, internet connection worked (i.e. could browse web and read e-mail) but soundcard didn't work. Red Hat, sound card worked, but no LAN connection. After a couple of hours of research I finally found information on the config files and got my LAN working. Don't even ask how long getting all my software up and running has taken (Lets just say it was most of my vacation time)

      --
      Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
    12. Re:Linux... by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're bent on Microsoft, and it shows badly. Apple doesn't prevent you from edit config files. They're all there, tucked quietly away from people that don't need to see them. But they are there, and you can edit them if you prefer.

      On many levels, Apple has given us something that many others haven't - a choice. You can choose to use the interface, and most people will. For those who want more, use the console, install Xwindows, dig around in the config files.

      And it's good that you keep different OSes. You should. If almost everyone used one OS, we'd have all sorts of headaches...

      --
      UNIX is Powerful, Linux is Free, BSD is Open, MacOS X is Usable.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    13. Re:Linux... by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't wish to be flippant, but I see no evidence that Mandrake has paid *any* attention to usability. The desktop is an utter mess, being a vanilla KDE/GNOME, cobbled together tools and broken wizards (e.g. the new user wizard). Even their own tools have no consistency between them, using Ok,OK,Okay in dialogs and switching the order and size of the OK & Cancel buttons from one to the next.


      Red Hat is better - the GNOME desktop is well laid out, bold and clean but it still suffers badly in comparison to OS X.


      If you want to see how badly, just compare how hard it is to change your screen resolution, or share a folder, or change the system time, or burn a CD, or rip a CD into MP3 format, or get help on doing any of these things. All these things are pretty straightforward in OS X. You'd be hard pressed as a novice to figure them out in RH Linux.


      OS X has faults (using Sherlock to find a file is a major pain in the ass) but it's clear from the changes in 10.2 that Apple are addressing them. The next question is why aren't Red Hat and the rest doing the same?

    14. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you only want to read mail, browse the web and play mp3's and are afraid of that maze called /etc, you don't need an OS that (in a default install) pumps 1.3 GB onto your harddisk, takes 5 minutes to boot to a logon prompt, and where your web browser takes 20 seconds to give a sign of life after you click the icon.

      The kind of users that don't want to mess around in config files to make it run a little smoother are better off with windows, because it just works (hey, where have I heard that before) right after setup finishes.

    15. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh yes it is terribly hard to change resolution in linux with xfree86. Press ctrl-alt- + or crtl-alt- - and magically watch your resolution change, much, much, much harder that in windows or os x

    16. Re:Linux... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      (User #241058 Info | http://killyridols.net/) Have you even tried the latest Mandrake.. or even RedHat? If you just want to read email, browse the web and play mp3s then you never have to edit config files.

      You are describing the absolute minimum, what if you want to do more? How about running much more advanced software suites? Adding new hardware? Attaching a wide array of peripherals? I haven't used Mandrake so I don't know, but it seems that you are implying that to do more you probably will have to edit config files.
      I'm doing all the things you mention plus I'm running a number of development tools, a few advanced graphics programs, dual monitors, a USB scanner, a wacom tablet, usb printer, attaching to a professional digital camera, connecting to an 802.11b network & occasionally attaching the laptop to a TV or video monitor, all without ever having to edit config files or even the command line to get it all working. (Oh yeah, and with color correction between input(scanners & camera) and output(monitors & printer or video monitor)). Perhaps that would be possible with Mandrake but your post seems to imply otherwise.

      The only config files I have played with are for apache since I wanted to use a lot of advanced features. This is actually one of the things I like about OS X, everything just works, but if you want to do something different, advanced or just plain wierd the config files are still there for the advanced user.

    17. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      sorry, you have to get ppp, xwindows, and audio working first. Unless you're using lynx and pine over a static ip (with a supported nic!) and the mp3s were burned as an audio cd (under windows, obviously) and played as a regular cd.


      Windows, BeOS (rip), MacOS, even QNX, they all let you enter your isp's phone number, login name, and it works. No reading HOWTOS, man pages, or faqs. No reading sample configuration files. No cryptic error messages.

    18. Re:Linux... by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      thato nly changes the displayed resolution, not the actual desktop resolution. try switching tesolution and then moving your mouse beyond the bottom or the right side.

      This is not intuitive. This is a mess. Sure, it may be useful for a select few, but really, it's confusing or annoying for anyone else.

      Now i remember the first linux i succesfully installed was caldera and they actually did go a long way to promote usability. the version i used was very old, i think it was 2.x, however it had a gui for changing the resolution, and it actually did work. i think it had to restart the x server to do it though. a bit strange, but...

    19. Re:Linux... by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      i am not afraid of /etc, i just don't want to waste all my time there when i could be doing osmething more useful like responding to trolls on slashdot.

      1.3gb is less than the 1.8gb workstation install of mandrake 8.2

      I go from power-on, to login prompt in about 30 seconds using OS X 10.2.

      Chimera Navigator (what name are they gonna use?) 0.4 starts up in about 5 seconds for me.

      my machine is very modest. it's the lowest end machine that apple currently sells, the ibook 600 cdrom machine.

      why not get the details correct if you are going to troll?

    20. Re:Linux... by glenmark · · Score: 2

      "it's called WinNT and it has a VMS"

      Nooooooooo! Please stop perpetuating that myth. If NT had a VMS core, NT would actually be a scalable, secure, robust OS.

      Yes, David Cutler, the head of NT/W2K development, was also one of the original VMS design team members, but the operating systems themselves have little in common (except for similarites between a few memory structures of interest only to device driver developers).

      As for whether the NT kernel contains any purloined Prism/Mica code, that is an entirely different branch of speculation altogether....

      --
      *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
    21. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dumbest post EVER!

    22. Re:Linux... by DrXym · · Score: 2
      I'm sure there are car mechanics who think the same way - if you're not prepared to dismantle the engine and put it back together to get it to go properly then you're too lazy.


      The same with computers. Some people have real-life work to do and poking around inside the OS for hours to accomplish that takes a few seconds on XP or OS X is a supreme waste of time for them. They just want the bloody thing to work so they can get on with whatever they bought the machine to do in the first place.


      Frankly I don't understand what your problem is with making Linux usable. If you want to RTFM, feel free to live your life in the console. But while Linux continues to inflict that piece of shit it calls a desktop on mere mortals they will simply turn to other operating systems be they made by Microsoft or Apple.

    23. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if they make an 'easy' version of Linux that novices can use, provided we always have the distros where we can go in and make everything work exactly how we want (eg. gentoo). The whole usability/prettyness thing isn't for everyone, and I think these days a lot of people are lost in trying to add these things to their OSes while leaving more important things undone.

    24. Re:Linux... by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      adobe premiere/after effects and discreet's editdv are available for windows, as well as professional tools like shake. i am a mac os x user myself, but there is good video editing stuff for windows too.

    25. Re:Linux... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      OS X has faults (using Sherlock to find a file is a major pain in the ass) but it's clear from the changes in 10.2 that Apple are addressing them.

      Including the Sherlock problem. Now Sherlock is just for Internet services, and there is a compact, simple file finder that is separate.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    26. Re:Linux... by mwjlewis · · Score: 1

      but did you enjoy it? do you feel like you acomplished something? That is why I run linux on two of my boxes at home. I enjoy the challange, and I enjoy the feeling when you get something to work.

      --
      www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
    27. Re:Linux... by checkyoulater · · Score: 1

      I go from power-on, to login prompt in about 30 seconds using OS X 10.2.

      My Gentoo workstation gets to a login prompt in ~30 seconds, too. And that includes the 5 or so seconds before GRUB even starts.

      --
      Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
    28. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you may not lick my balls.

    29. Re:Linux... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      If you can get em free for linux, 99% of the time you can get em free for OSX. And if worst comes to worst, you could always install Linux nex to OS X

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    30. Re:Linux... by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Yeh, but I bet macosx lets you change your screen resolution with out using a text editor and config files..

    31. Re:Linux... by diamondc · · Score: 1

      Oh my god.. 1.3 GB of hard drive space.. you can buy a 100GB hard drive for $100 now. Even Windows XP takes that much space for the initial install (Not counting all the crud Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc install for you). You're right, Windows XP and 2000 are 'good enough' for most people. So what if it took MS 10 years to write a decent operating system ;)

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    32. Re:Linux... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      If your system was designed arround a single button mouse, you wouldn't need two buttons. Believe me, a mac is perfectly functional with just 1 button on the mouse. THe only thing you need 2 buttons for are games. And if you're really at a loss with less that 50 buttons on your mouse PLUG YOUR GOD DAMNED OLD MOUSE INTO THE MAC!!!!!! IF IT'S USB IT WILL WORK, PERIOD.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    33. Re:Linux... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      I can't think of a thing in OS X that I couldn't get to do exactly what I want to do. Unless of course you're talking about completely recompiling the entire system from the ground up, but how many people seriously do that anyways?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    34. Re:Linux... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      What makes it even worse is the sort of unaproachable elitism that seems to be developing in the Linux world. All these people that finaly got it to do what they wanted, won't tell you a damn thing becasue they want you to suffer like they did. I can't tell you how many times when I was first begining to play with Red Hat (back arround 4 or 5) I would go into a forum asking someone how to do one thing or another or configure this or that option and I always got the same answer, Read the manuals, that's what they're there for. Believe me, if I had understood what the manual was saying to me (or sometimes if there even was a manual) I would have used that info. But I didn't see the answer I was looking for that's why I asked. I have never seen that sort of attitude in the mac community. Ask a mac user for help and they will tell you how they did it, where to get the best information on it, and if need be, walk you through it step by step. Now that's community.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    35. Re:Linux... by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Might be wrong, but doesn't that work only if XF86Config is already set up correctly? Apple has the advantage of knowing exactly what hardware is on the machine. Linux distributions have to guess right, and then it's over to the user.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    36. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if it took MS 10 years to write a decent operating system ;)

      If we say it took 10 years for Windows to mature to a "decent" form.. first lets say 15 years. Microsoft lists 1985 as the Windows 1.0 release. Is this any different from how long it's taken Linux? Linux.org says Linus started in 1991 and version 1.0 is 1994. So we shall use 1994 to keep everything relative.

      Windows: 15 years
      Linux: 8 years

      Now, you might say Linux isn't made by a huge corporation with tons of employees, etc. etc. This shall be ignored for the discussion as the true effects of the corporate vs non-corporate environment are impossible to measure in a Slashdot post.

      Anyway, most people are just now beginning to say that Linux has become truly usable as a desktop platform for everyday activities. And I agree with the commonly held belief that Windows 2000 is really the first truly good and stable version of Windows.

      The usability of today's Lunixes (and WMs) is no where near a Windows 2000 in terms of install, context-sensitive help, intuitivness in displays and dialogs, layout, etc. This simply cannot be disputed.

      I am not saying any one is better or worse, merely pointing out that you're trying to make a crack at Microsoft for taking so long, but Linux isn't really at that level either, and they have been working almost 10 years since 1.0.

      Also because WMs and Linux proper are not bound as they are in Windows, perhaps this isn't a fair comparison again, although I feel that in terms of graphical usability, Windows 3.0 was quite usable, but not all there in terms of speed, ease of configuration and, most importantly, stability.

      Anyway my main point is, why shouldn't it take a long time to develop a really good OS? If you've ever taken an undergrad OS course, you get a small idea of just how complex an operating system truly is. Throw in a WM on top of that, and the whole package becomes mind-bogglingly huge. There is no reason why we should expect it to take less than 10-15 years to develop a truly strong operating system from near scratch (Windows at first ran on top of DOS, Linux based upon Unix of course).

      The question is when Linux/Solaris/SunOS/OSX/BSD/Windows have been developed to their full potential, will it take another 10 years to get back to the level of OS design we are at now? What more could we possibly ask for from our current OSes?

    37. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people actually change their screen resolution? How many of those people change it on a daily or weekly basis? A real small percentage, I would guess. Whenever I install X or Windows, I stick to 1280x1024 at 16 bit color, and I see no reason to change (unless I get another monitor or video card).

    38. Re:Linux... by EdMcMan · · Score: 1

      Anything "just works" if you are running on proprietary hardware. Linux runs without problems on Macs, why? The hardware is not very different.

    39. Re:Linux... by Analog+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Or run OS X in MOL (Mac-on-Linux). I hear 0.9.64 has much better support for Unices.

    40. Re:Linux... by Philip+Trent · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're having fun, but spare a thought for those of us without a lot of time.

    41. Re:Linux... by Philip+Trent · · Score: 1

      And there, in a nutshell, you've demolished every argument about the superiority of building your own white box out of off-the-shelf parts.

    42. Re:Linux... by Anonymous+Canard · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I've missed a great new feature of OSX, but X11 is just as hard to configure on a Mac as it is on Linux. Harder even, if you count figuring out how to make it play together nicely with the rest of the desktop.

      I wouldn't even really agree that screen resolution is a system administration task; it is really more of a software configuration task. The best system admin tool for Linux/Unix or MacOSX bar none, IMHO, is Webmin. It has more modules and is easier to use for more administration tasks than anything else I've run across.

      --

      --
      BitTorrent in C -- LibBT
      http://www.sf.net/projects/libbt
    43. Re:Linux... by fgodfrey · · Score: 2
      Some people enjoy the challenge. Other people actually need to use their computers to get something done.


      I am usually in the "enjoy the challenge" category, but when I'm at work (I'm a developer), I want my desktop box to "just work" 'cause I have enough challenges in debugging the operating system I'm working on without having to debug the one running my development environment.


      Linux "just works" if it "just likes" your hardware. Sure, you learn a lot by poking through the config files to figure out what tweak you need to make it run with your configuration. However, I'd wager that the majority of people out there don't have the slightest interest in learning that. Those people are Apple's target market.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    44. Re:Linux... by Yakko · · Score: 1
      It is no wonder that Linux "isn't on the desktop" given the current attitude of RTFM that pervades.

      I just got MacOS X last week, and I assure you I have had to "RTFM," such as it were, to get things to work. netinfo, their whacked gcc, locations of various files, the general BSD aroma emanating from the G4 which used to run 9... "where the crap is the termcap on this system?" ... etc.

      It's my opinion that users should be required to do a bit of reading up on things, no matter how easy someone makes the computer to use. OTOH, "RTFM" is not a suitable excuse for a patently difficult procedure.

      I've always had the command line. Always. One major reason why I never latched onto an Apple after the IIgs (or, to be more specific, their GUI-only offers) is that I couldn't stand the drool-proof paper approach.

      MacOS X changes all that.

      I have my command line, complete with a reasonable fax of Unix. I wish I could make things like ps more sysv-like, but the various nits like that are minor. I also have the option to configure all the important stuff without using vi, but by using the system prefs. Very slick.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    45. Re:Linux... by DrXym · · Score: 2

      X11 is pretty tricky to set up OS X but I found an easy way to do it - install fink, follow the instructions on the fink website, when X11 starts, right click on it's icon in the dock and choose "Keep In Dock". From then on you just click the icon and launches as it's meant to.

    46. Re:Linux... by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      great! i was rebutting the previous poster's 5-minute boot time theory

    47. Re:Linux... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2


      Now there is a 'nix based OS that shows it can be done, the Linux distros should follow suit. It is no wonder that Linux "isn't on the desktop" given the current attitude of RTFM that pervades.


      I would love if RTFM would reliable work on Linux.
      However one distro uses a graphical UI to configure the machine.

      The next distro builds a database and generates the config files during the boot process.

      If any of the two above messes 'one' single thing up you have no clue how to fix it.

      If you know how to configure /etc/* files to mount your partitions you make a dumb face after next reboot when your editing got lost.

      Even worth, RTFM is dead. Read tech-info, or how it is called. That means: you need EMACS. You need to know how EMACS navigates through tech-info documents, and well, some monky must have descided which keys to use for what.

      The problem with Linux is: forget what you may have learned about *nix 10 years ago.

      No file is where it should be, neither regarding to old standards of BSD or System V nor regarding to the newer standards used by IBM/HP/SUN.

      Basicly a system only works if you install hundrets of packages you do not realy need. But one tool you have uses one of the obscure packages, so better put 400M linux on your HD where my first installation was 14 disks (floppy disks!) of slackware in 1992.

      Puh ... probably I should finaly give Debian a try ... but well: my next Comp is a Mac Titanium with OS X ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't consider the hours I've spent screwing around with config files to be a waste. I consider it "getting to know my software". Once upon a time, people expected to put some time into that sort of thing before using ANY piece of software. Now people are too lazy, I guess.

      Perhaps you'd also like to return to the golden days of yesteryear when installing a new video card meant hours/days of 'working' with X configurators, modelines, and whatnot? All us lazy people who don't want to bother learning the intimate details of our adapter/monitor combination are SO spoiling it for the *real* users!

      Why bother with PCI when any competent PC user can deal with ISA and IRQs by themselves. Lazy owners - asking the PC to do all that basic I/O setup for them!

      Let's not even start on anyone who expects to not have to write drivers for their just-released hardware - "you've no business buying the hardware if you can't write a driver for it, loser."

      Doesn't sound like a very progressive attitude, does it?..

    49. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh..im so glad to see ppl rip on Linux. I love it. Keep up the good threads!! Im not a Mac fan by any means, but anything that takes the spotlight from linux has my vote!!!

      Remeber everyone......
      When in doubt....run OBSD. It truly is your only friend.

    50. Re:Linux... by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      "Nobody really needs to do it" is not an answer to "why is this so hard to do."

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    51. Re:Linux... by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      > Linux only "just works" if you're prepared to wade through manuals and waste hours screwing around with config files. OS X isn't perfection incarnate but it beats to Linux in terms of usability by miles. A novice can use it and that's the point.

      Good googly moogly. "hours" of reading manuals and scerwing around with config files?

      I've edited exactly *one* config file on my current Linux system.

      OS X is more poilshed than my Gnome system, granted (And for the $$$ it darn well should be), but you're *way* overstating the difficulty of installing and using a modern Linux dostro.

    52. Re:Linux... by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      I'm not a graphic designer, either, and I use Photoshop quite a bit. GIMP just isn't a very good program. Sorry. The UI is beyond annoying.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    53. Re:Linux... by antirename · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but have you ever tried to play unreal tournament with one of those ignorant hockey puck macintosh mice? That was a dumbass design. It was a dumbass design with one button, and it would have been a dumbass design with three. Tiny round mice SUCK.

    54. Re:Linux... by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

      I don't have a lot of spare time, but I put Linux on my PC when I built it. I have Windows 2000 too beacuse I occasionally have to do some Windows-compatible development work. I prefer using Linux though, because everything just seems to be in the right place, and the range of applications to choose from seems much nicer (Browsers: Mozilla, Konqueror, Dillo, Netscape, Galeon, Opera). Installing things is easier (RPM). Development work is easier with decent text editors. And what's more, as long as I don't do anything as silly as giving users write permission to anything outsite /home and /var/tmp, then my machine never messes up. The only installation of Linux I do is to upgrade. Oh yeah, and for those of us without much time to visit opticians, proper anti-aliasing the Linux offers (better than WinXP Cleartype) saves your eyes as well as your time :-)

    55. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dumb fuck! You are a flaming dumb fuck!

      I just got MacOS X last week, and I assure you I have had to "RTFM," such as it were, to get things to work. netinfo, their whacked gcc, locations of various files, the general BSD aroma emanating from the G4 which used to run 9... "where the crap is the termcap on this system?" ... etc.


      Well guess what? Every desktop user on Earth doesn't need to do ANY of these damn things! Sorry to say, buddy, but your parent poster was talking about the RTFM attitude towards novice users, not towards your sad, arrogant types.

      Don't even waste your time posting shit like this.
    56. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. and thats why they got rid of it. DUH!

    57. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, NT 4.0 was the closest thing to VMS. It ran on ~5 CPUs. But then Win2K became i386 centric :(
      I'd say that NT 3.51 was the best...

    58. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      833%k|_|z +|201z0rZ |_1k33 +00 fUxX0r j00r
      /`/\@m4 m00r 7h3|\| 63+zX0r pH@k+z0r 5+|28+

      j00 11@m@ ph@660+^^$$##$$~~!!!!

      `/\/|-|3|\| /\/\3 ph4kz0r 1z \\\|20|\|6 1 1z 5+1|_L $/\/\@r%+0r ~~~N~~~ r1(|-|xX0r 7h4N j00r~~!!!!

      ##############ph34|2 d4 \//|24+|-|0r 0v d4 +r0|_lxX0rZ 8r164yD##########````````

    59. Re:Linux... by EatHam · · Score: 1

      Well, I *am* a RH novice. In fact I just finished installing it about an hour ago (total time about three days :-)) on a laptop for which I did not write down any hardware configuration information at all. In retrospect, I should have, but that's beside the point. In any effect, once I got it working with all of my hardware (not one single conf file edit, I might add), I have been able to successfully change the system time and burn a CD. Haven't tried to rip one yet, but doesn't seem too bad to do. I'm actually amazed at how easy this has turned out to be - should've done this sooner.

    60. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, but have you ever tried to play unreal tournament with one of those ignorant hockey puck macintosh mice?

      1998 called. They want you back.

    61. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen. I am pretty good with computers, good enough to make a living at it, but Linux is still frustrating to me. I like digging around in my OS, what I don't like is finding that nothing works after I upgrade my kernel. I don't like waiting for drivers to be updated (I'm not geeky enough to write my own). And what I really don't like is people talking down to me because I don't happen to know how to write a compiler.

    62. Re:Linux... by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

      Amen to that!

      Having just installed a shiny new copy of SuSE 8.0 on my PeeCee, I was quite pleased with everything until I tried to get X working.

      Ok, so I'm used to this. X11 is a nasty system that feels very much like Microsoft Windows, they've both been getting layer-upon-layer of cruft since the 1980's (it's just that Bill sweeps it under the carpet, whereas the X community at least tries to polish it up). I was a little dismayed to find that attempting to configure X actually physically locked my hardware though.

      So, I turn off 3D acceleration and try again. Same thing. In fact, I can't get X to come up at all! Yeah, I have really non-standard hardware to blame right? Well, I have a GeForce 3 video card and a 19" monitor that can handle 1600x1200 @ 70Hz... so why is this so tricky?

      Answer... PeeCee hardware. I'm sure it's some legacy BIOS cruft that says "Hey, make sure that AGP 4x card can still be seen by any application that tries to poke at hardware address 0xC000, just in case!" Phagh!

      Throw it all away... Yes, proprietary hardware is limiting... but at least they are allowed to innovate. They don't have to continue supporting CPU instructions that were last seen in a calculator (4044)!

    63. Re:Linux... by umStefa · · Score: 1

      Actually I hated it. I hated the stressed feeling when nothing seemed to work, I hated not being able to use my computer for what I wanted when I wanted (This is the reason I switched from M$).

      I do enjoy the results but the journey was not easy and diffinatly NOT enjoyable.

      --
      Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
    64. Re:Linux... by Drishmung · · Score: 2
      The people in our household all seem to have their own preferences for screen resolution, so I'd say the resolution changes 3-4 times a day, not counting full-screen games :-)

      Of course, any one person changes their screen resolution somewhat less frequently.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    65. Re:Linux... by tdelaney · · Score: 1

      Nearly every person who plays games changes their screen resolution regularly ...

    66. Re:Linux... by ttyRazor · · Score: 2

      It's when you want to do those extra things, like OpenGL games, install obscure drivers not included in the kernel, get fonts de-uglified, etc. that you get stuck messing with text configs. Lord knows I've tried to stick to the "user friendly" way, but no matter how many GUI configs, there's always something omitted. Most operating systems solve this by simply not exposing such features, or at least labelling such things as "unsupported" or deny they even exist. Then they get to sell the same OS with just the new stuff turned on by default now that its stable. A lot of these difficulties can be solved by just making default configs more up to date with the features, but the linux world would probably disembowel itself before agreeing to just what the defaults should be.

    67. Re:Linux... by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I've missed a great new feature of OSX, but X11 is just as hard to configure on a Mac as it is on Linux.

      You have. Grab OroborosX from http://oroborosx.sourceforge.net/download.html. Unpack. Launch. Finished.

    68. Re:Linux... by Decimal · · Score: 2

      Lycoris is supposed to be a really user-friendly Linux distro. It's actually aimed at the Windows XP crowd, that's how easy they want to make it. Has anybody here tried it, have any opinions to share?

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    69. Re:Linux... by shokk · · Score: 1

      RTFM will never get grandma to use Linux. The fact that you have to buy a crapintosh to use OS X is a complete crippler. Only once Linux gets close to what OS X offers will it completely bash MS on the PC.

      One of the things that always defined the Mac interface was the idea of Human Interface rules when you programmed. MS has broken so many of them, and Linux can barely do any of that.

      As a techie, I don't mind config files, but anyone who expects their product to be widely used by the public and does not provide a GUI should be shot. Note, I don't consider great things like Apache something that is widely used by the public. When grandma is setting up her own Apache server we sysadmins are in a world of trouble.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    70. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you just want to read email, browse the web and play mp3s then you never have to edit config files.

      If that was all a person wanted to do, do you really think they would bother removing the default O/S (Windows) and re-installing another O/S?

    71. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is, when you grow up a little and want to get rid of all the overly helpful guis and vendor scripts, Mac mostly won't accomodate your wish.

      I like macs alot. I support macs in small businesses. I've used macs since version 6.x and Linux for a couple of years. Recently I started looking at OSX.

      Great stuff, lots of really convenient features, like being able to drag a file onto the command line and suddenly the path is there in text. But something's changed for me. All I could think of was "how do I turn off all this eye candy?"

    72. Re:Linux... by antirename · · Score: 2

      Good one :) Yeah, that's about when my friend loaded it onto the Mac he uses at work. The point was that even Mac has made usability errors... at least for the way I use a computer.

    73. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose that MegaBuck legal settlement some years ago between DEC and Microsoft was because Bill_G wanted to be *generous* for giving Cutler and co. a nice new home, after K.O. shutdown Cutler's "rogue operation" and told them all to come home to Rt. 128?

      As you quite rightly pointed out, PRISM/Mica code (not VMS itself) was the likely issue. But let's face it - Cutler was the author/part-author of 3 DEC operating systems, and lots of how NT (3.51 at least) worked at the lower levels looked *an awful lot* like VMS internals.

      For those that remember those long-ago days (pre-Netscape and everything!), IBM and MS were "getting divorced" over OS/2, and MS needed a new OS core to build NT on. It couldn't use OS/2 due to IP issues with IBM, and it couldn't use UNIX/Xenix due to IP issues with AT&T/USL and SCO (I know, that *ain't exactly* right, but I don't remember the particulars of the Unix ownership from that time). And of course, Windows 2x had become 3.x, but was a hybrid OS of DOS 7 and the WIN 3x GUI, and we all know how bound to the x86 architecture that was (as well as being quite a "canine's-morning-repast" as well).

      So here's Cutler, who knows how to build big-system Operating Systems, and has just spent quite a lot of time building a new one for a modern RISC architecture (well, a late 80's modern CPU at least, rather than the VAX CPU stuff at that time). He obviously enjoys building new OS versions, but K.O. wants him to leave "the future" and come back to work on the Vaxen farm. Even I might see why he rebelled; like all such "favorite sons", the last thing Cutler probably wanted at that point was to go back to a "life behind the plow" when he had "been to the big city" and everything!

      Meanwhile Bill_G needs something *exactly* like what Cutler has in his head in order to shortcut the process of getting NT to market by 2 years. Otherwise, he knows IBM may be able to get OS/2 to the point where it will actually be a competitive OS ( I know, it was quite good, but "2 more years till NT" would have given OS/2 a much better prospect for long life due to lack of NT competition - alas, this was not to be).

      So for the third time in Microft history (#1 = BASIC, #2 = QDOS, ne IBM-DOS/MS-DOS), Gates finds what he needs right under his nose, and as anyone reading this likely knows, techie types tend to do new things based on their previous work (e.g., old habits die hard).

      In sum, NT may not be VMS, but to me that's a lot like saying Linux is not Unix. I am not talking about the actual code; just as Linux represents a "Unix variant" written for the world of PCs and commodity-based hardware (rather than the then very proprietary minicomputer platforms used for UNIX in the early and mid-90's), NT is like a "VMS port" for the same commodity H/W platform. The good news is that VMS was an OS worthy of further evolution, and we still have Gates to thank for this (oh, stop - without NT, I bet a 4 CPU Unix box would still cost half a mill). The bad news is K.O. did not recognize this was the future in time to save DEC (and set himself up to become a rich anyone could possibly imagine). ***And*** as in most other cases we could examine, someone else's loss was Bill_G's gain.

    74. Re:Linux... by gig · · Score: 2

      The funny thing with the boot-time debate is that Mac OS X users SIMPLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IT. If Mac OS X took one hour to boot it wouldn't bother me, because I only boot it about three times a year. In the last year, my PowerBook G4 had one kernel panic, and one or two system updates that required a restart (typically, security updates for UNIX tools and things like that, not high-level GUI stuff or plain apps). When you close the lid on the PowerBook, it goes to sleep instantly and quietly. When you open the lid up, it wakes up instantly and is ready to use. The batteries last 5 hours each (I carry two), fit in the palm of your hand, and can be hot-swapped, so I have also never run into the situation where I had to shut down just because of lack of power.

      The real question is: when you sit down to work, how long does it take the computer to get ready for you? On Mac OS X, it's as long as it takes to open the laptop's lid, which means it's essentially no time at all.

    75. Re:Linux... by gig · · Score: 2

      > Now people are too lazy, I guess. [ to learn to edit config files ]

      Now people have other things to do with their computers, like learn Pro Tools and do audio recording, or learn Photoshop and do graphics, or learn iMovie and do video (like iMovie takes any time to learn!). Apple has a very good stable of geeks who are worrying about things like /etc and httpd.conf for ALL OF THEIR USERS. They are also worrying about hardware/software integration, stable kernels, and graphics modes and refresh rates and such, again so that the users don't have to. The user themselves is working with NON-COMPUTER tasks such as being doctors, lawyers, artists, musicians, students, etc. You are not any smarter than them because YOUR field or interest happens to be computer tech.

      Now, on the other hand, if those config files and the substructure of the software are hidden from the users (like on Windows), then the user can't trust that their system is doing only what they want it to do. For this reason, Mac OS X's core is completely exposed to the advanced user or programmer or IT staff or security consultant or network architect, etc.

      This stuff is part of the "best of both worlds" approach of Mac OS X. Come at it as a Mac user or a UNIX user and leave satisfied. Come at it as a Windows user and leave AMAZED.

    76. Re:Linux... by gig · · Score: 2

      > When grandma is setting up her own Apache server we sysadmins are in a world of trouble.

      Mac OS X's Web Sharing is Apache, and all you have to do to start it is click "Start". There are lots of grandmothers out there using it to share a small Web site. They learned how by using the previous version of Web Sharing in Mac OS that was not Apache. What happened was that Apple created an interface for Web Sharing that was for users, and then later (with Mac OS X) put in the best core technologies (Apache). The user doesn't need to know or care, unless they want some truly advanced feature, in which case they can still approach their own Apache by editing text files or by using a third-party GUI utility.

    77. Re:Linux... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      You obviously are thinking 90's Linux. Mandrake and Suse are CAKE to install and use. I'm new to Linux, I installed Suse 8 3 months ago and LOVE IT. I haven't had to "screw around" with the config files at all. Suse is as usable as Winblows and OS 10. OS 10 sucks. Slow as a dog IMHO. Linux has come a long way in the last few years.

    78. Re:Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and the range of applications to choose from seems much nicer (Browsers: Mozilla, Konqueror, Dillo, Netscape, Galeon, Opera).

      Bad example. The Mac's browser choices are just about as varied (MS-IE, Mozilla, Netscape, OmniWeb, Opera, iCab, and of course good-ol Lynx), and I've generally found the Mac versions of browsers that are also on Linux to be a little more refined than their Linux counterparts.

      Installing things is easier (RPM).

      You have got to be joking. Installation of most apps for the Mac amounts to either "click here" or "copy this file to your HD". In the rare case of a *nix app that you don't already have pre-installed, there are several easy ways to get it done. Personally, I do not fear "make" when given source code and the chance to look it over.

      Development work is easier with decent text editors.

      You mean like vi & emacs? OS X ships with 'em. I use one or the other almost daily. Not to mention the dozens of GUI-based choices for editing text on a Mac.

      blah blah permissions blah blah stability blah blah anti-aliasing

      I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that you have never used OS X, because the features you are bragging about are not unique to Linux at all.

    79. Re:Linux... by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

      My post wasn't comparing Linux and Mac OS. I was talking about PC software. I'd happily use OSX. The things I was talking about were far from unique. They were however, better implemented on Linux than on Windows software. I agree, the Mac versions of things, and the OS in general, tend to be cleaner and more refined. I like it that way.

  2. Switched, and then switched back by agentZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a GNU/Linux user and have been since about 1995. I bought a Mac Powerbook laptop a few weeks ago, but ended up selling it after only a few days. Yes, it was sleeker, cooler, and generally nicer to look at than my current hodge-podge of hardware and software, but I decided that it wasn't for me. Yes, right now I have to tinker a little bit to keep things running, but I enjoy that. I realize that puts me in the minority of people in the "Real World," but I can understand how the Apple way isn't for everybody.

    Don't get wrong, I think it's a great system, especially for people who aren't computer gurus, but it's not for me. The main thing was that OS X didn't offer me anything "new." There wasn't a compelling reason for me to learn a whole new set of shortcuts and keyboard commands in order to do what I'm already doing.

    1. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, who did you sell a 3-day-old laptop to? What made you decide after a couple of days that a multiple thousand dollar investment wasn't for you, and why didn't you research it ahead of time? As a Linux user, are shortcuts really that difficult to master compared to needing to update your system every few days to keep it from crashing? Oh, right, you're full of shit.

    2. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You enjoy tinkering with laptops? good luck with that even on the pc platform. Laptop hardware is mostly propreitary even on the pc platform and can't be tinkered with much.

      Did you know they have linux for mac and it runs great? I suppose not. Enjoy tinkering with and updating linux's hacked together shit gui's while others get work done with OS X.

    3. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking obvious lie. You don't sell a few-day-old laptop, you return it for what you paid for it.

    4. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These switched, then swithched back stories are all bogus and feature no real evidence as to why the switcher switched back. In this case, the user simply says: "It wasn't for me" without offering any credible statements regarding "why" it didn't work. Quite frankly, I think these people are lying, and they didn't switch in the first place.

    5. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously either stupid or a troll. I haven't decided which.

    6. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 2

      I find it hard to believe that a few days could expose you to anything of value. It took me a few weeks to get used to the Mac way, even though I was moving over from Windows. Within 2-3 weeks I didn't want to go back. What did you do for those few days, surf the web and cd in Terminal?

      Did you even have time to try any apps? If all you want to do is use Terminal.app I guess you have a point, but then that defeats the purpose of switching in the first place, doesn't it?

    7. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I was thinking.

      "Uhhhh... you know you could have gone to CompUSA or the Apple Store and played around with one of these for 'a few days', right?"

    8. Re:Switched, and then switched back by agentZ · · Score: 2

      Heh, I wish I was making this up. I have the credit card bill to prove my mistake.

      During all of my research, I was looking at the capabilities of the Mac (e.g. what software it could run, problems with Apache, etc.) but never tried to use one. Everybody said the interface was great, but I never got the chance to test it out.

      My major problem was that I kept losing track of iconified windows. (Apple-Tab doesn't bring you to Windows that are iconified inside of a program.) I had trouble switching between windows in Mozilla and other programs and ended up typing a few e-mails twice as a result. Next, I think the switch from a desktop machine to a laptop wasn't a good one for me. I developed a lot of neck pain during the first few days of use, probably from looking down at the screen for long periods of time. I might have been better off buying a desktop Mac. Finally, there were some capabilities that just don't exist on the Mac right now. I like using GAIM for instant messaging because I can create aliases for my friends and don't have to remember screen names. I couldn't find a program for Mac that let me alias screennames. You may think it's silly, but because I use IM for work it's important for me to have a person's name handy.

      I sold the laptop to a friend of mine who was considering back a Mac herself. Apple wasn't going to give me a full refund, but instead charge a $225 restocking fee if I brought the laptop back. Since I was going to lose the money anyway, I sold the laptop to my friend for what Apple would have given me plus $50. She got a discount on her computer and I got more than Apple was going to give me.

    9. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, for those of us who graduated high school a few years ago, we no longer feel the need to be validated by staying up late grokking sparse documentation and munging through config files. Most of the intelligent people here have done more than their fair share of that. Once you get otu of school and find yourself spending many a late night at work tinkering all day, then coming home to family, you begin to realize that no, you do not in fact want to stay up even later to get your new sound card to work correctly. Agreed though, the Apple way is not for everyone. If it was, we'd all be driving BMWs that virtually never need maintenance. Still a lot of us though either can't afford one and drive Dodge Shadows, or like tinkering and drive 68' Ford Mustangs. ..And the AC's are right, no one sells a week old laptop, they return it.

      --
      --- What
    10. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been said by many others already, but I just wanted to chime in. BULLSHIT! You sold your laptop, as opposed to returning it? You decided after a few days that your powerbook was no good? No research at all?

      You didn't point out anything that actually has to do with OS X. It is not exactly the same thing as Linux with a new set of shortcuts and commands.

      You are dirty troll, you know that?

    11. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find a program for Mac that let me alias screennames.

      Look harder. Adium, an OS third party AIM client does that.

      --
      --- What
    12. Re:Switched, and then switched back by agentZ · · Score: 1

      Not a troll, just stupid. See my second post about how Apple doesn't give full refunds.

    13. Re:Switched, and then switched back by cjsnell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your story sounds similar to mine, except that I switched back yet again. I've been running Linux since spring '94 and FreeBSD since '97 and decided to go the Mac route about a year and a half ago. I bought a PowerMac G4, took it home, used it for two weeks and took it back. I spent a few months after that looking for the perfect computer without much success. One day, I was walking by the Apple Store in Tyson's Corner, VA and decided to give the Mac another try. This time, I shelled out a bit more money for their "Fastest" model. Instead of the puny 15" LCD that I had with my first Mac, I bought a 21" Sony top-of-the-line CRT. I purchased a the optional GeForce 3 to make Quake 3 perform at par. This time around, things worked a lot better. 10.1 was released the week after I bought the Mac and OS X became much more usable.

      As for reasons to switch from a free *nix to Mac OS X, here are mine:

      1) Asthetics - from the look of the desktop, the beautiful anti-aliased fonts, the built-in PDF capabilty, and (of course) the beautiful hardware, it's hard to compete with a Mac when it comes to a slick user experience.

      2) Support - Like *BSD and Linux, you have a great community that will provide informal support, but you also have AppleCare to rely upon.

      3) Hardware - the hardware, as I'm sure you know, is top-notch. You pay an arm and a leg for it, no doubt, but compare a top-of-the-line Dell case to any Apple case and you'll see what I mean.

      4) Microsoft Office - I know this sounds a little odd but Microsoft Office on OS X is just fantastic. I've never seen a better office suite, commercial or open source. If you use your computer for business and your job title is something other than "programmer", chances are that you will need MS Excel. MS may be the devil incarnate but they sure do make a good spreadsheet package.

      So anyway, my advice to you is to give it another shot, preferably once Jaguar is released. Two weeks really isn't enough time to get familiar with the little niceties of OS X.

      Good luck.

      Chris

    14. Re:Switched, and then switched back by derch · · Score: 1

      h@oblems with how you went about the switch.

      In your first post you said you sold the laptop after several days. No offense, but any major platform switch should be given several weeks at least. You can't expect to sit down and be proficient.

      Second, do you have and did you take advantage of Mac using friends? Or a Mac user group? They probably could've pointed you towards fixing some of what you perceived as shortcomings.

      Switching between an app's windows (including iconified windows) is usually done with Apple-~. This is a standard key combo, though Mozilla may not follow (Mozilla's fault, not Apple's).

      For IM'ing you should've tried Fire. Connects to six of the major IM networks and has aliases.

    15. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you try running GAIM on your mac? Did you look in fink for a port? Besides the fact that there are programs to do what you describe (I understand that would take the effort of looking), there is a very high probability the program you want runs on the mac, either with the GTk (I don't know aything about GAIM, but it begins with a G, right?) widget set that runs under OS X or under XDarwin. The only thing that sucks about XDarwin is it reminds you how shite the GUIs of all X programs are next to the mac ones.

    16. Re:Switched, and then switched back by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you just put Yellow Dog on it?

    17. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Next, I think the switch from a desktop machine to a laptop wasn't a good one for me. I developed a lot of neck pain during the first few days of use, probably from looking down at the screen for long periods of time. I might have been better off buying a desktop Mac.


      Why not sue apple for your sore neck?

      Seriously, you might want to read your posts before posting, as you're flaming apple for building laptops now.

      I'm not surprised you switched back, OSX requires a brain.
    18. Re:Switched, and then switched back by jsse · · Score: 2

      but I enjoy that

      You are pretty much summarized my feeling.

      I installed Gentoo linux 1.2, decided to add some crazy optimization flags and rebuild the world. Something broke, and it took days to fix.

      1.3a/b was out, boldly bootstraping the living system with it; more things broke, and it took days to fix.

      1.4 is out, bootstraping with it without second thought, and more things breaks.....

      Am I a sadist?

      NOPE! I know when I get it right I'll have a system of my own, my OWN tinkering work! Yes, I enjoy it! :D

      May be I'm really a sadist. :)

    19. Re:Switched, and then switched back by hype7 · · Score: 1
      My major problem was that I kept losing track of iconified windows. (Apple-Tab doesn't bring you to Windows that are iconified inside of a program.)


      I'm not sure what you mean by "iconified", but did you try Apple-tilde? That switches windows within an application.

      I had trouble switching between windows in Mozilla and other programs and ended up typing a few e-mails twice as a result. Next, I think the switch from a desktop machine to a laptop wasn't a good one for me. I developed a lot of neck pain during the first few days of use, probably from looking down at the screen for long periods of time. I might have been better off buying a desktop Mac.


      Or bought a display, external keyboard & mouse. Or external keyboard, mouse and one of these.

      Finally, there were some capabilities that just don't exist on the Mac right now. I like using GAIM for instant messaging because I can create aliases for my friends and don't have to remember screen names. I couldn't find a program for Mac that let me alias screennames. You may think it's silly, but because I use IM for work it's important for me to have a person's name handy.


      Well, I don't know what messenging standards GAIM supports, but I know there are a lot of instant messenger clones out for OS X, and lots of those are in cocoa. Lots of them contain the functionality you're talking about, too.

      Take a look at Versiontracker.

      Your post strikes me as "couldn't find third party utilities within a few days and gave up without asking for some advice". Jump on one of the mac forums, there are heaps of people who could have pointed you in the right direction.

      The community is one of the best parts of the machines IMO, but that's a whole other kettle of fish :)

      -- james
    20. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you were trying to defend yourself with this post, but now you look like even more of an idiot.

      Especially that silly crap about not having GAIM so you can do name aliases. If you had asked *one* person who is proficient with Mac you would have *definitely* heard "Adium" and/or "Fire". Adium has the aliases, plus a lot more. "Fire", too, and it supports 5 other chat systems, not just the AIM one. LOTS of Mac users run these apps. And the new iChat which is part of OS X.2 does AIM and has Aliases... and it even ties it all together with your address book. So you could click on the guy trying to IM you and bring up his business card.

      Too bad you wanted to dislike it (for some reason).

    21. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Yarn · · Score: 2

      There's plenty to fiddle with, I've compiled ipv6 (KAME) into my OS X kernel, and have managed to get a few of the userspace apps working as well.

      And all the while, I had a machine I can write my notes up on, and impress women*.

      * It's true. Alas she was 50+

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    22. Re:Switched, and then switched back by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Doesn't fire also allow you to alias screen names, I could swear it did when I was playing with OS X Beta. And obviously this guy never checked www.macosxapps.com

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    23. Re:Switched, and then switched back by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Nobody does. Every company that you order from online usualy will charge restocking, this is no suprise

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    24. Re:Switched, and then switched back by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      not odd at all, even MS declared the mac version better than the windows version of office. I don't have the link off hand, but I'm sure you could find it

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    25. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I think it's a great system, especially for people who aren't computer gurus, but it's not for me.

      I hate comments like this, because "computer gurus" is a loaded term. The implication is that someone who knows what they're doing would never use a Mac; it's only a system for people who do art and make web pages and want to edit their photos. And even if someone using a Mac writes Perl and Python scripts and so on, then you are still superior to them.

      Enough of that please. That's the kind of elitist attitude that perpetuates the horrible reputation that Linux users have garnered. I do hardcore software development. I love languages like Lisp. I write Perl scripts to automate tasks, but then I get pegged as a compute newbiew because:

      I use a GUI.

      I don't have serious objections to Windows of the Mac.

      I still find an 800MHz processor more than fast enough for commercial software development.

      I don't have an obsession with buying every new $400 video card that comes along.

      Maybe it's the faux "power users" that need a condescending term for them? They're certainly a loud segment of the computer using population.

    26. Re:Switched, and then switched back by cheezedawg · · Score: 2

      I think you pretty much just summarized why Linux will never be mainstream, too.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    27. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defensive much?

    28. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Surak · · Score: 2

      1) Asthetics - from the look of the desktop, the beautiful anti-aliased fonts, the built-in PDF capabilty, and (of course) the beautiful hardware, it's hard to compete with a Mac when it comes to a slick user experience

      KDE 3.0 with the Mosfet Liquid theme engine has *great* asthetics, especially if you use only (or mostly) KDE applications. It even looks a bit like OS X. :)

      Support - Like *BSD and Linux, you have a great community that will provide informal support, but you also have AppleCare to rely upon.

      The average Linux/*BSD user probably doesn't care about support, quite honestly. Most of these people (including myself) are IT experts and get joy and satisfaction out of fixing things themselves. Corporate users care about support to an extent, but they can purchase that. (And let's face it, corporate users aren't using Mac OS/X.)

      Hardware - the hardware, as I'm sure you know, is top-notch. You pay an arm and a leg for it, no doubt, but compare a top-of-the-line Dell case to any Apple case and you'll see what I mean.

      By case you mean 'looks'? There are many attractive PC cases available to custom builders.

      And if you mean the hardware itself, if you have a custom-built PC machine, you buy top-notch hardware and pay an arm and a leg for it, too. Only the PC arm and a leg doesn't cost as much as Apple's arm and a leg. :)

      Microsoft Office - I know this sounds a little odd but Microsoft Office on OS X is just fantastic. I've never seen a better office suite, commercial or open source. If you use your computer for business and your job title is something other than "programmer", chances are that you will need MS Excel. MS may be the devil incarnate but they sure do make a good spreadsheet package.

      I find that the OpenOffice's compatibility with Microsoft Office is quite acceptable. Especially the Excel filters. Macro compatibility isn't an issue for me, and OpenOffice renders basic Microsoft Office documents very well.

      However, for those that need Microsoft Office, there is always stuff like VMWare.

    29. Re:Switched, and then switched back by madenosine · · Score: 1

      they also declared the OS X version would be 2x as expensive :/

    30. Re:Switched, and then switched back by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      I used to think I "enjoyed" the constant tinkering of Linux. Then one day I realized what a collosal waste of my life it had become. :)

      Like TV, tinkering with continual vain attempts at getting everything "perfect" on the Linux desktop with just the right combinations of apps (will Kword open this file, or will I need to resort to Abiword? Damn, gnumeric crashed... I hope Kspread will work... crap, gabber's yahoo transport sucks, I'll have to run Gaim too...), the right tweaks in config files was a waste of the limited amount of time I have on this planet. :)

      I'd rather be programming, hanging out with my wife, playing with my dog, or doing something else productive or more spiritually rewarding. I gave up TV for that reason, and having been playing with a G4-400 for the last month, I'm teetering on the edge of relegating my Athlon 2000 to game playing and smacking down a couple of Macs on my desk.

      Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. I've replaced all our production boxes running Solaris x86 (which I still love ... in some situations) with Linux. Linux is the server OS of choice for me.

      But on the desktop, like the article says, it sure is nice to have something that "Just Works". As much as I loathe microsoft, Office X works nicely. I can run Photoshop (I like Gimp, but...sorry...no comparison!), I have good email client options that WORK (kmail and evolution are amazingly bug-ridden), and I have my handy dandy unix CLI at my disposal. :)

      I'm not some daft 'newbie' either. I've been a Unix geek for 11+ years now, I'm a Java/C programmer, an Oracle DBA, a Solaris system administrator, etc, etc.

      Now, if only the hardware was more affordable ...

    31. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, this is funny. Something tells me if you didn't switch back, you'd have been moderated troll for not following the Linux way and crying "ooooh" and "aaaahhh" at every kernel patch.

      Though, I do agree, I love to tinker with my hardware and I would never run Apple hardware, I'm just saying. Not including a few parts of your reply would make you a troll, INSTANTLY. (saying you switched and thought it was sleek and nice for new users without mentioning you moved back to Linux and are glad about how much better it is; well, is scheduling your own execution on Slashdot).

      Another fine post,
      -The English Troll

      This is not actually a troll message, but the name is more of a symbolic thing nowadays.

    32. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not surprised you switched back, OSX requires a brain."

      Actually, its main selling point is:
      "You don't really need a brain to use this OS! Everything is so simple that a lobotomized chimpanzee could handle it!"

      The truth hurts... doesn't it. However, I'll assume by your defense that you are one of the aforestated lobotomized chimpanzees. Enjoy the banana.

    33. Re:Switched, and then switched back by LetterJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fallacy of equipment-based expertise permeates virtually every hobby and profession. It's based on the assumption that if one just uses the appropriate tools, excellent results will be a simple matter of fact. While the true masters of a given domain may indeed use a given toolset, it is most emphatically not the tools that guarantee the results, but the skills of the master.

      The tools-obsessed photographer worries and frets about spot meters, chemistry selection and razor sharp lenses while the master quietly makes images that impact the soul with little more than a box and some film

      The tools-obsessed cook buys copper-bottomed cookware with non-stick surfaces and an endless stream of gadgets and tools while the master chef makes mouths water with little more than fire and meat.

      The tools-obsessed musician spends all their money on optimized amplifiers and acoustically engineered instruments while the master musician wrings emotion from the cheapest pawnshop instruments.

      The tools-obsessed artist concentrates all their energy on choosing the right paints and canvas while the master creates great works of art on fast-food napkins.

      The tools-obsessed carpenter buys specialized tools for every type of joinery and finish while the master carpenter builds furniture and homes that last for generations with little more than a handsaw and a plane.

      The tools-obsessed programmer spends his time arguing about language choice, editors and platforms while the master programmer produces elegant code in any language and any platform that suits the job.

    34. Re:Switched, and then switched back by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      Switching between an app's windows (including iconified windows) is usually done with Apple-~. This is a standard key combo, though Mozilla may not follow (Mozilla's fault, not Apple's).

      Just so everyone knows, for Mozilla its one key to the right with Apple-1

      I hope that helps.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    35. Re:Switched, and then switched back by global_diffusion · · Score: 2
      I hate comments like this, because "computer gurus" is a loaded term.

      I agree. The term is loaded because it has no actual definition. For instance, you define a "computer guru" as someone who:
      • Does not use a GUI
      • Has serious objections to Windows or Macs
      • Needs top of the line hardware
      I'm sorry, but that is not the case. Computer gurus
      • Use whatever is easiest
      • Don't care about what system they use, as long as it is standards compliant
      • More than likely use old, obsolete hardware
      When I think computer guru, I think people who have been using computers since the '70s. You know the people. They look at you funny when you say that you like using VIM over VI.

      Your post is funny because you complain that "computer guru" is a "loaded" term, and then you go on to define it and attack the people who fit your definition. What is that?. I realize that whenever the conversation is about Mac vs Everybody Else we all tend to flame a bit, but it is really annoying when people create phantom enemies to attack.
    36. Re:Switched, and then switched back by MSG · · Score: 2

      I would mod this up, but I can't both do so and praise the poster for the pure poetry of their comment. :)

    37. Re:Switched, and then switched back by global_diffusion · · Score: 2

      I realize that we all have opinions and I respect your opinion on this matter, but I must disagree with one point (point one):

      1) Asthetics - from the look of the desktop, the beautiful anti-aliased fonts, the built-in PDF capabilty, and (of course) the beautiful hardware, it's hard to compete with a Mac when it comes to a slick user experience.

      Now, I agree with the anti-aliased fonts and the built-in PDF capability -- those are two things that aren't easy to get working on a unix machine (please, no comments about patents on font stuff). The hardware is also a matter of opinion; I don't really care for the new imacs, the keyboards are too small and hurt my hands, but the G4s are dope. But, the one thing that I have to disagree on is the desktop.

      The one argument that mac users have always had (I grew up on a mac) is that the mac desktop is great. It's simple, it's friendly and has all kinds of neat tricks to it. But, it's outdated. Any typical unix desktop makes the mac desktop seem kludgy and complicated. I've tried using my friends OS X boxes, but I just get so frustrated; the interface confines you to one screen and one mouse button. To copy and paste you have to use the keyboard or select the option from a menu. Alt-tab switches between programs, not windows. There are a whole lot of little tricks and UI advances that unix systems have made over the years that just make the mac interface annoying to use if you're used to a modern desktop.

      I still recommend Macs to my friends and family because it is easy to use, but it does have an outdated inteface. It's not terrible, it's just not sleek and flowing like a unix desktop. I would never switch to a mac for just that purpose. I like having billions of desktops and mouse buttons and infinite customizability. You just can't get that with a mac.

      But, that's my opinion. I'm sure many of you disagree, so feel free to respond and not mod me down for disliking the mac interface.

    38. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you not call Linux *Linux? You felt that the different BSD's deserve that treatment. Yet you didn't do the same for the 180+ linux forks.

    39. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

      I know this my sound funny, but I've been a Mac user since '94(switched from pure DOS), and I've never used MS Office on a system that I've owned. I'm a home user. Aside from updating my resume, I've had little use for a word processor since my last college classes, most of my spreadsheet usage has been in classes ABOUT spreadsheets, and Powerpoint is likewise useless to someone who doesn't make presentations. Entourage doesn't sound bad, but it's far too expensive for what it'll do for me, and it sounds like 10.2 new address book, updated Mail app, and upcoming calendar should fit my needs.

      Oh, and I do use WinNT 4 at my data entry job, but not Office apps. Just custom data entry apps and a couple of terminal emulators for older systems.

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
    40. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Audiophyle · · Score: 1

      There are lots of little tricks and shortcuts on Mac OS X as well. Just because you're not familiar with them does not mean they don't exist. You can also treat your mac somewhat like a *nix box by running XFree86 if you'd like. OS X is anything but outdated, in my opinion. It is very intuitive, and once you spend some time with it, everything else seems more difficult then it should be. *nix folks can feel somewhat at home in the terminal too. It's a cool little OS, IMO. Also, any mac user can ditch his or her one-button mouse for something else. I personally wish Apple would rid themselves of those things, but I know some people who like them.

    41. Re:Switched, and then switched back by cjsnell · · Score: 2
      No reason to mod you down, you made some good points. However, I would like to respond to your comments about the superiority of the unix desktop (assuming that you are talking about KDE or Enlightenment here...).

      I think "sleek and flowing" is kind of hard to quantify and is mostly personal opinion. If I had to make a choice between an OS X desktop with a few features borrowed from popular X11 windowmanagers, or an X11 desktop with a few things borrowed from OS X, I'd take the OS X desktop.

      Here are a few things from the *nix world that I think Apple needs to add to their desktop:

      • Virtual Desktops - They could use Quartz to make a really cool translucent desktop switcher which had thumbnail images of the other desktops. Make the desktop layout configurable like FVWM2. 3x3, 1x4, 2x6 layouts should be possible. AND FOR THE LOVE OF DOG, let me switch between them with configurable hotkeys, like CTRL+ARROW_KEY

      • Optional Auto Cut-n-Paste - like you said, but make it optional and disabled be default because it will confuse the hell out of most users

      • Skins - This will probably never happen because the "branding" people at Apple would never let it happen but it sure would be nice if it could

      • Windowshade Mode - ala MacOS9/Afterstep/Unsanity's WindowShade app. Double-clicking an app's titlebar reduces the entire window to just the title bar.

      • Easier Desktop Background Choices - I'm not sure if they fixed this in Jaguar but it's very difficult to choose a custom solid color for your desktop background


      Anyone else have something to add?
    42. Re:Switched, and then switched back by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      I use a GUI.

      I don't have serious objections to Windows of the Mac.

      I still find an 800MHz processor more than fast enough for commercial software development.

      I don't have an obsession with buying every new $400 video card that comes along.

      Maybe it's the faux "power users" that need a condescending term for them?


      "Power users" certainly isn't the right term. Frankly, a lot of the people who would look down on you for running a Mac run old x86s, old Sparcs or even Vaxen. Most of the people with the $400 video card run Windows.

    43. Re:Switched, and then switched back by JBv · · Score: 1

      I share most of what you say.

      My first reaction on macosx was of astonishment: It looks good and polished. It runs word, it runs on nice hardware, it is unix with a nice face.

      Then the little stuff started to creep in. Much of what you said plus some legacy 'features' from macos and other tiny things. All in all, it feels to me as if the greatest achievements in usability are the animation effects and translucent windows and menus, that make you firt go "UAU how nice" and then "YUCK, stop it" since they slow down your work.

      Moreover, it's slow and sluggish. A dual G4 1GHz with a geforce runing macox (bought 3 months ago) is not that much responsive compared with my kde 3.0.2 on a duron.

    44. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too young for you, huh?

    45. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "while the master programmer produces elegant code in any language and any platform that suits the job."

      To keep the flow (box/film, fire/meat...) this should really read "produces elegant code in Logo on an Acorn".

      Choosing a suitable language and platform is choosing tools for a result, and seeing as even you couldn't avoid this inevitability for your poetry, it's fairly obvious that the tools used _are_ an integral part of a good result in coding.

    46. Re:Switched, and then switched back by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      My major problem was that I kept losing track of iconified windows.

      Looks like there are lots of solutions to your problems. How in the world did you ever figure Linux out, if a Mac defeated you in less than 2 weeks?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    47. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most every "Linux" distro is a vanilla GNU system running Linus' kernel with few if any patches. If there are any exceptions, they aren't well known. Don't the BSD forks all have separately maintained kernels and userlands?

    48. Re:Switched, and then switched back by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      no, he just summarized why gentoo will never be mainstream - but it isn't meant to be.

      I've seen a whole lot more non-geek types lately who are finding linux - and some of the distros are really easy to install these days.

    49. Re:Switched, and then switched back by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Well Aqua has Virtual Desktops:
      http://space.sourceforge.net/

    50. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You linux freaks amaze me. You are constantly singing the praises of your crappy OS and it's supposed superiority to Microsoft, but it has never taken me more than 1 or 2 hours to fix a configuration problem in Windows. How the hell can Linux be so great if it breaks so often and is such a pain to get working correctly?

    51. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Bongo · · Score: 1

      The fallacy of equipment-based expertise permeates virtually every hobby and profession. It's based on the assumption that if one just uses the appropriate tools, excellent results will be a simple matter of fact. While the true masters of a given domain may indeed use a given toolset, it is most emphatically not the tools that guarantee the results, but the skills of the master.

      Nice post. While some of your examples are a bit, er, extreme, "a master surgeon performs brain surgery with a chainsaw" (I made that one up), the point is very valid.

      I'm attending a series of classes in creativity, and even though all we're working with is cheap paper and cheap paints, because the instructor gets us to do visualisations, meditations, etc. to first get in touch with something inside, the resulting artworks are quite powerful, and even technically more interesting because the hand seems better guided when there's an inner impulse, than when just trying to copy a bowl of fruit or a landscape.

    52. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

      Your post is funny because you complain that "computer guru" is a "loaded" term, and then you go on to define it and attack the people who fit your definition.

      No, you missed the point. I was saying that people who often describe themselves as a "computer guru" very often have weird ideas about what a guru is. The original poster was blasting MacOS X as not being for "gurus," which was a completely vague attack.

    53. Re:Switched, and then switched back by AmbyVoc · · Score: 1

      I hate comments like this, because "computer gurus" is a loaded term.

      Me too, but not because it's a "loaded" term, but because I have been on many occations mistaken as one. I am not a guru and I use systems like Linux and BSD. I am not particularly interested in OSX though it has been said pretty and stuff. To me it is just a bit too crufty.

      That's the kind of elitist attitude that perpetuates the horrible reputation that Linux users have garnered.

      In perspective I feel some of those better funded are the ones who are "elitists" but who cares about that anyway? Linux users have a bad reputation? I wonder, you've been talking to the wrong people... I have found Linux community very helpful and kind.

      About the newbie status you mentioned, I understand your feelings, but nevertheless I have never been mistook as a newbie although; I use a GUI also, ok, I have objections to Microsoft and Apple (and partly to their OS'es too but that's only because of their business politics and poor constitution), I find a 486/80 reasonably fast for almost any kind of tinkering and stuff and a 400MHz K6-III suitable for almost everything nowaday people use their computer for. I also don't have an obsession for graphics adapters. I am still not considered as a newbie.

      I really think those who think in GHz's are the newbies...

      - Voice of Ambience -

      --
      - Voice of Ambience -
    54. Re:Switched, and then switched back by gig · · Score: 2

      > I personally wish Apple would rid themselves of [one-button mouses], but I know some
      > people who like them

      Not to get too far into this old hoary debate, but every time Apple does a survey on mouses, they find that 85% of their customers are happily using the one-button mouse, while the other 15% are using a broad mix of two-button mouses, three-button mouses, five-button mouses, full-size trackballs, thumb trackballs, stylii (graphic tablets), and others. What "the new Apple" has done with their mouses is leave the simple, easy, one-button default that works fine for most users and add support for almost any USB mouse or trackball into the OS. So, if you are in love with your high-end Logitech trackball, just plug it into your Mac and use it. Leave the one-button mouse plugged-in as well, if you want. You have ultimate flexibility.

      Another point is that the cheap mouses that come with most Wintel systems are only good for the drawer if you don't use them. You can sell an Apple Pro Mouse on eBay for $35-$40, easy, so financially, the "useless" one-button mouse hasn't hurt you too much.

    55. Re:Switched, and then switched back by Golias · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the same retail price. It's understandable that you didn't know that, becuase nobody, and I mean nobody, ever pays retail for the Windows version of MS-Office, assuming they pay for it at all. They "borrow" a copy from work and install it on every PC in the house.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  3. windows has the majority of the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    linux is far less widespread than windows, and is far more stable... basically why advertise to a small group (linux fans) instead of the masses of unhappy windowz users?

    1. Re:windows has the majority of the market by OSgod · · Score: 1

      Mistakes made:

      1. You are assuming that masses of windows users are unhappy.
      2. You are assuming that the now significant Linux installed base is not something that would benefit Apple greatly (perhaps putting them back over 10% of market share again -- a great day for Apple).
      3. You are neglecting the three horse race -- Windows/Apple/Other
      A. Windows XP is pretty and functional
      B. Apple OSX is pretty and functional and unix
      C. Other ranges from attractive to down-right ugly -- from workable and reliable to intolerably rough and trash

      If you are going for market share attack your weakest non Apple OS's. I.e.: Older versions of Windows, anyone in the other category. Don't do a prolonged attack on the first phase -- see who falls out and how much you gain then come back again in a second pass to work on the niche's you have identified.

    2. Re:windows has the majority of the market by chesapeake · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple, does in fact, advertise to Linux users. Inside the cover of New Scientist, 29 June 2002 (AU edition) there is a double page advertisement entitled: "Sends other UNIX boxes to /dev/null."

      A copy of this ad can be seen here.

      They really are targeting OS X at the scientific Unix crowd, even Linux, as the ad says: "'After two-and-a-half years of Linux, I've finally found joy in a UNIX operating system. And I found it when I purchased a Macintosh - the first one I've ever owned.' - John Hummel Jr., The Gamers' Press"

      While I can see them winning business off expensive Unix hardware, I wonder how effective they will be in targetting linux users.

    3. Re:windows has the majority of the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. I work in a large electronics company. I can't find a single Windows user here (out of thousands) who is happy with Windows. The main complaint is that about every ten seconds you hit some sort of unexplained pause or GUI retardedness or something.

      3. Windows XP functional? Our IT people tested it out recently to prepare a report for the big shots to make the decision to upgrade or not. Last I heard they were still running screaming into the hills, and our finance people told MS they can stuff their licensing scheme.

      In fact, in this Windows hardened company run by PC-fanatics, there's a buzz about trying a limited switch to Mac OS X. Someone realized that OS X would play better with the Sun workstations than Windows.

    4. Re:windows has the majority of the market by OSgod · · Score: 1

      Suggestion: hire a new IT department. It works for millions of other users -- not perfect but reliably.

      More transactions are done per minute at the workstation level on Windows than any other OS.

  4. No... by Xentor · · Score: 0

    Ever since the first time I saw a computer science lab full of iMacs, I've had no respect for anything related to Apple... Just too depressing... Yeah, so they've adopted *nix... Too little, too late...

    --
    "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
    1. Re:No... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I think you must have issues with your sexuality. The iMac is an EXCELLENT client device, and a whole lab full is a comfortable environment to work in. Look up Netboot, and read about ONE of the advantages of the iMac.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:No... by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      you condemn a company because they released a (succesful) series of colorful cases?

    3. Re:No... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Actualy, in most cases, the labs full of iMacs (and yes, I'm even talking about the gumdrop colored ones) looked a hell of a lot better, and was a hell of a lot quieter than the PC labs

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  5. Switch? Nope. by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Switch to OSX from Linux? OSX is an incredible OS, but as long as I have to buy proprietary Apple hardware, and pay full price for minor upgrades, Apple can forget getting any of my money. Don't get me wrong.....technically, Apple got it right with OSX. But I still like the freedom of building my own machines as I need them. Apples are great for people that need convienience most of all, and have lots of cash to burn. The rest of us will continue to roll our own.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Switch? Nope. by sporty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was the same way, but between OSX getting the OS right, following FreeBSD's layout (imho :) and not wanting to worry about hardware anymore, it was a clear winner for me.

      As for the minor upgrade thing, $100 a year to keep on the ball isn't bad, especially for a "good" company like apple. Yes, don't bring up quicktime, it's been said and said again. But that is a different argument. Frankly, Apple needs the support. I equate it to giving charity to your favourite free software developer, in the case of Apple.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    2. Re:Switch? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apples are great for people that need convienience most of all,

      You hit the nail right on the head - Apples are great for people with something better to do than maintain their computer.

      (Which happens to be the entire point of their marketing campaign. Surprise, surprise)

    3. Re:Switch? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OSX is a great os needing an expensive dongle.

    4. Re:Switch? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apples are great for people that need convienience most of all, and have lots of cash to burn.

      Linux is great for people that need free stuff most of all, and have lots of time to burn.
    5. Re:Switch? Nope. by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Amen! After using nothing but PCs ever since I bought one of the early 286's on the market, I finally decided it was time to see what all the hype was about - and bought a PowerMac. I kept it for about 6 months before selling the whole system. While there were many admirable traits to the "Mac way" of doing things, the expense and limited choices were infuriating.

      Now that the latest offerings in the Mac world are upon all of us (iMac, Titanium Powerbook, OSX, etc.) - I thought it was time to take one more look. Nope, pretty new "candy coating" but same old proprietary, over-hyped core.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to slam the Mac. Maybe I'm coming across a bit too harsh. OSX is a vast improvement over anything they offered in the past, and I really like what they did with the Powerbooks. (I still can't get used to the look of the iMacs though.... It just looks too much like a kid's toy, or a engineer that tried way too hard to make the thing look futuristic. My computer doesn't need to look like a prop for a low-budget Jetsons movie.)

      As the author said, above, the Mac dumbs a lot of things down so the "average user" can easily get around in it. That's fine, except I want to be rewarded for my years of effort at becoming more than just another "average user". The Mac just isn't that flexible in that regard. Sometimes, it even feels like a big contradiction. (AKA. You install a high-end, powerful application. Then you have this program that lets you dig in *really* deep and work at a low level with things... but the OS itself doesn't get nearly as complex. It doesn't even feel like the app belongs on that platform!)

    6. Re:Switch? Nope. by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
      Now that the latest offerings in the Mac world are upon all of us (iMac, Titanium Powerbook, OSX, etc.) - I thought it was time to take one more look. Nope, pretty new "candy coating" but same old proprietary, over-hyped core.


      Darwin is proprietary? Or are you talking about Open Firmware?
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    7. Re:Switch? Nope. by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      I bought OS X, then I bought X.1 Now I need to buy X.2. What is the diff between X and X.2? Just the bugs. no it's not worth the cost....

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    8. Re:Switch? Nope. by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, you miss what apple does. They don't dumb it down, they mask it over. It's sort of like a car. You don't have to know anything about how the engine is put together, how the windows roll up and down, how the radio connects to the speakers and how the gears shift. You can just drive it, and you never have to see the guts. But if you want to, just go beneeth the shiny covering and there it is for you to play with.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    9. Re:Switch? Nope. by softsign · · Score: 2

      Rendezvous, Inkwell, CUPS printing, Quartz Extreme, the new Sherlock. Yeah, bug fixes.

      Rendezvous (ZeroConf) alone is worth the upgrade price and is the perfect example of why Apple has been and will continue to be an innovator.

    10. Re:Switch? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man, why isn't this modded higher? great post, I think those that have managed to get past their apple prejudice to try the mac feel the same way. I know I do anyway, it's absolutely perfect for what the average person trying to use a computer needs, but there's nothing offered there for the technically minded. The aesthetics and smoothness of the apple platform are very nice, but it simply doesn't feel as rewarding as it does when you dig into the guts of your *nix system.

    11. Re:Switch? Nope. by sporty · · Score: 2

      apple is a good place to start ;P

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    12. Re:Switch? Nope. by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      Every bug fix is free. Just open up Software Update and download them. Those are bug fixes.

      Mac OS X 10.2 is not a bug fix. It is an OS upgrade.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    13. Re:Switch? Nope. by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      I don't see the point...


      All that you have mentioned means nothing to me. It's just candy. Sherlock WOW. Get real. I need my scanner, printer and other stuff to work under OS X as they did with OS 9.


      For $100 I expect more or should I say less the basics to be there first. I had to upgrade to X.1 and I'm starting to feel that I have to upgrade to X.2 at least with M$ it's once every 18 months not every 12.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    14. Re:Switch? Nope. by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      Was 10.1 an upgrade or a patch?


      I consider it a patch other people consider it an upgrade. The only reason I went to 10.1 was to the PPPoE patch which was not available on 10.0.


      I feel that Apple is nickel and dimeing it's users.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    15. Re:Switch? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...And when it breaks (cause it "just works" until it don't), you have to get a smartass mechanic who charges you an arm and a leg to fix it.

    16. Re:Switch? Nope. by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      I thought 10.1 was a free upgrade?

    17. Re:Switch? Nope. by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      With the exception of a dead memory controller, I have never come across a problem on the mac that I could not fix myself.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    18. Re:Switch? Nope. by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

      New improved apps like Mail, Address Book, and Sherlock. Better speed and multithreading in the Finder. Support for new soon to be released free apps like iCal and iSync. A Find window at the top of each Finder window. Some other interface improvements. New technologies like Inkwell and Rendezvous that aren't useful right away, but will be soon. And Quartz Extreme video acceleration for Macs with modern video cards(not mine). I'm keeping my ears open for any special promotional first day sales here in St. Louis, since our Apple store won't open for another month or so.

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
    19. Re:Switch? Nope. by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      Yes it was Free provided you paid $19.95.


      The $19.95 is not the issue, it's that I feel that the OS has finally arrived to a release level. 10.2 seems to address printing and scanning which I had at 8.5 and 9. It just seems that I need to spend to get it to the fuctionality of 9.


      I would pay another $19.95 for this version but I will not pay over $100. I've already paid it

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    20. Re:Switch? Nope. by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      Thank you for providing a reasonable response. Most people would rant about how apple hardware is so expensive (it isn't, it's actually cheaper), but instead you indicated you like to build your machines yourself. While there are people who hack around with apple hardware, it is a lot less common than it is in the PC world.

      As to the full price upgrades, I really don't think this is as bad as people think. Yes, you never pay upgrade costs with Linux, and in that sense the comparison works. However, the speed of new features and capabilities being added to Linux is much slower than OS X. (which is interesting from a philosophical basis-- more developers, but slower innovation. Part of this is the open source nature, but part of this is how well OS X is designed and how easy it is to implement new stuff on it.)

      But apple's upgrading policy is much better than the other commercial OS- windows, which gives you less, charges more and is far more restrictive about how and where you install the upgrade.

      For instance, just one of the things Jaguar added for $129 was the capabilities that previously you had to pay $150 for separately from another company (in the area of networking.)

      Not everyone will use those capabilities, but everyone in a mixed Mac windows environment will, and even if that isn't worth the money to you- there are dozens of other features-- when commercial MP3 players cost $40 or so, getting one free adds $40 to the value of the OS for me.

      And if it STILL isn't worth it, then wait 6 months and get it a lot cheaper... or get the next free update.

      But, from my business perspective, the value apple delivers in their machines and their OS far exceeds the costs when compared to Linux and Windows. I do not have cash to burn, for the time spent configuring PCs is counted as a cost-- you have time to burn, but not cash. Even so, I am getting-- for MY USES-- more value for less money than if I went with Windows or Linux.

      Unfortunately, this value is hard to quantify and varies from situation to situation.

      I just want to assure you that there are those of us who are very skinflint who run Macs because it SAVES us significant amounts of money.

      But then, we're also people for whom the ability to tweak our hardware isn't has high priority as getting other things done. But that doesn't mean we have cash to burn.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    21. Re:Switch? Nope. by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      Then don't upgrade. Nevermind that printer and scanner support has been improved in 10.2. Never mind that mostly the lack of support you see is from the people who made the product not providing drivers, not APPLE's fault.

      Sheesh.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    22. Re:Switch? Nope. by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      Right, because apple should give away its work for free.

      How is releasing a dozen free bug fixes and a major upgrade and then charging for the next upgrade "nickel and diming"? You just want your software for free. Fine. Don't upgrade.

      But don't expect us to buy the idea that apple is money grubbing... they are delivering great value for the money they are charging. Jaguar has improvements all over the place, most of which weren't mentioned in the keynote.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    23. Re:Switch? Nope. by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      The Mac just isn't that flexible in that regard.

      BZZT. Quite wrong. Here we have an OS where you can extend operating system objects without access to the source code. Think NSSTring doesn't do something you want it to? Want it to give you an FSSpec from the string? Write a category. This is more powerful than subclassing-- all my NSStrings inherit the ability in my code everywhere, whether they are subclasses or not.

      Or is that too powerful for you? you meant the command line? Well, you got that too, right there at your fingertips. And everything you could want to do you can get at that way.

      But you also have plist viewer. All the switches and settings in the OS are in XML plists, just open them in the viewer (or whatever parser you want) and flip bits to your hearts content.

      NOTHING has been dumbed down in this OS. A good ui has been provided to make easy interaction (And if you're smart, you value this-- cause smart people value their time. It has nothing to do with making it usable by idiots).... yet all the power and glory is still there too if you want to use it.

      Not to mention the best development environment I've ever seen in 20 years of programming (including stints at microsoft, dozens of startups, Java, C, fortran, Lisp, etc. etc.)

      This is just yet another of the Mac Myths (like "Macs are more expensive", "Macs are slower", "Macs aren't upgradeable" -- "Macs are for dumb people")

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    24. Re:Switch? Nope. by kubrick · · Score: 2

      Rendezvous (ZeroConf) alone is ... the perfect example of why Apple has been and will continue to be an innovator.

      AutoConfig, Amiga, mid-1980s.

      Next?

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    25. Re:Switch? Nope. by softsign · · Score: 2

      Nice try... AutoConfig isn't even remotely related to ZeroConf.

      ZeroConf is a standard for automatic discovery of hosts and services on a TCP/IP network. Rendezvous is Apple's implementation.

      Previous?

    26. Re:Switch? Nope. by kubrick · · Score: 2

      ZeroConf is a standard for automatic discovery of hosts and services on a TCP/IP network.

      Hardly sounds 'revolutionary', more a matter of politics and getting everyone to agree.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    27. Re:Switch? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but do you realize what a pain in the ass it is to actually work on whats under that shiny cover. ill take an old beater anyday.

    28. Re:Switch? Nope. by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      Where do you see a MAJOR upgrade?


      I bought 10.0 because of the claim to better networking, which at the time was FALSE. Having no option to return the software I let it sit and waited for the patch which NEVER came.


      Now to get my printer and scanner to work I have to spend $125? This is nickel and diming and yes they are money grubbing. 10.0 should never have been released, it was incomplete. 10.1 fixed some bugs. Yup it seems that the golden rule in software is true..Do NOT buy it untill the second patch has come out.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    29. Re:Switch? Nope. by softsign · · Score: 1
      Hardly sounds 'revolutionary', more a matter of politics and getting everyone to agree.

      Bah... If you're going to knock something, at least make the effort to know wtf you're talking about. Otherwise, you come off looking like a real jackass. (BTW, innovative != revolutionary)

    30. Re:Switch? Nope. by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      10.1 was a little of both actually.

      It was also FREE...

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    31. Re:Switch? Nope. by gig · · Score: 2

      Rendezvous is TCP/IP networking with the ease of AppleTalk. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, all you had to do to network two or more Macs (and printers, too) was plug them together with AppleTalk cables and whatever network services they were offering could be browsed and accessed with no configuration. Since Apple merged with NeXT, they have been rebuilding their stuff to industry standards. So, with 10.2, all you have to do to network Macs is make sure they're physically connected in some way, such as Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or FireWire and the services that each offers will be available to the other machines without any configuration. This stuff is all done to the ZeroConf specs, and HP is bringing out Rendezvous-enabled printers that will just plug on a TCP/IP network and be instantly available to any Rendezvous-enabled computer (right now, that's just Macs running 10.2, but other systems will add ZeroConf support as time goes on).

      Amiga has nothing to do with it. Let it die already. Sheesh.

  6. Port it for crying out loud! by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd switch if OSx ran on an x86. But it doesn't, and I don't like dealing with the PPC architecture... It's costly, and difficult to get hardware for (since the BIOS code on such things as PCI cards, needs to be in PPC opcode format, not x86 opcode format).

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's supposed to be in FCode. Too bad PCs don't use OpenFirmware too...

    2. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Agreed! This OS would sell millions of copies if it ran on x86 instead of PPC.

      As the poster mentioned, cost is the biggest issue here. Until its on x86, cost will remain the biggest issue.

    3. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by sporty · · Score: 2

      Apple is in the buisness of selling complete solutions starting with hardware. That's a good chunk of their money. Would all those that switched from a pc to a mac for a "better" os have done so if they could have run it on a pc? Doubt it.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    4. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Malduin · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there are many a PC user that refuse to switch to Apple hardware due to the cost. If it were ported to the x86 platform, they could at least grab part of that market that would otherwise have nothing to do with Apple at all.

      Sure, they may not have as many PC users switch to Apple hardware at that point, but that loss would probably be made up by the sales of the OS X port to the x86.

      Heh.. if they were to port it, maybe they could call it MacOS X(86).

    5. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've really tried justifying to myself buying a machine for $1600 just to get MacOS X (which I do like BTW) but I can't. When I look at simple economics I can build a much more powerful machine with twice as much hard drive, 4 times as much RAM, a better video card, etc. as that $1600 box for less than $1000 if I did it with PC hardware. Until Apple wakes up and realizes most people aren't going to pay a premium for a fucking UltraDMA-100 drive when they can go to a store and buy it RETAIL for less than they're charging, they'll never get more than 2-3% marketshare.

    6. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Mr.+Quick · · Score: 5, Informative

      how many times does this idea need to be brought up, and then quickly shot down because it will never happen?

      1. apple makes their money selling hardware. they will lose all that revenue if people can just use a walmart $400 pc.

      2. apple is a systems company, using the fact that they develop both the hardware and the software as an advantage to them. how many times do you hear the words *it just works* when it comes to apple computers? that's a big selling point for the bulk of the population who don't like to tinker with hardware.

      3. yet another architecture change? i think not. moving from 68K to ppc went well, it took some time but it was a success. os9 to os10 is going well, most apps are there and the open source/hobby coder population is booming. so to go from ppc to x86 after moving to a new OS, the big software companies are just going to say no. that's suicide.

      4. ibm's new power4 desktop chip is further evidence that apple is going to stay ppc. this chip has 160 vector ops (altivec has 162), that's another big indicator.

      i can't see apple going x86 in the future.

    7. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CISC architectures are strictly for lightweights.

    8. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by myster0n · · Score: 1
      Agreed! This OS would sell millions of copies if it ran on x86 instead of PPC.

      No, it would sell a dozen copies and be found on millions of warez sites.
      --
      Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
    9. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by superdan2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sing it again with me brothers and sisters: Apple is never ever going to port OS X to x86!

      It just ain't gonna happen. Apple makes its money off of hardware sales.

      Furthermore, do you want a great OS that runs on great hardware? Or do you want a great OS that runs on ad-hoc mismatched hardware.

      Part of the reason that Windows sucks so hard and that Linux never seems to offer full support for hardware is because they have to support every little last variation and kludge that the hardware manufacturers can dream up. If Mac OS X were to go to x86, not only would Apple lose money, but they'd lose face -- OS X would start becoming more and more like Windows and Linux on the desktop...painful.

      I haven't had any difficulty or undue expense in getting hardware for my Macs, so please...put away the FUD.

      --
      blog |
    10. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But why? This battle cry goes out with every article about OS X.. "Port it to intel and it will sell millions!" Sadly, history does not support that assertion at all.

      Look at Be, inc. Did porting BeOS to intel help it? Not one bit. Or how about Solaris X86? It has never been a commercial success, despite the small and rabid following it has.

      It's the hardware that gives them the edge. The original BeBox was SWEET. The OS was icing on the cake...without the hardware, BeOS had nothing to offer me. Ditto for OS X...the hardware combined with the unique OS is the kicker for me...OS X on intel? What's the draw? A prettier way to do the same old thing I can do with Windows? No thanks.

    11. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the nice things with Macs are that they run OpenFirmware (like SUN workstations, for example) and because of that the BIOS code can be written in platform-independent Forth instead of being tied to a specific instruction set. If only PCs would do that...

    12. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing: Apple has ported OS X. They do actually have a version that runs on an x86 box. As far as I know there is no intention of distributing the port, simply because Apple makes most of its money on hardware, that and Intel machines wouldn't be able to take advantage of the Altivec support in OS X, which greatly enhances the performance of the operating system. I agree with the statement about the expense of Apple hardware, but if you really like tinkering, you can flash the rom on a PCI card to get it to work with PPC architecture.

    13. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2
      Apple needs to stay a hardware company, and hence keep MacOS X to themselves, since, IMO, they are the only company that is doing any serious innovation in this domain. They may not have the market, but they have a product that everyone envies.


      I can't afford a Mercedes, and I accept that until I have the money to do so I will have to accept what ever alternatives there are. The world of computers is the same - its a reality you have to accept.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    14. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Agreed! This OS would sell millions of copies if it ran on x86 instead of PPC.


      No, it'd sell a few more copies than it does now, and everyone else would pirate it. Its the same deal with windows.. if it doesn't come bundled with something, people steal it. Apple happens to make the hardware they bundle their OS with, so they don't have to break the law to ensure that people buy it.

    15. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Megane · · Score: 2
      Indeed. Ask anyone who has tried to get OS X running on a pre-G3 Power Mac. I lost one of the two built-in SCSI interfaces in my PowerTower Pro, had to dump an ancient unsupported Adaptec SCSI card (and one of the drives that were attached to it), and the original ixMicro video card too. That stuff and the old Aurora Fuse video capture card will eventually go to the $60 PowerWave that I found a few months ago. And the IDE card I got wouldn't work reliably in the fast (50MHz?) PCI slots, so I had to move it to a slow (25MHz) slot.

      It wouldn't even have been worth it if I hadn't got that Radeon PCI a few months before (the current 7000 series supposedly has a problem running on older Power Macs and OS X).

      But the old thing won't take 10.2. I got it to install, but it crashed on startup. Good thing I installed it to a different drive and didn't trash my working 10.1.5 install. I'm getting me one of those new dual 1GHz boxes today. (I tried yesterday, but nobody had them in stock.)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    16. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by sporty · · Score: 2

      lol re: mac os x 86.

      But think, how many people have pirated OSX. My good friend pirated it. Now how many people have pirated a full machine? As an apple customer, now adicted to the damned machine, my next machine will be another Mac. $1500 every 5 years or $100 every year. Yes, I lose out, but apple wins. So in the end I win.

      And btw.. Juguar already has the better new proposed name. Mac OS/2 X.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    17. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by james_sorenson · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that one of the main reasons Macs "just work" is because Apple has direct access to a limited pool of hardware to program for. The fact that Windows XP runs as well as it does with the dizzying number of 3rd-party assorted processors, motherboards, graphic cards and what-have-you is amazing.

      Apple is in a corner. If they try to program for those 10,000 combinations of hardware, there WILL be compatibility glitches, and Apple will lose its reputation. What if Apple switches to a _specific_ Intel/Athlon platform with Apple firmware so that Apple doesn't have to program for 10,000 combinations of hardware? Existing owners of PC and Mac equipment will be pissed that they have to buy something new.

      Please, IBM, may this new chip be everything you say it is! Apple equipment is king because of the carefully matched software and hardware.

    18. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by doggo · · Score: 1

      I hope they don't port it. Why? Because then it'll end up just like Windows. The reason Mac OS "just works" is because they have relatively limited configurations to deal with.

      And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, Apple hardware is not especially expensive relative to comparable PC hardware. It's a red herring, and disingenuous to make that argument at this point. It should be noted as well that Apple's always used higher end components in their machines.

      Again, the trade off with Apple has always been: slightly to much more expensive initial cost for better components and better overall workability between the OS and the hardware, as well as a longer useful life per machine. The downside being the instablility of the OS pre-OS X.

    19. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Mr.+Quick · · Score: 2

      If they try to program for those 10,000 combinations of hardware, there WILL be compatibility glitches, and Apple will lose its reputation.

      i agree completely. i, like most mac-faithfuls, are putting alot of hope into the ibm desktop power4 chip, and knowing ibm's rep, i'm not worried.
      the fact that they have included a vector unit is a good sign. they have previously shunned the unit, so this might be a good indicator that their opinion has changed.

      *crosses fingers*

    20. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by tb3 · · Score: 2

      Part of the reason has to be because Be had piss-poor marketing, and Sun, at the consumer level, is even worse. Not that it would ever happen, but I'm sure that if they wanted to, Apple could do a much better job of selling OS X/86.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    21. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      I would absolutely love for you to build me a computer with dual processors each with 256k L2 cache and 1MB L3 cache 2 gigs of RAM (I know you said 4 time as much ram, but I can go online and pick up a 256 stick for about $60 so that's what I would do, not a giant expense). 120 GB of 7200 RPM HD space, a combo drive, a GeForce4MX card (I know it's the lowend card but I really don't need to run quake at 500 fps), gigabit ethernet, USB, Firewire, 4 PCI slots OPEN at minimum (NO ISA, a great *NIX OS with an easy to use intuitive interface, a software development package, a vector processor,Digital output (not just VGA), and audio audio line in and out for less than $1000. And thats just the minimum with the updates you described. I'm not tryin gto flame here, but seriously PCs for anythign decent are not that much better priced than macs.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    22. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by droleary · · Score: 2

      how many times does this idea need to be brought up, and then quickly shot down because it will never happen?

      As long as the people shooting it down are more ignorant than the people bringing it up, the point will continually be raised until it does happen.

      1. apple makes their money selling hardware. they will lose all that revenue if people can just use a walmart $400 pc.

      Cluehammer says even a moron knows it doesn't cost $129 to dup the OS X CDs. Yes, Apple is currently a systems company and not just a software company, but you need only look at the revenue that MS has generated to see that running on a Walmart special wouldn't necessarily bankrupt Apple.

      3. yet another architecture change? i think not. moving from 68K to ppc went well, it took some time but it was a success. os9 to os10 is going well, most apps are there and the open source/hobby coder population is booming. so to go from ppc to x86 after moving to a new OS, the big software companies are just going to say no. that's suicide.

      Here you show no sense of history. In the NeXT roots of OS X, getting a quad-fat binary was a simple matter of clicking some check boxes in ProjectBuilder. And if Apple had stuck with the Yellow Box like they promised, you'd even be seeing Cocoa apps that run under Windows XP. The APIs Apple makes available are, for the most part, at a high enough level that the developer need not worry about the underlying architecture.

      i can't see apple going x86 in the future.

      Mac OS X came from x86. If they're not going back, it's only because that shitty chip left a bad taste in their mouths. Given the history of Mac OS X, though, I can almost guarantee that they still have it running on a PC internally, in addition to checking out all the other hardware directions they could go in the future.

    23. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      1. apple makes their money selling hardware. they will lose all that revenue if people can just use a walmart $400 pc.

      I dunno... Seems to me that Microsoft did just fine being a software company. Now that Apple has an OS I'd actually buy, it's a shame I don't like being locked into one hardware solution.

      Ah well... maybe next year.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    24. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by clem.dickey · · Score: 2

      the BIOS code on such things as PCI cards, needs to be in PPC opcode format

      Apple adapter card code is usually in Open Firmware format (FORTH), not PPC native. Whether FORTH is easier to read than PPC opcodes is a separate matter. :-)

    25. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Malduin · · Score: 1

      Oh goodness...5 years in between new systems. Heck, I can hardly go 5 days without finding something else I want for my system and wind up upgrading within the month. So, therefore, my system is always new.

      It's a bad addiction, but it's fun!

    26. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by jefflinwood · · Score: 2

      It's worth noting here that OS X isn't recommended for use on Macs that are upgraded to G3/G4, for those readers here who aren't up to date on Mac hardware.

      You can pick up a nice Blue and White G3 for 400 bucks or so on eBay. They look awesome!

    27. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by operagost · · Score: 1

      According to Apple, 10.2 requires a G3, so don't blame them.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    28. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by sporty · · Score: 2

      lol, i'm talking about new motherboard, cpu and so forth. Apple mb/cpu's go a long way for their worth. Wssn't it just two years ago 900 mhz machines came out?

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    29. Re:Port it for crying out loud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "since the BIOS code on such things as PCI cards, needs to be in PPC opcode format, not x86 opcode format"

      BIOS, how quaint.

  7. Two sides... by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, I see how Linux users may be the more likely candidate to pick up a Mac. Familiar *nix feel, sweet desktop and windows manager, kick ass hardware. What is there not to like?

    On the other side, what's not to like? THE PRICE! Most Linux users have a Linux box that isn't the biggest and best machine, just a box with spare parts that you put together (cause, hell, it works GREAT on subpar hardware). Not many get stuff like GeForce4 cards, because the 3D gaming market hasn't really hit Linux hard. Now, to switch, you have to buy a fairly expensive machine. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on a PC, because I'm a gamer, and that's where my cash usually goes.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Two sides... by swordfish666 · · Score: 1

      You are totally right.

      My Linux box: Old Fujitsu Laptop PII 300/96ram.
      My GameBox:Win2K/PIII733/512ram/GeForce2.

      I was once a Mac admin (stop laughing) and I didn't do much either. But when it came time to replace the old Mac's with the G3's is when we switched to PC's.
      Then it was 1 G3 = 2 Dell's now 1 G4 = 3 or 4 Wal-Mart Specials.

      --
      I like-a do-the cha-cha.
    2. Re:Two sides... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      What's wrong with the price? You get high-quality hardware, fantastic engineering, and you don't have to know shit about shit to keep it running. Let's pick on the American auto industry for a minute. You can get a GM POS for $12,000, and it will probably get you where you need to go. It'll be a bitch to maintain, stuff will break, and you'll have a crappy experience. But it's cheap! On the other hand, you can pay a little more for a BMW, Mercedes, or even a Honda Accord. It's basically the same as the Geo Metro (box with wheels and motor), but there's a fantastic difference in the quality of that you get, and therefore in the overall experience.

      You get what you pay for. Most computers are commodities, but Apple's are the exception. They can charge the premium, because what they sell really is better than the box of spare parts running Linux in the corner.

    3. Re:Two sides... by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      You just threw all the cliches of Linux-users together and thought you will get a +1 Interesting, right? (Well, so far, it worked.)

      I am a Linux user and have a Dual-Athlon 1600 with 1GB 266DDR RAM and a 15000rpm SCSI disk as a desktop machine. I wouldn't call that subpar hardware. You run your router/small server on outdated hardware, but not your Linux desktop.

      "Familiar Unix feel" - I don't feel familiar when I can't paste with the middle mouse button. I don't feel familiar if I get Klaustrophobia on just one single desktop. "But it has a command-line" doesn't make it a Unix.

      "sweet desktop" - But only one! And barely configurable! And not using the middle mouse button! And using unrecognizable thumbnails of pictures instead of icons!

      "kick ass hardware" - That was true a couple of years ago, but today the RAM is too slow and they use the same slow 7200rpm disks as PCs. (or even 5400?!)

    4. Re:Two sides... by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right.

      1. I'm running 4 screens on my OS X box at this moment.
      2. My middle mouse button works fine, thank you - and using the mouse buttons for cut and paste is an X11 oddity that has nothing to do with the operating system and isn't used by any windowing system except X11 based systems.
      3. A command line doesn't make Unix? Well, no. Mach and FreeBSD make Unix - a purer Unix than Linux is, actually.
      4. Slow ram and disks? Disks - yeah, this disk on my iBook is slow. It sucks. It's also the bargain-basement model. As for RAM, I can't say I've ever noticed my iBook being any slower in daily use than my gigahertz work PC so I can't really take this one seriously either. Sorry.
    5. Re:Two sides... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Familiar Unix feel" - I don't feel familiar when I can't paste with the middle mouse button.

      Then use a three-button mouse for the love of god! You thought you would post the old "if-only-the-mouse-wasn't-one-button" troll in the hopes of +1 insightful, huh?
      "But it has a command-line" doesn't make it a Unix.

      Right, it's the whole "runs on BSD" part that makes it a Unix.
      "sweet desktop" - But only one! And barely configurable! And not using the middle mouse button! And using unrecognizable thumbnails of pictures instead of icons!

      Again with the mouse troll. All of these things are configurable either directly or with 3rd-party items. I thought you *liked* tinkering with your OS.
      "kick ass hardware" - That was true a couple of years ago, but today the RAM is too slow and they use the same slow 7200rpm disks as PCs. (or even 5400?!)

      Of course you are just guessing this is true.

      I think we know who the whore really is here.
    6. Re:Two sides... by CH-BuG · · Score: 1

      BTW, I use Space.app to have several virtual desktops. Do you know sth better ? (I don't like loosing the focus when I switch desktops)

    7. Re:Two sides... by Megane · · Score: 2
      You're a Linux user and a gamer? That must be tough, with Linux game ports not selling well enough to keep companies in business. Unless you happen to like tinkering with Wine to get Windows versions of games working. I happen to not like wasting my time tinkering (which is why I hated XFree 3.x enough to not have tried 4.x) with low level stuff to get things working.

      Besides, nobody is keeping you from having two computers. I have a cheap 1G Athlon box as a token W2K machine and video->TV player. I also have a couple of Linux boxes as X-less servers.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re:Two sides... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Besides, nobody is keeping you from having two computers

      I never said I didn't. I have a linux PC I use as a server, but my main 'gaming' machine is a WinXP box.

      Actually, I should have explained that I, personally, use spare parts to make my Linux box. It works better on older technology, and I put the new stuff in my Windows box to improve the performance of my games.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    9. Re:Two sides... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is a lot of gammers out there

      And, as you can see, they spend a little too much time gaming.
    10. Re:Two sides... by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2

      I'm using Space myself. I think I noticed others on version tracker, but I haven't bothered to check anything else out yet.

    11. Re:Two sides... by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      My middle mouse button works fine, thank you - and using the mouse buttons for cut and paste is an X11 oddity that has nothing to do with the operating system and isn't used by any windowing system except X11 based systems.

      Well, first without X11 no "Unix desktop feel". MacOSX might *technically* be a Unix and Linux might *technically* be no Unix, but if you talk about look and feel, Linux is Unix and MacOSX simply isn't.

      Then, that your middle button "works" is fine, but it's useless if the windowmanager (or whatever Aqua is) doesn't support it.

      You can't paste with the MMB.
      You can't put windows into the background with the MMB
      You can't jump scrollbars with the MMB

      What exactly DO you use your MMB?

    12. Re:Two sides... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I happen to not like wasting my time tinkering (which is why I hated XFree 3.x enough to not have tried 4.x) with low level stuff to get things working.

      I seriously can't think of a better argument to convince you to try XFree86 4.2. Its current autoconfig capabilities are GREAT, a vast, Vast improvement over v3.

    13. Re:Two sides... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Actualy, I would argue that OS X is more UNIX than Linux (infact it is UNIX, hence BSD) That fact that Linux looks more like the text based computers of old doesn't make it Linux. I can put a hat, a shirt and pants ona dog and teach him to walk on his hind legs but that doesn't make him human. The point is, looks don't count when you compare what is what. (It's what's inside that counts, don't you remember that from your corporate ati-discrimination sessions sessions).

      As for the MMB, there are many third party solutions to this as well as the x windowing environment availible for OS X, try www.macosxapps.com

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    14. Re:Two sides... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      The KVM switch at work doesn't support the middle mouse button (nor the scroll wheel). Guess how great the Linux experience is.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    15. Re:Two sides... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      The real question is: how much do you have to do now that you have the PCs? (I guess you didn't by twice as many just because you could)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  8. As a linux user... by Eugene+O'Neil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    O'Reilly also makes an interesting point that UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's "switch" campaign.

    As a Linux user, I agree, at least partly: Linux users are the most likely people to switch from Windows to Macintosh. I was never able to live with just Linux, I always used to have at least one Windows partition somewhere. Now I find that having a Macintosh around the house helps me sever my last ties with Microsoft. I'm still not giving up Linux, but Macintosh is a nice compliment to it.

  9. How have I "Switched", running Linux X apps w/KDE? by korpiq · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Here I sit, writing on MacOSX IE 6, waiting Software Update to install new version of OpenSSL on the background. I use apt-get (fink), KDE and Emacs, develop software on this iBook and run it on *nix machines over network, be it command-line or X11, thru openssh.

    I have not switched. This was, with it's 6 hour uptime, the best *nix-laptop I could afford.

    I have not "switched", nor have I to "switch" back when someone puts out a better laptop. I just use whatever *nix is applicable to me. Yellow Dog, yeah, I would try, but I don't need to fix what is not broken.

    Apple simply did not break BSD when they created Darwin.

    --

    I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
  10. It just works? by 13Echo · · Score: 2
    The anecdotal evidence suggests too that Apple and its third-party developers do in fact need to do more to entice existing users to switch.


    Let me build my own box.
    1. Re:It just works? by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me build my own box.

      Then it wouldn't "just work". Say what you like about Microsoft, they support a vast range of hardware, and that's one of the reasons they software is sometimes unreliable. The only way Apple products can "just work" is if Apple maintains absolute control over the hardware their software runs on.

    2. Re:It just works? by Spencerian · · Score: 2

      Apple won't you build your own Mac box anymore than Porsche would give you the parts to build your own custom sports car.

      Some things in the world are custom-built for a reason. They tend to work better on average than a commodity system. Example: 1970's American cars vs. Japanese cars. There was a reason why a lot of us bought those Japanese cars. Inexpensive does not necessarily equate to better in some people's minds.

      You're an exception, and that's OK--it's why Apple supports their Darwin project--the Mac OS X core is open source and works for x86 as well as PowerPC iron. Doesn't have all the OS X bells and whistles, but it sounds like you'd enjoy tinkering.

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    3. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was what he was joking about.

      It was a metaphor of sorts.

    4. Re:It just works? by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 2

      "Say what you like about Microsoft, they support a vast range of hardware, and that's one of the reasons they software is sometimes unreliable."

      The biggest reasons why MS software, esp. the OS, has been unreliable are

      * that until very recently, different versions of the same DLL couldn't coexist on the same system, leading application installers to overwrite system DLLs with older/newer versions, breaking other apps that depended on those DLLs, and

      * that the Registry was designed such that it was a single point of failure, and since both the apps and the system continually wrote to the Registry database, the opportunity for Registry corruption was fairly high. The Registry is *still* a problem. MS has recently added things like automatic backups for the Registry, but that's a bandaid for the core problem.

      Relative to those two problems, hardware issues are minor. By contrast, look at the stability of Linux. It too supports a lot of hardware, even on different architectures, yet it is far more stable than Linux.

    5. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let me build my own box.

      Apple stopped selling to hobbyists in about 1983. Why on Earth would they care about the 6 people who would build their own computer? Do-it-yourselfers exist in most areas (cars, computers, radio, clothing, audio), but they're *always* severely limited in their choices because they're such a small (read: insignificant) part of the market. Small as they are, they require a lot of resources on the sales end - product lines to support, documentation to produce, etc, that aren't required otherwise.

      On top of all that, Apple has done a fantastic job of integrating hardware and software. All that goes out the window when they let some hobbyist throw in a $10 no-name motherboard with a flaky BIOS.

    6. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It too supports a lot of hardware, even on different architectures, yet it is far more stable than Linux.

      Forgiving your mistake at the end (I assume you meant more stable than Windows) I have to point out that Linux supports a lot of hardware using generic drivers that sometimes only provide half the functionality of the device. Sound cards, video cards, printers, etc work but they don't always have all of the bonus features. Of course this is because the vendors often don't make any effort to create a Linux driver or release the specs so someone else can.

    7. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      care about the 6 people who would build their own computer?

      I think you GREATLY underestimate the amount of computer tinkerers out there. Judging by the hundreds of stores that cater to such a person I have to imagine that it is a significant amount. I personally have never bought a computer. I have assembled over a dozen in the last 5 years for myself and friends and family. I always know exactly what I am getting when I put together my own computer.

    8. Re:It just works? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1
      The only way Apple products can "just work" is if Apple maintains absolute control over the hardware their software runs on.
      ...except that MacOS X is a *nix operating system (its kernel is effectively BSD). Certainly, it won't run on an 80x86 unless they rewrite it from the ground up (something I'd very much like to see, as it would vastly improve their software market share), but it should run no matter what video card you select, no matter what hard drive you have, etc.

      The system requirements say that it should run on any computer fast enough to support its creeping featurism and somewhat overdone graphics, and that means anything from my beige G3 that doesn't have built-in USB, to a dual-processor G4 tower, to an iMac. If you build your own Mac with a G3 or G4 processor, MacOS X should support it.
      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    9. Re:It just works? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      By contrast, look at the stability of Linux. It too supports a lot of hardware, even on different architectures, yet it is far more stable than Windows.

      Yes, once you GET it to work it is more stable than windows, but it doesn't JUST WORK(TM). More than being about stability (though that is part of it) the quality Mac Users mean when they say it "Just Works" is that there is no hassle, things work right out of the box, the first time. THAT is what would be much more difficult without control over both hardware & software

      I can think of an example back in the days of System 7 (early 90's? maybe even very late 80's? - I don't remember). I had three or four macs in an office and I connected them all to a new laser printer. Simply by physically connecting them I also inadvertantly set up an appletalk network without even fully realising thats what would happen (I just wanted all of us to be able to print, being able to mount each others disks, transfer files was a pleasant suprise). Around the same time I attached a second monitor to my machine, no hassle, it just worked the moment I plugged it in and the "monitors" control panel had several new options appear that hadn't been there before. That's the kind of experience mac users have come to expect as "the Mac way".

      Other OS's have made great strides in approaching that ideal but I think Apple is still the company most commited to that ideal (It's no suprise that they are the driving force behind ZeroConf, an effort to make TCP/IP networks "Just Work"). And I think Apple is still the closest to realising that ideal in their execution. What is amazing (and will get progressively better over time) about OS X is that they have (largely) delivered that kind of ease of use on top of the stability and *flexibility* of UNIX. It is at least close to delivering the best of all possible worlds. The Mac OS was the easiest to use but least flexible/powerful (and towards the end, least stable) - UNIX was the hardest to use but most stable, flexible and powerful. Windows was an unhappy compromise between either extreme (though it kept getting better). MacOS X delivers both ease-of-use of the Mac and power & flexibility of Unix without (for the most part) compromising either.

    10. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BINGO. And that, my friends, is the primary reason I for one would never switch to Macs. I use linux to get away from the absolute control big vendors have over my computing environment. Apple is no different in that regard, than Microsoft. If they had 90% marketshare, do you think for one minute they wouldn't pull the same kind of shit? If you do, you are very naive.

    11. Re:It just works? by jcast · · Score: 1

      Go look at the ports list for gcc, emacs, Linux, etc. (>100 lines total). Then compare with the ports list for MSVC++, Word, NT, etc. (10 lines total). Draw your own conclusions about the ``hardware'' argument.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    12. Re:It just works? by NotoriousQ · · Score: 2

      I feel like adding a bit to the discussion today.

      I have to point out that Linux supports a lot of hardware using generic drivers that sometimes only provide half the functionality of the device.

      Funny you mentioned this, but remember you have to keep in mind that you can choose the hardware, and hardware companies. I have an nvidia card in my system -- because the company seems to care about me, and is releasing a good driver...sure it is not open source, but hey a driver is a bit more related to hardware, and open source could be a bit harder to apply there. My sound card is a live!. Why? Creative released a ton of specs, and kind people of the linux kernel and alsa have released kick ass drivers for it. About the only thing that seemed missing are soundfonts, but I have not looked hard for them, nor do I need them. Creative even released their own drivers, but the alsa ones are better. Same is the case with the creative's usb cam. The authors of the ov511 driver have written a driver so decent, the camera actually works wonders in linux, and does not perform as well in win (better framerates, good color controls and adjustment for light).

      So the point is if you are going the linux route, you have to choose the hardware correctly...not everything that has a designed for win logo is acceptable. Thus customizable desktops are linux all the way. I will never even think about a mac desktop, the linux ones perform much better and cheaper.

      The laptop issue is much more difficult. From what I have seen, it is a wise choice to go apple laptop. And personally I am almost regretting getting a pc laptop, but I had to for multiple reasons. Cost, cost, I love having three mouse buttons and no touchpad (probably irrelevant or OS X since it is designed for one button), cost, and small size. (not everyone wants a 15" screen)

      --
      badness 10000
    13. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BeOS had little problem supporting hardware 'cause baby, sometimes it pays to clean house. I don't think OSX is any different.

    14. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't have to port OSX to IA32. NeXT already did that. In fact it was a shipping product, and lots of developers are irate that Apple killed it (it's no longer available except with the ludicrously-priced WebObjects).

    15. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then how come Linux is so stable most of the time?
      And that's why I want my XBox to be my PC.

    16. Re:It just works? by GooseKirk · · Score: 2

      Yes, once you GET it to work it is more stable than windows, but it doesn't JUST WORK(TM).

      Never seen Knoppix (or any of the similar projects), have you? If a handful of German geeks can, I presume in their spare time, produce a Linux distro that JUST WORKS to the point where all you have to do is push the power button, insert a CD, and you have a complete, functional, and reliable OS and desktop... well, it's pretty impressive. And it makes me not buy the old argument against porting to x86 because then Apple wouldn't be able to quality control all that hardware out there. If small groups of volunteers can make hardware work reliably with a huge variety of *nix flavors, what's Apple's problem? And if Mach and BSD are so close together, and the BSD community already supports an assload of hardware, this should not be such a showstopper.

      No, Apple could port OS X to standard PC hardware and make it work just fine, if they wanted to. But they won't port it because they don't want to and don't need to. They've got a comfortable niche, and as long as they keep producing innovative (or at least distinctive) hardware, they'll only build on the Apple mystique that would surely be harmed by porting. Besides, they're control freaks.

      If OS X were ported and I could buy it for $50, I'd switch my whole office tomorrow. I think it's a damn shame Apple won't do it. But they've got their reasons, and I think it's useful to recognize them instead of hauling out this bogus hardware instability issue all the time.

    17. Re:It just works? by dublin · · Score: 2

      That's the kind of experience mac users have come to expect as "the Mac way".

      And that's why I'm switching to a Mac when I buy my next computer. My Dad recently got a new G4 Mac with OS 10.1, and I was blown away by both its capabilities and its smoothness.

      I've been a Unix user for 20 years (going back to version 7) and OS X is by far the most capable and usable computing environment I've ever seen from a user point of view.

      I've liked the Mac way for a long time, and although I know for an absolute fact that Macs save big money in a corporate environment, I've never been completely compelled enough to want to switch to a Mac myself.

      Until now.

      The new Macs do indeed "just work". Right out of the box, they do things that even most geeks will never be fully successful getting Linux to do.

      The environment is not perfect, but it's a darn sight better than anything I've seen this side of the "Starfire" film Bruce Tognazzini put together while he was at Sun. (Cool content, and a very insightful look at the future, but also proof of why Bruce doesn't make a living as a producer/director.)

      Mac hardware is now competitive with other name brands, especially if you factor in Apple's generally superior quality. (Seriously folks, comparing Apple hardware to Taiwanese white boxes is like comapring them to (dare I say it?) oranges.)

      I think the thing that struck me most about OS X is that it's a no-compromise environment. In addition to the hassle-free "just works" nature that is so refreshing compared to all alternatives, it's also real Unix, with all the power that power users want and expect. Apple did a terrific job - my only gripe is that 10.1 is still too buggy, and although I would not normall object to paid upgrade, this one smells a bit of shipping buggy code and then charging to fix it. Still it's a great package - enough better that unless Microsoft actually gets its act together with Longhorn, I'll be posting from a Mac next year. (I'm opposed to MS in general, but Lohnghorn is a truly impressive concept, and if they can pull it off, they will leap over even Apple in usability and more important, usefulness. Now that Apple has once again proven there is a market that wants better usability, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see MS try to capture it.)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    18. Re:It just works? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      Never seen Knoppix (or any of the similar projects), have you? If a handful of German geeks can, I presume in their spare time, produce a Linux distro that JUST WORKS to the point where all you have to do is push the power button, insert a CD, and you have a complete, functional, and reliable OS and desktop... well, it's pretty impressive.

      No I haven't seen that project. But such an easy installation is not really impressive either - that is how it should be. I agree with you that Apple has the resources that they could make MacOS X for intel PC's. In fact I'd bet that they have a skunk works project keeping OS X up to date on the PC as an ace in the whole if the PowerPC platform continues to fall behind. Yes, quality control is not their only reason for not porting to X86, the fact that they make their profits on hardware not software is a much larger reason. Still, Apples hardware/software integration goes beyond mere ease of installation and by being control freaks they can acheive tighter hardware/software integration than their competitors in the wintel world.

      If OS X were ported and I could buy it for $50, I'd switch my whole office tomorrow.

      But, Apple can't count on your attitude being in the majority. You mention Knoppix which in your estimation is as easy and well integrated on the PC as the MacOS is on the Mac, but it isn't exactly making huge gains against windows on the desktop. If Apple ported to the PC even if they could achieve "the Mac way" level of quality assurance they would still be stuck risking the loss of my $2400 PowerBook purchase to gain a lousy $50 from you.

  11. What's going on... by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 1

    More and more I get the impression that there are people from within the Open Source community that are actively working against Open Source and GNU/Linux on the desktop. What's up with that?

    --
    People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    1. Re:What's going on... by derch · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you might have an interesting point, but you need to flesh the idea out some more.

      Are you trying to say that the people switching to a proprietary platform that runs a mix of OSS and closed source software are betraying the ideas of OSS and GNU? I'd agree that running OS X goes against the ideas of GNU but not OSS. Does anyone know RMS's views of OS X? I'd guess he believes it's anathema to his beliefs.

      As a user of OSS in the real world, I truly believe in the marriage of closed source and OSS that OS X has acheived. The freedom and effeciency of working on one platform that has Word (needed because the bosses use Windows), IE, Moz, Eudora, bash, vim, ssh, apache, php, and mysql has simplified my life by several fold. I'm down to one computer from three, no more KVM switch, no bitching about Windows, no fidgeting with Linux.

      Yes, you can find alternativeOSS software that can read and edit Word docs (I always found them to be unreliable). Yes, there are good mail clients for Gnome/KDE but they all have an unfinished feeling. I believe OSS does an excellent job writing editors and servers. They even have come a long way on the desktop. OSS is not the only solution, though. Commercial software has successes, and you only limit yourself when you say you won't use them.

      I was going somewhere with this, but got sidetracked.

      To be glib, if OSS and GNU are about freedom of software, then what about my freedom to use both on one platform?

    2. Re:What's going on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were trolls send from Microsoft, the RIAA, or MPAA. We can read your mind, and add thoughts to your brain, so keep your tinfoil hat on tight! Bwaaaaaaahahaha!

    3. Re:What's going on... by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 1

      Okay - I didn't flesh it out more because I was too lazy to go and look up the references / links.

      What I meant was this:

      - Tim O'Reilly stating that OSX is really the way to go on the desktop. While I have nothing in particular agains running any OS anywhere (I use Linux, but I'm not so fanatic that *everyone*must* convert to OSS - people are free to run what they like, as far as I am concerned.) anyway, O'Reilly is supposed to be a "posterboy" for the whole OpenSource community, and recently, he has been kicking more and more against certain issues. Witness the "use OSX" rant.

      - Redhat has stated, many times, that Linux is not for the desktop.

      There are more examples, but as I said, I'm too lazy to look for references.

      Now, as part of my work (ICT for a government), I have actually researched the viabillity of Open source software on the corporate desktop, and it makes a lot of sense, from all angles. I am not alone in making this conclusion - witness city of largo, city of turku in finland, telstra, etc.

      So, what is going on with these people stating that open source is not for the desktop? They say: "you are better off with OSX, windows, whathaveyounot." It simply doesn't make sense. It is, from an IT perspective, not even very professional to talk about "the desktop". First question is "Who's Desktop"? i.e. what type of user are we talking about? task worker? knowledge worker? management? developer? you get my drift. Second question is: what is the hardware? again, you get my drift. There is no such thing as "the desktop" - there are many different types of desktop. And to say that Linux is not good for any of them is gross generalisation that doesn't do the issue justice, not to mention plain rubbish.

      Now, I don't think these people making these statements are idiots, or not professionals, and I think they know these issues I bring up. So my question is: What's going on?

      --
      People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    4. Re:What's going on... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      BY promoting OS X I don't think they're saying you're better off with closed source, but they'r saying that you need some closed source. And they really are right. Money is still a motivational factor in this world. It's nice that OSS allows for everyone to have whatever they want, but just imagine if things like video codecs and certain ways of doing certain things became open source? 100s of versions, niether one compatible witht eh other. And they wouldn't be made compatible because that takes time and time is money and let's face it, untill food becomes downloadable, we're going to do more of what pays us than what we do in our spare time. Also factor in that as much as freedom is nice, it's also nice to know there is a closed source, something which there are real experts in who can and will help you (because it's their job). OSS is nessesary, but so is CSS, two forms of development, each one pushing the other.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    5. Re:What's going on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      but they'r saying that you need some closed source.


      Why do we need a closed software as opposed to an open software? Do you have problems visiting SSL-enabled pages? Do you have problems speaking to a commercial SSH server with an OpenSSH client? Are there 100 different versions of Mozilla, all incompatible with HTML 4.0, CSS 2.0, etc etc.?


      it's also nice to know there is a closed source, something which there are real experts in who can and will help you (because it's their job).


      There are MANY experts on many different open protocols/products (Sendmail, OpenSSH, etc) I'd argue that there are more experts for open programs than there are for closed programs. Do you think a Microsoft engineer knows more about mail than a sendmail hacker? Do you think a Microsoft Engineer knows the inner workings of Exchange as well as a Sendmail hacker? Do you think you will ever be able to talk to the Engineer who wrote MS Exchange Server?

    6. Re:What's going on... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Yes, you do need closed sourse combined with open source if just to provide an immage. It's the same reason the Linux cons have moved from a sci-fi con feel to a business con feel, because in order to be commercialy viable (which you have to do to win more than just a fan base, as Apple has painfuly learned) you need to present the immage of being professional. As great as OSS is, it doesn't quite have the feel of professionalism. Why do you think businesses using a *NIX system use the ones with closed licences (yes, if you read into it, UNIX is technicaly a closed system. Linux is the open version, there are of course exceptions). Think about it, before OS X, Linux and OSS as a viable commercial and home platform was almost dead in the water. SUre Red Hat had made some progress and some of the big distros were doing OK, but companies which had tried Linux configured systems had returned to windows. ANd I remember seeing a few articles proclaiming linux dead. Sure OSS still had it's geek cult following, but then again, so did Apple in 1996 and 97. Then along came OS X and revitalized the opensource industry. Now there was a big name comapny supporting OSS (by big name I refer to visable, like it or not, a lot of people know who Apple is, fewer know Red Hat) And what did it bring? It brought apps closer to OSS. Sure Photoshop for OS X isn't Photoshop for Linux, and Quicktime for OS X isn't Quicktime for linux, but it's a hell of a lot closer than it was before. My point is, when you have a commercial company with money behind it backing something like OSS (even if it's underlining is CSS) you make all the people that are nervous about trusting an openstandard a little bit more secure.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    7. Re:What's going on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people say "the desktop" they're usually referring to "the desktop market", let's face it. And, people are finally coming to terms with the fact that Linux on a whole (not any particular peice of software) isn't currently "for" "the desktop" - we've got even Linus and Mandrake (right?) on record as saying as much. It's just not easy enough for grammy and grandpappy (I WILL NOT say "works", it obviously does work.) This has got to be the single most common comment on slashdot lately, nothing new here, but it can't be repeated enough.. And why? Because a common attitude is that linux should be EVERYWHERE because MS/etc software isn't up to par, or because MS/etc are dirty businesses, whatever reason. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

  12. Mac OS X ain't all that by Meleneth · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's nice and all, but not that great. Definatly a step waaaay up from Mac OS 9, and much smoother than windows.

    I have a TiBook 667 with a Rage128 card, and it's pretty fast. I'd use it all the time except under my fink install both enlightenment and windowmaker crash at startup. Also it's interoperability with linux blows - it cannot mount any kind of ext2 filesystem, and hfs+ is not supported by linux yet. Sure, I could use hfstools and copy stuff off the HD... (I think) but I want it to just mount. I'm also kindof bugged by having to set my NFS servers up for insecure mode. Not really because I have to change the settings on my boxes, as much as getting the settings changed on other machines.

    So, I've installed gentoo on it instead. I'm usually a debian fanatic, but I thought I'd check it out, since I'd already messed up my debian install by totally hosing my kernel when I compiled it myself. First kernel build on the new machine, totally going to break. We don't need to steenking backups ;)

    So anyways, gentoo has given me all the linux goodness I need. I won't say it was easy to set up - X11 didn't get my keyboard type at all, and I actually had to resort to hand hacking a ~/.Xmodmap file in order to use my keyboard in Xwindows. It's mostly usable now, only a few more symbols and all the keys will actually be typeable.

    On top of that, I can actually play divx files. Divx support for mac os X is bad - the few files that actually play the sound skips horribly. And ogg vorbis support sucks too (i.e. imusic doesn't support it)

    I love my linux boxen. *sniff*

    Meleneth

    --
    remote access CLI with tools is the only friend you'll ever need.
    1. Re:Mac OS X ain't all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definatly[sic] a step waaaay up from Mac OS 9, and much smoother than windows

      Bleh... it still doesn't run Talking Moose!

    2. Re:Mac OS X ain't all that by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      You can always mount your linux drives on your OS X through Samba. There is a samba browser over on version tracker.

    3. Re:Mac OS X ain't all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you [sic] Definatly but not waaaay?

    4. Re:Mac OS X ain't all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can this be rated as a troll? he's just relating his experiences with mac os x

    5. Re:Mac OS X ain't all that by Meleneth · · Score: 1

      True. Doesn't help with wanting to mount the drives that are actually in the machine tho.

      --
      remote access CLI with tools is the only friend you'll ever need.
  13. What I find nice about OSX by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2

    OSX works without having to know to hack configs and source, but if you want to, the ability to drop into its unix core is still there. It is both easy to use and powerful at the same time.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    1. Re:What I find nice about OSX by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      > OSX works without having to know to hack configs and source,

      I use Linux exclusively, and I almost never hack configs or source. The only exception that comes to mind is a simple edit of my XF86Config-4 file to install Nvidia drivers.

      I've also used Macs extensively and found their 'ease of use' mostly a marketing myth.

  14. This is all I'm going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. What's OSX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would switch, but I don't know what I'd be switching to, because I can't see any of the Quicktime demos on the Apple website...

    1. Re:What's OSX? by Malduin · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      Didn't these guys fix that for you?

    2. Re:What's OSX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort-of.

      My point is that I shouldn't have to pay $ to a third party in order to view marketing material for a product from the company that could've a) used an open format or b) produced a player for their own format

      Seriously, I'm supposed to be their target market!

    3. Re:What's OSX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you aren't their target market. If you can't afford to play quicktime, you definetely cant afford a Mac... sorry.

    4. Re:What's OSX? by derch · · Score: 1

      Suggestions:
      Find a friend with a Windows box.
      Find a local Mac User Group.
      Go to an Apple store, if one is close.

      Though I'd wait to look at 10.2 instead of 10.1

    5. Re:What's OSX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you aren't their target market. If you can't afford to play quicktime, you definetely cant afford a Mac... sorry.

      Yeah, us sysadmins are all hard-up. I should've been a plumber or something...

      Repeat after me, "It's not about the money"

  16. Theres a valid point or two in there. by sirinek · · Score: 1

    Linux users would be one group to target but theres such a small percentage of us, I'm not sure its worth it for Apple to pursue.

    It'd sure be nice though if the two main unix desktop environments "just worked". Right now, GNOME is a configuration nightmare and KDE ships with a broken browser among other quirks. OSX is a godsend compared to the two of them.

    Apple's doing right by targetting Windows users who want stuff to "just work" compared to Linux users who dont mind tinkering a bit. Lets not second guess them. :)

    siri

  17. O'Reilley doesn't care by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 0, Troll

    Whatever platform you switch to, they are going to sell you a shitload of books anyway, in fact they want you to switch as often as possible so you end up owning all the books they publish and end up bankrupt.

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
  18. oh yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the article:
    "It's taken a coupla weeks and several false starts -- but I'm getting more and more enthusiastic about X. And (as I am about to write in some "public" comments) David Pogue's Mac OS X: The Missing Manual is an absolutely stellar -- and ESSENTIAL! -- tool for understanding X and getting the most out of it. (Apple's idiotic "Help[less]" files verge on being worse than useless -- partly because one can spend unending time slogging through their links, only to FAIL to find most of the answers. )"

    all it took is a couple weeks and a goddamn book on how to use it? Yeah that's great. That was coming from a self-described "mac guru" too.

    1. Re:oh yeah! by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      all it took is a couple weeks and a goddamn book on how to use it? Yeah that's great. That was coming from a self-described "mac guru" too.

      To be fair, since he WAS a "mac guru" he probably wants to BECOME a "MacOS X guru" and is probably looking to gain more understanding and trying more advanced things than your average "switcher". Also note that I said he "WAS" a Mac Guru. Aside from the name MacOS X has almost *nothing* in common with the Macintosh operating system, this guy is in the same boat that a "windows Guru" would be in if he switched to FreeBSD but wanted to keep, or reaquire his "guru" status.

  19. Linux users would be a good target by Tyreth · · Score: 1

    I am hoping for my next computer to get a Mac with OSX. Thanks to Linux I've grown to know and love Unix.

    Problem is, I need my windows partition for games. With a Mac OSX machine I could have a complete Unix environment, and still play most of the popular games. I don't think I'd be willing to give up Linux, but I'd certainly be happy having both OS's running on the same computer.

    Linux has more than just stability. I love the whole philosophy behind it as many others do, and while Apple is closer than Microsoft, it's still not as good as Linux.

  20. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by RawCode · · Score: 1

    I doubt you will ever see Apple sell the OS X for any other platform. Thats the genius of Apple's business model; Want the OS? Gotta but the hardware (which is not cheap). They got it right. Let just hope Microsoft doesnt try this.

  21. Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.com by JiMbOb_ka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read an interesting article on Salon.com yesterday about a minister who had been suckered in the "Switch" campaign. The article can be found here.

  22. Switch to OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    OS X is so good that even /. changed it's own webpage to a more 'aqua-esque' design.

  23. OSX theme by rmadmin · · Score: 1

    Hrm... I switched.. from default KDE theme to an OSX theme. It is mad sexy. I think OSX's window manager is everything. I've been using it for a few days now, and it still makes me warm and fuzzy every time I look at its details. "Theropudic Window Manager?"

  24. Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do agree, switching from another unix OS is more beneficial for some people but the target audience is smaller. Targetting the windows users is better in that sense.
    But in the end, Apple is targeting the average user. Pro user already know the pro's and con's or can get the info. Average user don't really see the difference...and telling them how much easy and bug free it is can make them change.
    If Apple want to target a wider audience, they have to offer better price on their hardware because not everybody want to pay the big price for hardware. Mostly the average user that don't see a difference.
    Although I think the scientific people are quite a good target. Some of them were using Apple before and some already switches. Apple unix core is a good scientific platform.
    Soo many audiences....not enough users :)

  25. I meant: "freedom" is unlimited ability to switch by korpiq · · Score: 2


    Switching back and forth between different boxes all supporting your standard toolset is "freedom". Apple is in the game as long as they support it; soon as they start "locking" (see the excellent interview of Dre), they're out. Wish it were the same for every company.

    Fix your laws, United Slaves of America!

    --

    I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
  26. Linux is still the best OS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think OSX is an alternative to linux, as a developer i think that linux is the best OS period. It has all the toold I want and I have the freedom to customize it tehy way I want to. Linux freedom can not be matched by any commercial OS.

    1. Re:Linux is still the best OS. by twocents · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I am running both OS X, 2000, and a couple of LInux boxes at home. For a while, after first getting into OS X, I used that machine only. Then I starting tinkering with MySQL and PHP on the OS X box, then I anxiously began testing out the alpha OpenOffice for XDarwin. Then I debated whether or not buy the Mac GIMP CD, just to save some setup time. Then I started to delve into setting up some network monitoring tools...

      And then I began teaching some fellows at work how to use Linux because of a new server installation. At that point it hit me: Linux has much that I was waiting for to arrive on the Mac, and then some.

      And then I tried out KDE 3. Ohh my. And all of this was of course on a 200mghz machine.

      So like many on the list I have both. I like the seamless workings of Aqua and their new backup tools, the ease of iPhoto, etc, not to mention BBEdit and a game here and there.

      But given the choice, I would choose Linux.

  27. Keep it Clean! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Win 2000 & XP are VERY stable - as long as you keep the CRAP off of your system! My personal XP rig (generic P3) NEVER crashes, because I don't have the usual Kazaa/Gator/Bonzi/warez garbage running.

    1. Re:Keep it Clean! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe yeah good point. Win2k/XP is VERY stable as long as you don't install software. Wow, what a perfect solution. The OS for people who don't want to run any software.

    2. Re:Keep it Clean! by Malduin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I'm convinced that Microsoft designed every version of Windows as a self-corrosive OS. That way you're always paying for upgrades and tech support. I bet if you let a fresh install of Win2k/XP sit on a machine running for 1 year with no user intervention and no hardware failures, it would still crash when you checked on it after that year...but that's just my opinion.

    3. Re:Keep it Clean! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are dumb enough to run adware on your OS, you trruly deserve a 'retard' mac

  28. I switched (well more like added) and love it by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0

    I use mac os x for my everyday stuff but all my servers run linux (free == I can afford it) with the exception of my db server which is a sparc with solaris 8 and oracle 8i.

    OS X is by far the best Total OS offering by any company out there. It's rock solid (I've yet to crash it in 3 months) and the GUI beats the shit out of Gnome/KDE/Enlighenment ...

    Jaguar is going to be great (although my G4 Tower is smoking fast).

  29. OS X is great by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple took a risk switching their entire OS core over and not having 'native combatibility' with older apps (yes I know it can run them but it has to load the whole classic mode which takes a long time). Apple went through a similar change when they went from motorola cpu's to the powerpc ones, and having the older code 'emulated' (although it ran just great anyway).

    Apple seems to be much more willing than pc makers and microsoft to switch to new things and I think this is very good as it encourages others to follow. I am mostly a windows user and I must say that OS X is deffinately on par with winXP when it comes to usability and surpasses it when it comes to stability.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:OS X is great by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      If it's on par with XP on usability then I really wouldn't like to try it. XP breaks almost every rule in the book when it comes to usability.

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    2. Re:OS X is great by bcrowell · · Score: 2
      yes I know it can run them but it has to load the whole classic mode which takes a long time
      You can set it up so that Classic loads automatically when you boot. After that, there's no more delay, unless you have to reboot for some reason.

      Apple went through a similar change when they went from motorola cpu's to the powerpc ones, and having the older code 'emulated' (although it ran just great anyway).
      I went through both of these changes. Although Apple's ability to carry them off was amazing in both cases, I have to say that the 9->X shift was less smooth: lack of printer drivers, lack of SCSI support initially, various other hassles that I think might be daunting to the average naive user.

    3. Re:OS X is great by bpbond · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, but of a number of problems with Classic mode, the initial load time isn't one of them. This only has to happen once, takes less than a minute, and when your machine doesn't ever go down, Classic can stay running forever.

      --
      "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
    4. Re:OS X is great by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 2

      I doubt that you have actually tried XP then, its very easy and intuitive. Microsoft, as much as people hate to admit, along with Apple wrote the book on usability. Just look at how many window managers such as KDE try and emulate the windows 95/NT4 look!

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    5. Re:OS X is great by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Why do you say in your .sig about moderators modding based on posts not users?

      I have no idea how modding works. Is it done by selected people, or people with high karma? If it's the latter, then how would they all not mod based on a user? presumably only one or two would bias against a person?

    6. Re:OS X is great by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 1

      well the reason for my sig is people have modded down perfectly acceptable posts I have made because they have read my history and not agreed with my views.

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    7. Re:OS X is great by Nothinman · · Score: 1

      They emulate that look because it's what Windows users are used to, and that's the majory of computer users. They don't emulate it because it's intuitive, trust me I've seen people stare blankly at the Windows desktop not knowing what to do next.

    8. Re:OS X is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try putting them in front of console linux and watch them have a seizure and ie

    9. Re:OS X is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think by on-par he meant "at least as good as" not "no better no worse."

    10. Re:OS X is great by tb3 · · Score: 2

      Microsoft, as much as people hate to admit, along with Apple wrote the book on usability.

      No, they didn't. Microsoft followed IBM's convuluted CUA (Common User Access) guidelines, which specified things like 'Alt-F4' to close an application, Shift+Del for cut, Alt+Del for copy and Shift+Ins for paste. (Or something like that, I can't find any references, the standard was last revised in 1992).
      Then Microsoft got one of its rare clues, and stole the Apple standard of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+X, and Ctrl+V for Copy, Cut, and Paste. But we're still stuck with the fucntion key abominations on the Windows platform.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    11. Re:OS X is great by Morky · · Score: 1

      Classic under Jaguar boots up about 70% faster. Much, much better.

    12. Re:OS X is great by Tassleman · · Score: 1

      Maybe it plays that nicely on YOUR mac, but it's not quite that nice on mine.

      The GF has a Dual 500 G4 running 10.1.5. (Long sidenote: I *think* it's a "sawtooth", but the early 400-500MHZ DP G4's seem to have slipped through the cracks in a lot of Apple documentation, were they not popular models or something? Mac code name scheme never made a whole lot of sense to me)

      It runs X beautifully, but I need to have her restart Classic after running UT or Photoshop 6 before running another Classic app almost every time.

    13. Re:OS X is great by gig · · Score: 2

      Just reinstall your Classic OS or start without extensions. Classic can't be more stable than the OS that's running within it. In 10.0, I found Classic to be a real kludge, but since 10.1/9.2 it isn't noticeable once it's started, and very rarely goes down.

      We are minutes away from not needing Classic anyway. Even things like Cubase SX will be out in September or so, now that 10.2 and its audio/MIDI core are out.

  30. In my experience... by phigga · · Score: 1

    "O'Reilly also makes an interesting point that UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's "switch" campaign."

    I tend to agree with that, but I would further qualify it to say that "Linux users as well as those who don't think that Linux has a place on the desktop would be the best target niche."

    Obviously, OS X has a BSD filesystem, not Linux, but as a user of both Slackware Linux (at work) and OS X (at home) I have come to think of my iMac as a *nix machine with a hecka-sweet desktop environment......far sweeter than any currently available for Linux.

  31. Stupid, but cool question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to hang X Terminals off a XServe server to host remote displays? A Mac OS X thin client would be cool, and definately something to look into...

    1. Re:Stupid, but cool question.... by RobertNotBob · · Score: 1
      Nerver ask 'Is It Possible'. Of course its possible. It's possible to build a beowulf cluster of 1024 old gateway 486DX-33 machines. With the room filled with 250 watt 'heaters' you would have less processing ability than the 1U rack server I just bought.(dual 2GHz with 2GB, running linux, or course)

      The question you should ask is 'Is it worth my time and money?'

      And to answer your question, in my experience the people who drive the purchase of Apple vs. PC's are doing it for reasons that don't lend themselves to thin-client deployment. (graphics, and CAD)

      --
      ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
  32. Re:DivX on OSX by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

    DivX support on OSX is bad - if you use QuickTime. VideoLAN Client plays my DivX files perfectly on my 700MHz iBook. There is a small compatibility glitch if you have QuickTime 6 installed, but setting your display to Thousands of Colors instead of Millions of Colors fixes it. It's free, it's fast, and it lets you watch movies in full screen without the QuickTime tax.

    Apple doesn't seem that interested in getting DivX to work well in QuickTime. Instead, they're pushing their own MPEG4 format. VLC is definitely the way to go.

  33. Windows audience is the biggest target! by AlgUSF · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They are going after the windows user base, because it is the biggest! If you are going duck hunting you probably want to go to a lake with a lot of ducks.

    I know a lot of windows users (non-geek) who hate windows, but feel that there is no other option, and this is just presenting another (and better) option to windows. Last time I checked windows 98 was the most used version of windows, and it is a piece of sh!t. I hope these Mac ads grab 10-15% of M$'s customers. I personally switched my parents to Linux about 3 weeks ago, because they were tired of Windows.

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  34. Something smells funny by Tyreth · · Score: 1
    I like the way Tim O'Reilly takes great pains to explain that 15 results that are given voluntarily no way represents a sample set of the population, and I fully agree.

    But despite Tim O'Reilly's warnings, he still says:
    In other words, switchers appear to be adopting Mac OS X at twice the rate of Mac OS 9 users. Linux users, and Windows users who also use Linux or another Unix, appear to be the most common switchers."

    So while I don't disagree that it is possible that a greater number are coming from switchers than upgrades, I do think Tim should stick to his own warning - 15 responses is woefully inadequate for any representation.

    1. Re:Something smells funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're basically saying that Tim O'Reilly said what he said he would say?

    2. Re:Something smells funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you misread the article. O'Reilly infers the conversion rate not (solely?) from the 15 responses but instead from sales of various Mac OS X books, simultaneous purchases of non-OS X books, etc. (At least, that's how I read the article.)

  35. Counterpoint...Salon says don't switch by blastedtokyo · · Score: 1

    According to this Salon article Windows users shouldn't switch unless you want all the old problems of incompatibility.

    1. Re:Counterpoint...Salon says don't switch by pbrice68 · · Score: 1

      Salon doesn't say anything. SOmeone who was trying to use her new Mac like a Windows machine says it.

      If you read the article again, you can plainly see that she is basicxally complaining that it is different from what she is used to.

      Macs running OS X are incredibly "compatible". You can run OS X, OS 9, XDarwin, Linux, and (with Virtual PC) Windows 95, 98, 2000, & XP on on the same machine -- often at the same time!

      You'll note that she complains that there are no floppies (which is like complaining that 8Tracks are dead). There is only a one-button mouse (without mentioning that not only do Macs support third-party multi-button mice out of the box (just plug it in, but they support both "Press" & CTRL+Click instead of right-click. On top of it, she actually complains that AppleWorks gives her too many export options...!

      Where in the world did Salon get this person? There is obviously something wrong. I have been using OS X since it first came out, and am at 10.1.5 right now, and I have NEVER received an error message with some arcane code. WHy is she constantly using Disk Utility? Why doesn't she just email her obvioulsy small files, or use a CD-RW with simple drag+drop updating? She is obvioulsy looking for the hard answers to rather simple questions (because that is what she's used to).

      I can remember when I first switched to a Mac, I was not only surprised, but I also found it unbelievable ("Really, that's all I have to do? Are you sure?"), that installing most apps was a matter of dropping their icon into your Applications folder. EVen more incredulous was deleting was a simple drag and drop app icon to Trash. No install / uninstall. No restarting, no icons all over my desktop, Apple Menu, or Menu Bar.

      Granted, I can see a new user having a few difficulties, but her example is truly preposterous and almost "too good to be true" considering salon.com is owned by MicroSoft.

      I use Windows & a *Nix box all day at work because I have to, but at home I use a Mac/*Nix box because it is actally enjoyable. Although the PCU's might be behind in their MHz, it is really the simple attention to detail and quest for the most rational , consistent, and easiest way to get thigns done without much tinkering that makes up for the speed difference.

      Also, since I've been running OS X, I have had a total of one (1) kernel panic - which was entirely my fault.

    2. Re:Counterpoint...Salon says don't switch by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      Windows users shouldn't switch unless you want all the old problems of incompatibility.

      Well, since O'Reilly is mostly talking about UNIX users switching the incompatability problems will be far fewer (if they exist at all) or the same windows -> UNIX problems they have already worked around.

      Also, I read that article and she is obviously not an idiot since it is very well written and funny. But, most of the problems she is having seem either A) grossly exagerated (all of them), B) unlikely to be a problem for other people (unable to use email with her boyfriend?) or C) matters of personal preference - for instance prefers the word "control" & the control key rather than the curlie-cue on the "command" key. Apparently she is so confused by this she cannot figure out what the command key does (perhaps I was too generous and she IS an idiot, albeit an eloquent one.), and she prefers floppies to CD-RW's (she must have very modest memory needs & probably would have been happier with a MacPlus).

  36. Hardware by zmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of people are complaining about Apple's hardware, however, I have a slightly different view on it. I used to be a Mac person, and I am presently planning on going back, not because of the software (I prefer NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux, all of which support most modern Macs), but because of the hardware. Their laptops look nice, have reasonable battery life, and have more then enough power for what I do under Linux. As such, I'm currently planning on buying a loaded iBook as soon as possible, while the iBook doesn't look like that great of a deal if you look at it is a low end notebook, if you look at the 12.1" iBooks in comparison to PC "compact" laptops, the prices are really quite good. Sure the processors just are not keeping up with the x86 world these days, but my experiences with Apple in the past are such that I'm willing to bare that (plus their tech support ships you replacement parts quickly).

    1. Re:Hardware by illerd · · Score: 1

      Sure the processors just are not keeping up with the x86 world these days

      You'd be surprised. The G3 doesn't need to cut its clockspeed by half when it's actually doing something usefull the way the P4M does.

  37. I felt the same way until I broke down and got one by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0

    Once you use it for about a month Linux seems very immature and the GUI is far superior to Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment. Plus it has ssh sftp ... all built in so nothing to even install to get to my Linux servers. Don't get me wrong I love linux, it just has a million miles to go to catch up to OS X on the desktop, plus os x has better apps > flash, quicktime, photoshop, illustrator, ...

    The cost is not that great (as long as you use a monitor through vga instead of the adc connections) and if you desire a 3 button mouse simply buy one (I did > MS Optical has drivers for OS8.6+ and OS X).

    Go look on eBay and get a used one to try it out, just give it a chance and go in with an open mind (like all you Linux users expect windows users to do).

  38. Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by Spencerian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Windows and Linux users are used to having their desktops change dramatically throughout the years (for Linux users, sometimes weeks). Therefore, when plopped in front of a Mac OS X interface, the users tend to scout around and adapt pretty quickly.

    Mac OS 9 users (Lord bless 'em) are the most stubborn, inflexible, fearful sort of user you can imagine when it comes to how their Macs work. That's a compliment to Apple--it shows the power of the original Mac OS interface over its many years of tenure. When you have a good thing, you are very stubborn to change.

    But the loyalty to Mac OS 9 hurts Apple's move to OS X, of course. I anticipate having to take my client's OS 9 users through a Mac OS X orientation, watching them kick and scream in the process.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 2

      Great generalization. How Insightful.

      Look, the reason most Mac users aren't switching isn't because they are wedded to the past it can be boiled down to one thing: cost. The cost of purchasing new hardware, the cost of purchasing new software, and the cost of changing workflows.

      Do you think that a newspaper is going to upgrade to OSX simply because it is available? No. They have a huge investment in their workflow and equipment. They need time to ensure their systems will work under OSX.

      You think a family with a Performa is going to switch? Nope. Not if they can get by with System 7/8 while they wait to see if dad might get laid off.

      FCOL, OSX doesn't even support most printers or scanners yet. The sound subsystem isn't finished. Nobody's going to spend money on hardware or software until they are sure it is worth the investment. If you work in the A/V field where a lot of the Mac market is, you have to wait.

    2. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by westcourt_monk · · Score: 1
      hahah... how true.

      I was a windoze/linux user until I started working here and they supplied me with Macs (thank God). I went from OS 9 to OS X in weeks and haven't looked back. I even moved the younger folks in the office over to X.

      But the older folks... the OS 8/9 users? They can't stop using Netscape 4.x nevermind switch to OS X. They get crippled when a lable writer that has nothing to do with their daily routine, doesn't work properly.

      Not sure if it has to do with teh OS or the age of the person using the OS. Once someone is set in their ways, they resist change. Most people don't get that twinkle in their eye when they see a new version, a new computer box, a new standard.

      Too bad really...

      --
      I am going to hell and I am going to take all of you with me.
    3. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by Spencerian · · Score: 2

      If you want a book, buy one. My message wasn't designed to answer every single nuance, save one. I've serviced Macs at newspapers as well as publishing houses, so I know your points are right. We had a long transition from OS 7.6 to OS 8 as I made tests to ensure that QuarkXPress and their internal mechanisms work with it.

      Your inclusions are also right--there are some users with non-G3 hardware who can't or won't upgrade for cost or software reasons. Here's one you didn't mention: Educators. They can't switch to OS X since much of their software is OS 9 only and doesn't work properly or at all in Classic. And I won't go much into what OS X Server does and does not do with OS X over OS 9 with NetBoot.

      There are many reasons that users aren't immediately switching. I only cited the simplest one, technology notwithstanding.

      Just last night I cleaned up a friend who has a beige Power Mac G3 with OS 8.1. Works for her and doesn't care to move to OS X just because things are fine. Your point is well taken.

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    4. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look, the reason most Mac users aren't switching isn't because they are wedded to the past it can be boiled down to one thing: cost. The cost of purchasing new hardware, the cost of purchasing new software, and the cost of changing workflows.

      From what I see in Mac forums, that is not what the OS 9 fanatics complain about. Some yes. But many are mad about the fact that Apple won't be including OS 9 CDs with the new Power Macs coming out now. They are worried Apple won't allow them to run OS 9 on the newest and best hardware forever. They aren't worried about having to buy new hardware. They're worried about being "forced" to use OS X the next time they upgrade their hardware.
    5. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by ashultz · · Score: 1


      In what possible way is it a good thing for a user to get used to their main interface switching around? The only way to get good at an interface is familiarity. This is like saying that it's a good thing that one week the car uses a steering wheel and the next a joystick. You're never going to win a race in a car like that.

      Interface consistency is the big Mac lesson, and one that Windows hasn't learned after so many years. Don't take my word for it though, ask a real UI designer. Any one worth their salt won't be telling you about their hot new "4 dimensional wheel interface" they'll be telling you how their new interface fits with those previously seen by the user and leverages past experience.

    6. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by evangellydonut · · Score: 1

      It's not 'bout being stubborn, it's 'bout not having all the useful features of OS 9 built-into OS X. Don't mean to be a troll, but if you are a Linux user, chances are, you are used to an OS that's just an "OS" and not have as much "features", so changing to OS X is a move to make life easier...that is if you use M$ Office etc.

      But for OS 9 users, Apple took away pop-up folders, which is MUCH more useful than the dock AND Launcher.
      Apple took away control-strip, which I still miss after almost a year of OS X.
      Apple took away spring-loaded folders until Jaguar.
      Apple took away Laser-Writer 8, so now you HAVE to know the printer IP when on the LAN.
      Have you tried to copy the content of a data DVD to the Mac? It's on par with maybe a 1x DVD-ROM...and the list goes on.
      Oh yeah, let's not forget that OS X.1's monitor driver doesn't support my ViewSonic! So I was forced to stick with OS 9 on my desktop 'til this summer, when I tried X.1.5 after re-formatting my hd, and it finally worked...
      There are numerous programs that are still OS 9 only, especially profession-specific ones.

      I appreciate many of the things in OS X, but there are times where I wish I didn't have to deal with some of the extra "features" and get the useability of OS 9 back...

    7. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 2

      It seemed to me that yor post was a typical Linux user ranting about Mac users.

      I meant no disrespect and wanted to reply with a real argument.

    8. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by Spencerian · · Score: 2

      That's cool. Sorry if I flamed there. As I said, your points, IMHO, are right on the money as well.

      I've tried Linux, briefly, a couple of years ago, and kept up with the changes. It was promising then. When OS X showed up, things looked familiar, and I saw where Apple was going. Now it's a win-win situation for most of us.

      Like Linux? Use it anywhere on anything. Like Macs but need UNIX? OS X. Interested in OS X but can't afford a Mac box? Darwin. Need maximum compatibility? Windows XP (sorta). Reminds me of a t-shirt I've been wanting:

      Macintosh for Productivity
      Linux for Development
      Palm for Mobility
      Windows for Solitaire

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    9. Re:Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      And when apple went from system 6 to system 7 the debates raged then too, and mac users of old feared. Ah well, it will all be settled soon

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  39. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by mwjlewis · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They got it right. Let just hope Microsoft doesn't try this.

    Why not? Isn't that the primary goal, A stable OS, that is easy to use and configure. I don't have ANY problem with MS using a BSD/UNIX/LINUX kernel. I have a problem with MS and their method to create a proprietary PC platform.

    IMHO - The majority of /. users disgust with MS is not the OS, but the desire to make the computing platform proprietary, and non standards compliant.

    Don't flame me for supporting MS. I am not supporting them, just making a point.

    --
    www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
  40. Re:DivX on OSX by Meleneth · · Score: 1

    sweet, I'll have to check into that. Thank you :)

    --
    remote access CLI with tools is the only friend you'll ever need.
  41. My personal opinion by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
    My personal opinion (and I'm sure I'll get marked as a troll for it, but I have karma to burn) is that if OSX could run on PC architecture, Linux on the desktop would in all sense and purposes be "dead".

    Well not totally dead, but corporations would be far more ameniable to switching to OSX than they would Linux. It's not Microsoft, yet runs Office (so ensuring they can still use powerpoint, word, excel, outlook etc) and as many people have say "it just works". And once the corporations move, people get comfortable with working with something different and they eventually purchase it for home because that's what they've used and understand.

    It isn't going to happen for various technical and business reasons, but it's something to think about anyway.

    (cue lots of people either confirming the technical impossibility, telling me i'm dumb because i find OSX easier than KDE/GNOME, asking why I can't use OpenOffice instead of Word or just plain accusing me of trolling etc.etc)

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:My personal opinion by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2


      Actually, I think Apple would be wise to help Linux and BSD receive desktop environments, as that would help balkanise the PC hardware market again. When the computing world is less dominated by Microsoft, then Apple can shine again as "best of breed" amongst all of the other desktop units instread of looking like a wierd alternative.

      I think this would also be better for computer customers, as then the accent would go to more open, transportable file formats. What difference does it make if you use MS Word or OpenOffice, as long as both programs use an open file format?

      (Pssst... I think this is slowly happening anyways. It's just happening at a glacial pace.)

      I don't think they'll do OS X for Linux, mainly because they have a lot of stuff in it that belongs to others (Adobe etc.) and can't be ported without straining relationships. But they can insure that Unix compatibility remains high, as well as possible helping the KGE and GNOME teams improve their offerings. Maybe eventually offering AppleWorks for KDE/GNOME, figure out how to release QuickTime for Linux without breaking any licenses, or iPod support, or their internet services for Linux...there's lot of opportunities out there.

      "Divide and conquer" ought to be Apple's strategy, but they're not playing Monopoly or Risk. They're playing one of those games where the coolest player wins, not the player with the most territory.

  42. Why I switched - the short version by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Basically, it boils down to "make it work".

    I love Unix - I love the power and the stability. I still use Linux as a server system (though, I admit I wouldn't mind trying out an Apple server just to compare).

    But the biggest reason why I switched just deals with making it work. Do I have to worry about whether my clock program, which has the features I want, works under Gnome or KDE or not? Will I be able to cut and paste between Emacs and Mozilla? How do I install the serial port adapter software - oh, wait, I'm using Red Hat, and the designer made it to work with Suse....

    Again, it's not that Linux is bad at all, it just takes that much more work to tweak. Want to change resolution in Xwindows? Get out to a prompt and run Xconfigurator.

    Then I use OS X, and I get the best of both worlds. I get the power of Unix (I spend more time in Terminal than anything else), but I still get a slick interface and programs that look great. I don't worry about whether the program I'm looking at needs Windows Manager or something else - it fits in. I can still run Gimp (because I'm too damn cheap for Photo Shop) under XDarwin.

    I'd love for Linux to make huge desktop roads, but that will take a change of paradigm[sic]. Linux developers will have to give up some things - say "Let's stop the KDE vs Gnome arguments, and say *this* is the standard - let folks experiment with things if they want, but we will heretofore say *this* is the way to do things", then go out and make it. They'll have to have an Interface guideline, and try to hold to it. They'll have to get follow up programmer who don't just focus on cool technology - which we need, and I thank God they make it - but then they need someone to come along after them and say "All right, let's put a good interface on this puppy."

    Is OS X better? Probably not - the stability is about the same, the speed is probably less than Linux, but the interface is great. Linux is faster, but isn't as pleasing to work with.

    So that's why I switched. I keep up with the Linux stuff for my servers, but my day to day gaming/typing/communicating is done on OS X.

    And just to self pimp (or for more on this subject): Penguin2Apple: How a Linux Lover turned to a Macintosh

    1. Re:Why I switched - the short version by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      first it is not Xwindows but X Window System.
      2nd this is not a problem of LINUX but of the X Window System most LINUX distubutions are using, but they have not developed a way to do it.

    2. Re:Why I switched - the short version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ctl + alt + keypad plus sign
      ctl + alt + keypad minus sign
      those shortcuts change your resolution in X if you have your config file set up right.

      also i never understand people who want to stop kde vs gnome (vs fluxbox vs enlightenment vs...). this is the best thing about linux. it is competition at its best. the best tech wins. instead of one monopolistic company dictating the interface. i view the desktop interface problem on linux more as gnome and kde aren't done yet.

      that said, i would switch to osx. cuz it looks cool. but i can't afford it. sure would be nice if they ported it to pc. i'd pay a couple hundred bucks for it.

  43. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Flakeloaf · · Score: 1

    Moreover, what's so intuitive about these impossible newfangled CD-RWs

    Yup, not having to deal with eight year-old technology is as good a reason as any to shy away from computer manufacturer . Hard drives in the gigabyte range? Ten... one HUNDRED network cards? Eep! A nineteen inch screen!!

    --

    Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

  44. I just bought my first Apple... by kikensei · · Score: 1

    an iBook. I think laptops are where Apple has a chance. I still build my own boxen, and will not be buying ANYBODY's pre-built systems for my Desktop. But laptops, well you can't custom build them anyway. (At least I sure can't). If I'm gonna buy somebody's hardware for a laptop, Apple's is nicer than most. With Fink, and XDarwin, I can run apt-get to grap redesktop and admin the few Windows Servers I oversee. I'm mounbting SAMBA and NFS drives, as well as SSH'ing into my Unix boxes. And the iBook loos NICE, and OS X is very pleasant. Hell I'm using frotz to play some old infocom games in the OS X terminal. Playin' Warcraft 3 and RtCW.

    Also, at least on the iBook, the 802.11b Airport wireless card has a great range. SuSE ain't gettin replaced on my deswktop PC anytime soon, but I blew off Yellow Dog Linux on the iBook. For a laptop, IMHO, OS X does it all.

    1. Re:I just bought my first Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, well... my tibook 400 CANNOT run OS X with any decent speed. YUCK. I switched to YellowDog, and I'll never go back... I still use iPhoto and iMovie, but, OS X is too sluggish fpr e serious developer on a 400 mhz machine! Apple f@@ked up!

    2. Re:I just bought my first Apple... by kikensei · · Score: 1

      My sister has a ti G4 450 and yeah, os x is a dog. Works pretty well on the G3 700 that I have, very well actually, and 10.2 is in the mail this week from Apple and should be faster. The early gen ti-books just don't have the power. I wouldn't have bought one back then, UNIX is the only reason I got Apple and frankly, it is only recently viable with current PPC CPU speeds and OS X revisions. I don't think Apple f@@ked up though. They just sold the machine. You bought it.

  45. Using statistics to lie! by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
    From the article:

    In other words, switchers appear to be adopting Mac OS X at twice the rate of Mac OS 9 users. Linux users, and Windows users who also use Linux or another Unix, appear to be the most common switchers.

    Does anybody else see something wrong with this statement? First, what percentage of his sample of alpha-geeks used Mac OS 9? We don't know. In general Mac has what, 5% of the market? So lets make things really simple and assume that the list he emailed consists of 1000 people. 50 of them use Macs. Of these 50, 5 have switched to OSX, a rate of 10%. Of the remaining 950, 10 people have switched to OSX, a rate of 1.05%. So what does "rate" mean to Tim?

    More interesting is his claim that OSX is more appealing to those who already use some flavor of Unix as opposed to those who currently use Windows.

  46. O'Reilly is wrong by toupsie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    O'Reilly also makes an interesting point that UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's "switch" campaign.

    Just from the whining posts of "OS X is cool but Apple is a big, mean, evil proprietary hardware manufacturer", you can see that O'Reilly is completely wrong in suggesting Linux users are a perfect niche target. Apple should focus their ads 100% towards Windows users--people that expect to pay for what they use. There is no point going after the Linux folks. The attitude of "if its not free its evil" is not one you are going to change with white backgrounded commercials. Plus why would you focus on 1% of desktop users instead of 95%?

    Unless Steve Jobs wants to lay prostrate in front of Linus and RMS and wail, "I am not worthy, I am not worthy!", there isn't an ad that is going to convert a hard core (masochistic) Linux desktop users.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:O'Reilly is wrong by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Just from the whining posts of "OS X is cool but Apple is a big, mean, evil proprietary hardware manufacturer", you can see that O'Reilly is completely wrong in suggesting Linux users are a perfect niche target

      What you are saying might be true for Linux hobbyists, but it doesn't apply to corporates who might be considering a Unix desktop, especially one to unify their former Mac and Windows users. Only one of those groups is willing to spend money on an operating system. Apple could well enjoy much greater success than Sun on the desktop of non-technical users.

    2. Re:O'Reilly is wrong by toupsie · · Score: 2
      What you are saying might be true for Linux hobbyists, but it doesn't apply to corporates who might be considering a Unix desktop, especially one to unify their former Mac and Windows users. Only one of those groups is willing to spend money on an operating system. Apple could well enjoy much greater success than Sun [sun.com] on the desktop of non-technical users.

      Wasn't O'Reilly's comments directed towards current Linux users not future ones? If they are thinking about Linux/UNIX they must be Windows users, so why advertise to a Linux user that has moved from Windows? The investment has been made. Get them before they make the wrong switch.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    3. Re:O'Reilly is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless Steve Jobs wants to lay prostrate in front of Linus and RMS and wail, "I am not worthy, I am not worthy!", there isn't an ad that is going to convert a hard core (masochistic) Linux desktop users.


      Maybe I'm the only one, but I really would get a kick out of seeing that add. :)
  47. Tim O'Reilly goes to Dark Side by Yog+Soggoth · · Score: 1

    First he bashes Open Source advocates in their attempts to lobby government:

    Next he says,

    "Apple may be wise to target Unix/Linux rather than Windows in their switch campaign."

    From this, we may conclude that the ways of the Dark Side are indeed seductive and powerful...

    1. Re:Tim O'Reilly goes to Dark Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No.. he bashed the outrageous idea that ONLY open source should be used in gov't.

      And now, he's just plain right. Switching from Linux/Unix to OSX would be much less of a transition than from Windows to OSX because of OSX's base.

      O'Reilly is respected by me because he doesn't spread ridiculous FUD without thinking about both sides of the argument logically, and then arguing the most logical side of the debate

  48. OSs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i bet OS-X is much better than Windoze 9x/ME/2k/XP or anything else Micky$oft can ever produce, but since Apple/Macintosh software only runs on Macintosh hardware o wont get it when i can build my own computer for about 500 bucks that is equivelent to a 2500 dollar OEM PC..

    so i will continue to build my own computers as needed and use my favorite Linux (Slackware) on it and rebuild Slackware to fit my needs, it works for me, and saves me a TON of money, and nobody owns it but me, and i don't have to worry about Micky$oft having the privledge of r00ting my box legally via their crazy EULAs

  49. I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong - i use Linux for server applications because it's rock-solid.

    Having said that, i don't know why this campaign of "It just works" isn't raising more eyebrows.

    First of all - OS9 apps don't "just work" on OSX - there's a lot of cajoling to get older OS9 apps to run properly under X.

    And, correct me if i'm wrong, Apple is still limited in the number of applications that are developed for the platform. Sure if you want to wait 6-8 months after the windows version of a game or app is realeased to have it ported to Mac, that's great - but i'm impatient.

    As far as hardware is concerened - well at least NVidia cards work. But you certainly don't have as wide a variety of hardware available that's Mac-compliant - completely disregarding the hardware that the OS runs on!

    OK. Make the campaign "It doesn't crash as much" or "You don't have to restart all that much anymore"...but say what you want - Windows 2000 and XP have taken Windows stability a long way since 95/98. Sure there are still some annoying points that i wish would go away (which is why i don't use Windows in a server environment) but on the whole i rarley encounter crashes anymore. And who leaves their machine on 24x7 anyway - i doubt all of those mac-usin' graphic designers do. They're all the artsy, crunchy, lets'-preserve-our-electricity types.

    Bottom line is this - "It Just Works" is misleading at best.

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
    1. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by ihoppancakes · · Score: 0

      Bottom line is this - "You don't have a fucking clue"

    2. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by Genady · · Score: 2

      How's this for annecdotal evidence.

      1) I wanted to burn a CD for my father's windows machine on my G4 PowerBook a while back. I started looking into mkisofs and cdrecord before I discovered that the Apple included cd burning software burns disks in hybrid mode by default.

      2) After the CD thing I wanted to piggy back off of a Windows machine's Internet connection. I figured no problem, they both have ethernet ports, I'll get a crossover pigtail and do that. But my crossover cables and pigtails were packed in boxes three states away. A little bit of research and I find out that Mac OS X will detect when you're plugged into ethernet 'straight-though' and cross the cable with software.

      These two things alone made the whole Mac experience for me.

      --


      What if it is just turtles all the way down?
    3. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by bcrowell · · Score: 2
      And, correct me if i'm wrong, Apple is still limited in the number of applications that are developed for the platform.
      As you yourself noted, you can just run stuff in Classic mode. In general, running 9 apps under X has 'just worked' for me, although I have had problems with a couple of apps that use MIDI.

      Same thing with this person quoted in the article:
      The biggest impediment to my complete migration from 9.x to OS X has been the cost of the software -- the unadvertised cost of switching. I first paid Apple $129.00 for OS X (and the company apparently expects another $129 for 10.2 when it's released later this month). Forget that I had purchased Microsoft's Office 2001 for the Macintosh (OS 9.0 compatible) in 2001 for $239.00; Microsoft wanted another $239.00 for the OS X version less than a year later. An upgrade for BBEdit set me back another $65.00.
      This is complete nonsense. I've used both Office and BBEdit in Classic mode, and they work fine. There's no need to buy the native OSX versions if the price is a problem.

      Sure if you want to wait 6-8 months after the windows version of a game or app is realeased to have it ported to Mac, that's great - but i'm impatient.
      Well, if you want the latest games, with no delay, you only have one option: Windows. So you either need to use Windows all the time, or else maintain a Windows machine just for the purpose of playing games.

    4. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      And who leaves their machine on 24x7 anyway - i doubt all of those mac-usin' graphic designers do. They're all the artsy, crunchy,lets' -preserve-our-electricity types.

      Well I for one do, of course I use Linux, maybe that's why . . . actually in all seriousness the designers that I work with leave their Macs on all the time and they get pissed when they crash (still running OS 9).

    5. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Bottom line is this - "It Just Works" is misleading at best.

      You are very correct. If you choose to be as selective with hardware purchases for your Linux (x86) box as you are forced to be for your OS X box, then it all just works too. And I think I'd be pretty safe in saying the variety of "just works" hardware for Linux is a lot larger than the OS X "just works" hardware, even disregarding the fact that with Linux you can use "fuck with it for 10 hours and recompile your kernel twice" hardware if you really really want to, you are limited to only the "just works" level of support.

      OS X is a big reminder to me, some people hate real freedom, some people hate real choices. They want choices made for them, they don't want the responsibility that comes with the real freedom to choose, the responsibility to do research and make an educated choice.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by Megane · · Score: 2
      I find out that Mac OS X will detect when you're plugged into ethernet 'straight-though' and cross the cable with software.

      That is incorrect. The feature has nothing to do with OS X (it works under 9 as well), and everything to do with the gigabit compatible version of the Ethernet hardware.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      Bottom line is this - "It Just Works" is misleading at best.

      Aside from your note about Classic Apps not always working (I haven't had this problem but I'll grant it to you) nothing you said has much to do with that quality that mac users describe as "It Just Works(tm)" It's not saying that any software or hardware out there will work on a mac. Its saying that the software and hardware we do have doesn't only "work" but it JUST works. No configuration hassles, no black art or cryptic commands to learn, just attach it & maybe run an installer and it works the way you expect, the first time.

      From what I can see it is still far ahead of Linux in this regard. Even those defending the "ease-of-use" of Linux concede this problem (though they don't realise it) whenever something doesn't work as it should they look at you with an arrogant expression and suggest you are an idiot for not configuring it right. WELL THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Why they hell should I have to "configure it right" why didn't it configure itself right the way my Mac does! If it's so easy the computer should have handled it without my help.

      Comparing MacOS X to windows on the other hand - certainly windows has more hardware and software that "works". But I think the Mac still has the edge in that quality described by the word "just" - as in "I 'just' plugged it in and it worked" or "I 'just' installed it, and it worked." Again, MacOS X still has a ways to go to fully reach the ideal of "the Mac way" where things "just work" but it is the closest to realising that ideal and Apple is the most commited to that ideal. OS 9 was failing because the foundation was bad, MacOS X has started with a new foundation and what is built on that foundaton will more and more be honestly described as "It just works"

    8. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by betis70 · · Score: 1

      >>OS X is a big reminder to me, some people hate real freedom, some people hate real choices. They want choices made for them, they don't want the responsibility that comes with the real freedom to choose, the responsibility to do research and make an educated choice.

      It has nothing to do with "hating real freedom". If anything OS X frees them from being a slave to their computer so they can spend time doing the things they love. Some just want to get their work done so they can play with their children. Different priorities.

      You believe absolute freedom to choose components for your computer is important. That is why you run Linux, where your choices for hardware are more varied (doubtful your choices for software are significantly more varied, but you can probably modify ALL of them, unlike Apple where some of them are closed-source).

      Others see the computer as a tool (like a screwdriver). If it does the job they want, they are happy because understanding the inner workings of the tool is not important to them.

      Do you routinely work on your car, swapping parts for aftermarket, high performance parts? If you don't, why not? Do you HATE freedom too, or do you just see your car as a means to get you from point A to point B?

      Do make your own clothes? If not, do you HATE freedom because you don't do that? You are severly limited in the available style, fabric and color combinations produced by the various clothing manufacturers.

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    9. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by demon · · Score: 1

      Because the PHY chip that's connected to the Ethernet controller knows about crossed and uncrossed cables. Software has nothing to do with it, just particularly featureful hardware (certainly nothing that can't be done elsewhere).

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    10. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear. I so sincerely miss the choice of crappy, off-brand, underperforming video chipsets. How will ATI Radeons and nVidia GeForces ever sate my needs for video cards?

      Give me a break.

      You've got plenty of options as far as video goes, if you're looking for actual functional video. The onboard sound is suitable for the desktop user, while pros can easily add a professional-level sound system via USB/FireWire/PCI.

      Stock is good, if you need better, you'll get it. It's that simple.

      As far as software, there's nothing I haven't been able to find a replacement for since I switched almost a year ago. I've got a MU* client, I've got e-mail, I've got Microsoft Office, I've got AIM and ICQ... everything I need, there it is. And if it isn't there, the developer tools make it fairly trivial to write my own solution -- Apple has taken abstraction to a whole new level.

      And your average OS 9 app doesn't have a problem running in classic. There are some which don't run beautifully, yes, but most programs will run and be functional.

      Plus it does "just work." I plug in my digital camera, my pictures are downloaded automatically. I insert an audio CD, iTunes opens and grabs the CDDB data. I hook up my iPod, it syncs. Hooked up an Iomega Peerless, and voila, it Just Works. No need to load drivers, no IomegaWare.

      This is the way computing should be.

    11. Re:I don't understand the "Just Works" thing by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      OS9 apps don't "just work" on OSX - there's a lot of cajoling to get older OS9 apps to run properly under X.

      Got any cites for this? When I migrated from 9.1 to MacOS X, first thing I did was go through all my existing apps to see what didn't work. And aside from Virtual Game Station (PlayStation emulator) and Appleworks (required a free download), everything runs fine under Classic. I was even slightly surprised to see my Carbon apps instantly adopt MacOSX-style-full-color icons and widgets. "A whole lot of cajoling" it wasn't.

      And, correct me if i'm wrong, Apple is still limited in the number of applications that are developed for the platform. Sure if you want to wait 6-8 months after the windows version of a game or app is realeased to have it ported to Mac, that's great - but i'm impatient.

      You're also wrong. I haven't had any problems getting MacOS X versions of the latest software, though admittedly most of my software is MacOSX-[I]only[/I] stuff. Still, I picked up Photoshop Elements 2.0 last week, and didn't have to wait for anything (especially since it came on a hybrid CD).

      Bottom line is this - "It Just Works" is misleading at best.

      Only for those who don't know what they're talking about.

  50. I like having the source code by timeOday · · Score: 1
    I'm not a real kernel hacker, but sometimes it's nice to have source code.

    I want to be able to elevate priorities as a user, so I edited out the check that only lets users raise their "nice" value on processes.

    On my old laptop, the driver for a new PCMCIA card was refusing to start the card because the voltage was wrong. After checking the card to verify it could take either voltage, I edited the voltage check out of the driver. I used the card successfully for over a year, and now use it in a different laptop (with a non-hacked driver). Under Windows, the card seemed to install and start but never worked.

    My point is not whether these specific tasks could have been accomplished on another OS, just that it's extremely gratifying to find and fix code that's giving you troubles.

    I guess the obvious "common man" argument will be made, but what do I care what somebody else wants?

    1. Re:I like having the source code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mac has full sourcode to its OS (just not the GUI layer) irts called dawrwin. YOu need to learn more about the mac.

    2. Re:I like having the source code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you mention here is available as source code. Check out the Darwin sources they are the same as OS X, you just don't have the Aqua sources, (or Quartz I think).

      Before you whine make sure you know what you are whining about.....

    3. Re:I like having the source code by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Whoah! I didn't know that...

  51. I feel almost the same. by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

    I switched to the Apple desktop when OS X was in beta and 9 was king.

    It worked great for running high end audio programs (thanks to the ppc architecture) but it was hard to get work done on one mouse button and without knowing the guts of the machine. OS X kept me on the Mac for a little bit longer but by then my G4-500 was showing its age.

    I've recently ordered a PC (should be here sometime) to run linux on. Its going to cost about 400 less than I paid for my G4-Cube but with a 4" larger monitor, more RAM, hdd etc.

    I've been using Ximian-Gnome at work with 8 virtual desktops and now I can't live without that feature. So when the PC comes in, I'll snatch out the OS, and put on RH and get to business!

    Sorry Apple but its too expensive and doesn't have the niche features I need!

    1. Re:I feel almost the same. by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      If I had a OS X box the first thing I'd do is get a different mouse and keyboard. We have an OS X box here at work, and I have plugged my 3 button USB mouse into it, and it actually knows what to do when I right click on things.

    2. Re:I feel almost the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, plug in another mouse and it just works. Right click, scroll wheels, the whole deal. That's the mac way.

  52. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, everyone please read the article JiMb0b linked too and see for yourself what kind of wanna be glamour girl yuppie scum are attracted to the Mac for all the wrong reasons. Jeez, an episcopal priestess is super attracted to the sexy, daring, counter culture mac users and saleman with their "artsy" lifestyle so she tries a Mac and hates it. Good riddance, no one needs another pompous ass promoting the Mac.

  53. Re:DivX on OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Divx is a poor standard that MS tried to force down our throats. MPEG4 is every bit as good or better. The only people who need Divx on Mac are those pc folks who have downloaded all their porn in Divx, and now can't find a way to play it.

  54. My thoughts. by FreeLinux · · Score: 2

    Well, I've been admiring the new iMac?, eMac?, the really cool looking single unit with the flat screen, for some time. I've also been lusting over the really nice looking Aqua interface. Anyway, the other day I had the opportunity to drive one of these machines for a day.

    I started out with great excitement and anticipation. OS X presented me with various music and video applications which, I naturally couldn't resist trying. The picture was good and the sound from the little clear globe shaped speakers blew me away. Literally, they almost knocked me out of my chair, as the volume was set too high at first. I still marvel at the quality of the sound that comes out of these small speakers.

    After a few minutes I tired of the quicktime sample movies and decided it was time to get to work. It suddenly became far more difficult for me to use this Mac. I found that there were a plethora of multimedia and surfing apps presented to me by the desktop but getting to the root of the file system and finding an xterm were much harder. It took me a fair bit of time to figure out how to get at these apps and several other productivity apps that I needed. It seemed as if Apple had intentionally hidden these apps, perhaps to keep it simple for less advanced users.

    After about 30 minutes I also found that the *so cool* looking flat panel monitor was just too mall. The actual display area seems like about 14", I'm not sure what it really is. I am sure though that it is too small for extended use when you are trying to get work done.

    All in all, I found my experience with this slick little Mac to be surprisingly cumbersome. I had expected the much touted, dead simple ease of use that Apple is famous for and I didn't feel that I experienced it. And, with the small screen I came to realize that I could never use this machine for an extended period of time.

    Don't get me wrong, I still think that the Mac with OS X is fine. There's no doubt it's the coolest looking computer yet. I also know that with OS X it can probably do anything a Linux or Windows box can.

    But, in the end I feel that I'm better off with Linux KDE and Mosfet's Liquid theme mimicing the Aqua interface. The simple fact is that this setup is just as capable, if not more so, than OS X and the difference in cost between a great Linux box and this cool Mac is mind boggling. Sorry dudes, no offense meant.

    1. Re:My thoughts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you say linux is as capable as Mac OS X? Ummm...Photoshop, Illustrator, Office, Warcraft III, Medal of Honor, Reason 2, basically any decent app?

      I have been a mac user forever. I built a windows box last year just for the hell of it...an Athlon 1.2 Ghz. I put Win XP on it. Thought it was pretty cool....but then I dumped it when I figured out I can do everything I was doing on my Mac and faster. So I installed Mandrake Linux on there...loved messing around with the system, but then I didn't know what to do when I was done. No games, bad browser support...it was like I was using it just to be different. Again, trashed, back to my Mac.

      Now I put FreeBSD on my PC just so I can use it as a jukebox and a file server...it's in my closet on the network and is pretty much worthless.

      I know not everyone feels this way, but I just couldn't find a use for linux other than "it makes me feel cooler".

  55. Switching is a foreign concept to me.. by unorthod0x · · Score: 1

    Why switch at all? As a computing professional and enthusiast I feel compelled to try out everything under the sun! If I like it or feel there is some justifiable reason to spend more time with it then I'll keep it around. But no marketing campaign is going to get me to throw something away..

    I don't think targetting the "switch" campaign at UNIX/Linux users would yield particularily stunning results, by and large we're hackers and if we can afford it we'll accumulate as much hardware and software as we can get our hands on to tinker with.

    Switching isn't an option, however accumulating more stuff certainly is :)

  56. Who is switching by tig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work at a university, and I can see clearly who is switching.

    Those who say they wont switch here are probably system administrators. Since I do sysadmin as part of my job, I can say that that part of me is a control freak, and loves the power of linux. That is also the reason why Linux has it hard on the desktop: only macosx, lycoris, lindows are even thinking of deprecating root in their OS'es.

    The part of me which programs is split. Doing scientific programming today is easier on linux because of the number of high quality numerics/graphics libs available for X11. This will change. However, have you seen the simplicity of macosx? Every app is a directory. No gtk compatability problems(for those who remember). Copy the app anywhere. click, go. For command line people, change defaults using the default command, since all apps use plists. Open any file by saying open bla.pdf. It will use the default app. use open -with if you want a specific app.

    The linking model is simple. The loading model is simple. applescript scripts most apps and is way easier to use than COM or bonobo. Still linux is a familiar model to lots of people. So I know people now, grad students and post-docs and engineers, whose desaktop is a macosx box and who program on linux..the professors dont program much so macosx works well for them. This student/scientist/engineer/programmer is the only remaining market.

    But at the end of the day its the apps. Excel is available. And itunes and iphoto just rock.

    There was a time when i liked struggling with linux to get all this working. At some point, one just wants to code. One dosent want to deal with dependencies, etc. You will say apt-get and I'll say hallelujah, its a great thing, but why cant i just install the freaking app where I want it too, and delete it by trashing it. rpm --erase??? Who would think of that?

    The sad part is, most of what macosx has done could and still can be done on linux. Make a restricted distribution. Share earnings with app developers. Choose 10-15 best-of-breed apps, thats all. Thing of the next evolutionary step in these apps, rather than remaining behind the curve. root should only be a single user mode thing. Like gentoo, make init scripts dependent on whats running and whats not. Simplify the runlevels to single-user, and multi-user. Reduce hardware complexity by certifying systems based on linux friendly manufacturers. run daemons not as root. Get rid of the start, or hat, or whatever menu. Get rid of the XP like icons(see redhat8 beta). Give gtk a default look which dosent look like grey shit. Use a tasteful muted color scheme. Make sure pcmcia and usb and firewire just work on plug in. Use hotplug and devfs like mandrake do. Get rid of one million etc config files and use gconf and alchemist like redhat do. Simplify the gnome2.0 desktop. Check out the innovations in oe-one's desktop. Use autofs pervasively. Implement per process namespaces. Implement a simple event layer on top of bonobo, pipes, mimetypes, clipboard, etc to make scripting the desktop trivial. See plan9's plumbing. Unify zsh(bash) and nautilus to use same mime system. Allow apps to be manipulated as directories. When such directories are opened in either, allow hooks to be called which can start or install apps into a dependency database. Create a pasteboard server like in macosx. Implement gnustep over gtk2.0...

    You get my point. There is so much thats already there but just missing a bit. It needs people with that extra bit of innovation, and that extra bit of compansation a app-royalty scheme would generate to push it across the edge. It needs that part of me that is a system administrator to let go. But it may be too late.

    --
    The Inscrutable Gargoyle
    1. Re:Who is switching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a university.
      I am a system administrator.
      My primary desktop is a hand me down Blue and White G3. Newer, faster equipment is available to me, but OS X is the best consumer grade OS available today. Nothing elso comes close.

    2. Re:Who is switching by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, some of your points are good. But PLEASE don't make the mistake of assuming that simple is better. I've covered all these points many times before, but I'll do it again.

      You will say apt-get and I'll say hallelujah, its a great thing, but why cant i just install the freaking app where I want it too, and delete it by trashing it. rpm --erase??? Who would think of that?

      Oh please no! Not appfolders again! Appfolders have so many disadvantages it's not even funny. They are far, far, far too simple for even most apps, which is why there is not one, not even two but three different ways of installing software on the Mac: Drag'n'drop, Apple Installer, 3rd party installers (ie Wise). Appfolders don't meet many developers requirements. Some more disadvantages:

      • No dependancies. This is the biggy. Contrary to seemingly popular opinion, sharing code is a good thing, and should be encouraged. Appfolders don't let you check if something the program needs is installed, so all apps are huge and monolithic. Eurgh. It also means that only Apple can really ship updates to the OS, as users would have to manually do the update themselves. And guess what? They charge a lotta cash for the updates.

      • No install time customisation. Ever noticed that when you install Office, you can choose which features you want? That's a popular feature. So popular that the latest versions feature install-on-demand. Can't do that with appfolders. This makes the problem of monolithic apps even worse.

      • No user interaction. How do you present EULAs? (hint: can't use DMG backgrounds as they must be click through). How do you check serial codes? Oh - you need an installer/

      • Menu customisation anyone? I find this soooo irritiating with the Mac, I have to start all the apps from the Finder. Okay, now what if me and my brother want different list of apps? We both use lots of different apps, quite literally hundreds, and don't want them interfering with each other. The only way really is to create a subfolder and try and organise by "both use them", "I use them", "you use them". This doesn't scale to networks without all sort of horrid symlinking, which sort of defeats the point.

      In short, appfolders seem like a good idea, but actually aren't.

      The sad part is, most of what macosx has done could and still can be done on linux. Make a restricted distribution. Share earnings with app developers.

      I don't understand this. What's a restricted distro? And last time I checked, SuSE and RedHat did actually pay their developers.

      root should only be a single user mode thing. Like gentoo, make init scripts dependent on whats running and whats not. Simplify the runlevels to single-user, and multi-user. Reduce hardware complexity by certifying systems based on linux friendly manufacturers. run daemons not as root.

      Huh? What? Even MacOS supports multi users not as root. Only 2 runlevels? Why???? It's not like the average user will even care. Why reduce flexibility for no increase in usability? Certifying systems? Sorry, this is the real world, a lot of people have systems that were modern once, then they upgraded, or that were built to order, or that they bought from the shop down the street and so on. The answer is to make Linux hardware support perfect - not to reduce user choice!

      Get rid of the start, or hat, or whatever menu. Get rid of the XP like icons(see redhat8 beta). Give gtk a default look which dosent look like grey shit. Use a tasteful muted color scheme. Make sure pcmcia and usb and firewire just work on plug in. Use hotplug and devfs like mandrake do. Get rid of one million etc config files and use gconf and alchemist like redhat do. Simplify the gnome2.0 desktop

      Wow. A lot more suggestions. Why get rid of the start menu? 95% of the world are used to it. You can always use Gnome, or E, or WindowMaker if you don't want one. The new RedHat null icons are hardly XP style, I've seen them. If you mean cartoony, well switch themes! There are plenty available. Yes, the GTK default theme is ugly, but changing that took me 1 minute on gnome 2. The theme files are tiny! Simplify Gnome 2? How simply do you want, it's about as simple as you can get. They need to add more features, which will mean more complexity! FYI GConf is just a front end to a load of XML config files ;) Devfs support is not yet 100% bug free, so not all distros use it yet - it's coming, be patient.

      The rest of the ideas aren pretty good, but they are hardly necessary for a slick desktop. Unified mimetyping between shell and nautilus? Yeah, it's a cool idea, but hardly critical. You want to see them? Well, you know what'd I'd say ...

    3. Re:Who is switching by bnenning · · Score: 2
      Appfolders don't meet many developers requirements.


      This is simply not true. The large majority of applications I've installed on Mac OS X use single application files. Of the ones that use installers, most don't need to.


      Contrary to seemingly popular opinion, sharing code is a good thing, and should be encouraged.


      In theory you're right, in practice you're wrong. Application bundles completely eliminate DLL hell, which is well worth the small price of possibly using a few more megs of your 40 gig drive.


      It also means that only Apple can really ship updates to the OS


      I don't understand what you mean here. Who other than Apple should be shipping updates to Apple's OS?


      No install time customisation.


      See above, hard drive space is incredibly cheap. The main reason I'd do a selective install is to avoid unnecessary crap strewn about my hard drive, which never occurs with app wrappers.


      How do you present EULAs?


      Aside from the utter stupidity of the concept of EULAs, you can create disk images that display dialogs before they are mounted. Or you can have the app present a dialog when it is run for the first time.


      How do you check serial codes?


      As above, do the check the first time you launch the program.


      In short, appfolders seem like a good idea, but actually aren't.


      Yes, they are.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    4. Re:Who is switching by jafac · · Score: 2

      I think that the benefits of Appfolders greatly outweigh the drawbacks.

      The drawbacks you site, do not mean SHIT to me, as a user. I'm perfectly happy without those things, as long as I can cleanly and confidently move or delete an application. Without worrying about fucking up my libraries, or having useless garbage or links or shortcuts or menu entries laying around on my machine - I can configure my app or view an EULA the first time it runs and writes a fresh preference file.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    5. Re:Who is switching by afantee · · Score: 1

      >> Appfolders don't let you check if something the program needs is installed, so all apps are huge and monolithic.

      Quite the opposite, in fact. OS X has a very elegant mechanism called Frameworks for dynamic code sharing, and the Mach Microkernel itself is the best example of modular design, unlike the truly monolithic Linux.

      >> I find this soooo irritiating with the Mac, I have to start all the apps from the Finder. Okay, now what if me and my brother want different list of apps? We both use lots of different apps, quite literally hundreds, and don't want them interfering with each other. The only way really is to create a subfolder and try and organise by "both use them", "I use them", "you use them".

      Jump to conclusion again, that's really soooo irritiating (you, not the Mac). You can start apps from anywhere you like: Finder, Dock, Unix shell script or Terminal, AppleScript, Perl, etc, and you can start as many instances of the same app as you like.

    6. Re:Who is switching by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      In theory you're right, in practice you're wrong. Application bundles completely eliminate DLL hell, which is well worth the small price of possibly using a few more megs of your 40 gig drive.

      Oh please. Tell me you're not an engineer. Just throwing resources to paper over a problem is truly the Apple approach, but that doesn't mean it's good. Sharing code IS good, for many reasons. It means less duplication of effort, bugs in shared code can be distributed once and all yours apps get the fix, it's not just less disk space but also less memory. In short, reinventing the wheel each time is pointless.

      There's no need for DLL hell with dependancies either. Ever used apt-get?

      Finally, you seem to be under the illusion (as so many Mac users seem to be) that the whole world has a high specced machine. I have a 10gig disk, and most of it is used, so I definately appreciate this. Don't start saying things like "hard disk space is cheap", because I have a lot of things to spend my money on and not much money to spend, so forking over because programmers were lazy pisses me off.

      I don't understand what you mean here. Who other than Apple should be shipping updates to Apple's OS?

      What I mean is that nothing can update the OS other than a new version of it from Apple. Look at Windows, often Office/Internet Explorer upgrade the OS as well. If you install a game, it'll upgrade DirectX to the right version. With no dependancy management, if a game needs the latest version of something, it has to say "sorry, buy the latest OS version", even if that component could have just been dropped in anyway.

      See above, hard drive space is incredibly cheap. The main reason I'd do a selective install is to avoid unnecessary crap strewn about my hard drive, which never occurs with app wrappers.

      Jesus. That's like saying, well garage space is cheap so everybody should buy a truck, at least they won't run into "not-enough-boot-space-hell". Not everyone wants to have a huge disk they don't really need, because their apps all install a truckload of stuff they'll never use.

      Aside from the utter stupidity of the concept of EULAs, you can create disk images that display dialogs before they are mounted. Or you can have the app present a dialog when it is run for the first time.

      EULAs may or may not be a stupid concept (if you don't like restrictive contracts, why are you using a Mac?) but they are used in virtually all commercial software, so that's sort of tough.

      With appfolders you throw away virtually ALL flexibility for a slight increase in usability. That seems like seriously dumbing things down for little gain. And yes, I have used them, and I still think this.

    7. Re:Who is switching by bnenning · · Score: 2
      In short, reinventing the wheel each time is pointless.


      And I'm not suggesting that you should. Go ahead and use your reusable frameworks, and copy them into the application wrapper for distribution.


      Don't start saying things like "hard disk space is cheap", because I have a lot of things to spend my money on and not much money to spend, so forking over because programmers were lazy pisses me off.


      Sorry, but $1/gig is cheap, and TANSTAAFL. If a programmer has to spend time reducing the size of an application by a couple of megs, who's going to pay for the cost of that extra development? Personally, I'd rather have the programmer fixing bugs or improving performance rather than saving every possible byte of drive space.


      Ever used apt-get?


      Yes, it's very nice. Would you recommend your mother use it?


      Look at Windows, often Office/Internet Explorer upgrade the OS as well.


      Those are still MS upgrades, and Office and IE are practically part of the OS anyway. Likewise, Apple has released updates for things like iTunes that update system frameworks as well.


      Not everyone wants to have a huge disk they don't really need, because their apps all install a truckload of stuff they'll never use.


      I would be quite surprised if the increased size required by app wrappers on a typical system were more than a few hundred megs. You're getting bent out of shape over an effective cost of less than a dollar.


      if you don't like restrictive contracts, why are you using a Mac?


      I don't recall signing any contract when I bought my Macs. Regardless, your statements about being unable to present EULAs or validate serial numbers using app wrappers are entirely incorrect.


      With appfolders you throw away virtually ALL flexibility for a slight increase in usability.


      I consider it both flexibile and usable when I can copy nearly any app from one Mac to another by dragging a single file, and have it just work on the destination system without having to worry about dependencies.


      And here's an experiment I just tried. I have OmniWeb installed on my system. If I look inside the OmniWeb.app wrapper in Contents/Frameworks I see reusable frameworks such as OmniFoundation, OmniHTML, etc. If I move OmniFoundation.framework to /tmp, obviously OmniWeb fails to launch. But if I then move OmniFoundation.framework to /Library/Frameworks, OmniWeb launches and runs just fine. Conclusion: you sacrifice nothing with app wrappers. If you are so upset by the duplication of frameworks, you could move the common frameworks to a system-wide frameworks directory and delete them from the individual apps. Flexibility again.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  57. Be careful /. not to get sued by Apple ... by jopet · · Score: 1

    for using that aqua-style design. They have already scared the shit out of a guy who created an aqua-theme for Mozilla.

  58. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by 13Echo · · Score: 2

    It isn't so much the platform, but rather the way they code it to avoid working with alternative platforms. Windows itself is fine, but locking other platforms out of specific Windows file formats is just wrong. That is reason enough to avoid supporting Windows.

    All of these folks on this article talk about going out and buying a Mac, then installing MS Office. It just feeds Microsoft even more. How about Open Office with an open, XML based file format. Not some cryptic-reverse-engineer-and-we'll-have-your-ass-D MCA bullshit. That is what pisses me off.

    Closed software is OK (I love Opera), but it needs to be able to work with other alternatives. Standards are the issue here. Microsoft just doesn't support that idea.

  59. How to get them back from MacOS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the PC OSes like Linux and Windows should try to switch users from MacOS buy showing them that mice really do need 2 or more buttons!

    1. Re:How to get them back from MacOS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU goddamn fucking dildo, macs work with multi-button mice out of the box!

  60. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by toupsie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like Astrid the Priestess needs to pray to God she gets some freaking brains. She's still using Floppies for God's sake! I can't even fit one MP3 on a floppy these days. She reports that she uses "Disk Utility" often -- something smells real fishy--is Gates religious?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  61. My experience going from Linux to OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 4 months ago I moved from a Dell laptop running linux (I was on it for 2 years) to a PowerBook with OSX and I love it. The first month was a bit of pain as I had to change some ingrained work habits and find stuff like uControl (can't work in emacs without it) and Launchbar etc.

    Things I like about the switch.
    1. MS Office (I can finally easily read all those powerpoints)
    2. Consistent keyboard shortcuts between applications
    3. Really easy networking and sleep that always works
    4. The cool form factor of the G4, good battery life too.

    Things I don't like about the switch
    1. My code (mostly perl, some ruby and C) runs a lot slower on OSX
    2. I miss virtual desktops and don't like the OSX virtual desktop add-on's
    3. Paying for the upgrade to 10.2 (open source software has spoiled me:-))

    My servers all run linux and I won't switch them, but for the desktop OSX rocks.

  62. My (KVM) Switch by primetyme · · Score: 2
    I got an older G4 with OSX.1 on it last spring, and was a bit timid to use it after being a KDE fan for so long(just about 5 years now). Here are some thoughts I wrote at the time :

    Pretty, clean, responsive(low end G4 with 256Mb), not nearly enough options to dig under the hood(especially during installation), give me an 'expert' mode, or give me death! :) Hard to find some things, super easy to find others. I can't tell if my 'iDisk' is actually on a server at Apple, or a local cache of stuff on a server at Apple. A mount is not really a disk mount, like me Mr. 6 years of Unix would think of it as. I like the Dock. I really like iTunes. I reallly like iPhoto. I didn't like not having root access out of the box. It's no lie, Mozilla really does suck on OS X. :( /bin/tcsh has got to go. Configuring everything is a snap, and the XML based config files are cool. If I could find them.. The directory struct. is gonna take some getting used to, as is remembering that programs don't close when you click the 'X" on the top window bar, only that window does. SSH support(albeit an insecure version) out of the box is nice. The software updater package thingy is slick. I'm haven't totally figured out how to add new users, although its rumored to be under this 'Netinfo' thing, which is like a seperate control place for the Unix stuff.

    So here I sit nearly 6 months later, still enjoying my Mac, but it splits time with my Linux box as well via a KVM switch. Some tasks are just better suited for certain tasks than other. The proof of that for me was coming back from South America and being able to plug my Sony Handycam right into my Mac via firewire and using iMovie to pull video clips right off the camera, editing them, and making a 'home movie' that turned out really nice.

    The coolest part was I hit 'record' and it wrote my 'iMovie' back to a blank tape in the Handycam. Sometimes it is just nice to have things work like that without having to config anyting. Not that it's my primary machine(mandrake 8.2 still holds that role) or anything, and the iMovie software is just a small unique example of something I really like about my Mac, but as a Linux user for nearly 6 years, there's a lot I've come to appreciate about Mac's and OSX in particular and I think others in similar situations may feel the same way...

    1. Re:My (KVM) Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't mind, what KVM switch are you using? I'm buying a new dual-Ghz G4 soon, and want it to share a switch with a G3 tower.

    2. Re:My (KVM) Switch by primetyme · · Score: 2

      It's a MiniView 2 port USB switch, available at macwarehouse.com or anywhere else for about $100. Works like a charm(I use an apple pro keyboard and wireless logitech usb moouse between them)

      hth

    3. Re:My (KVM) Switch by BayAreaRefugee · · Score: 1

      I just got a 4 port Belkin switchbox that is nice since it allows one to switch between systems expecting PS/2 and USB keyboard/mouse connections as well as audio connections. That way my PC's and G4 are switchable without having to switch them to USB or try to hook the Mac up through a USB/PS2 adaptor.

      There are two slight drawbacks (that I haven't tried yet to see whether I can fix it yet). First is that the Belking box expects to use the scroll lock key as the hot switch key, which brings up a signoff prompt on the G4, which one has to cancel when going back and forth. I've also found that one might need to switch back and forth twice for the mouse to be useable on the Mac if it has gone in it's powered down cycle. Other than that, it works nicely.

  63. switching back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been using OS X for roughly 1,5 years now. I will now switch back to the x86 world. OS X lacks speed, the UI is not intuitive and rather builds on good looks than usability, I find myself running a lot of applications in XDarwin as their Aqua equivalents aren't as usable and in general am opposed to the hardware costs involved, especially after recent evidence that as an example the new DDR Dual 1GHz Mac is slower than its predecessor.

    -thies

  64. I just installed 10.2! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    Wow. What an improvement! It doesn't seem like I'm running a mollasses machine anymore. I use OS X at work, and win xp/98 and Beos at home.

    At first I was glad to come home to 98 for ease, XP for stabillity, and Beos for zippy speed. OS X 10.1.x had me hating the Mac. Many of the problems plaguing my Mac was due to bugs and features that I (still) can't believe they left out.

    With 10.2, alot of the 'bugs' have been fixed, windows open a TON faster, the machine is far more responsive, and I have handwriting recognition too (which is just cool).

    Arguably, It should have been that way at the start, rather than me beta-testing 10.1.x. I can't say I'll be auctioning off my p4 1.8 (which still smokes the mac) anytime soon, but Apple is definitely becoming more tempting.

    If Apple gets faster hardware than my PC (blah, blah gigahertz/flops, whatever. IE opens in 2 seconds on my P4, and 8 on the mac 733) or if OpenBeos makes a strong case (which it will!) will make some of my decision to switch or not for me. The preceeding sentence was exceedingly poorly crafted. Thank you.

    1. Re:I just installed 10.2! by dylantech · · Score: 1

      Do you have to buy teh full version of 10.2? is their no upgrade? oh teh insanity!

      --
      Now back to your regularly scheduled rant already in progress...
    2. Re:I just installed 10.2! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, IE launches in two seconds on a PC cause it is already loaded in the kernel. You are basically just opening a window when opening IE.

      It's not that way on a Mac.

      This makes a ton of people think their PC is faster (which I am sure a P4 2 GHz machine is awesome) but be careful comparing things like that.

    3. Re:I just installed 10.2! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

      I'd compare Photoshop speeds, but I haven't timed stuff out yet. I guess what I mean by all this is that my PC feels faster. Isn't that what it's all about for the (average) desktop user?

    4. Re:I just installed 10.2! by Rand+Race · · Score: 2
      I came over to OS X from BeOS on X86. I had a nice Be machine based on a K6-550 with TV card, CDR, and all sorts of cool hardware that made Windows choke and die when I tried to boot into it but ran wonderfully under Be. I waited a long time to upgrade since I wanted a dual-proc Athlon rig but - as luck would have it - Be died before getting compatibility with the DP Athlons added (have they ever fixed this?). So I bought a DP G4 and while I still miss the raw speed that Be provided, I am not displeased with OS X at all.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  65. I Switched because the CPU is 2x faster for RC5 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched to mac because the Powerpc g4 1Ghz CPU is 2x faster for RC5 than any known AMD MP boards.

    Currently, according to the RC5 benchmarks AMD is far slower than dual CPU based Macintoshes. In fact an AMD MP high end motherboard is only HALF as fast as a Mac.

    21,129,654 RC5 keyrate for dual 1 Ghz g4 system ! (The old Feb 2002 model)

    A dual 1800+ AMD MP yields only half as many keys! 10,807,034 rc5 keys per second !

    Source code available for core rc5 loops for most Processors http://www.distributed.net/rc5/

    There is a 10 thousand dollar prize if my computer finds the RC5 key and the money is worth it more and more each day as the keyspace shrinks.

    The Mac Dual 1 Ghz g4 is faster than all existing dual AMD motherboards in RC5 benchmark by almost 100%. The curious "Mhz myth" is demonstrated quite soundly here.

    Apple now is selling even FASTER machines but with smaller caches and less fast read-write ram (it now uses DDR on newest boxes, but its FSB is slower than the DDR itself at the moment.)

    The mac uses a 2 MB L3 cache and no AMD mp dual cpu boards I know about have any L3 cache at all!. That's possibly common macs are over twice as fast, its not just the few meager altivec tweaks to rc5 core. AMD have similar , but less amazing vector ops for SIMD.

    Another reason my RISC Mac might be over twice as fast as an amd dual mp board is not just the 2MB l3 cache but the fact that Mac can read and write to a cold page of memory simultaneously FASTER than any AMD MP designs which are biased for linear access and streaming. Many memory scatter benchmarks show this too. The new AMD Hammer is even SLOWER in many ways and not expected to de better at RC5 as shown in the early SSL benchtests.

    Another reason to use a mac is that there are less exploits and it has a great implementation of NeXTStep's programming environment called Cocoa (uses Objective C , C, and C++). Cocoa allows one man teams to outperform 3 man teams.

  66. The bad old days are back again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    O'Reilly is merely another shark swimming in the Apple waters. Here is what I discovered during a recent trip to the library.

    I picked up a Mac magazine, and thumbed through it while waiting for my wife. Looking through the magazine brought back nightmares from the bad old days before commodity computers. The magazine was similar to magazines of 15 years ago in that it was full of expensive gizmos, pricey software patches and costly utilities, oddball interface cables, and all sorts of froufrou designed to make up for deficiencies in the host system. There exists a cottage industry providing "fixes" for the shortcomings of Macs. You won't find this kind of stuff in mainstream magazines such as PCWeek. You won't even find this kind of stuff in Linux magazines.

    The advsertisements in the Mac magazine spoke volumes more than the editorial content. You need these expensive add-ons to acheive parity with mainstream computing. And the editorial content was not silent on the matter either. One of the featured articles was titled along the lines of "50 Must-have Utilities Which You Need". It was mostly the kind of stuff Windows users and Linux users take for granted beause they are free. In the case of the Mac however, these "must have" utiliites cost between $50 and $400 dollars each.

    If you remember the days of proprietary computing -- Atari, Amiga, and so on -- a peek of at a Mac magazine will be dark trip down nostalgia's trail. You will see the "must have" chips, extenders, specialized memory fixes, patches, work-arounds, and all the stuff you left behind when you stepped off the proprietary trail for the road of main line computing.

    The Mac world is a different world stuck in a time warp. I'm glad I have the free choice not to participate.

    1. Re:The bad old days are back again ... by LunchingFriar · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Somebody mod this AC up, he's got a great point.

      OS X is an 18-year-old user interface running on top of a 30-year-old operating system. The only reason anybody on Slashdot cares about OS X at all is because of its BSD foundation. The fanboi crowd on this site seems to have short memories with regard to the fact that prior to OS X, Apple had the only operating system still in widespread use that did not support pre-emptive multitasking or paged memory.

    2. Re:The bad old days are back again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The days of the atari and amiga are great memories. You haven't lived until you've seen 5 or 6 computer makers each with a different OS and different custom chips slugging it out. Fun days.

  67. Yes, but by tmark · · Score: 2

    It seems like most of the comments here have been along the lines of "I won't switch to OSX because it doesn't run on x86 and therefore I can't build my own box". But it's clear that people who really want to build their own box is in the decided minority, and Apple would be crazy to go after this market in particular. And if you have an OS where users can build their own box, then you necessarily open yourself up to compatibility/driver/etc. issues.

    And I think the reason Apple isn't targetting the Linux/Unix market is that there just isn't enough people using those machines to make money selling $2000 boxes...

    1. Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those people are generally also the ones who run Linux as their desktop. Getting them to drop their cheap hardware and cheap software to go with closed hardware and closed software is going to be a big job.

  68. I'm a switcher... by cjsteele · · Score: 1

    At first, I was hesitant to take the leap, but after a few hours of playing on the iBook, I realized that beyond the geeky parts of the iBook, I love the user interface the mose. Sure, having a RISC-based UNIX is cool, that's why I bought my SPARCStation 20, but even better is a RISC-based UNIX with a pretty and application-rich GUI! WOO HOO!!!!

    All you ney-sayers who haven't given it a whirl can blast me all you want, I'll still hold to the notion that OS X has beaten all the *NIXes at the desktop level. How well OS X will perform at the server level is outside the scope of my interest... I'll stick with OpenBSD for all my server needs, thanks.

    -C

    --
    "This above all, to thine own self be true" :x!
  69. Switch then Switch then Switched again. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been a Linux user sience 1994 and I like linux and I still do, Then I started working and I no longer have the time or the will of tinkering with a Linux box tring to get every peice of new hardware to work, and I never like PC archecture. So I switched to using Sun Hardware, and I was much more productive with it, Applications that I wanted to use generally ran better, and much more smoother. Then I switched to OS X. And I find that I am the most productive with it. GUI when GUI is best the terminal when CLI is best. The GUI is clean and out of the way, (unline CDE, GNOME, and KDE and Windows that tries to impress you with all the graphics) I found that using OS X is just more productive. And there is a larger selection of comerical software for OS X, (Open Sourse Software has a great software selection base but it still not there for everything I need). Just as the comerical says "it just works."

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  70. LOL by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...it was hard to get work done on one mouse button and without knowing the guts of the machine.

    Not only do you tell us that you bought a cube (bleh!), but you also tell us that you can't figure out how to attach a multibutton mouse, or read the specs on your machine...and then you go on to brag about having virtual desktops in Ximian-Gnome (which is also easily accomplished on a Mac). Well, Mac OS has the features that you mentioned, you just weren't able to figure out how to implement them. Given that we're talking about Mac OS (legendary ease of use), that's pretty sad for you.

  71. Poll of 15 people by mattyohe · · Score: 1

    Even though Tim O'Reilly prefaces his "poll" with a statement about how these 15 responses do not "represent a significant sample" he still bases a large part of the story on it.

    I don't think that those numbers are "suggestive" or "intriguing".

    Now, his statements about David Pogue's book being bought in high quantities do raise an eyebrow, but i would still like to see more numbers.

    --
    - what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
    1. Re:Poll of 15 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One thing that is not mentioned is most Mac sales are replacement sales for current owners, not "switchers". Another item that is not mentioned is that Mac sales are down from a year ago. And most book sales follow a curve of an initial spike and then a decay. Short term sales figures tell us very little about the penetration of a book. Not trying to rain on his parade, merely add a little objectivity to O'Reilly's analysis.

      O'Reilly is something of a P.T. Barnum, always trying to promote something "new". He tried the same baloney when NT arrvied on the market. He pushed NT for a couple years, and then O'Reilly moved on to a new sandbox. Those in this business who know Tim, know also to take him with a grain of salt.

    2. Re:Poll of 15 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for an anonymous coward you were very insightful.

  72. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what the first post in this subthread meant was the M$ could make both a proprietary OS and hardware [already make X-Box, keyboards, mouse] and make you buy both, every 12-18 months. Who says things couldn't get worse than they are?

  73. Re:Switch? Nope RUN DARWIN the OS is OPEN SOURCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re:Switch? Nope RUN DARWIN the OS is OPEN SOURCE!

    You know little about the mac!

    Plus MAcs are over twice as fast as AMD MP systems according to http://www.distributed.net/rc5/

    21,129,654 RC5 keyrate for dual 1 Ghz g4 system ! (The old Feb 2002 model)

    A dual 1800+ AMD MP yields only half as many keys! 10,807,034 rc5 keys per second !

  74. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by shunnicutt · · Score: 1

    Upon reading this article, it's fairly obvious to me that she's using Mac OS 9 for some reason, rather than OS X. All of Apple's marketing is actually referring to OS X, although it doesn't say so.

    All Macintoshes have been shipping with OS X as the default system for quite some time. She (or whoever set up her system) switched her into Mac OS 9, where she's suffering.

  75. Jobs' biggest mistake. by FreeLinux · · Score: 1, Troll

    Steve Jobs is making the biggest mistake he has yet. Apple sales would explode if Jobs ported OS X to the Intel platform.

    Granted, it may indeed threaten Mac hardware sales but, he could test the waters with less optimized Intel version. That way you could get a great OS on Intel but, if you wanted to see *really* fast, you should buy the Mac.

    I'm certain that OS X on Intel would fly off the shelves faster than Apple could stamp out the CDs and Microsoft would crap all over themselves. Everybody wins.

    1. Re:Jobs' biggest mistake. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
      The funny thing is, they made this mistake back in the 80's (licenced the hardware, not the OS) and it nearly killed Apple. (Cheap beige boxes running OS 8.1)

      Had they licenced the OS, rather than the hardware, today /. would be bitching about the evil software monopoly Apple.

      And Bill would be asking me, "Do you want fries with that?"

    2. Re:Jobs' biggest mistake. by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      first it was the 90's but Jobs also did it at NeXT and it also almost killed NeXT.

    3. Re:Jobs' biggest mistake. by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      Lipstick + Pig = Supermodel, eh?

    4. Re:Jobs' biggest mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on if the pig puts out.

    5. Re:Jobs' biggest mistake. by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Wrong, Apple sales would plummet. Let me go through this one by one and tell you why:

      1) Steve Jobs is making the biggest mistake he has yet. Apple sales would explode if Jobs ported OS X to the Intel platform.

      Apple sells hardware, it has been said time and time again that they sell hardware and it is their main income. Infact, the only reason they sel the software stand alone is because it makes good business sense. Imagine how many customers they would loose if you had to buy a new machine for each new pice of software.

      2)Granted, it may indeed threaten Mac hardware sales but, he could test the waters with less optimized Intel version. That way you could get a great OS on Intel but, if you wanted to see *really* fast, you should buy the Mac.

      People don't think that deep. Here's how the though process would go. OS X on x86 = slow ---> Mac hardware numbers = slower than PC numbers ----> OS X on mac hardware = slowwer ----> buy X86 and windows. YOu see hoiw this is counterproductive? Not to mention if they didn't support everything at once, PC users would have a royal fit (just look at the mac users who bitched when beta wouldn't print to their 5 year old printer)

      3) I'm certain that OS X on Intel would fly off the shelves faster than Apple could stamp out the CDs and Microsoft would crap all over themselves. Everybody wins.

      No, it would sell fo ra bit and then be pirated.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    6. Re:Jobs' biggest mistake. by dublin · · Score: 2

      Apple sales would explode if Jobs ported OS X to the Intel platform.

      Dead wrong. Steve knows something that his friend Scott Mc Nealy knows, too: Hardware is a far better business bet until someone figures out how to download a new workstation over the net.

      It's really just about that simple. That and the fac that *nothing* can work easily or transparently in the hideous world of Intel PC hardware.

      The reason Suns, Apples, and the like "just work" is that they don't have to worry about all the poorly designed hardware, firmware, and interfaces consire to guarantee compatibility problems. OS X on x86 would lose most of its strongest attributes - reliability, stability, ease, and predictability.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  76. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by p_trinli · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Somehow, the idea that someone who's already been suckered into religion, was suckered into advertising, is not too surprising to me.

  77. Basic Statistics by ArminK · · Score: 1

    This is a joke - right?

    You pose a question to a number of people you have no knowledge about, get 15 answers and write an article about this?

    Assume that from all the suscribers only 5 were pure windows users and 1000 use other systems. Then 100% of the windows users switched but only 1% or so of the others.

    Aktually if you assume that the standard deviation is the root of the measured number then you have:

    Windows users: 5 +/- 2.2
    Others : 10 +/- 3.1
    These numbers agree within statistical limits!

    So this may be worth thinking about but the numbers are completely worthless.

  78. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by dinivin · · Score: 2

    She's still using Floppies for God's sake!

    And why not? They're considerably cheaper than CDs, and they make a lot more sense if you only have a 30k file that you need to backup or take/send somewhere.

    I can't even fit one MP3 on a floppy these days.

    Did you even read the complete article? Did she ever mention wanting to store MP3s on floppy?

    Remember, just because something isn't useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else.

    Dinivin

  79. Except for the damned dock by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd used macs for years before I had to abandon them because none of my clients used them. I'm also a very long time Unix user (Since System III). So, OSX is a natural for me right? I have at TiBook with OSX and I would love it.

    Except for the damned dock.

    This is an incredibly misbegotten feature. First of all, let me state my UI bias: the user should be in charge, the UI elements should just sit there until called upon. I favor responsiveness over intrusiveness. The dock is cutesy, and keeps calling attention to itself with the stupid Genie effect (if I tell you to go away, just do it), and having icons bounce up and down. So right off the bat I was ill inclined towards the thing. In its default configuration it robs the user of valuable real estate. Yeah, you can do alpha blending, now go the hell away so I don't have to look through you to see the bottom of my documents.

    The only thing that makes the dock tolerable is that you can use the System Preferences to make it tiny, hidden, and to turn off the idiotic genie effect.

    The sad thing is that all the functions of the dock are done better by the apple and upper right hand menus of MacOS 7-9. These functions are clearer and separated in space. When applications needed to get the user's attention, they didn't have to jump up and down, they just flashed the upper right hand application menu (if I remember correctly).

    The problem with the dock is that it is overloaded with functions. As I keep telling PDA developers I work with, overloaded UI elements are a very poor substitute for good design. The Dock really undermines the Mac experience. I find KDE much more responsive and less intrusive.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Except for the damned dock by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      You can also turn of the bounce.
      cmd-H also hides the program without minimizing.

      I love the Dock, but the two features you hate the most are 'missing' in my daily use.

    2. Re:Except for the damned dock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://homepage.mac.com/vercruesse/cocoa/asm/

    3. Re:Except for the damned dock by hey! · · Score: 2

      I know, the dock can be made to be non-annoying. The thing that bothers me is that it just isn't as good as the older MacOS solution to the same problems. It isn't as good as the apple menu because things aren't in a fixed order, for example.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Except for the damned dock by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      It's better, because the stuff is in the order you choose. Trying to get non-alphabetical order out of the old Apple menu always required various hacks and/or third-party extensions.

      I've got icons for all my daily-use apps in the Dock, arranged from most-frequent at the top to least-frequent at the bottom. And my Applications folder is also in the Dock, so I can right-click for immediate access to all of my apps as well. Kicks the snot out of the Apple menu any day.

    5. Re:Except for the damned dock by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, exept it's position is not constant unless you put it at the center of the dock.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  80. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Christianfreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Haha, that's funny. The scary thing is it sounds just like my wife who insists on saving all her work to floppies and won't let me junk the drive.

    Me: baby we have DSL if you need a file while you're at school you can transfer it, its faster than loading the 500K word doc off the floppy

    her: but what if the harddrive breaks?

    me: that floppy will go bad long before the harddrive breaks

    her: I don't care, it could still happen and I want it with me!

    Women :) ... I love being married.

  81. Still on OS 9 by sulli · · Score: 2

    since I have a three year old Bronze G3 Powerbook, and it's my understanding that it's too damn slow to run OSX, or OSX is too damn slow for it. Still true?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Still on OS 9 by asparagus · · Score: 2

      If you've got the ram, it'll run 'okay'. (That's a deliberately subjective word.)

      It's a largely a matter of your workflow between the two OS's: scrolling/windows are slower, true, but having all the stability and SMP makes me much more efficient. (OSX: Set qt file to encoding, surf the web. OS9: Set file to encoding, go to sleep.)

      My advice? Borrow a 10.2 cd from a friend here in a week and try it out. If you can't handle surfing with mozilla on your machine, you'll probabally go bonkers over time.

      Of course, when we finally upgrade our hardware (I would, but my damn pismo just keeps on going and going) all these speed issues will be a thing of the past. ;-)

      -asparagus

    2. Re:Still on OS 9 by sulli · · Score: 1

      NY Times says it's faster. Maybe I'll try it in September.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    3. Re:Still on OS 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been running OS X on my PBG3/333 (Lombard) since the day MacOS X 10.0 came out. It's had 2 kernel panics, one from some USB speakers back in the 10.0.2 days, and another from waking from sleep in the 10.0.3 days. It has plenty of RAM(320MB is quite a bit for that vintage machine), and that makes it quite usable.

      It lags at times, but it's able to run Office v.X and just about anything else I throw at it(Illustrator 9 in classic, whatever-the-current-version-of-IE-is, GraphicConverter, GameRanger, etc) while the webserver is active.

      Don't expect blazing performance, but it *will* run well enough to use for day-to-day stuff.

      --Mattintosh

  82. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by markbark · · Score: 2

    Interestingly enough, she states that most of the problems she encountered were Microsoft applications throwing up on her. MS apps misbehaving on a competitor's OS? Quel Suprise!

    [switch to black & white... interior Rick's Cafe Americain]

    I'm shocked, SHOCKED that this is happening to her. (Your DR-DOS error message, sir) Oh, thank you, thank you very much.

    [fade to present day]

    banished to the lonely "Mac user" printer port at Kinko's

    I dunno where she lives, but all the Kinko's I've visited recently (DC Metro area) have Air Ports up and running. Point and shoot printing!

    losing all ability to communicate with my Euro-traveling boyfriend

    Last time I looked, neither SMTP nor POP gave a rat's ass what OS was running.... this smells and looks like an eNORmous red herring. (but Salon, published by MSNBC, would NEVER do that, right?)

    From all her whining, my suggestion to her would be to sell her iBook, and use the proceeds to purchase a good typewriter as her needs seem to be the ability to type up sermons and little else

  83. MAX OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MAX OS X is not match for my CRiSPIX system. It is *the* most stable OS in MILK. period. The Rice architecture is splendid.

  84. What about everything else? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2
    If you just want to read email, browse the web and play mp3s then you never have to edit config files.

    Some of us want to do more with our computers. In fact, I bet you want to do more with your computer. In that event, MacOS X is a worthwhile consideration.

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    1. Re:What about everything else? by diamondc · · Score: 1

      Hmm, 1500 dollars or maybe spend a day or two figure out something on my existing computer.. which will it be? If you can afford a Mac, then of course the decision is a no brainer.

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    2. Re:What about everything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can figure out all your Linux problems in just two days, then of course the decision is a no brainer.

      (That would be the 1% niche of tinkerers and geeks who like it already.)

    3. Re:What about everything else? by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      I use Linux (Redhat 7.3 with Gnome) for everything, and I still almost never edit config files. I've edited exactly one that I can recall.

    4. Re:What about everything else? by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      Consider this:
      if you want to do the same with your Mac that you'd do with your Linux box, you'd be editing config files.
      so,

      the equation is :
      $1500 for a mac and have to edit httpd.conf anyway
      or
      $ keep existing PC, and edit the fscking httpd.conf file.

      hmmmmmmmmm.
      no brainer.

      (*httpd.conf was used solely for the purpose of example.)

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    5. Re:What about everything else? by Golias · · Score: 2
      I disagree.

      First of all, for some people their "existing PC" already is a Mac.

      I had an HP laptop a little more than two years ago and ran Linux on it. It took me a lot of sifting through newsgroups to track down the actual correct driver for the LCD (the one that most documentation recomended was incorrect), and I never actually got my Lucent 802.11b card to work on it.

      My new iBook, on the other hand, which I am writing this from, was simplicity itself. It shipped with 10.1, but Apple packaged 10.2 CD's (including the developper tools) in with it. Installation was effortless. Now I've got my *nix shell and gnu tools, my Mac-only apps and programming tools, MS-Office, VPC for running windows programs, a DVD player for watchin movies on the plane, and every single app I use, all on a $1499 laptop. (A mere $100 dollars more than the HP cost my company... and the wireless card was $75 more & had to be removed when traveling because the antenna stuck out precariously from the side.)

      You want to talk about no-brainer decisions? If you use UNIX apps on the road at all, the iBook kicks ass over every other available option. Anybody who tells you otherwise probably hasn't used one.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  85. Tell the suckers... by Dix+Flatline · · Score: 0

    ... that they can take our code. But they'll never take... our FREEDOM !!!

    (actually they can't take our code, only *BSD's)

  86. Did you consider... by spreer · · Score: 1

    Dual booting with one of the fine stable linux ppc ports, like yellow dog, for your linux needs? Or running xdarwin and the many X apps that have been ported? I found that this satisfied most of my linuxy needs...

  87. OS X Needs Better Window Managers by Baconator · · Score: 2

    I was Mac junkie for years, before finally being converted to GNU/Linux a couple of years ago. I think OS X is cool, but it has the worst GUI to ever come out of Cupertino. It's sluggish, many things don't have keyboard shortcuts that should, and in general Aqua is lacking in places where X Window Managers excel.

    For example, why is there no support for virtual desktops? In a perfect world I'd have a monitor bigger than Rhode Island, but in reality I'm often using 15-inch Apple Studio Displays. I'd like to be able to have more than one window open without having a messy pile-up on my desktop.

    In general, I find that I just can't work very fast in OS X, so until such work-flow issues get resolved, there's no chance of me using OS X as my primary desktop.

    1. Re:OS X Needs Better Window Managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might notice that on the left of the menu bar is a menu headed by the name of the program you're running. Under this menu, you can select to hide the current program or everything else, clearing off your desktop. Just click on the icon of the program in the dock to get it back. There are also freeware programs i've seen (tho i don't remember their names) that will create a multi-desktop system.

    2. Re:OS X Needs Better Window Managers by DGolden · · Score: 2

      OS X GUI, even more so than earlier Mac GUIs, is optimised heavily for the "beginner" or "occasional" user, it seems. Virtual Desktops are definitely a "power user" feature. I don't like most X-style virtual desktops much anyway - I got used to Amiga pubscreens + MUI (where the association between the application and a particular, named, virtual desktop out of an unbounded number of virtual desktops was persistent across restarts)

      --
      Choice of masters is not freedom.
  88. Yeah, but - you're a geek. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We enjoy learning the ins and outs of our machines, much like my brother the gearhead enjoys rebuilding his 52 Harley.


    My mother, on the other hand does not want or need to know how to rebuild her engine, or her PC. She just wants to get her work done.

  89. Re:DivX on OSX by Meleneth · · Score: 1

    since when is that not a valid reason?

    is it not said that porn makes the world go 'round?

    (I can't believe my origonal post got modded down as a troll)

    --
    remote access CLI with tools is the only friend you'll ever need.
  90. Apple doesn't need to target Linux users... by frankie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...because other (former) Linux users are doing the job for them. Between Tim O'Reilly, plenty of folks here on / and various others, it would be difficult for geeks not to know that OS X is "Unix Inside (tm)".

    • Jordan Hubbard (pre-employment): "it was impressive just how much "Unix stuff" did work exactly as I'd expected."
    • David Coursey: "if all I wanted was a Unix (or Unix-ish) OS I could actually use, I'd choose Mac OS X"
    • Chris Coleman: "I didn't have to dual boot. I could use my Unix applications on the same screen"
    1. Re:Apple doesn't need to target Linux users... by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      Jordan Hubbard is not a former LINUX user, he is a former BSD developer of FreeBSD.

  91. Re:How have I "Switched", running Linux X apps w/K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're a troll. there is no ie 6 for mac.

  92. Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is this becoming the new "I'd get a Mac if they had a two-button mouse" troll?

    The only thing about this situation is that it is actually even LESS likely to happen! Even if Apple moved to an Intel processor, it will still be set up such that only Apple-Intel hardware will run Mac OS, and it will be a higher quality hardware config that still will cost a premium.

    Get used to it, for crying out loud!

  93. Unix --- Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Switch? I thought it was Apple that
    switched to Unix.

  94. Another switcher. by Yonder+Way · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm another Linux user switching to OS X. Vice Chair of my LUG, Linux user for five years, and believe it or not it was other LUG members that talked me into taking the plunge.

    I needed a notebook for two main purposes.

    • Videography - The thought of using Broadcast 2000 under Linux on some flaky PeeCee notebook struck me as an unwise business decision. I needed something that "just works" and it should look very sleek and professional in front of my clients.
    • Writing a book - I needed something that would run a decent well known word processor or typesetter for writing books with. KOffice and OpenOffice just don't cut the mustard here. Publishers would laugh me out of their office if I used those file formats.

    I ended up going way over budget and buying an 800MHz G4 "Titanium" Powerbook. It was a rocky start because OS X is missing some of the features I love most about Linux. But then I started diving into the applications and (here it comes) it Just Works.

    Clients love it when I open my backpack, pull this thing out, and show them the progress of their video on this. Better still, it has all kinds of ports on it. I can hook it up to the SVideo jack on your television set, audio outs to your stereo, and show you your movie the way it will look once it it on a DVD. That feat would be much more difficult on a PeeCee portable running Linux (or even Windows) and would almost certainly require a PC Card adapter with a dongle. This is much cleaner as it only requires two cables plugged directly into the back of the TiBook.

    My major gripes are pretty easy to name.

    • No X11 - Apple chose to make a totally proprietary GUI which hurts me in two ways: (1) I can't run X11 apps without installing XFree and (2) I can run remote GUI sessions to my X Terminal that has a Matrox G450 and dual 21" monitors.
    • Cost of applications - Buying any applications for this box requires taking out a second mortgage on your home. On the upside, high quality open source apps are starting to find their way to native ports on OS X. Audacity runs great here, and a lot of us are looking forward to Open Office (which I would prefer to use for "everything else" but the book writing).

    Overall, I am very happy with this purchase. I find myself using the Linux box less and less for desktop stuff, and the OS X box more and more for that purpose. It was a lot of money but I feel much better about it now because it is much better integrated than any PeeCee notebook I've seen.

    1. Re:Another switcher. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't run X11 apps without installing XFree"

      How else can you run X11 apps?

    2. Re:Another switcher. by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      My gripe is that the Apple GUI isn't X11. It is proprietary. So I have to run one GUI on top of another. If OS X's GUI were X11, then other X11 apps would look like native apps instead of having to use a wm and looking goofy and inconsistent with the rest of the environment.

    3. Re:Another switcher. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking fuck! You are right! X11 is perfect! Why did Apple write the horribly broken GUI with no standards in sight?

  95. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
    Supporting evidence please? I think she is using OSX based on the following:

    Maybe it was his pitch about the intuitiveness and femininity of the Mac -- its smooth operating system, its sleek curves, its bouncy icons that enlarge when you touch them, the way the documents slide onto the screen, the glossy surface and undulating pastel screen savers...

    I take "bouncy icons" as evidence of OSX.

    This person sure does like to whine though. First she is unhappy when the Apple keys are gone in grade school. Then she complains that it never makes sense, but that the Ctrl key gave her a sense of "control"? Notice that she never exactly sings the praises of Windows. I wonder if this article is astro-turfing in action...

  96. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by MojoRising · · Score: 0

    That person needs to stop using computer altogether. She wants her floppy drive back?!?!

    Somebody give her an etch-a-sketch!

    Rennsport

  97. Re:DivX on OSX by zephc · · Score: 2

    i agree, VLC (VideoLan Client) is great, and being at "Thousands" of colors rather than "Millions" is so inconsequential in OSX - as in OSX does such a good job with color handling - that I have been running with just "Thousands" for weeks without even realizing it until I checked the Displays menu in the menu bar a minute ago!

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  98. Both Mac and Linux by Qeygh · · Score: 1

    I have been programming on the Mac for about 14 years or so but have become a big Linux fan. When OS-X came out I figured I'd give it a try. I bought a G3 laptop which I use most every day and I have OS-X on my Macintosh at work.

    Although I really like OS-X I still find that I use my Linux machines more for day-to-day work. I really like the multiple desk tops that KDE offers and the Linux distributions have more of the low level programming and system tools that I am used to using.

    The biggest gripe that I have with OS-X is the ugly way that the underlying unix directory structures are layed out. This seem reminisant of Apples old decision to use <CR> as a line terminator instead of <LF> or <CR><LF> -- why go out of your way to be different? I'm not familiar with other BSD distributions so perhaps Apple followed the BSD standard. I am familiar with Solaris and Linux and I have a bear of a time with OS-X.

    The improvements to OS-X that I'd like to see are, multipe desktops, built in X-Windows support, and addition of the wide range of open source tools that I get with SUSE to the OS-X distribution disks.

    I do plan on continuing to use the Macintosh and I recently ordered version 10.2.

  99. Whats wrong with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big thing with Apple is the HARDWARE, us geeks can't go out and buy tons of parts to build,tweek and update the thing (plus parts cost)

    Building your own Box is the best for a geek,we all have different needs, and wallets and can build a box to do what WE want it to do and at a good price (geeks are some cheap SOB's)

    We have 100buck box's for lunix firwalls, and can build one he11 of a puter for $500 to $1000

    Its the hardware stupid (message to apple) that is how they make much of there money,and untill they let go of that people are going to stay away in groves,killing apple clones was on of the worst things to do (good in the short run since they where going broke)

    1. Re:Whats wrong with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly 100% correct, give that man a cigar!!!

      this is exactly why i build my own and put Linux on it, i get one heck of a great computer at much lower price than what any OEM could offer, i would love to biuld my own Macintosh clone and gladly buy a copy of OS-X from Apple's website if this was possible, but the only option to get OS-X is to buy it from apple lock/stock & barrel (hardware too) at very high prices and i refuse to do that...

    2. Re:Whats wrong with Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build your own goddamn LAPTOP!

  100. Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by Bobartig · · Score: 1

    All these "switched back" stories seem to mention a lack of virtual desktops, but none of them consider that Codetek makes a Virtual desktop solution for OSX. You can tab around desktops, move windows between virtual desktops from the mini desktops, it allows apps to be hardwired to a particular virtual desktop, so they always load into them, and you can have up to 100 of them in a grid style configuration. I don't know how this compares to linux virtual desktops (I've only used them briefly, and without any of the widgets it may have), but it worked for me, since I've always had a thing for virtual desktops.

    Also, *nix users who "switch" to mac for a better *nix, or to *only* perform the functions they currently use their *nix box for, prolly aren't going to find any compelling reasons to stay. MacOSX isn't about replacing linux, or BSD, it's about bringing a consumer OS to the masses, with the mass sw compatibility, and quick and easy HW support/integration, along with the stability and robustness of a *nix.

    --
    This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
    1. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by gaj · · Score: 2
      Thanks for the pointer to the Virtual Desktop software; if all the other "issues" I have with switching to a Mac are resolved, I'll know I have an alternative.

      In fact, there's a crippled version that allows two desktops. I still think this is a basic feature that should be in the standard UI, but again, at least there is an option.

    2. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      What are your other issues, maybe we can help you solve those too (just don't ask for money

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    3. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by gaj · · Score: 2
      Mainly they are:
      1. apparently impossible to swap caps lock and control on an iBook. I use vim as an editor, and make heavy use of control, as well as using Sun boxen alot. If I were in the market for a desktop, it would be a non-issue, as I'd just get a new keyboard, but w/the iBook that is (obviously) not an option.
      2. Bang for the buck is pretty low relative to similarly priced x86 laptops.
      3. The dock is an atrocious monstrosity, though I understand that it can be shrunk, which would help a lot.
        1. The keyboard issue is the main current showstopper, I think.
        2. Well, that and the cost, but you said not to ask for money!

    4. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by Precision · · Score: 1

      Accually you can switch the capslock and control keys you just have to edit a XML file.

      http://www.gnufoo.org/macosx/

      --
      - U
    5. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by Cybrex · · Score: 1

      I agree that, by default, the dock is much too large. You can configure it by going to System Prefs, then selecting Dock (It's on the top row, second item). There it'll let you configure the location, size, mouseover zoom, etc.

      -Cybrex

      --
      Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
    6. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      they key board should be mapabe or do what the above post said to do.

      Bang for buck doesn't seem that different to me, but really the only way to compare bang for buck is to sit down and play with the two laptops side by side

      The dock can not only be minimized but also set to auto hide when not in use. It can also be anchored to the left and right sides with a hack

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    7. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said "hack" being an option in the Dock pane of the System Prefs. :}

    8. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      my apologies, the last version of OS X that I've used (I'm waiting to get a Ti Book for the full experience was OS X.0 so it was not an option in that release

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    9. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by Masker · · Score: 2

      Thanks for mentioning our app here!

      Just to let you know, the product description URL for CodeTek VirtualDesktop is here with a direct download the the gzip compressed disk image here.

      It's also listed on VersionTracker here. Plenty of good reviews there so you don't have to take my word for it.

      One of the only things CodeTek VirtualDesktop is missing is different desktop backgrounds for each virtual desktop, which we're adding to the next release. We've got tons of other things we're adding, too, but I don't want to talk too much about new features until we're at least in beta for that version...

      --

      ---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    10. Re:Then get your OSX virtual desktops, already!! by Golias · · Score: 2
      1. apparently impossible to swap caps lock and control on an iBook. I use vim as an editor, and make heavy use of control,

      Configure vim to use the key you want. Viola! (Otherwise, wait around a few weeks. Dozens of geeks are working on a hack for this issue as we speak.) Still, let's face it, no laptop keyboard is exactly an ergonomic dream, but that's kind of the price you pay for being mobile. When using it at home, your best bet is to plug in a USB keyboard and configure it how you like.

      2. Bang for the buck is pretty low relative to similarly priced x86 laptops.

      Not in the laptop arena, it ain't! My iBook kicks the ass over every comparably priced PC I have ever seen. Don't let the Intel clock speed ratings fool you, they downchip the shit out of Pentiums when they put them in laptops, to avoid giving the user second degree burns and spending the battery in a half hour or so. The iBook G3 chip (made by IBM rather than Motorola, IIRC) is plenty fast compared to what's out there in the PC laptop world.

      2. The dock is an atrocious monstrosity, though I understand that it can be shrunk, which would help a lot. It can be resized quite dramatically (I have friends who prefer teeny-tiny docks on they desktops). It can also be auto-hidden, like most docks and bars out there (Gnome, Windows, etc.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  101. oldschool mac user by ph0rk · · Score: 1

    I have been using macs since the plus, (back when i was an impressionable 8, in 85) and our first home machine after the atari 800 was a dual-floppy mac SE, which we later carded to a ghetto SE/30.

    it was 'fun and interesting' but maddening the way the OS worked at times. I experimented with basic, and even smalltalk, but never could get the hang of dealing with windowing (My most hated part of win32 programming, at least until i found c++ Builder).

    This was sad to me, because now instead of writing clever sound producing programs and shooters, i was making 'art' and so on. I wasn't much of a zealot, and gladly played doom and quake on the 'other' machines when i had the opportunity.

    At some point, i came into possession of a couple intel boxes, and haven't seriously looked back since. I'd been using linux since 96, and various flavors of SVr4 since 94, so naturally linux went on one box, and all of bungie's latest games on the other.

    After a -very- short time, i came to think of the machines as appliances, and aquired more of them. Macs, on the other hand, seem more like very expensive toys. I still enjoy using macOS, and plan on snagging the old man's dual G4 500 when i get the chance, but a mac isn't the do-all end-all of computing. I wouldn't use one for my firewall (until i could aquire one for less than $50 that i could replace components in, like ethernet cards). Nor would i use one as a 240GB raid fileserver, as that would just cost too damn much, and my Audiotron wouldn't like it much.

    Macs are wonderful, Macs are great, Its just Steve Jobs I don't appreciate.

    --
    semantics are everything!
  102. Re:How have I "Switched", running Linux X apps w/K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5.2.1 is the latest ie for os x, you lie

  103. switch is a slight misnomer by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

    when i saw windows users switching, i though "oh great, os x on the i386". but i see that by switch it is meant "great, lets go out and spend thousands of pounds on new hardware."

    i believe that the core of os x (darwin?) is available on the i386 platform - but is the whole thing?

    personally i'm not prepared to throw out all my old boxes and bring in a ton(ne) of new kit. hello, i have rent to pay!!

    personally, i feel, that until apple is able to accomodate open hardware architecture they are going to continue to be a bunch of underachievers.

    1. Re:switch is a slight misnomer by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

      personally i feel that i'm repeating my self today...

      hey, its my birthday, its allowed! :)

    2. Re:switch is a slight misnomer by Frymaster · · Score: 2
      1. why would apple ever even consider os x on x86? really, you need to think about this: remember the clones (aka macsimilies)? that nearly killed apple. hardware profits subsidize os r and d.

      2. yes, it's called darwin. yes it's avail on x86. go get it. no, the windowing isn't available (it's called aqua and consists of some Very Neat Technologies).

      3. i have rent to pay too. and i own a (couple of) macs.

      4. "underacheivers"? as compared to all those operating systems that were so wildly successful after porting to x86 like beos, solaris x86 and (ironically) openstep.

      porting to x86 means being forced to support byzantine hardware and having to convince consumers to not only install yr os but uninstall the one that came with their computer.

      if you think there is any good reason for apple to port to intel then you really aren't thinking at all.

    3. Re:switch is a slight misnomer by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

      if you think there is any good reason for apple to port to intel then you really aren't thinking at all.

      maybe they aren't thinking either? :P

  104. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by toupsie · · Score: 2
    And why not? They're considerably cheaper than CDs, and they make a lot more sense if you only have a 30k file that you need to backup or take/send somewhere.

    I am now buying CDs for around 20 cents a pop (and probably spending too much) so I really don't see the cost saving of a floppy that holds 1.5mb versus a CD that holds 700mb. And what program besides a text editor makes a 30k file?

    Did you even read the complete article? Did she ever mention wanting to store MP3s on floppy?

    That is a size example of how most file formats today are bigger than what a floppy can hold.

    Remember, just because something isn't useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else.

    Yet Salon is promoting this woman as the "common man" in the article which doesn't sit well with your point. Most users have dropped the floppy.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  105. Haven't switched yet ... by gaj · · Score: 2
    Oddly enough, the GUI is a big part of what's keeping me from switching. There are three main things keeping me from buying an iBook and going Mac:
    1. No multi-workspace/multi-desktop functionality in Aqua.
    2. Poor keyboard on iBook (flimsy, and I still haven't found a reliable way to swap Caps Lock and Control).
    3. Low bang for the buck. Yes, I'm well aware of the "MHz Myth". Unfortunately, it's only partly a myth. Given enough of a lead in clock speed, even the P4 (broken crap design that it is) can be pretty damn fast. The 700 MHz iBook is pretty damn slow compared to a comparably priced Athlon, PIII or P4 laptop. Add that to the slow memory speeds on all but the latest destop machines and, well it isn't pretty.
    The speed thing I could probably deal with as a trade off for stability and reliability. The keyboard is a much bigger issue, as is the crippled UI. Fix those things, and I'd be inclined to start using OS-X. I'd still have my *nix, and access to a decent array of comercial software as well (more for my wife, who is a photographer, then for myself, mind you). I probably wouldn't really "switch", but rather add OS-X based Macs to my stable. Perhaps if they are as out of the box funtional as folks say, OS-X could even displace Linux as my primary environment.
    1. Re:Haven't switched yet ... by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      A way to swap Caps Lock and Control is hardware issue because keyboards on the *books are actually adb keyboards and that have the limitation of the `caps lock' being in that spot.

    2. Re:Haven't switched yet ... by gaj · · Score: 2

      Well, if that is indeed true then I *won't* be switching. At least not until and unless I need and can afford a new desktop. Right now I'm laptop only, and my fingers bloody well expect that control key next to 'A'. For short periods of time I can adjust (e.g. doing an ethernet trace on someone's Windows workstation), but I don't think I could go back to having ctrl so far out of the way. I'm a programmer and I use vim, I use the control key alot.

    3. Re:Haven't switched yet ... by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      Multiple workspaces? This might help.

    4. Re:Haven't switched yet ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you also swap the "/' key with Ctrl? Holding down a key while striking another will fsck up your hands. That's why keyboards have a Shift, Ctrl, and Alt key for each hand.

      As an Emacs fan, I use Ctrl heavily, but why do you? I thought "beep mode" (where some of the keys edit and the rest do nothing) was the only reason to put up with vi....

  106. Re:Jews, Jews, Jews by windside · · Score: 1

    Rascist, ignorant trash like this is the reason for which censorship was invented

    Seeing this post made me feel physically ill.

    --
    ...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
    Churchill
  107. new horizon for open source by hgp · · Score: 1
    I just bought my new gorgeous powerbook this week and have moved back into the apple fold. I'm a dink, so classic target for apple, a unix developer by trade, and a closet windows user (wife and games).

    I enjoy programming (and get paid well for it) but I do it all day so the computer at home (win2K) gets mainly used for email/web and games. I dabble in Linux but I don't go the whole hog. I do love open source software - gimp, open office, mozilla, etc but it never works as well on MSwindows, I want to fix things but I'd rather not develop on MSwindows.

    Now I'm motivated. The first thing I did was fire up a terminal on my powerbook and start playing with the file system. Open source has got a new developer - more than that it's got a new, big, well financed market. I believe there will be a lot more users out there, providing input as well, because so many of the Linux open source projects port so much more simply to osX and just seem to work better (than on M$ OS's) once there.

    Support the switchers

    H.

  108. Proprietary hardware is a red herring by Space+Coyote · · Score: 2

    The idea of proprietary hardware is something like what Palladium might end up being, where only approved code can be run on a given platform. Last I checked, Linux ran perfectly well on Apple hardware. And if you open the things up, you see pretty much the same thing you'd see inside a PC, save for a PPC processor for an x86 one, and there's nothing in the G4 that you can't read about in a spec from Motorola (same situation as Intel's chips, for the most part).

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    1. Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring by toddhisattva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Part of the problem is that "proprietary" has become a meaningless buzzword. Like its abuse in Dell commercials, as if anyone could make a Xeon or something with NetBurst architecture and not get sued to death by Intel. We have a generation of Idiot Technology know-nothings who call plugging cards into a backplane "building a computer." Intel and Microsoft have done a wonderful job of dumbing-down these folks so much they don't even know the meaning of the word "proprietary" that they sling around as if it was a curse.

    2. Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      You are precisely right and should be modded up as insightful. This is a pet peeve of mine.

      Furthermore, the Macintosh is actually less proprietary than your average PC. They use IEEE 1275 Open Firmware. What x86 machine has that? If you don't like their firmware code you can get a Forth book and write your own. Also, Apple moved the ROMs off the motherboard and put them in RAM years ago. It makes running MacOS in a virtual machine a breeze.

      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    3. Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the hardware's not proprietary, why are there no G4 clones, or at least clone motherboards that OS X would run on?

      Parent post's point was that although you may be able to run Linux on the Apple hardware, you can't run OS X on anything except Apple hardware; that's what makes the hardware proprietary as a whole deal - you can't currently get an OS X-ready system from anyone except Apple.

    4. Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring by ipjohnson · · Score: 1

      Actually that makes the software proprietary to the hardware ....

      Why must everyone complain that OS X only runs on apple hardware. The reason it works so well and everything is integrated is BECAUSE apple makes the hardware and software. You pay for what you get ...

      Why aren't you bitching that Solaris, HPUX, and even windows doesn't run on PPC?

    5. Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Actually that makes the software proprietary to the hardware ....

      Yep, that's correct.

      > Why aren't you bitching that Solaris, HPUX, and even windows doesn't run on PPC?

      Because this is a discussion on OS X, others are offtopic.

    6. Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring by geekee · · Score: 1

      Apple hardware is proprietary, in the sense that only Apple can produce a Macintosh. They choose which hardware is allowed in the machine, and do not support any other hardware. In fact, they killed a number of clone companies awhile ago after Steve Jobs concluded that Apple would make more money as a monopoly.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  109. You bought it and then a few days later, sold it?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about returns?

  110. Switch Back, And Quickly by swdunlop · · Score: 1

    I bought an iBook, back in November, for the sole purpose of running Mac OS X. After about four months of enjoying the slow responses, lack of hardware accelleration, and a PPP dialer that would hang the system at odd moments. This was tolerable when I was using the laptop at home for odd jobs, but when I decided to start using it at work, instead of my Windows workstation, Mac OS X's poor support for my iBook became a source of frustration.

    I spent a week installing Gentoo, and discovered that Linux has better support for my video card, ran faster, crashed less, and didn't freeze up the system for simple networking tasks.

    While it is amusing that Linux/x86 often supports a computer better than Windows, I find it more than hilarious that Linux/ppc supports my iBook better than Apple's own OS.

    (For those about to hit flame mode, my iBook is maxed out with 320mb of ram, and I've done all the patches, updates and tweaks. Apple's new 10.2 hardware support does not include the ATI Rage chipset in the 1st gen iBooks.)

    1. Re:Switch Back, And Quickly by demon · · Score: 1

      10.2 will support it, but the new Quartz Extreme (which uses hardware 3D functionality provided by Radeon and GeForce chips) won't be enabled.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    2. Re:Switch Back, And Quickly by swdunlop · · Score: 1

      That was, in fact, what I am referring to.. For those who may be confused, my card is treated by OS X as a fat dumb and happy framebuffer.

  111. CISC? What's that? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    CISC architectures are strictly for lightweights.

    There's not much difference between "CISC architecture" and "RISC architecture" anymore. Most processors (such as Pentium II/III, Pentium 4, K6, Athlon, Opteron, Crusoe) have an emulator on the front end that translates x86 bytecode to RISC micro-ops, and a regular RISC back end[1]. Some processors from Sun have the same thing for Java(tm) bytecode.

    [1] I know Crusoe's RISC is EPIC, but it doesn't change the point of the argument.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  112. OS X still feels beta, to me. by LunchingFriar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've been using OS X for about 7 months. I've got a 600MHz G3 iBook with 256MB.

    What I don't like about it:

    The dock. The dock was a cool thing ten years ago, but the start menu/taskbar style of user interface is, IMHO, far better. (Apparently the KDE and Gnome folks think so, too.) OS X's dock is just...bizarre. I've used it for seven months and I'm still wondering why it works the way it does. Yeah, you can resize it, you can hide it, you can change the magnification levels, and it has animated icons. That's all well and good, but all the dock is really good for is *lauching* programs. It pretty well sucks for controlling those programs after they're launched. Want to close a running app from the dock? You have to click and hold the dock icon to pop up a menu, then select the menu option to close the app. Maybe it'll close, maybe not, in which case you have to mouse all the way up to the top of the screen, pull down the Apple menu, and do the Force Quit thing. I'm sure there may be keyboard shortcuts for these things, but the whole point of a graphical user interface is so people don't have to memorize keyboard shortcuts. And we won't even discuss using the dock to keep track of any open windows an app may have...

    The menu bar. I hate, loathe, and despise the way OS X always puts the menu bar at the top of the screen. You can have an app that runs in a 320x240 window in the bottom right corner of the screen, but if you want to access that program's menu bar, you have to mouse all the way up to the top of the screen. Change window focus without meaning to? The menu bar at the top changes, which means the menu bar you wanted to access when your mouse pointer finally arrives up there may not be the menu bar you needed to access. Keep the menu bars with the window, not as a separate entity.

    File permission strangeness. I have seen cases in OS X where I, as the only administrator of a machine, did not have permission to do things I needed to do, such as, but certainly not limited to: deleting folders, taking ownership of folders, and changing permissions on folders. Example: I run Mozilla nightly builds on my OS X box. After upgrading to a newer build, I was not able to delete the folder containing the old build through the finder. So I popped open a terminal window, did a cd to the directory containing the Mozilla folder, and did an rm -rf Mozilla/. Permission denied. I tried to do an su. Wrong password. (My account has admin privs anyway; I shouldn't need to do an su at all.) WTF is the root password on these OS X boxes, anyway? I tried to do a chown -R. Permission denied. I tried to do a chmod -R ugo+rwx. Permission denied. I do an ls -alF on the Mozilla directory. Turns out the owner of this directory is some obscure number (undoubtedly the UID of the user that did the build on another machine far, far away). So I've got this directory I can't delete. I've worked with UNIX variants for 12 years; this shouldn't be happening.

    You can't really customize the user interface. Just because it works for somebody at Apple doesn't mean it works for me. 'Nuff said.

    Touchpads and the general lack of a second mouse button. Okay, this really is more of a hardware rant than an OS X issue, but come on. There's a reason almost all modern mice have at least two mouse buttons; that's because a second mouse button improves the usability of the interface. Apparently they don't believe that at Apple, and thus I have to do a lot of clicking-and-holding to open up context menus. And whoever came up with those damn touchpads will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

    What I like:

    It's based on BSD, and the iBook is very small and light.

    IMHO, the cons outweigh the pros.

    1. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The menu bar. I hate, loathe, and despise the way OS X always puts the menu bar at the top of the screen."

      The menu bar is at the top of the screen for a reason, Fitts's Law which says that the time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target. Menu bar items are in essence inch-wide but mile-high targets, so you can zip your mouse to the top of the screen as fast as you like and you won't miss the target (the desired item on the menubar). In contrast, menubars attached to windows present far smaller targets. You are just very used to Windows-style menubars.

      "I tried to do an su. Wrong password. (My account has admin privs anyway; I shouldn't need to do an su at all.)"

      OS X has three privilege levels, not two: superuser (root), admin, and regular user. Admin privs are partway between user privs and full root privs; the idea is that you can run with some of the same privileges as root (i.e. privileges to install software for all users), without the problems of running as root full time. That's why you needed to do an su.

      The Mozilla folder should have had you UID, not someone else's. That OS X's problem. Obviously you forgot your root password. That is *your* problem.

    2. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by LunchingFriar · · Score: 1
      You are just very used to Windows-style menubars.

      Hmmm...seems like just about every modern user interface other than MacOS uses these so-called "Windows-style" menubars, including KDE and Gnome.

      The Mozilla folder should have had you UID, not someone else's. That OS X's problem. Obviously you forgot your root password. That is *your* problem.

      From the time I took the iBook out of the box until this day, I have never been given the opportunity to set a root password. How can I forget something I never had the opportunity to set? And how is this my problem?

      Just out of curiosity, have you actually ever used OS X? Or are you just one of the fanbois who don't have access to it, but cheer it on because it's BSD-based?

    3. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by stantron77 · · Score: 1

      The reason you don't know the root password is that the root account is not enabled. Apple ships their OS without a root account activated, which IMHO is a good thing for someone (most of their user population) who doesn't know what root is and shouldn't be running it anyway. I am unsure why you would be happier that your Admin account would be the same as running root since it's pretty widely accepted that is a bad idea to run with full priviledges all the time. Anyway back to your problem, use sudo to execute commands with root priviledges. It will prompt you for a password and you just use your normal Admin one. If for some reason you feel the need to have root enabled you can do it in netinfo.

      --
      "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Pla
    4. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by demon · · Score: 1

      Regarding your mention of not being able to do certain things with Admin privilege - I've had that happen, where even as root I couldn't delete files on an OS X box (removing the Trash contents, in that case). The file system was damaged, and Apple's utilities were too weak to fix it. The machine in question had to be booted with a DiskWarrior CD and have the filesystem repaired before the files could be removed. HFS+ is a lame filesystem, and Apple's poor fsck for it doesn't help matters. It'll be a happy day when Apple just steals Softupdates from FreeBSD, jams that into the UFS driver, and goes all-UFS for OS X (unfortunately, that means sacrificing Classic, so that's still a ways off).

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    5. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by veddermatic · · Score: 2

      the first account you created does have root privs. You, as you pointed out, cannot run the 'su' command under OS X by default. You CAN use the 'sudo' command. You then use your "normal" password, because your first acct. has admin privs, and allows you to run sudo commands as root.

      This information is avaliable on many, many, manmy websites, including Apple's.

      As for why lots of "modern" UIs use Windows style menubars: Windows uses them because they can't design a good GUI. KDE and the lot use them because they want to make it as easy as possible for Windows users to switch over.

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    6. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by Jeff+Binder · · Score: 1
      I tried to do an su. Wrong password. (My account has admin privs anyway; I shouldn't need to do an su at all.) WTF is the root password on these OS X boxes, anyway?

      Root is disabled by default. You can enable it and set the root password with the NetInfo Manager app. Or you could just use sudo.

    7. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 2

      "From the time I took the iBook out of the box until this day, I have never been given the opportunity to set a root password. How can I forget something I never had the opportunity to set?"

      Sorry. My bad. I had researched OS X enough to know about the three-tiered privilege system, but not about that little wrinkle. Still, it seemed that you got root and admin confused.

      (BTW, I'm looking to buy a Mac eventually. Right now, I've been doing a lot of window shopping.)

    8. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2

      The mac menubar does have faster access times, because of Fitts' Law. Check out this article by UI design guru bruce tognazzini. Basically, interface elements located on screen edges have faster access times with a mouse because you can't overshoot.

      Why do so many interfaces have the Windows-style menus? GNOME has them because that's what KDE did. KDE did them because that's what microsoft did. Microsoft did them because of their usual incompetance at designing UI's (M$ office adaptive menu's, multi-row tabs, need I say more) and because in they didn't want to get sued by Apple. Fat lot of good that did them, as Apple filed a lawsuit over the UI anyways.

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    9. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by luphus · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...seems like just about every modern user interface other than MacOS uses these so-called "Windows-style" menubars, including KDE and Gnome.

      I suppose that makes it the right way to do it, now doesn't it. It's just a matter of what you're used to - for a while, menu bars in every damn app window on a windows box annoyed the fuck out of me. Deal with it.

      From the time I took the iBook out of the box until this day, I have never been given the opportunity to set a root password. How can I forget something I never had the opportunity to set? And how is this my problem?

      Ah yes. Well, Apple doesn't want to make it easy for the average use to use the root account, because the average user will probably do something stupid with it and break things. They would rather that you use sudo instead anyway. Anywho, if you'd search on the topic on the web for all of two minutes, you would probably find that there are a few ways of accomplishing this. To name a couple, whip out your friendly NetInfo Manager and in the menu bar, choose Domain->Security->Authenticate, put in your password, and then do Domain->Security->Change Root Password. Or if it's easier, whip out a terminal and do sudo passwd root. Or just sudo su - if you don't want to bother. Try to find some help before complaining next time - you'll often find there is no need to bitch and might accidentally learn something.*

      nwp

      * the tone of this information would have been considerably different, had the parent's author not sounded whiney

    10. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by LunchingFriar · · Score: 1
      I suppose that makes it the right way to do it, now doesn't it. It's just a matter of what you're used to - for a while, menu bars in every damn app window on a windows box annoyed the fuck out of me. Deal with it.

      Oooo, lookie here! It's a Mac Troll coming out from under the bridge. Quick, where are the torches and acid? And I suppose you think that because Apple did it that way, it's correct? Or because this Fitts fellow says so? I don't think Fitts ever had to use a touchpad, or he might have scrapped his so-called "law".

      Ah yes. Well, Apple doesn't want to make it easy for the average use to use the root account, because the average user will probably do something stupid with it and break things.

      Oh, now I'm an average user! And a *whiny* average user, at that! Forget that I've got a B.S. in computer science and that I've been a full-time Linux and NT sysadmin for seven years. (That's seven years *after* graduation, not working helldesk or running boxes at home or any other creative ways you little prats lie on your resumes.) I'm average because I really didn't give enough of a damn to look up how to delete a pesky folder in OS X, because I was too busy getting shit done and generally enjoying myself on my Windoze and Linux boxen. Woe is me!

      You realize, of course, that in one fell response, you've summed up why the entire world hates Mac users. You should be on their next commercial or something.*

      * the tone of this response would have been considerably different, had luphus not sounded like a complete bastard.

    11. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by luphus · · Score: 1

      Oooo, lookie here! It's a Mac Troll coming out from under the bridge. Quick, where are the torches and acid? And I suppose you think that because Apple did it that way, it's correct? Or because this Fitts fellow says so? I don't think Fitts ever had to use a touchpad, or he might have scrapped his so-called "law".

      Hey, it makes sense to me - the Fitts fellow's reasoning is better than doing something because everyone else does it that way. Gotta give em credit for sticking with it. For the record, I assumed a mouse input, don't care for trackpads much myself, and wasn't aware that this was an issue in your case. Perhaps that would indeed change the research some, and I would be curious as to what was learned.

      Oh, now I'm an average user!

      If that was what I came off as saying, I apologize - that was not the intended meaning. What I mean to say is that *most* OS X users are average users - most Mac people I've met haven't done much in the land of unix and don't know about root accounts and why they are dangerous. Apple is trying to make it so they don't have to find out and can just get their work done.

      And a *whiny* average user, at that!

      Well, you do sound whiney, but I do acknowledge that I am indeed a bastard, if it improves matters.

      Forget that I've got a B.S. in computer science

      Before we all go waving the degree flag, I'd like to point out that I at least have known a number of people that made it out with degrees in CS and CprE that were fairly clueless. That said, I've got a BS in CprE. I myself may be fairly clueless. All I'm suggesting is that you could be willing to put a bit more time into figuring things out before bitching about them.

      Would I get noses thumbed at me for complaining about a linuxism or windowsism that I was unaware of for lack of experience on the platform? I would expect so.

      and that I've been a full-time Linux and NT sysadmin for seven years. (That's seven years *after* graduation, not working helldesk or running boxes at home or any other creative ways you little prats lie on your resumes.)

      Hey, there really is something to be said for that and I respect that. If you've been sysadminning successfully for that long you obviously do know how to find answers and get shit done.

      I'm average because I really didn't give enough of a damn to look up how to delete a pesky folder in OS X, because I was too busy getting shit done and generally enjoying myself on my Windoze and Linux boxen. Woe is me!

      Hey, I'm all for using whatever platform you prefer. If someone has been using Windows for most of their life and asked for advice on buying a new system, I recommend that they go with another Windows box unless they have a real reason to try something else. I've used a variety of versions of Windows and Linux myself. My g4 is running Debian about 50% of the time. If I had hardware worthy of it, I'd probably have Win2k installed somewhere too. I'm just suggesting that when approaching a different operating system, don't expect things to behave like others and spend some time figuring it out.

      cheers,
      nwp

    12. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm average because I really didn't give enough of a damn to look up how to delete a pesky folder in OS X, because I was too busy getting shit done and generally enjoying myself on my Windoze and Linux boxen. Woe is me!

      I thought you have been using OSX over the past seven months.

    13. Re:OS X still feels beta, to me. by alispguru · · Score: 2

      "I tried to do an su. Wrong password. (My account has admin privs anyway; I shouldn't need to do an su at all.)"

      OS X has three privilege levels, not two: superuser (root), admin, and regular user.


      Close, but not quite. The admin stuff in OS X is one of the places where the NeXT people mapped Un*x to Mac conventions just right. Having admin privilege is exactly equivalent to being on the sudo list. This means you run as a normal user until (and only until you need special powers, you take those powers when you need them, and you give them up as soon as you can.

      In short, on OS X you don't need a root user. Use sudo, not su.
      --

      To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  113. Re:How have I "Switched", running Linux X apps w/K by bcrowell · · Score: 2
    I switched from MacOS X to Linux, and one thing that really helped me was the thing you're referring to: the ability to run Unix and X-Windows software on MacOS X. It made the transition much smoother for me.

    I found it kind of a pain to run X Windows apps on MacOS X, and it's nice to have the much wider set of open-source apps available on Linux, rather than the smaller set that's been ported to MacOS X. At this point, I only use my mac to run a couple of old MacOS 9 apps that I still need.

  114. Re:How have I "Switched", running Linux X apps w/K by m0nkyman · · Score: 2

    Odd, Internet Explorer 5.2 is the newest mac version...

    --
    ~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
  115. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by dinivin · · Score: 2

    That is a size example of how most file formats today are bigger than what a floppy can hold.

    Hmmm... I know a lot of teachers who use their computer mostly for writing up lesson plans and tests in MS Word, and they can fit dozens of these files onto one floppy. That's all they need.

    Shall we compare the number of users who use Word day to day with the number of users who create mp3s, avis, mpegs, or other formats that (generally) won't fit on a floppy. I think you'll find that Word users are much more plentiful, and for their needs, floppies work great.



    Yet Salon is promoting this woman as the "common man" in the article which doesn't sit well with your point. Most users have dropped the floppy.
    Very few users that I know have dropped the floppy. The ones that have are generally the much more advanced computer users, not the average user.

    Dinivin

  116. When it will be free ... by dda · · Score: 1

    UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's "switch" campaign

    Most linux users use it because it's free (in both meanings of the term). Therefore, I'm not sure they are a good target for Apple.

  117. I switched for one application, then stayed by 47PHA60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I switched only because I needed a new video editing PC. After several years of building my own boxes with Windows NT and 2000 and 3rd party hardware, Adobe Premiere is still not easy to learn, nor is it very stable, nor is it very fast. And the 3rd party hardware makes me shudder with revulsion: buggy drivers and a lot of vendor denial.

    The cost for the PC hardware I wanted was about 2700.00 USD. Then I looked at my other PCs: one is very stable, one does not work with any version of Windows but runs for 100 days with Linux, another one was sort of flaky until I installed OpenBSD (this is why it's good to have many OS choices; if it's a hardware problem, it should die under ANY OS, like my Thinkpad with a bad motherboard used to do).

    When I looked at the Power Mac dual G4 1GHz, I saw the tradeoffs: slower bus, less MHz in the CPUs, and so on. But, I get 2 firewire ports digital video out and OSX all included. I also saw several movies in the past 2 years with a credit to FCP. The price was $200 over what I would pay for a tricked out PC.

    I went to the Apple store where they showed me how to download and edit footage right in the store. I have never seen a PC store with a setup like this.

    I was surprised at how fast the Mac replaced my Windows PC for everything I do: Office, e-mail, software development. The hardware is not the latest or sexiest, but it works better. The computer _feels_ faster, because I never have to stop working to appease some sudden need the OS has.

    I think that the world of cheap commodity hardware and all-compatible software is still a dream; believe it or not, Intel, Motorola, Sparc, they're ALL using proprietary technology that locks you into a vendor's plans, whims, and mistakes. Get used to it. When buying the Apple, I chose a different route: pay a premium for "commodity" hardware with a lot of added value. Dell and Gateway have gotten so big that they cannot afford to lose any money; maybe being the biggest company is not always the best thing to do.

    About me and technology: I work in a Windows NT/2000/Solaris 7-8-9 shop. By day I am a systems architect building Solaris, Windows, and OpenBSD systems for security and business automation. I program in python, perl, java, and C++.

  118. The Point is not YOU should switch.... by pelorus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I run Mac OS X. I'm a LAN Administrator and Network Designer. My job would be harder using Windows or Linux. I need access to the CLI and DOS is a joke. I need access to Office and Office v.X is the best version out there. I need X11. I need a good Java VM for some of our network adminstration tools. I need a portable with a long battery life. Pretty much a no brainer.



    My wife runs Mac OS X. She's a Project Manager for a International Medical Informatics project. She doesn't need the CLI but needs WebDAV, SMB, NFS and whatever else the project throws at her. Need to communicate with a hundred people all in different countries with different machines? You can't just send them Word files. I'm pretty amazed that a single platform can cope with both of our workloads.



    My good friend runs FreeBSD. He swears by it. He writes little networked apps. He's recently got himself an iBook for development because he figures he can do 90% of the hard development work on any of his machines and then by just adding a pretty little GUI in InterfaceBuilder, he can sell the little apps to Mac people as well. He's not aMac guy but he tells me how much he's spent on hardware upgrades in the last two years and I'm amazed. Sure, PC hardware is cheaper, but is it necessary to upgrade everything every month???



    I don't care what platform you use. Just leave me to use Mac OS X. You on Linux? Want to show me a cool app? Recompile and we're there.

  119. Misleading, unfounded claptrap by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 2

    What a terrible story! Regardless of what the actual situation is, and who is or is not switching, this guy spun an entire premise based on data that is worse than useless. After soaking up some anecdotal evidence about who is switching, he made just about every mistake possible in conducting a poll (preselected pool, lousy response rate, etc.), then draws conclusions based on a miniscule sample size! He got only 15 responses (quoting from the article):

    "The 15 responses were as follows:

    * Upgrading from OS 9 (5)
    * Switching from another operating system (10)

    Where things got interesting was the platform people were switching away from. Despite the implication of Apple's switch campaign, that users are coming from Windows, the majority of the defections were from Linux, or from a combination of Windows and Linux or another version of Unix:

    * Switching from Windows only (1)
    * Switching from Windows to OS X for personal use, but still using Windows at work (2)
    * Switching from dual-boot Windows/Linux, or separate machines for the two operating systems (2)
    * Switching from Linux (5)"

    And so, from the response of 5, count 'em, *5* Linux-only users, he concludes that Linux is more of a target than Windows users. If only two more Windows users had responded to his "poll", the conclusions would have been quite different. What a worthless article. It remindes me of the old story about the behavioral scientist who, after studying rats, said, "33% of white rats consistently prefer Swiss cheese to Cheddar, 33% prefer Cheddar to Swiss, and 33% have unknown preference, because my third rat ran away without tasting either one."

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
  120. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by mwjlewis · · Score: 1
    The problem with Standards and MS is that they have *almost* ALL of the Desktop OS market cornered. So you are exactly correct in saying that installing MS office on a Mac is just allowing MS to continue with THEIR standards. Unfortunately, the mass majority of the market just wants something that is intuitive, simple, easy to use and finally cheep. Mac's are not cheep, and Windows is the next closest mainstream thing.

    Experience - I am currently on a contract at a very large International Law firm. We are migrating from 95 to XP, and we have had a server that has been corrupting documents. The users NOW hate XP because they believe that the problem is the OS and not the server. Note: almost never do their computers lockup, and that WAS A HUGE problem before, but they have since forgotten that.

    My point. The users don't care to know anything about the computer that they are working on, but just want it to work. IF, something does not work, they blame it on the computer (whatever there impression of a computer is, to some of the users, the Hard drive is the case, and the computer is the monitor)

    PS: now you see my aggression towards attorneys!

    --
    www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
  121. wait a gosh darn minute by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

    the only reason u need to fool around w/ config files is to change things from their defaults. occasionally u need to do it because u selected the wrong options on install...but wait, windows doesn't let u do ANY of that. if u are unhappy, reinstall the software just like on windows and it will ask u all the same questions again. where is the config file part? i just set up a debian machine of netinst. it's not mandrake or redhate, so it doesn't have as much autodetection, but as long as i knew what hardware was actually IN the damn thing, i could easily install all the necessary stuff.

    QED

    --
    BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    1. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      i could easily install all the necessary stuff.

      easily for you, or easily for the average user?

    2. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK the only option you cannot change after install on Windows (2k) is ACPI. If you go and turn ACPI off (or on) in your BIOS after installing W2k, it will not boot and will have to be reinstalled if you are serious about changing the option.

      Also if you radically change your hardware you will need to reinstall. Not because of XP licensing type stuff, but the system is not designed to handle a radical change in architecture like taking the HD out of one box and popping it in a completely different box.

    3. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

      the avg user. the most complicated thing i did was specify the network driver. either ask the manufacturer, do a search online, or use some autodetection ala mandrake or redhat.

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    4. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would posit that Linux is the same way. Try popping your Linux harddrive in a different box and get it to boot.

    5. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by camken · · Score: 1

      i have to call bullshit on you there. i installed RH 7.3 on an AMD 450, with an award bios.

      i then put said hard drive into my HP intel 233, with a phoenix (pre award) bios. it booted the first time.

      however, linux in general, is an immature OS with lots of kinks to be worked out before it can truly be a contender on the desktop.

      BTW: does anyone know about the unix command line in OS X ? i have been considering buying a Mac, but i can't find any info on how easy it is to access the command line (eg: i don't want to reboot just to do some coding)

      --
      Moo.
    6. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by gig · · Score: 2

      Average user working with network drivers? You are about 10 years behind the curve, there. The average user wants to apply THEIR tools to THEIR work (e.g. Pro Tools to audio recording), not work in any way to make the computer work.

      You just don't understand the high level that Apple is working at. When I bought my last Mac (a PowerBook G4), I took it out of the box, pressed the power button (the battery was already 2/3 charged), answered a few questions such as what I wanted to name the machine and my account, and then I was at my desktop. I clicked the AirPort (Wi-Fi, 802.11) menu at the top right of the display (with the other system menus) and entered my wireless network's name and password and I was on the Internet. I put a CD in and iTunes started and ripped it to MP3 and spit it back out. I plugged in a camcorder and iMovie started and I imported and edited some DV. I plugged an audio/S-Video cable between the PowerBook and my TV, chose "Detect Displays" from the Displays system menu on the PowerBook (top right of the display, again), and the TV became an additional 800x600 desktop. I opened the System Preferences and clicked Software Update and it reported that there were some new updates for the included software, so I checked the ones I wanted and clicked install and it did that for me in the background while I worked on something else, and when it was done, I didn't have to reboot or even logout. I inserted a software CD, dragged a single icon from the CD to my Applications folder, and then ran the application and used it. This was a multitrack audio application, too (Ableton Live).

      This stuff is all EASY on the Mac. You can't ignore that and keep trying to sell people on building their own systems and scouring the Web for drivers and working hard to get to a point where they have the capabilities they can get all-inclusive on any new Mac.

    7. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by gig · · Score: 2

      > it booted the first time.

      Yay! We are talking here about putting CD's into computers and ripping MP3's the first time, or plugging camcorders into computers and making movies the first time. Just booting is not "just working".

      > BTW: does anyone know about the unix command line in OS X ? i have been considering
      > buying a Mac, but i can't find any info on how easy it is to access the command line
      > (eg: i don't want to reboot just to do some coding)

      Use the included GUI app found at /Applications/Utilities/Terminal to access the command line. From there, you can approach it in the same way you would work with any BSD UNIX. You can change the default shell, do whatever you want. You can even change the transparency of the terminal window so you can see stuff that's behind it.

      Sometimes people say that there are two kinds of Mac users now: those with Terminal in their Dock and those without. Makes a great overall community. Artists make sure we get the best color-correction, musicians make sure we get the best audio, and coders make sure we get the best networking standards and interoperability. Steve Jobs makes sure that stuff works before they ship it.

      Enjoy.

    8. Re:wait a gosh darn minute by sh00z · · Score: 1
      does anyone know about the unix command line in OS X ? i have been considering buying a Mac, but i can't find any info on how easy it is to access the command line (eg: i don't want to reboot just to do some coding)
      It's disguised as an application called "Terminal." You simply double-click, wait a few seconds, and you're up.
  122. Family PC with the Power of Unix. by alistair · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Linux user of 4 years now, I bought a new iMac a few months ago and have to say I have been nothing but impressed. I have a beautifully configured Linux box at work, but the thought of going home to the same thing after a 9 to 10 hour day didn't fill me with joy, plus I was concerned that I would be forever recompiling KDE betas when my wife wanted to check her email, which wouldn't lead to a happy family life. Yet I refuse to have a dull Microsoft box in the house.

    The iMac has proved a superb compromise. Both my children are addicted to the various DK educational software the shop on Tottenham Court Road threw in. iPhoto is superb and the integration of Digital Cameras and Camcorders with the rest of the OS is seamless, my four year old can now take the camera and edit photos on the box without much help. And underneath it all is UNIX, it connects easily to my broadband connection, and all my IMAP, LDAP and SSH sessions to my corporate network work fine, making it the perfect machine to use for working from home (and it looks good too).

    So I wouldn't described myself as someone who has switched from Windows or Linux, rather Apple achieved a sale where nothing would have been bought in it's place. I am confident I am not alone in this market segment, one of my friends with children the same age has bought an iMac for exactly the same reasons, and I know of others considering it.

  123. Other OSX Switchers by figa · · Score: 2, Informative
    The only OSX switchers I know are the ones who have abandoned the Apple platform for Windows. My mom, a retired EE from Motorola, got tired of hassles with TurboTax on the Mac and was worried about using a 1.0 port for OSX. She figured she may as well learn Win2k if she's going to have to grapple with a new UI. She was a Mac user since the SE days.

    My wife, a graphic designer and longtime Mac user, also hates the UI. The finder doesn't feel right to her, and she forgets about the doc at the bottom. iMovie even hides the doc from you. She started using my Vaio laptop, and she's ready to dump her iMac.

    Everyone says the Mac "just works", but the iMac DV she has is cursed with the "sleep of death". It hangs at boot about one in every ten times, and it never comes back from sleep states.I just found the fix for it (after assuming it was the hardware controller going out over the last two years), and it's going to involve digging in the extensions and clearing the PRAM. This is no fun, and there's no diagnostic output. I'm just going to have to try a bunch of different combinations that Apple recommends and hope that something works.

    My four-year-old daughter cried the first time she saw the new OS and wanted to know what happened to her computer. She still doesn't entirely understand why her games don't work well in OSX, and why she has to reboot into System 9.

    I've been a longtime Mac user, and I did a lot of ThinkC and 68000 assembler programming in college. I stopped using Apple machines as my primary desktop when they killed the clones, but I kept maintaining my wife's system. I went out and bought OSX for her when they ported iMovie, mainly for iMovie2. I can't say I'm happy with the interface. I'm a WindowMaker user, so I know where it's coming from, but I constantly forget about the doc and lose my way in the administration app. Aqua looks pretty, but that doesn't make up for the quirky UI. A lot of my Linux-using friends show interest in it, but I can't recommend it to them, especially when Apple charges twice the price of a decent PC for half the computing power.

    My guess is that the guys O'Reilly dug up have more money than they know what to do with and really only use their machines to browse the web and fill their iPods. Most were late adopters (though he touts them as "alpha geeks"), which makes me suspicious of their commitment to the platform. My guess is that, a year or so from now the next bit Microsoft marketing campaign will convince them to switch back to the PC.

  124. Re:ROR by angelo · · Score: 1

    The mulitple workspaces hack under OS X is just that -- a hack. It just hides apps selectively. You can't have an IE window on two different desktops, because hiding is at an application level.

  125. "6" means "5.2" above =P by korpiq · · Score: 1

    I even checked the version before writing and still got it wrong. Wetware can be amazingly untrustworthy. Ditch me.

    --

    I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
  126. Please Intuit, please... by mccalli · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I would love to move over to a Mac, but software holds me back.

    • No UK Quicken. Essential for me - I run both my home accounts and my one-man business off it. I have data stretching back seven years.
    • No standards-compliant video conferencing. This one might change - I've heard rumours that it's being worked on.

    That's it. Whilst I can temporarily live without the video conferencing, I consider the lack of an accounts package on a home machine to be a truly serious ommission. I realise this doesn't affect the US, but in the UK it kills the thing dead as a home machine. Virtual PC won't do by the way - if I'm switching environments I'm switching environments and don't want to run half and half.

    Please Intuit. Please. You have an OS X-native Quicken, and you ave a UK Quicken for Windows. Surely it can't be beyond the wit of mankind to combine these products and produce a native UK Quicken?

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Please Intuit, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No standards-compliant video conferencing. This one might change - I've heard rumours that it's being worked on.

      You heard right. Expect it.
    2. Re:Please Intuit, please... by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      MYOB AccountEdge is a very popular Quicken replacement for OS X. UK-specific version, and I believe it can easily import all your old Quicken data as well.

  127. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  128. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by yerricde · · Score: 1

    And what program besides a text editor makes a 30k file?

    What program besides a text editor is useful for writing a sermon?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  129. Minor Upgrades. by Microsift · · Score: 1

    Jaguar may be a minor upgrade in name (0.1 increment), but in fact it is a huge upgrade. Compare changes from 10.1->10.2 to changes from Windows 98SE->Windows ME

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
    1. Re:Minor Upgrades. by aes12 · · Score: 0

      That's not a particularly flattering comparison. Microsoft did a couple of things right with WinXP, but WinME was a huge flop. I've never had so many problems with an OS; the registry was a horrid mess, and ended up corrupt at least once a week. I ended up reformating and going back to Win98SE. Hopefully, 10.2 isn't as poorly tested as ME was.

    2. Re:Minor Upgrades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep also in mind Apple is now following a proper Major.Minor.Revision scheme.

      This isn't version 1.2, it's version 2.0.

  130. Our switch story by chriseh · · Score: 1

    Funny, when I saw their campaign, I sent apple an email about our switch story. We had moved from a Sun machine running Solaris to an Apple G4 running YDL. There were a number of advantages for us (including a good rep with our Apple dealer). The letter is still here. No response from Apple yet.

    I also think that Tim O'Reilly is pretty crazy if he thinks that 15 people on a mailing list is statistically valid in any way. When he gets results like 1500, then we could start looking at the numbers.

    And to those folks that say that MacOS X 'just works' as a desktop machine... well, I'm sorry, I have to disagree. For *work* I much prefer Linux . I can actually load and render www pages without the 'click-and-wait' that my colleagues using MacOS X have to suffer, I can compile all the apps I need easily, and can configure the machine the way *I* really want to (plus no NetInfo Manager!).

  131. Why darwin? Free as in freedom it aint. by flegged · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I find it frustrating every time I hear Linux users (whom I usually expect to have a clue) drool over the sickening and ugly desktop that is OSX.

    But its Ok, because Darwin is free and Open Source, right? Right?

    Wrong.

    Apple are lying to you. Darwin is not free as in freedom. It is more restrictive than any other license, effectively asking you to accept that it covers running code, not just redistribution. Then there's the lack of privacy - any modifications have to be disclosed to a single, monopolistic party - Apple.

    See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html. The FSF boycotted Apple, remember. Apple are not the saviour of the desktop, they are not a wonderful company, and they are not embracing freedom. Apple are just as evil, monopolistic and money-hungry as the rest of them.

    --

    "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    1. Re:Why darwin? Free as in freedom it aint. by flegged · · Score: 2

      Ok, so the GNU philosphy is flamebait? Truth is flamebait? A dire warning on the consequences of OSX being successful is flamebait?

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
  132. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by hype7 · · Score: 1
    All of these folks on this article talk about going out and buying a Mac, then installing MS Office. It just feeds Microsoft even more.


    MS Office is, IMO, not evil(TM). If MS had stuck to Office, nobody would have a problem with them.

    Say what you will - they have the best Office suite of applications, and there are two platforms you can use it on - Windows, or OS X. I know which I choose.

    Think about that the next time somebody sends you a .doc file.

    -- james
  133. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by rogueroo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    about a minister who had been suckered in the "Switch" campaign

    My conclusion was different. She wasn't suckered . . . being suckered implies being deceived. She wasn't deceived at all. Her negative experiences have to do with unreasonable and unrealistic expectations about the switching experience. She can't print, she can't talk to her boyfriend, she misses her floppy disks, she doesn't understand CD-RW, she misses her left-clicking Windows mouse, her favorite font is gone, she can't figure out what keys perform what task.

    In other words, she expected her new Apple Macintosh iBook laptop to behave _exactly_ like her old Microsoft Windows desktop PC. And when it didn't, she blames someone else for "seducing" her. Suckered, or typical modern consumer? I think the conclusion is obvious.

  134. Online != PPP; Salon != Slate by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Last time I looked, neither SMTP nor POP gave a rat's ass what OS was running

    Unless you are paying $$$ per month for an online service that doesn't use standard PPP to connect. Examples of such services include America Online, NetZero, and possibly MSN. Of those three, only America Online has a client for the Macintosh platform.

    (but Salon, published by MSNBC, would NEVER do that, right?)

    You're thinking of Slate, not Salon.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Online != PPP; Salon != Slate by markbark · · Score: 2

      OK... I'll take the hit for the Slate/Salon confusion, but who said anything about PPP? She was complaining about not being able to send/receive e-mail from her boyfriend. In addition, if you're using an online service that doesn't use standard PPP to connect, I'd suggest getting another one. To use your statement put forth in the subject line... AOL != The internet (MSN != the internet either)

    2. Re:Online != PPP; Salon != Slate by markbark · · Score: 2

      ....... Macs come bundled with Earthlink software, but as they are reknowned spam kings (Spaminator ads notwithstanding) I really couldn't recommend them.

  135. Re:ROR by loosifer · · Score: 2
    CodeTek has a multiple workspace app for OS X that isn't a hack. It behaves exactly as you expect from the Unix world, and even works well with XDarwin (Xwindows on OS X). You can drag windows however you want, use the mouse to flip workspaces, autoselects the appropriate app when you switch workspaces, etc.

    It's not freeware (god forbid you have to pay for something), but I've been using it for a couple months and it's roughly a billion times better than the Space app.

    Now all we need is focus-follows-mouse...

  136. 68 Mustangs my rear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    64 1/2 to 66 only (unless GT500 or BOSS).

    67 & 68 are butt ass ugly

    1. Re:68 Mustangs my rear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about? You don't like the Mustang from Bullitt?

  137. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by toupsie · · Score: 2
    What program besides a text editor is useful for writing a sermon?

    If Astrid is having problems with floppies, God forbid you put her in front on nano or vi! AppleWorks is more of her speed.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  138. The original poster is correct, it's a 10% charge by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0

    to restock. I just bought an Apple Airport Card and they informed me if the box is open it's 10%.

    Personally it makes sense to me. I mean have you ever purchased anything from an online store (say fucking buy.com) and when you open your *new* product it's fucked up (ie someone else already crammed the shit back into the box)? Then you email their support and they simply ignore you (note: buy.com avoid at all costs).

    They ship the piece back and it is given a once over. In all likelihood it costs apple a lot more than 10% to do this. If you actually ran a company and sold products (hardware) you might be able to understand this. If not go back to asking if they would like fries with that.

  139. I use OS X and Linux by jocknerd · · Score: 1

    I bought my first Apple in April. I got an iBook G3 500mhz in a steal from a local Circuit City that was closing its store. I bumped the memory up to 384MB and I'm currently running OS X 10.1.5 on it. I have to admit that its a little sluggish. I installed Debian on it a while back because, well I just wanted to. Linux and Gnome seemed to be much more responsive, although the mouse trackpad was just a little to sensitive for my tastes. But I've switched back. Why? Convenience. I take my iBook to work and plug it in to the network. When I get home and open it from sleep mode, it immediately recognizes my wireless. In linux, I had to always shutdown networking and restart it.

    Why would I not switch to OS X full-time? Its the hardware. The G4 just can't keep up with Intel and AMD. I've noticed on the Mac forums that most longtime Mac users don't have a problem with the performance, but those of us who have come from the PC side feel the Mac is very slow.

    The thing I'm interested in finding out is whether Jaguar (10.2) will improve the performance of my iBook. If it does, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I'll stay on 10.1.5.

  140. From a MacOS 9 user... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    You overgeneralize. For one thing, there are few people who learned to compute on MacOS 9: it just hasn' t been around for that long. I don't even know any of these "MacOS 9 users" that you speak of.

    I, for one, learned on System 7. I had no problem learning DOS, Win 3.1, and the 9x/ME versions of Windows (all the same up to XP, which I haven't learned yet because I haven't had to work with it before.) And although I'm a nerd, my sister isn't, and she also learned Windows with no difficulty, although I doubt she could do anything low-level.

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  141. Apple should not go after the finicky Linux user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. If ./ is any indication of the way Linux users think going after them would be a waste of time. They are too caught up in the open source movement. They have more to complain about if you consider that both hardware and software(partially) is proprietary.

    Let linux users pitch there agenda and let Apple sell computers that just work.

  142. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Fizzol · · Score: 1

    >Did you even read the complete article? Did she ever mention wanting to store MP3s on floppy?

    >That is a size example of how most file formats today are bigger than what a floppy can hold.

    38 pages, single space, Word 2K.doc file (written with cxoffice, thanks for asking) = 145k

    You can fit a heck of a lot of text files on a floppy, even with Word. Personaly, I think she makes some good points, and it's a little sad to see geeks ripping her up based on her religion of all things.

  143. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by yerricde · · Score: 1

    AppleWorks is more of her speed.

    By the tone of your previous comment, you seem to imply that only a text editor can create files under 1.4 MB and that a modern office suite such as AppleWorks will bloat a 30 KB sermon into a 2 MB file.

    Not being able to fit a sermon onto a floppy? Please. I don't think even Microsoft Word could bloat a sermon into more than 1.4 MB.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  144. oreility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really think that there aim is really as steve jobs puts it the "windows fortress". Remember steve jobs has never forgotten how bill gates screwed him in the past.

  145. Just as in nature... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    Ever see Wild Kingdom where the two strong male dung beetles, or rams, or sloths, or oranguatans or whatever get into a fight over the female? After they punch the dookie out of each other for a couple of hours they are way too bruised and beaten to mount the female. Then, after all that effort and exertion, some wimply little genetic reject walks right up to the female and POW!

    Kinda reminds me of the Linux/MS fight. So much effort and exertion between these two, and here comes Apple and POW!

    Kinda makes you wonder about that weak little genetic reject...Maybe he's just *SMARTER*?

    Vincit qui se vincit.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  146. Re:The two faces of Mac OS X by tz · · Score: 1

    The first point is that there is a very nice X server called Oroborous - the only feature missing is cut-paste between X and Mac apps, but that should come soon. I run a number of X apps including AbiWord under OS X.

    But, yes, I have Word and Excel installed. And Gnumeric. And Yellow Dog Linux, but I boot into that less and less.

    Between the good look-and-feel, the crashproofing, and the regular apps, my Mac G4 and iBook are my "appliance" computers.

    Windows always gets in your way, and it often crashes (the stability is inversely proportional to the usefulness - more hardware and more add on software and something will conflict). But things like stealing focus and locking it - if it is going to take 2 minutes to come up I can shoot off an email, but no... Vmware (or Virtual PC) is great in this regard.

    Mac OS X just works. If I want to pull tracks off a CD, it is a no-brainer. I don't have any difficulty doing it under Linux, but it is easy to the point of almost no interaction on the mac for many things. Including iPhoto when I want to print.

    But if I want to tinker, I just open a terminal window and I have something very close to Linux. A few hardware hacks and tweaks are missing at the margin (Apple needs to spend a little while with Darwin - sometimes I need to change my MAC address or generate strange packets when I am testing - the Sysadmins love linux point was right on, and I have several Linux boxen including two Zauri).

    So there are a few warts on the "linux" face of Mac OS X, but they are rare and the rest work exactly like Linux. And the Macintosh/apple face lets me get a lot more done without any tweaking. It is to the point I use fetchmail procmail spamassassin and mutt for reading and processing my mail but use the mail app to send from URLs.

    The hardware might be proprietary (maybe less so, terrasoft makes boxes that run Mac OS X), but it is very cool. The LCD screens are very easy on the eyes, and try pricing large ones for the PC. And it does run Linux.

    Linux and BSD were always rivals, and Apple has put it in one very nice package. With an iBook or PowerBook, you get most of the benefits of a unix OS with almost none of the tweaking.

  147. OSX is a better desktop linux than linux by xtal · · Score: 2

    I switched. I run a powerbook G4 as my primary machine, although I work with Sun hardware, Windows 2000 boxes and Linux boxes. My gaming machine is going to be x86 for the forseeable future.

    On the desktop, I don't have time to fiddle with things anymore. I like being able to snap in my digital camera and download it's contents in 5 seconds, without a kernel recompile. All of the apps and command line programs I got used to on linux have for the most part been ported - ah, the power of open source. OpenGL works flawlessly, and it comes with a nice set of developer tools and great developer support. Sockets even work right! It is bsd, after all :).

    That said, I still use my linux box under the desk all the time as a server and for more industrial programming jobs. I will say the main reason for that is I haven't been able to justify getting a powermac yet - the new dual machines are very attractive, and if EDA tools became available they would make a more attractive platform for some things than Sun even.

    As far as cost goes, the hardware isn't that bad relative to the time and productivity increase. The 10.2 upgrade, for what it offers, is a pittance, and most people in the target market have no problem justifying the expense. Propietary hardware is no big deal either. I use the computer to get work done! If (computer.doingJob()) { happy++; }

    Say it with me : Computers are a tool. Tools make work easier. This is a new, novel viewpoint for myself, coinciding with using the mac for awhile. Beware! hehe.

    There was a time in my life where I had time and inclination to fight with everything, but I don't have that luxury now. OS X arrived just in time.

    My $0.02, you think powermacs are expensive, try it in fake money (www.apple.ca).

    --
    ..don't panic
  148. OS X great migration platform for MS Windows users by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2
    I use and rather like OS X daily. I'd still prefer KDE, but the Mac OS give me a chance to offload some maintenance problems like keeping track of printers or dealing with data in legacy formats e.g. MS-Word.

    The perfect target audience for Macintosh is MS-Windows users, though it's not too bad for development. Most non-tech types are only interested in web, e-mail, word processing and maybe even a spreadsheet or two. The uptime and battery life are additional bonuses. Some people I know try to choose their notebooks based on battery life.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  149. some things "just work", others don't by g4dget · · Score: 2
    Mac OS X has its rough spots, too. For example, there are no devices for multimedia I/O (you have to use some really messy Carbon APIs). OS X natively supports a much more narrow range of GUI toolkits. OS X's display system is rather slow compared to X11, and X11, while usable, is no speed daemon on it either. OS X has far fewer drivers and kernel extensions than Linux. OS X doesn't even have a journalling file system. And, perhaps most importantly, a lot of free software has not been ported to it. Software installation and upgrading is also much more painful on OS X than on Debian Linux.

    Linux core usage is in Internet servers, compute servers, engineering and scientific applications, embedded systems, and systems research. OS X just isn't quite a replacement for those--not quite as functional, not quite as efficient, not quite as cost effective. And OS X's greatest assets--its style, its ease of use for inexperienced users, don't matter as much in those applications.

    Where OS X may appeal to Linux users is as a second machine, to replace that Windows machine they use for MS Word. But the sensible main target for OS X advertising is still Windows users.

    1. Re:some things "just work", others don't by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      >Where OS X may appeal to Linux users is as a second machine, to replace that Windows machine they use for MS Word.

      eeeeep . . .

      Cheapest eMac $1,100
      Crossover Office $55

  150. Is this valid? by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 2

    " O'Reilly also makes an interesting point that UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's 'switch' campaign."

    O'Reilly also notes that the poll is not accurate due to the nature of the sample group. Proposing Apple target *nix users instead of Windows users is ridiculous on the basis of this admittedly unreliable data (skewed towards *nix users).

    Surely Apple are the people to ask about this, especially as they ask people to write in if they make the switch. And since there has been no significant shift in advertising, it would seem that those switching from Windows is greater than the proportion switching from *nix.

  151. Re: Yep, it's age! by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Seriously, I really do believe that the age of the user is about the only relatively "constant" factor when it comes to willingness to adapt/change with a new OS/software.

    The idea that "Mac users are inflexible." is just as silly as saying "Linux users are inflexible." or "Windows users are inflexible." In any of these cases, some are and some aren't.

    Having done nearly 10 years of PC support now - I can assure you that the older PC users, almost without exception, have been the ones most afraid of changes. They come from a world before the personal computer. The devices they used to get tasks done rarely changed much. (EG. They might have gone from a manual to an electric typewriter over the years, but they still worked almost the same way. The changes were very incremental and rather logical, such as the evolution of correction tape and finally correction fluid to fix typing errors.)

    Then the computer came along, and threw them a BIG learning curve. Just when they struggled through that and mastered using their mouse, computer keyboard with function keys and all, and a few popular applications - people want to go and change the entire look and feel of everything! Younger folks grew up with the idea that computers are sort of "empty slates, waiting to get painted with whatever strikes the developer's fancy". Interface changes are treated like interior decorating... You do it once in a while just for the sake of freshening up the look of things. Believe me, the older users don't share that belief!

  152. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by jgalun · · Score: 1

    Salon is not published by MSNBC, Salon is an independent magazine that has been extremely critical of Microsoft and very supportive of Open Source Software.

  153. One word: Bummer... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2
    Finally, there were some capabilities that just don't exist on the Mac right now. I like using GAIM [sourceforge.net] for instant messaging because I can create aliases for my friends and don't have to remember screen names. I couldn't find a program for Mac that let me alias screennames. You may think it's silly, but because I use IM for work it's important for me to have a person's name handy.

    No, what's silly is that you didn't find Fire, which is a multi-protocol chat client that lets you (big drum roll) enter aliases for gobbledygook screen names on IRC. I have never been a big IRC fan, but according to Epicware, Fire supports IRC just fine, and has the aliasing feature you wanted.

    Moral of the story really is to ask experienced Mac users before you assume something "can't" be done with the mac and do something drastic like sell it/throw it out the window. A good start is the forum at MacAddict.com. If that particular site doesn't turn you on, you can google for literally thousands of Macintosh discussion bulletin boards. Maybe your friend will sell the Mac back to you?
    --
    Who did what now?
  154. Re:You bought it and then a few days later, sold i by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 1

    Fry's Electronics doesn't charge a restocking fee. I returned my PowerBook last year because it was bending at the corners. They refunded my money and I was on my way.

  155. It's the apps. by PRR · · Score: 1

    As much as I like Linux/KDE, I find myself too frequently having to reboot into Windows because of some commercial app that there's no Linux equivalent for as yet.

    The biggest problem I would suppose for app developers (aside from Linux market share) is that there's no one standard API for Linux desktop apps because of all the competing distros. At least with Win and Mac the app developers have a clearer API to work with.

    If I could get MacOSX for cheap x86 hardware, I'd switch in a second!

    1. Re:It's the apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with Win and Mac the app developers have a clearer API to work with.

      I won't start an argument about the huge range of API's available, but GNUStep goes a long way towards that goal, and it's very close to Apple API.

  156. oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't consider the hours I've spent screwing around with config files to be a waste. I consider it "getting to know my software". Once upon a time, people expected to put some time into that sort of thing before using ANY piece of software. Now people are too lazy, I guess.

    No, people are now too smart to waste their time dicking around in pointlessly different config file formats, instead of using the software to get something done. If it makes you feel clever, that's great, but don't mistake memorization of worthless arcana for some moral superiority on your part.

  157. Re:Switch? Nope RUN DARWIN the OS is OPEN SOURCE by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 2

    *ahem*

    They themselves state that RC5 is a poor overall CPU performance benchmark

    "Many other CPUs do not have built-in hardware rotate instructions and must emulate the operation by (at the very least) two shifts and a logical OR. This handicap is why many non-32bit-Intel [1] and non-PowerPC computers run RC5 slower than one might expect based on real-world benchmarks. It is also the main reason why the RC5 client is a poor benchmark to use in determining the speed or performance of a particular CPU."

    It also helps the G4 quite a bit that they have an Altivec crunching core for RC5, whilst there isn't an SSE cruncher for those of us living in x86 world :)

  158. Re: proprietary by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Well actually, I was referring to the Apple hardware itself - more than anything else.

    Sure, they have USB now - so that opens up a few more expansion options than before. Still, you have to always use the "Apple approved" hardware, which is quite a limited selection compared to the options available for a PC.

    For just one example, look at all the answering machine/voice mailbox type cards for a PC. Now, tell me how many of them you see for a Mac platform? How about TV/radio add-on boards? How about industrial control boards?

  159. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by frankie · · Score: 2
    she's using Mac OS 9 for some reason

    No, she's using OS X, but also running at least one Classic-mode application: "Are you sure it says 'error -7531'?" "Yes, I'm sure." "Macs don't do that." "Mine's doing it."

    I emailed an offer of free tech support to her about an hour ago. Wonder if she'll reply.
  160. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative
    Quel Suprise

    It's "Quelle surprise", because "surprise" is female: it is "une surprise" and not "un surprise".
    Not to bash you, just the friendly advice of your local frenchie. I get bashed for my english all the time here on slashdot.

  161. A switch? by Liedra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't so much "switch" as fall into OS X's loving embrace.

    Having seen the Titanium PowerBook G4s on display in the Apple shops, that drool-worthy stop outside the display window became a regular pausing point on my way home from Uni. The student discount price made it even more attractive, so after a while of saving up the sweet silvery sexiness that is a TiBook was mine.

    A Linux user of 4 years, I used to boot into Windows to play games like Baldur's Gate II, knowing that I would be able to combine the excellence and stability that I'd come to take for granted with Linux with the ease of use and hardware integration that Windows offered, but with a much sexier look and feel, and no hideous Start bar, I was hooked instantly.

    I tried for a while running rootless X in order to have my favourite Linux apps (XChat for one - available through the rather excellent 'fink'), but soon gave that up because even with the "Aqua-esque" themes, GTK and the WMs I was using just didn't quite make the aesthetic grade. I've since found an XChat-alike (Snak) and either ports of or apps that are similar to the ones I used to use under Linux. Sure, you have to pay for some of them, but I found that I didn't have a problem with this (I'm not really in the FS philosophy camp, preferring the BSD license anyway) and figured that if the programs I used regularly under Linux were shareware I'd probably pay for them too ;-) (It's not like they're much, I think the most I've for shareware far has been US$20).
    There are, of course, plenty of excellent free (and Free, for those who care) apps available for OS X.

    However, the best point of OS X is all the excellent bundled software that comes with it. iTunes is simply divine, iPhoto is ... man, that program *rocks*. I'd "switch" to OS X from Linux just for that. The inbuilt PDF stuff is also very cool, and the fact that I can run Photoshop and the (surprisingly excellent) MS Office brings OS X a suite of much more stable apps than are available under Linux.

    Don't get me started on the *hardware*. The networking is as simple as a very simple thing, wander between WLAN and traditional cables and OS X doesn't miss a beat. Not to mention that the Airport cards are seriously kickarse. Great range (due to the aerial being lined up the screen), and fantastic integration with the OS. Under Linux I'd be fiddling around with ifconfig and routing tables and such - not so under OS X.
    Turn on Apache with a checkbox, ready to go. FTP? No problem, another checkbox. SSH? Certainly! Check that box too! I hear 10.2 has a seriously nice firewall configuration tool coming with it, I'm looking forward to *that*.
    The display is something that has to be seen to be believed. Never have I seen such luscious crisp images on a laptop LCD. And the machine is *quiet*. Unless you're doing something graphics-intensive or spinning up the seriously kickarse combo drive (CDRW/CDROM/DVD), it's virtually silent. A fan kicks in when there's some excitement happening, but in my experience it's only when I've been playing games/watching DVDs or using the combo drive a lot.
    And yes, you *can* use a 3-button mouse.

    So where does that leave my trusty desktop Linux box? Acting as a local mail server and backup machine ;-) I didn't think it would ever come to that, but I've taken the sweet delicious Apple bait, hook, line, and sinker.

  162. Re:OS war troll, yes? by ianscot · · Score: 2
    This troll probably dates to 1993 and the OS wars, and only just got posted because the Notes gateway was backed up?

    Ever taken a UI course? Multiple choice question:

    User Interface design emphasizes:

    1. A great variety and diversity of approaches to the same basic task, because that will encourage users to experiment and remain mentally agile. (It will also prevent them from ever graduating away from the react-to-the-latest-change-we-forced-on-them model of user behavior, so we can sell Word when we revamp it again.)
    2. Common interface elements and approaches that will allow the user to be creative and productive -- mentally agile -- about their work rather than the tools they're coping with.

    I used to support a 20-person Mac office in my spare time while running a minor publishing operation. When the Windows folks would move in, they invariably had learned quite detailed, rigid procedures for how to do every little thing, and it was really hard to encourage them away from their patterned behaviors. They'd learned to cope with things in one particular way, the first one they'd managed to make work, and every change was scary trauma to them. In one case a woman had screwed up every extension on her box -- renaming extensions based on the project -- but she knew to open everything from inside her apps, and she wouldn't, couldn't, change. Moving to the Mac OS made her files openable either way -- it wasn't reliant on extensions for file types -- but she never did figure that out. Just kept plodding right along.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  163. quick OSX Jaguar question by dinodriver · · Score: 1

    So let's say one is running OSX 1.5 that they didn't actually ...uh...buy. If this certain someone buys the upgrade, are they going to be able to install it or does one have to be a registered owner of the 1.5?

    1. Re:quick OSX Jaguar question by Etcetera · · Score: 2


      Apple, unlike MS, does not use a registration-key system or any other type of copy protection on their OS.

      I think buying Jaguar in the store will atone for your current sin :)

  164. Re:DivX on OSX by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

    I just checked their page. The latest version fixes this bug, so you can run at Millions of Colors if you want to. I'm not sure what kind of impact this will have on speed (positive? negative? none?) but I at least appreciate the opportunity to run at whatever settings I want.

  165. Re: proprietary by heh2k · · Score: 1
    Well actually, I was referring to the Apple hardware itself - more than anything else.

    and pc's aren't? how about nvidia? do you have the verilog or whatever source for you pc mobo's chipset?

  166. What an idiotic notion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on. Use that brain for something besides earplugs.

    People who can only rarely be bothered to contribute 5-50 bucks to keep open source companies or publications going are the best target niche?

    What utter rubbish.

  167. Re: proprietary by LMariachi · · Score: 1
    you have to always use the "Apple approved" hardware,

    No you don't. The only thing keeping all those answering machine/TV/industrial control cards incompatible with Macs is their manufacturer's failure to write Mac drivers. But since you're "more than the 'average user'" you must already know that.

  168. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by toupsie · · Score: 2
    By the tone of your previous comment, you seem to imply that only a text editor can create files under 1.4 MB and that a modern office suite such as AppleWorks will bloat a 30 KB sermon into a 2 MB file. Not being able to fit a sermon onto a floppy? Please. I don't think even Microsoft Word could bloat a sermon into more than 1.4 MB

    I will type this slowly so you can get my point, "The Floppy is dead" and its continued promotion is a disservice to the public. It is not a cost effecient storage medium, takes up a ridculous amount of space for its storage ability and environmentally unsound. A 20 cent 700mb CD is far more efficient than a 5 cent 1.5mb Floppy. The only group that still believes in this tech are the floppy manufacturers and their marketing departments.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  169. Linux users have power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the linux users may only make up 1% or less of the market, but they tend to be sys admins network admins, and others who have well respected opinions. For them to get the average user to linux is impossible, but if they get into mac osX, and they endorse it. That could make great waves.

  170. OSX upgrade costs by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    Alright, let me set a record straight here, because it seems like with the announcement of the Jaguar pricing, Apple has suddenly become a money grubbing leech. I have been with Apple since system 7 and every time a release has come out that has moved the first decimal place (ie 7 - 7.5, 7.5-8.0, 8.0-8.1) apple has always charged full price for the new system, the only exception being 9.1-9.2 So the full price charge from 10.1 to 10.2 is completely acceptable and consistant with theri business practices. Now let me tell you about getting it cheaper.

    1) Are you a teacher or a student or in any way affiliated with a school (do you get a paycheck froma school?) If so, you get Jaguar for the educator price ($79?)

    2) Are you an ADC member? Check with your discount benifits, you may be able to get a discount.

    3) Can you stand to wait about 2 months? If so, wait till the price drops in the mail order places.

    And when you consider that that price includes 2 OSes (they are still shipping OS 9 with it right?) and the developer kit, you get a nice deal for $120

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    1. Re:OSX upgrade costs by softsign · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're an ADC member, you'll get Jaguar (and every other system software release) free.

      ADC Student membership costs $100/year. If you're a student, it makes more sense to get ADC membership than to buy Jaguar.

    2. Re:OSX upgrade costs by sporty · · Score: 2

      Further proving the point, it's about hardware and making it look more attractive. That's why the PC 2 gigahertz is so "great". it's fast enough to run good software. If the hardware was shitty (win 3.11), or the software non-existant, who would stay with the PC?

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    3. Re:OSX upgrade costs by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

      One minor correction. 10.2 won't be shipping with 9.22 in the box. They rightly assumed that all Mac users have it already. It still comes preinstalled on new Macs, though it's no longer the default startup OS.

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
    4. Re:OSX upgrade costs by gig · · Score: 2

      Also, if you are a Mac OS 8.6 user who buys a 10.2 box and so doesn't have Mac OS 9, there is a coupon in the 10.2 box you can use to get a Mac OS 9.2.2 CD for $19.95 shipping and handling.

  171. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by toupsie · · Score: 2
    You can fit a heck of a lot of text files on a floppy, even with Word. Personaly, I think she makes some good points, and it's a little sad to see geeks ripping her up based on her religion of all things.

    Fine. I take back all my statements. Astrid the Priestess is a freakin' rocket scientist because she makes the valid point that the floppy is a far more efficient and durable storage medium than the CD-RW. How foolish could I be?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  172. Some of this has always been true by ianscot · · Score: 2
    However, have you seen the simplicity of macosx? Every app is a directory. No gtk compatability problems(for those who remember). Copy the app anywhere. click, go.
    ...
    ...why cant i just install the freaking app where I want it too, and delete it by trashing it. rpm --erase??? Who would think of that?

    This has been true as far back as I can remember in Mac OS: back to 1986 or so. Apps may be dependent on system extensions, so moving them from one box to another might not fly, but you've always been able to move 'em around on the machine, and to delete them with a simple trashing.

    The linking model is simple. The loading model is simple. applescript scripts most apps and is way easier to use than COM or bonobo.

    Applescript has been easy and powerful for a long time. That's one reason publishing houses love the Mac OS; Applescripting stuff in Photoshop makes their lives easier in a hundred ways. Similar things could be said about the various linking approaches in Mac OS over the years -- they were thought out, solid designs.

    The sad part is, most of what macosx has done could and still can be done on linux.

    I agree totally -- but it's easy to undersell the experience and commitment of a company like Apple when it comes to User Interface. Apple's invested in getting it right. The contrast between Windows and Mac has always come down to that for me. You take pleasure from using a Mac box, and you don't from dealing with Windows. I'm not sure Linux is going to catch up any time soon. Partly the development model that goes with Linux is decentralized to the point where any coherent process for UI design is, if anything, deprecated. (Mac users like their interface, but it's only because they're "rigid," and so on.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Some of this has always been true by gnugnugnu · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem with usability in open source is most developers dont know enough about usability.

      some developers know nothing about usability. these are the developers that design a whole new and different user interface just for its the sake of it.

      some developers do know a little about usability but not much and they at least have the sense to play it safe and make their applications reasonabley similar to the existing applications. At least this way they end up making the same old mistake that people are used to rather than making whole new bunch of horribly mistakes that even people who have used commputers before can barely figure out.

      The next stage which is beginning to happen at the core level of KDE and Gnome (but not with the individual applications just as that there are people working on usability and the developers are listing to them. Studies are being done, the existing approaches are looked at and rather than just simpley copying them designers are figuring out what is good about them and mostly importantly why it is good. When you understand why things are done a certain way you can at least make well balanced trade offs or optimise for certain use cases. When you understand why things in computer intefaces are done a certain way and why people want to do things that way you can really start to improve things and dare I say innovate.

      It is getting much better and I expect it will continue to do so especially with the recent release of the Gnome HIG (Human Inteface Guide) v1.0
      http://usability.gnome.org/hig/1.0/announcem ent.ht ml

  173. Dissatisfied PC owners by limako · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was in Target the other day. While the wife was looking for lightbulbs or something I checked out the software. I couldn't help overhearing two teen-aged boys who were also looking at the software, while they weren't kicking and pushing each other. One boy said, "We're getting a new computer -- we're getting a Mac." Often when I've heard teenagers say things like that, they will spit it with venom, but this boy didn't. The other kid said, "Yeah? How come?" and the first boy replied, "Because our PC SUCKS!" I think that if the economy picks up just a bit, Apple could have a real hit on their hands -- I wonder if there isn't a substantial number of people who bought a PC, discovered that it SUCKED and have decided that, if they ever buy another computer there's no way in hell that they'll buy a PC again.

  174. Re: LOL - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never pay for something that "must" be included in the operating system. Apple has a long way to go to get a real Unix system on the desktop and not just a system for clowns...

  175. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are stpuid, and must have WAY to much time on you hands. I thank god that I can come home from an office of Linux servers and desktops and use my system that just works.

  176. Re: the Typical Mac User - Self Absorbed Person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it absurd that you compare an Apple computer to a BMW. Maybe a Honda, but a BMW? Most people that log on to / have more experience with computers than your average Mac user (or Windows user for that matter).

    Over priced hardware that is rather slow, and an operating system that is rather primitive doesn't equal BMW status. Do you even own a BMW?

  177. switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I took a fucking switch to that POS OS people around here call. Linux. The mofo: does security for shit, has to be wanked on, wont can't doesn't seem to enjoy the ode to double click that is my dick up it's mother fucking ass when ever this POS want's to mount a floppy. I took a big ass switch to it and told it: you mother fucker are fired! then found the godess that is BSD oh let me tell you encripting my entire hard drive and my connection to this POS linux box, and then to my other godess: the windows box, runing a quake game is alright but when I want to get something real done and get jacked up 'n good to go is the fucking shit. You fagy ass rump mother fucking rangers won't see the shit till your homosexual parter dumps it in your' face.

  178. Strange Parody by Null_Packet · · Score: 2

    http://homepage.mac.com/hackswitch

    It looks like the production was cheesy, but funny (especially the clips at the end)

  179. Frivilous Floppy FUD by 4iedBandit · · Score: 1
    Very few users that I know have dropped the floppy. The ones that have are generally the much more advanced computer users, not the average user.

    Umm, I hate to burst your bubble but every mac user for quite a while now has dropped the floppy. My mom bought a USB floppy with her (now 5 year old and still running) iMac because she thought she would need it. I think it's still shrinkwrapped in the box.

    Oh wait a second, you mean all Mac users are advanced computer users? Why thank you!

    =P

    --
    "The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
  180. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, its called a vertically integrated monopoly.

    good thing its the beloved apple and not microsoft though, people dont mind when "good, wholesome" companies like apple break the law

    they sell the hardware, the OS, and periphereals.

    the non Apple hardware mfg's are getting better now.

    but what about the whole clone debacle in the past.

  181. Re: proprietary by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    No, it's recomended you use Apple aproved hardware, however it is not nessesary. Believe me, I have a USB card in my old 5400 that has no Apple drivers, I just use the deneric UDB drivers. I have a mouse that has no Apple aproved stickers, but with a nice little program called USB overdrive, it works fine. I have an HD made by western digital. NO MAC DRIVERs (since when were drivers nessesary for HDs? I don't know) Botted it up, the computer said the drive was unformated, formatted and it runs just fine. ANd this was ll on a 5400, the new ones are even more open.

    As for the cards, it's not Apple's responsibility to write those drivers, just like it isn't M$s to write them. So if you want a card for your mac, write to the manufacturer and demand your drivers. Or write some yourself.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  182. I'll take this to a journal so it's no longer OT by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I'll move this off-topic discussion to my journal.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  183. It's Darwin in action by kunderdog · · Score: 1

    So let those linux users whose lack of foresight, commitment to true openess, and apparently overstocked bank accounts to pay for all of this OSX "switching" business go ahead and buy, buy, buy. My linux PC is still faster and cheaper...and when it's not anymore, I can just spend the $150 on a faster chip and make it so.

  184. Re:I'll take this to a journal so it's no longer O by toupsie · · Score: 2

    Why bother? I concede. The Floppy is the ultimate storage device. Death to the CD-RW, your efficiency is suspect!

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  185. What's not to like about MacOS X by Sloppy · · Score: 2
    On the other side, what's not to like? THE PRICE!
    The $ price of Macs isn't really all that high. What's a few hundred dollars in the big scheme of things, for a machine that will last several years? We're really talking about less than a dollar a day. Almost everything else in life, is more expensive than a Mac. Swithing from being a x86Linux users to being a Mac user costs less than:
    • drinking two cans of Coca Cola or Pepsi every day
    • driving 20 miles per day
    • going to the movies (not counting the $1 second-run places) once per week
    People who complain about Mac cost, are short-sighted.

    But there is something to not like.

    I admit that part of the reason I switched from Amiga to Linux, is that Linux worked ok. Not great, but Good Enough most of the time. But Linux has one other advantage: I feel safe from corporate madness here.

    Linux will never have built-in DRM. Linux will never be killed or perverted by its creators for marketing reasons. Irving Gould will never criminally mismanage something I care about and depend on, Bill Gates will never sell me out to Hollywood, and Steve Jobs will never be able to make me eat something I don't want. With Free Software, the user gets the final say in what they run, and never has to depend on anyone else. Of course, you do a lot better if you do partake of others' efforts, but you get to pick who the others are, and you always have the last say and the ultimate veto. Freedom and personal responsibility: what a match!

    I don't trust Apple. This goes beyond mere doubt: I am 100% certain that they will screw users if they ever feel they have to. Steve Jobs may be talking tough on music-related stuff right now, but I also know that MacOS' built-in DVD player is DVDCCA licensed, and doesn't have Firewire output. Think about how mind-bogglingly ridiculous that is, in light of the machine's capabilities. My Linux workstation can't play DVDs to Firewire either (yet), but this isn't on purpose, if you know what I mean.

    That said, MacOSX looks like a nice system, and I particularly like Mac hardware (and no, I'm not talking about the Fisher-Price look). Mac+MacOs (not x86+Linux) is still my current recommendation for "casual" users. I wouldn't mind using it myself, as long as I never came to depend on it. I now understand when it's safe to trust, and when it isn't. MacOSX isn't safe, because it isn't Free.

    Being Free still isn't a fanatical-value that outweighs all other considerations for me yet, but it's getting closer with every passing month. Every time Congress passes a tyrannic law and every time Microsoft makes their a sweet promise, it becomes a little easier to see what's really important in a personal computer.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:What's not to like about MacOS X by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      I've felt pretty safe with Apple, and I know that if they started plugging in hardware restrictions, I could always opt to buy different hardware and stick it in my mac and configure my own drivers, and still have a great experience. My question however, and I'm not trolling here, is what will you do if the hardware become restricted? If they start putting in hardware locks to prevent hardware from running with any system that isn't DMCA approved, what will you do then? I know it's a long shot, but 10 years ago, so was the DMCA

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:What's not to like about MacOS X by sedawkgrep · · Score: 2

      The cost of a high-end mac is really outrageous. A virtually "barebones" dual 1.25 Ghz box is $3299. SANS MONITOR! (512MB/120G)

      I can build a dual Athlon with all the similar specs, which will smoke that machine, for around 1/2 the cost.

      All that aside though, if you own a slower mac, it's almost not worthwhile to upgrade the proc because of the cost, and whether or not you have an AGP MB, etc etc.

      I like OSX but Mac hardware is ridiculously priced.

      sedawkgrep

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    3. Re:What's not to like about MacOS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few hundred dollars is the difference between a mediocre and excellent monitor, or all the DVD+RW discs I'll ever need, or another computer.

      Ask developers how long their high-end "Rhapsody will support these (snicker)" Power Macs lasted.

      Bravo for making the freedom argument, but the price alone is nuts.

  186. netscape plugins, DVD, DivX, etc by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    are not loaded & configured by default in Man 8.2

    Go see what happens when you log onto a site with 3 different flash menues, you get 3 popups asking you log onto the netscape plugin page. Then you've got to click download, work out it went went into the bloody Uhix tree & then get the bloody plugin working.

  187. Amen brother! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Favorite quote from the story, respondent John Lyon explaining to Tim O'Reilly why he hates Windows 2000:
    I'm not pleased that MS seems to rearrange where all the admin tools are from NT4 to NT5 to NT5.1. Active Directory is crap. It makes NDS seem like child's play. Or maybe I'm really dense about the DNS server.

    Yeah, I'm a recovering MCSE and the only reason I can see to move tools around is to drive revenue in the training division.

    My other Win2k gripe relating to Active Directory is that, by design, you HAVE to use their goofy-ass DNS server. Further, said DNS server must be on the domain controller.

    Why in the world does DNS have to be on the same box as the domain controller? I mean, if you're running a huge enterprise, having iron to do both functions simultaneously and also buy a redundant box that gets expensive. Tell me how much Dell stock Gates owns, anyway?
    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:Amen brother! by ZxCv · · Score: 2

      My other Win2k gripe relating to Active Directory is that, by design, you HAVE to use their goofy-ass DNS server. Further, said DNS server must be on the domain controller.

      At my last job, they used Active Directory fairly extensively, but used a Solaris machine running named as the DNS server rather than MS' built-in DNS. How exactly, I'm not sure, because I didn't handle the AD stuff, but I'm positive AD relied on the Solaris DNS server because any time it had to be rebooted, authentication over the whole network would take a shit.

      --

      Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    2. Re:Amen brother! by nathanh · · Score: 2
      My other Win2k gripe relating to Active Directory is that, by design, you HAVE to use their goofy-ass DNS server. Further, said DNS server must be on the domain controller.

      No, you don't. Our local Active Directory uses Linux/BIND9 as the dynamic DNS server. No problems at all.

  188. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

    The opinion of anyone who reminisces about the durability and speed of floppy disks is not worth very much.

  189. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Space+Coyote · · Score: 2

    Any fool who can't figure out how to email a file to herself instead of carrying around an unreliable floppy disk has no business writing about computers. The floppy is dead, long live the networked computer.

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
  190. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    Why don't people figure this stuff out BEFORE they get married? :)

  191. Augment, not switch by DoctorPepper · · Score: 1

    I plan on purchasing a Mac in the near future, but I will continue using Linux, FreeBSD and Windows (yes, even Windows). I have been messing around with the iMac and OS-X, and I am really impressed. Not enough to make it my sole OS, but I would like to spend more time investigating the intracies of the Mac and OS-X

    --

    No matter where you go... there you are.
  192. The one thing Linux can do that OS X can't yet... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Troll

    is run on any kind of hardware you care to name. If Apple would port OS X to x86 hardware, you'd see a hell of a lot more people switching.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  193. Re: proprietary by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
    Well actually, I was referring to the Apple hardware itself - more than anything else.

    Sure, they have USB now - so that opens up a few more expansion options than before. Still, you have to always use the "Apple approved" hardware, which is quite a limited selection compared to the options available for a PC.
    I don't think you understand the definition of proprietary. Apple has no hardware for which it holds exclusive rights or which it uses produces, or markets under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker. Apple has the least proprietary hardware I have ever seen. Not even proprietary firmware and ROMS. I don't know of a single proprietary component. Even ADC, although not used by anyone else, is not proprietary. It is simply the combination of two existing published standards into a single connecter.

    Your statement that you have to buy Apple approved hardware is completely specious.
    For just one example, look at all the answering machine/voice mailbox type cards for a PC. Now, tell me how many of them you see for a Mac platform? How about TV/radio add-on boards? How about industrial control boards?
    Umh...drivers? Are you saying Apple hardware is proprietary because their OS team doesn't write drivers for every arcane third party PCI card on the market? I don't get the logical connection.

    This kind of abuse of the word "proprietary" is really out of control. I recently heard an engineer refer to AppleTalk as a proprietary protocol. LOL! not only is it a well documented published standard, but Apple lets their engineers bug-fix free Netatalk ( a free implementation of the suite).
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  194. Just because you don't immediately know it... by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

    doesn't make it cumbersome. You can't find the terminal? Bring up a finder window. Click on the applications button at the top. Find the Utilities folder (should be somewhere near the bottom, you can always resort the window). Now, find the terminal icon in this window. Drag the icon onto the dock. At this point, it'll always be there for you, one click away. Repeat for any other app you intend to use frequently. If you find that you aren't using one of these apps frequently, drag it off the dock and watch it go *poof*.

    Of course, I run XDarwin in fullscreen mode, and xterms are a matter of me pressing ``x'' on the background. cmd-opt-a takes me back to Aqua where I have my web browser and whatever else I don't run under X.

    If the screen's to small, get a bigger one, or another one (my powerbook will drive a second head at 2048x1536, although I haven't pulled out the 18" LCD since I bought it).

    What you need to realize, though, is that your Linux box isn't as capable. My wife runs KDE on her iBook (under OS X). She also runs iMovie for simple NLE, and processes some of her video with quicktime (as do I, but I'm a twm guy, myself). While gphoto is somewhat nice, it's not iPhoto. I haven't used a lot of gui MP3 players, but iTunes will play mp3s that mpg123 will not, and it makes mastering CDs easy (although the shell scripts on my FreeBSD box were usually easy enough).

    There have been a few problems, sure (OpenOffice spreadsheets won't let me add numeric values for whatever reason, so we're stuck with koffice in the meantime), but overall, it's been everything I've been getting out of other systems, plus tons of OS X and OS 9 software (stupid handspring doesn't support OS X yet, so I have to use OS 9 software, which works flawlessly).

    --
    -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
  195. RTFM is bad engineering by Raul654 · · Score: 2

    I'd just like to voice my opinion that if you design a piece of hardware/software and you need to read the manual to get basic utility out of it, then you have failed as a designer. You should *NOT* have to read the manual to get an OS installed and usable. If you want to recompile the kernel or whatnot, I'd sure say that's advanced; but for basic usage, there is no reason you should have to.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:RTFM is bad engineering by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I think your expectations are a wee bit high then. Even Mac OS X is going to occasionally require the user to check the manual once in a while.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:RTFM is bad engineering by Alex+Thorpe · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and let me give an example.

      On my father's first Mac in '84, there was a golf game called MacGolf. Lots of buttons at the bottom to change the angle, a slider to set the swing power, a pull down menu for changing clubs, and a button marked Swing to swing. Easy, never needed a manual.

      Fast forward to '98. I tried a 9 hole demo(and foolishly paid $9.99 for) of Links '98. No manual with a demo, of course. But it needed one. There were no buttons on screen, and the correct method of swinging the club with mouse clicks wasn't obvious. When I got to the hole, I couldn't figure out how to change clubs. I quit right there, and haven't gone back. Oh, and screen draws with all the trees were slower on my 200 MHz Performa 6400 than the black white trees were in MacGolf on a Mac Plus!

      --
      "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
  196. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by superdan2k · · Score: 2

    You know I don't read this as a negative story at all. I read this as a tongue-in-cheek diatribe about the advancement of technology. If you'll notice, she points out that she used to love the Mac, she cracks on Windows, etc. I get the feeling she was Mac OS 7 thru 9 user that's been dragged kicking and screaming to the realities of a new, more-stable OS.

    --
    blog |
  197. Of course the player's licensed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the player is licensed! Did you not pay any attention to what happened to Dell when they put DVD drives in their system without playing "Mother May I"? You can't just run around willy nilly throwing DVD support in things. It makes Big Media get angry and lay the litigation smackdown on you. Apple may have a cash surplus now, but it sure as hell wouldn't be there after they finished paying off the goons for violations.

    1. Re:Of course the player's licensed! by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      You give a good justification for why Apple did what they did, but that doesn't change the fact that they did it. If Apple caved (perhaps justifiably) then, then they will cave again.

      You can't trust someone who is at the mercy of someone else.

      The mplayer and xine teams will probably never cave. And, hypothetically, if they do then their projects will fork.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  198. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by markbark · · Score: 2

    Merci, mon ami ;)

    Le Français n'est pas ma première langue, mais j'essaye.

  199. Linux stategy should be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people switch to a new desktop(be it Apple or PC), why not put a great free OS on that old PC. I think that's the beauty of Gnu/Linux and is where my Linux boxen have always come from.

  200. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2

    In other words, she expected her new Apple Macintosh iBook laptop to behave _exactly_ like her old Microsoft Windows desktop PC. And when it didn't, she blames someone else for "seducing" her.

    And you don't think there's any relevance in the fact that Apple's entire "Switch" campaign is based on the principle of "you can do everything you're used to doing on your PC"?

  201. Re:OS war troll, yes? by Gropo · · Score: 0

    Absolutely. Having been predominantly a MacOS user for 16 years, I've never been freaked by new UI "innovations" in any new itteration of Windows.

    More often than not, I find myself saying: "Oh, they finally brought functionality x up to speed" and even more often: "Why bury x settings all the way down there?"

    I suspect most of the apprehension a Mac user experiences is due to the fragility and obscurity of the Windows UI - much like a stern schoolmaster - whereas the MacOS (and OS X especially) treats the user like a forgiving parent...

    --
    I hate Grammar Nazi's
  202. Linux User != GPL Zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are Linux users, and there and GPL Zealots.

    Linux users, who use a computer, are optimal for targeting the switch campaign at.

    The "blind faith" contingent headed by the likes of RMS, on the other hand, would be wasted ad money. They don't use an Open OS, they live an open OS and revere crazy ol' RMS as some sort of deity. Despite the fact he's a nutball with one hell of a fucked up license.

  203. Re: Fire supports more than just IRC by systmc · · Score: 1

    From Fire's sourceforge.net page that you linked to:

    Currently Fire handles AOL Instant Messenger, ICQ, MSN Messenger, Jabber, limited IRC, and Yahoo! Pager communications.

    I assume you were using 'IRC' to sum all those messaging services into one.

  204. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by kalidasa · · Score: 2

    Of losing all ability to communicate with my Euro-traveling boyfriend and PC user ("Look: It's me or that Mac!").

    Last I checked, there's MSN Messenger for Mac, several different email clients, and I can print to my HP printer just by plugging it in - didn't even need to install a driver. Did it ever occur to you that your boyfriend is a control freak (or he's trying to find an excuse to dump you)?

    Of being exiled into the lonely desert of incompatible files, botched PowerPoint presentations, and gobbledy-gook attachments...

    Blame the MacBU. They make PowerPoint for Mac, not Apple.

    I'm nostalgic for my dear (not so floppy) floppies, poor things,

    My USB floppy drive is recognized in moments. I doubt the PC would be any faster with a USB drive.

    Suddenly, Disk Utility has become the most important feature on my desktop

    Repeat after me - I can buy Mac-formatted floppies instead of using Disk Utility

    Tempus Sans font and always forces me to use this darn Helvetica.

    If it's so damned important for you to have Tempus Sans, then buy the font.

    Switched in July 2001, and never going back.

  205. Is it just me ... by Xouba · · Score: 1

    ... or people talking about "switching to a Mac" seem to have a *obscene* amount of money to spend in computers?

    I don't know exactly what's the cost of a new Mac, but IIRC it's quite more expensive than a PC with the same features. And then, people buying Macs buy gorgeous LCD monitors, and all the latest-and-hippest hardware. That smells like big money to me, too much for a IT proleatrian :-)

    Besides, there's the software. I know that now you can use many OSS apps with OSX, and I think it's great; but the case is that, if I'm going to use the same apps that I use in Linux, why switch? :-) And one of the reasons I use OSS is because it's free (like free beer). Call me anything you want, but it's just like that :-)

    Anyway, I'm getting eager and eager to try a Mac someday. Hey, if everyone talks so good about them, at least it may be worth try it :-) And I'd like to try it with some "Mac geek" around, because if I tried it on my own I'm sure I'd be losing many of the features it has. But til that day, I'm a Mac-skeptic :-)

  206. RTFM. by kalidasa · · Score: 2

    sudo chown -R
    sudo rm -rf Mozilla/

    Buy a three button mouse. I did.

    And apps usually close fine. I have to use force quit less often than I have to kill an app in Linux, or use task manager in windows.

  207. Frequently Spoken FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    especially when Apple charges twice the price of a decent PC for half the computing power.

    Search for "megahertz myth," astroturfer.

  208. My reason to switch by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    When I originally start with computers, my os was windows 95. At the time, I thought this was the best OS because of the wide ranging support. I could type papers, surf the internet, and pass the time playing games. There was one problem with the os- stability. I soon progress onto win98se with my second computer but the problem never went away. One day, a friend at school introduce me to Linux. I was intrigue by his enthusiasm for the OS, so I decide to give it a try on my old computer. The installation was difficult, there was limited application support compare to windows, and I was put off by altering config file just to get all my computer components to work. Though my experience was limited, I did see the value in the os in terms of stability and cost of using a unix based os.

    Then one day, while I was watching a Macworld, SJ introduce "the future of the MacOS" which he said was based on the unix variant BSD. He touted that it would gain stability as a result. I new this to be true from my foray into linux. So, though I had long since dismissed the Macintosh, I decided to give Apple serious consideration when I bought my next computer. The following summer, I purchase a Powerbook. Even without OSX, I was impressed with the design and features of the notebook. Later, I became an early adopter of the OS and never look back. As I did with windows, I could type papers, surf the internet, and even play games. I could also compile open source programs to give the os some extra functionality such as full file sharing with windows computers.
    I no longer have to support Microsoft's monopoly just to stay compatible. I can even install Linux in order to enhance understanding about the os.

    In my opinion, OS X possesses the best of both Linux and Windows. Since using Apple and OSX, my computing experience has become a joy as oppose to a frustration.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  209. Re: the Typical Mac User - Self Absorbed Person by Marc2k · · Score: 1

    Quite odd..other publications that carry more clout than the moniker "Anonymous Coward" disagree with you, as do I. See the most current Slashdot topic for more information. ..and for the record I find it absurd that you think Apples or Hondas are slow and primitive.

    --
    --- What
  210. Re: Fire supports more than just IRC by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

    Nope. I've used the product many times, and was just reporting to the individual in question that it was (among other things) an IRC client that handled aliaees...

    --
    Who did what now?
  211. Laptops under 5 pounds by Falsch+Freiheit · · Score: 2
    Except if you're looking for hardware that's already a bit "weird" in the intel market, such as a laptop under 5 pounds.

    I was looking around for a laptop that met a somewhat pick list of criteria:
    1. reasonably light; under 5 pounds; light enough to toss in a backpack and carry around.
    2. reasonably small; no 15" screens; small enough not to be squished into said backpack or other bag. But still big enough to have a keyboard I could type on.
    3. reasonably inexpensive (under $2,000), because while my home computer did finally lose the magic smoke, I didn't have the money for a fancy fully equiped box
    4. reasonably capable; didn't want an ancient P100 laptop with 8MB of RAM, I wanted something with more than 500Mhz of power and at least 128MB of RAM.
    5. Linux capable; had to be able to run Linux.
    6. resilience; something that doesn't have a reputation for falling apart easily; if I'm gonna toss a computer in my backpack or otherwise carry it around with me, it's inevitably going to get dropped a few inches now and then.


    The capabilities issue is resolve simply by shopping for new hardware, not used hardware; besides, laptops don't seem to go down in price as much as desktops.

    So, I looked around; I looked at Dell, Sony and IBM; all have laptops that meet my size and weight criteria, but they're expensive; or they have laptops that meet my modest performance criteria, but they're heavy bricks.

    And after some research, I found that it's actually easier to get Linux going on an iBook with its relatively standardized hardware (except for the radeon mobility video card) that it is to get Linux going on the Sony Vaio of the month with different (linux incompatible) hardware every month or two.

    I talked to a couple of people with different models of the sexy little Sony Vaio laptops; they all said they were great computers, but you couldn't get X, Y or Z to work under Linux because nothing else on the planet uses their variety of stuff and they seemed to have a problem with falling apart when dropped (more than other equipment).

    So, I ended up buying a Mac because it was cheaper than the proprietary intel based laptops.

    (Of course, I've got Debian on there but I've mostly been using MacOS/X which turns out to be quite painless to use; download their devel kit, add fink and it's kinda like Linux with a bit of commercial application support)

    I help run a Linux Users Group. There certainly are a lot of people who put together a second computer to use Linux on, but in my experience the *serious* Linux users have their biggest and best machine running Linux. That's certainly the way I have it at work: the newest, best machine with all the hard drive space and CPU and RAM runs Linux and the infrequently uses Windows 2000 box is the older slower one that I mostly access with VNC.

    However, amongst gamers you'd be right: gamers use Windows. they might dual-boot to Linux now and then or have a second little box thrown together from spare parts with Linux on it, but their primary OS is Windows because their primary task is games and the primary OS for games is Windows.
    1. Re:Laptops under 5 pounds by mduell · · Score: 2

      http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.asp? customer_id=555&order_code=X200PAD - $2057 in base config (you can take out some of the ram or something...). 2.9 pounds. Begone, troll.

    2. Re:Laptops under 5 pounds by Falsch+Freiheit · · Score: 2

      now go compare to iBook configs.

      iBook can come in under $2000 quite fully loaded; I've got a 40GB HD, 640MB RAM, 802.11b, DVD/CD-RW, etc. (got the RAM elsewhere, though; Apple's own price was too high).

      Trying to spec out one of those Dell Latitude X200s to a similarly usable configuration gets you up near $3000; add in tax and shipping and you're probably over $3000.

      Besides, those little Dells aren't as easy to get Linux onto as the iBook. Though with a little research it does look like somebody managed to pull it off a month ago; didn't end up on linux-laptop.net quite yet, though.

      Also, on the iBook I get over 4 hours of battery life pretty regularly; the Dell you're talking about gets only about 2 unless you add a nice heavy (well, about one pound, so it's still under 5 pounds) and kinda bulky battery.

      (In other words, $2000 base config (or barely under $2000 bare bones). And $1000 is $1000.

    3. Re:Laptops under 5 pounds by jared_earle · · Score: 1

      That Dell Laptop has an *external* CD. How much weight does that add? Oh, and the battery's crap.

      --
      -- Jared Earle | "There is no spork"
  212. Charity? Hah! by 524287 · · Score: 1
    Frankly, Apple needs the support. I equate it to giving charity to your favourite free software developer, in the case of Apple.

    Steve Jobs does not need your charity:

    Apple's Steve Jobs got last year's mightiest pay package, valued by FORTUNE at $381 million. (For the purposes of calculating his 2000 package, we have valued his monstrous options grant at one-third the exercise price of the shares optioned. And, of course, we've included the $90 million Gulfstream the Apple board gave him.) How big is that? The last time the public got furious over CEO pay was in 1992, when reports of huge numbers for 1991 sparked a flurry of reform efforts. Yet the 14 highest-paid CEOs then, including such legendary mega-earners as Coca-Cola's Roberto Goizueta, Philip Morris' Hamish Maxwell, GE's Welch, and ITT's Rand Araskog, together earned less than Steve Jobs did last year all by himself (even without the plane!). Yes, it's true that Jobs has paid himself only $1 a year since he returned to Apple as CEO in 1997. And, yes, he deserves to be rewarded--handsomely--for bringing Apple back from the dead. But still ...

    Get the full story from Fortune.

    Still feel like giving? How about donating to a real 503(c) like the Gnome Foundation.
    1. Re:Charity? Hah! by TWR · · Score: 2
      This is horseshit. As Steve himself wrote back to Fortune, his options are underwater; they are, in effect, worthless. He even offered to sell them to Forture at face value. Fortune declined.

      That said, Steve is still probably a billionaire. But get your freaking facts straight.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    2. Re:Charity? Hah! by gig · · Score: 2

      That article has been WIDELY discredited. It starts by assuming that the Internet bubble never happened, and that's only one of its problems. Steve Jobs wrote a letter to the editors of Fortune (which was published in the next issue) offering to sell those options to Fortune for 10% of what the article said they were worth and nobody bit.

      A stock option is not a share of stock. It's an option to buy a share of stock for a set price at some time in the future. If your option price is less than the actual price at that time (the time when the options "vest") then you will get to buy some bargain stock. Otherwise, the options are WORTHLESS.

  213. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


    Personaly, I think she makes some good points, and it's a little sad to see geeks ripping her up based on her religion of all things.


    Hey - she's the one who made her religious occupation / life a major component of the article. It seems only natural people would continue mixing the religious part in with the technical.
  214. Re:Two sides...and Apples new predatory practices by DThorne · · Score: 1

    The price is a VERY important point. I've also tried to get /.'s attention on the extremely aggressive methodology Apple's beginning to use - buying up Shake and then essentially wiping out all the other ports with a "2 for 1" offer if you go OSX. Combine this with the Pixar/Apple/nvidia destruction of Exluna's Entropy renderer(with NVidia courting Apple to get their cards in the next generation Apple hardware), and this company is starting to play like MS. I guess /. didn't feel that they should have posted either of those stories because they're obviously OSX fans. Apple is going to start repeating the Final Cut Pro/Shake model as a method to *force* user's to go OSX instead of Linux, and I'm baffled that more people here don't see it as a tangible threat to Linux!

    I'll never give them my money now...and it's a shame because there are some things to like about OSX(although I still loathe the fat graphic GUI crap).

    DT

  215. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A floppy doesn't give busy signals or suddenly stop working for causes beyond your control. That's more than I can say for any Internet access I've ever seen.

  216. Linux to Mac by ellem · · Score: 2

    That was my path. Sure I still have a Win98SE machine around for games but I completely dumped Linux and its no sound, stupid ugly X Server, Gnome on Monday, KDE on Tuesday, nothing the same twice junk.

    Look I love the whole Linux thing. I dig the Peguin, the free (as in no payment,) and the community is _mostly_ (screw you RTFMers) helpful and glad to be of help. But it was a pain in the ass. Sometimes I just want to do some work and not fuck with a config file.

    Bottom line OS X works, it has Apps, it runs on excellent hardware and dopey teens with DSLs switch to it all the time. (wink)

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  217. Love the PPC, don't love the OS X by MSG · · Score: 2

    As implied by the subject, I do like PPC hardware, but I'd chose to run Linux on it.

    Those that have switched are quick to point out all of the same beautiful aspects of OS X, and before they do I'll say this: I've seen them. I've used it. I know. You don't have to sell me on OS X. I used it for long enough to know about all of the goodies, and I'll still take Linux and GNOME.

    OS X, in trade for "just working", does not fit to the user, expecting the user to fit to the software instead.

    Keybindings don't "just work"; I never found documentation listing the standard keys (though I'm sure someone will post a URL in reply to this comment ;-) and I can't create new ones to simplify things that I do frequently.

    The Terminal doesn't "just work". Actually, the terminal emulator is probably the worst that I've ever used, on any platform.

    UNIX source code often doesn't "just work" because OS X's kernel differs from UNIX in ways that are nothing short of bugs, which the developers don't seem keen to fix. (For example, when you try to create an IPv6 socket in 10.1, the kernel returns EPROTONOSUPPORT instead of EAFNOSUPPORT, which it should)

    For the same reason I like Emacs, I like Linux and GNOME (especially sawfish): I can make a macro or shortcut of anything. I fit the software to me because I know best how I work. In the end, OS X feels like a pair of too-tight store bought jeans. Linux is more like a tailored pair of pants.

  218. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by rjung2k · · Score: 1

    There's a reasonable difference between doing the same tasks, and behaving the same way. Just because I don't have a "Start" button on the Mac doesn't mean I can't launch applications.

  219. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by ckd · · Score: 2
    I want it with me!

    Buy her an iPod. Have her keep a copy of the files on that. That's how several folks I know do things like SneakerNet files to work, or carry that extra copy of presentation if their laptop dies, or whatever. Bonus: it's also an MP3 player.

  220. Steve Jobs did what I was trying to do with LinuxP by haaz · · Score: 2

    ...which was to fuse Unix and the Mac.

    I'd say we were 60% of the way there. We had decent GUIs (Gnome, KDE (which was really starting to rock when I left)), Netatalk for AppleTalk, Mac-on-Linux (hard to configure but quite good; perhaps a bit faster than the native Mac OS 9?) plus the usual assortment of OSS servers and applications.

    When NeXT aquired Apple, I knew something big was going to happen. Years of speculating as to what would happen if Jobs came back to Apple was answered: first the iMac. Then OS X, which at first didn't look too hot.

    When 10.1 came out, though, they got me back on the Apple wagon in full effect. Killing cloning was one step. If they hadn't made OS X, and that hadn't become as good as it is, I might not have ever come back.

    But they did go to Unix. OS X gives me everything I love about Unix -- the stability, multitasking and multiprocessing from hell, and vi -- and melds it with the Mac in ways I never thought possible. The Mac's back, baby, and so much better than ever, ever before!

    Now only if it were free... ;-)

    But... here I am! I think differently about many, many things. Software's just one of them. (Politics being the other big one. Progressive, non-Democrat activists such as myself may seem to the world much like Linux users did to the rest of the world in 1997. But more on that later. And not here.)

    anyway... No, OS X is not 100% open or free, but it's close enough that I'm pretty comfortable with it. (Sorry, RMS.)

    And, Apple isn't behind TCPA. [shudder]

    --
    -- haaz.
  221. You know .. by Spike_cb · · Score: 1

    Your OS rhymes with that word closer than Linux.

    MacOSXistic

    And look at you! for pete's sake. Trashing people like that so easily to make your point. What makes you any better ? Is your beloved OSX really _that_ great ?

    Oh yeah, I do admire and respect RMS and Linus. Why ? Because of all their hard work which I, and many others, benefit from. They earned my respect. The system they helped built earned my respect.

    No need for ads, computer-case-clad G4 bimbos and all those marketing crap.


    =Spike=

  222. Thanks for the answer! by dinodriver · · Score: 1

    nt=no text

  223. Not All Switchers have a positive experience by User+956 · · Score: 2

    The resounding consensus is that most folks appreciate how, compared to these other OSes, Mac OS X 'just works.'

    Resounding consensus, my ass. Macs don't "just work" any more than *anything* "just works".

    Don't believe me? Believe this.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Not All Switchers have a positive experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. A single anecdote that has been exaggerated to make for a more entertaining column. You know, if you look around you can find people who believe Elvis is alive...Doesn't mean there isn't a resounding consensus that he's dead.

  224. Re:DivX on OSX by robertchin · · Score: 2

    I don't know what you guys are talking about, the DivX codec from divx.com works extremely well on my PBG4 500MHz, and their translator is very fast, producing files that are about 1-2MB larger than PC files, but play with PC codecs as well for DivX. Really the only problem with playing normal DivX files is that quicktime can't handle variable bit rate MP3s because the data is spread out across AVI frames which is out of spec, thus apple isn't/doesn't support it.

  225. Apple's ads by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2
    Apple's advertisements in popular magazines bother me. I read one while waiting in the doctor's office the other day where there is a letter from a switcher praising the mac for not 'blue screening' all the time.

    the problem was, that the ad was hardware focused. Blue screens are an OS issue. They were comparing hardware to software, which made absolutely no sense to anybody who knows better.

    It would be nice if they had the balls to say OS-X is better than WIndows, and not that it's better than a 'pc'.

    1. Re:Apple's ads by gig · · Score: 2

      > It would be nice if they had the balls to say OS-X is better than WIndows, and not that
      > it's better than a 'pc'.

      That is what they're saying. There's one ad that says "I used to think it was my fault that Windows doesn't work right." and another that says "The Blue Screen Of Death." I know Linux users like to think of "the PC" as an independent entity, but the reality is that PC's come with Windows as the operating system, and Macs come with Mac OS X. If you debate "Mac vs. PC" in mainstream advertising, then you're talking Windows vs. Mac OS X.

  226. Re: Swap caps lock and control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.gnufoo.org/macosx/

  227. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Fizzol · · Score: 1

    And the opinion of someone who evaluates another person based of whether they use a floppy drive or not, is worth a hell of a lot less.

  228. I thought about it... but no. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    I was actually thinking about switching to OS X. I mean, it's
    really _cool_. Then reality hit: there is absolutely no way
    I can afford it. The cost of the upgrades at $100+ per pop,
    the higher cost of Apple's hardware, the need to buy commercial
    applications or else spend dozens of hours per app to get OSS
    apps working (almost) correctly, the relative impossibility
    of keeping the hardware current with small, incremental upgrades,
    so that you have to replace the whole system at least twice as
    often... I just can't afford it. My annual computer budget is
    perhaps at most a few hundred bucks -- not a few *thousand*.

    Now, if I made more money, I would probably get a PowerMac (not
    that I'd throw out my PC...), but on what I make... it's just
    out of reach. Please note that I'm not saying it's not worth
    it, if you can afford it. I'm just saying, I can't afford it.
    Oh, and one other thing: I doubt I'm alone.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  229. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever used a floppy?

  230. Re: proprietary by jafac · · Score: 2

    And I have an ADB Wacom tablet - guess what? NO MAC DRIVERS.
    And I have an ADB mouse - guess what? NO MAC DRIVERS.

    This is hardware that used to work under Classic - but has been obsoleted by OS X.

    I just bought an external firewire DVD drive, plugged it in, works great - except - GUESS WHAT?

    iDVD and Apple's DVD player don't recognize it, because even though it's the same EXACT model number drive as is found as a built-in in their new models - Apple *disabled* the use of third-party drives for use with this software. That's even WORSE than requiring a special peice of hardware. That's saying: in order to use our software, you must not only buy OUR hardware, but you must buy a whole new system - and not just an ordinary system, you must buy one of our top of the line systems with the built in DVD burner.

    I think that's proven that Apple is out to viciously suck as much money out of it's customers as it can now.
    I've just about had enough, because I'm pretty much tapped out. I think I can just afford to assemble my own AMD-based Linux box, and I think I'm going to be much happier than having to swipe my credit card for Apple for every frickin little thing I want to do with my computer.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  231. My point being by Microsift · · Score: 1

    10.2 has lots of new features, what did WinME have lots of Hype, but you don't hear about Microsoft refunding people the upgrade cost.

    Maybe the reason WinME sucked so bad was to encourage people to upgrade to XP when it came out.

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  232. Quicktime by BitGeek · · Score: 2


    ITs worth bringing up Quicktime.

    Quicktime is a file format, a libarary to work with the format, and a collection of codecs, most of whom are owned by other companies.

    Apple has done all it can for quicktime-- its given it away to the world for free as an open standard as part of MP4. Granted they didn't adopt it wholesale, but all of apples engineering work for the Quicktime file format was given to MP4 and is available to everyone who wants to implement the standard. How can an open source advocate complain about that?

    That Apple doesn't give away other people's codecs (That they HAVE TO PAY FOR) for other competing operating systems is not surprising. You expect apple to pay $5-$20 for every linux install that it gives codecs away for? And its not like its a simple port either-- the codecs on PowerPC are altivec optimized, so it would take significant work.

    Yes, they PAY to have quicktime on Windows, and there's a strategic reason for that. But apple not choosing to subsidize your operating system is not in any shape "evil"

    --
    Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  233. Re: proprietary by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    ADB wouldn't matter anyway since that hasn't been in a mac since 1998. If you're using a mac that has ADB ports with OS X then your mac is at the very least 4 years old. It's time to seriously consider getting a new one anyway. Besides it isn't apple's responsibility to support Wacom tablets, that's Wacom's job. Somehow I doubt your DVD drive is the same model as used in the new computers unless it also writes CDs, but even assuming it does, iDVD and the DVD player are fairly new in terms of software. Give it a while and it will support more drives (just like iTunes). OTOH if they disabled the ability to work with other drives, then what is preventing you from re-enabling it? Or looking for a third party hack which I'm sure is out by now? Yo're trying to convince me you are going to build an AMD-Linux box, but you can't hack a simple DVD player and burner to recognize other drives. That's almost unbeleivable.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  234. Interface best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do Gnome and KDE waste their time trying to replicate a second rate system? The user interface on Macintosh is clearly better than Windows. (Windows' organization philosophy: stick everything in the start menu and pray that it works.). Now that they have shown it can be cleanly integrated with unix, is there any reason to follow the footsteps of 'The One in Redmond'?

  235. Not Tools obsessed, but dammnit.... by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

    "..any platform that suits the job."

    Replace platform with tool, then you'll understand, the more suited the tool for the job, the easier and better the job is to do.

    The kind of rhetoric you're spouting runs the lines of "back in my day all we had was fortran, and we liked it!". It makes me glad we have all these fancy "tools", because I sure as heck wouldn't want to code something like cutting edge games or top of the line office software in f-ing Assembly! Perl is a great language, and I use it extensively, but, dangitt, don't diss the tools!

    --
    | - | - |
  236. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by dublin · · Score: 2

    Sorry, but anyone that has never used Commodore's infamous 1541 disk drives doesn't *even* know what slow is. Quite possibly the slowest rotating disk media ever sold, they required hard sector diskettes (remember those? they used a series of locating holes around the hub to physically determine rotational positoining), and used a serial interface that was P A I N F U L L Y S L O W.

    But they were cheap, so we were happy to have them, since they were one reason the Commodore machines were a fraction of the price of the Apples and such, even though they offered equal or better performance in other respects.

    --
    "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  237. Why OS X on Intel will not happen by inkswamp · · Score: 2
    Sort of off-topic, but this issue is almost as persistent as the multi-button mouse.

    OS X on Intel will not happen. At least, it won't if interviews with Jobs are any indication. I keep seeing this sentiment expressed, but those comments must be coming from people who haven't been using and following news about Apple for the last decade.

    There was an interview with Jobs in MacAddict around the time he returned to Apple, where he was challenged on his decision to kill off Mac clones. Just paraphrasing from memory, his response was along the lines that Apple's real strength lies in the ability to control the hardware and the OS, despite the fact that everyone in the industry thinks otherwise. His phrase was the Apple is the last company around who makes the whole widget.

    So, I think it's important to recognize that Apple has followed this line of thinking since Jobs returned. You can see it. OS X on Intel just won't happen, and if it ever did, it would be done in such a way that it would make very few PC users happy anyway. Apple would have to make the whole widget. So why would they bother?

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  238. Maybe Linux shouldn't be on the desktop by psyklohps · · Score: 1

    I have been a Linux user for about six years now. I love the fact that I can look under the hood of my system and see everything that I could possibly ever want to mess with.

    This year I return to college and I need an office suite that works. Not one that will do. One suite that will work the way that I work. So I recently switched to win98 and Office XP. I feel like a bastard for doing this, but you know what? Office XP does everything that I need it to. Yes, Abiword will open .doc files. Yes it's fast (actually damn fast). Yes, to this day it is still riddled with bugs and it has been in development for almost three years now.

    So now everybody is "Switching" to OSx because it just works. Of course the Mac's architecture has always just worked. Finally they have an OS that can do the platform some justice. I hate the fact that I can't build a G4 system, and if I could, I couldn't afford it.

    Windows is somewhat useable. The nice thing about windows is that it is a standardized product. There are no splinters or factions. Every Windows book will tell you how to do something in the exact same way. Windows has some cool features like DirectX, multimedia codecs and the like. I like the fact that I can buy a reputable piece of new hardware and install it. I hate the fact that Windows is controlled by a money-hungry monster of a corporation that tries to manipulate their customers in to market trends that are completely unnecessary.

    Linux is great for developing and as a server. A "good" server needs to run forever and its maintenance consists of a can of compressed air every four months. Linux works great in that department. Where Linux really suffers is the desktop where you are constantly inundated with technicalities that keep you from doing the real work. Things like upgrading Abiword to a newer version that has less bugs can be a real pain in the ass when you also need to upgrade shared libraries. This of course also means that you need to upgrade a whole schlew of other applications because they rely on the older libraries. So when you look at it, it's not really an application upgrade, it's a system upgrade. The Linux desktop sux as a functional productivity workspace. It might make a fine industry specific workstation as in ILM's case, but a swiss-army knife it is not. Gnome and KDE are slick, but they don't have all of the bases covered like OSx does. Gnome (Nautilus in particular) runs like a sick pig on older hardware. In fact, the only way to have a fast X on older hardware is to dumb it down to the bare minimum. And even though I love Linux, it is just not and, after nearly a decade of fracturing, probably never will be friendly enough for my mom to use. I hate having to compile a new Kernel for new hardware and hope that the patch works. I hate the fact that Linux takes forever to boot. I hate the fact that RTFM very rarely applies to what you need to do. I have never read a Linux document or help file that told me how to fix a problem or do something in a step-by-step fashion and have it work. I have ALWAYS had to interpret what I am reading. I consider myself a technically savvy person. I think that I know what I'm doing on a computer most of the time. I can imagine a person who just needs to print a F*CKING report to give to their boss/teacher would go mad trying to install their printer correctly under Linux.

    What I don't understand is why everybody is trying to make Linux work on the desktop when BEos was probably the best desktop Os ever invented. It had a great file system. It could multithread EVERY application. It's audio latency was great. Yea, it was kind of ugly. Yea the company went bankrupt. But, it's Open Be project is alive and needs quite a bit of help.

    If the open source community really wants a free desktop, why not start from scratch? Why not make a desktop that is targeted for the end user instead of adapting the hardcore computer geek Os? The open source community is not just Linux. Open Be is part of it too and it is better designed for the desktop. Why not let Linux be the best Server on the market and make Be the best desktop on the market?

    1. Re:Maybe Linux shouldn't be on the desktop by bjmmedia · · Score: 1

      Linux as a server, not as a desktop. I second that motion.

  239. Re:DivX on OSX by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

    Correct. Unfortunately 90% of my DivX files (anime fansubs mostly) are encoded using VBR audio. VLC eliminates the need to run the DivX validator on each and every file.

    It would be nice if they were encoded properly, or if QuickTime would support VBR audio, but VLC gives me that plus full-screen at no extra cost.

  240. Switcher, but not satisifed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen 10.2 yet, but I am very displeased with the server verion of 10.1 and Apple's "macmanager" server app for lab administration.

    macmanager doesn't! It brings so many problems to apps that I advocate Macs have no place in general computer labs (and I am a mac support tech/network admin).

    I hope they fix this nonsense in their next reincarnation of macmanager they are calling workgroup admin.

    Frankly, OS9 sucks on client machines. It locks up more frequent than win 3.1 did. I want my clients to move to OSX and get rid of the 9 support.

  241. I like Mac OS X by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

    It's nice but it's also proprietary as far as the interface goes. Linux is wide open.

    I can't get used to the one button mouse. Bleah :P

    Other than that... I got no problem with Mac OS X.

    --
    Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  242. Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.

    I am a long-time Unix user. That means I need to have the Ctrl key to the left of the A key. This is a genuine need , not merely a want; it is based upon ergonomics. The Ctrl key is heavily used in unix, and it must be easily accessable. It cannot be off in the lower left corner of the keyboard where it is difficult to get at, and where it distorts the position of your left hand such that you can't easily type other keys while holding the Ctrl key down.

    Apple desktop keyboards are now all USB. They are all OK. The CapsLock key can be re-mapped into a Ctrl key.

    Unfortunately, even in this modern age, all Apple laptops have built-in ADB keyboards. The ADB keyboard is broken-by-design. It is, in general, not possible to remap the CapsLock key into a Ctrl key.

    There are some exceptions, but they are horrible kludges. They are horrible kludges because the original design of the ADB keyboard was a horrible kludge. The correct solution would be for Apple to re-design their laptop motherboards to use built-in USB keyboards. This hasn't happened yet. If you run Linux, use Debian's solution. For Mac OS X users, uControl works. There are no solutions (that I know of) for either NetBSD or OpenBSD. Please note once again that the "solutions" above are in fact kludges, because of the original bad design of the ADB keyboard.

    Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users! This is not merely speculation on my part. In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department, the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market. He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath. Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 10 years. I expect that trend to continue. (Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse, even though Apple intended to port almost all X-window software and deliver it either on a CD/DVD or installed directly on each Mac's hard drive. How Unix friendly is a 1-button mouse with X programs that often require 3 buttons?)

    Apple has now lost two opportunities to sell me hardware. I really wanted an Apple laptop for their superior battery life, and for the PowerPC with Altivec CPU. (The Altivec is vastly superior to the x86 line for DSP.) Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead. If Apple fixes this problem, they will sell me a PowerBook next year; if they don't, I'll still be running OpenBSD on x86 hardware, and wishing I could use a Mac.

  243. Mac user who tried linux. by bjmmedia · · Score: 1

    I am a long term Mac user who had an old PC lying around and decided to put linux (Mandrake) on it. I wanted to see what all the hype was about, and I wanted a machine that would serve files to both my Macs, and my girlfriends PCs, serve web pages, and be an FTP server. I figured it was also a good way to learn a little unix without F*ing up my mac. And what the heck, it was free. I approached it with open mind to see if I wanted to maybe switch. Being a Mac user I will try to be unbiased, but as its what I know (I also know Windows well, but won't go there), it will be part of my perspective. I am not a programmer or administrator (just a serious user), so go easy on any misinformation I unknowingly spread. Getting the thing working on a basic level wasn't too bad (considering I knew nothing about it). Not as easy as a Mac mind you, but not bad. I could run applications, change settings from the GUI, etc. Getting the thing to recognize the ethernet card and see the internet took me an extra day, though. Now to add some services. Being a GUI person, the command line was pretty foreign to me (just figuring out to use VI to edit took me a bit). After a couple of days I could get around fairly well, and could edit config files and the like (but not without a manual). After about six days and only one shower, I had SMB, NFS, FTP, and Apache working reasonably well. I still use this server! It runs without complaint 24/7. Then I ran it through its paces as a desktop machine. I wanted to know if I could switch to free linux. After downloading and running every piece of (yes, free) software I could, I tried to see if I could comfortably switch. I use my computers extensively for my business, and would certainly be considered a power user. I have a lot to get done. Would I switch? No. I found nearly every important app to be inferior to what I was using. I found I was totally spoiled by the consistency of the Mac Human Interface Guidelines. Every linux app I used seemed to have an interface unlike any other. Even the OS was inconsistent. Yes, it does everything one would need a computer to do (for the most part), and it is stable, fast, and free. However, in my business, I bill directly for my time. I must look at it like every hour I waste on the computer, is an hour of lost wage (in the week I spent figuring out linux, I could have bought a Ti book fully loaded). The time spent under the linux hood, and the lost productivity from inconsistent and often confusing applications, make linux TOO EXPENSIVE for me to run. I think the open source community is to be respected and applauded, and I see OSX, linux, and unix side by side (by side) as alternatives to Monopoly. However, I also think too many chefs spoil the dish. Without a more singular approach to user design, I don't think linux will ever be a really viable desktop, its too much of a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas and ideals. That said, I think linux has a definite place. Both in the enterprise and in the geek set. As I said, I am still using my linux server. The only problem I have with it, is that when something actually does go wrong, its been so long since I've messed with it, that I have to resort to manuals and notes to figure out what I did to it originally. I understand that full time linux user will know far more about the machine than I ever did. And those whose job it is to tinker with an OS all day will have a far different need and perspective. However, my bottom line opinion is this: Linux as a server? Yes. Linux as a desktop? No.

  244. preventing unwanted AD zone updates? by jerkyjunkmail · · Score: 1

    out of curiosity how do/would you prevent people(like say me with BIND9 compiled on my PowerBook) from using the command line nsupdate tool that comes with BIND9 and maliciously changing hostnames.

    jerky
    --

    --

    --
    What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
    1. Re:preventing unwanted AD zone updates? by nathanh · · Score: 2

      Use the "allow-update" directive. You can create ACLs which allow updates based upon IP address (not very secure) or by shared secret keys (more secure).

  245. iHad to write an iSwitch poem by UR30 · · Score: 1

    I just had to write a poem titled iSwitch to iMac.

  246. Switched from Mac OS by rasterboy · · Score: 1

    I switched from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X as soon as I could. I've been in the publishing world and using Macs forever, and always preferred to use them over Windows. When Linux got popular years ago, I liked it, and started using it as a server OS, but kept using the Mac as a desktop machine. I wasn't going to buy a new machine and switch to Linux since the Mac did (mostly) what I needed it to do. But with Mac OS X, well, I've got real Perl (MacPerl was good for what it was, but it doesn't compare to /usr/bin/perl) and Apache, and all that gooey *nix goodness beneath the sheets to love...

    So I never had to switch to Windows and never attempted to switch to Linux, I just had to wait for the Mac OS to catch up with where I was going...

    It's here.

    --
    ...end of transmission...
  247. You can't forward from AOL by yerricde · · Score: 1

    but who said anything about PPP? She was complaining about not being able to send/receive e-mail from her boyfriend.

    If you cannot connect to the Internet because your online service does not use standard PPP to connect, you cannot receive e-mail from your e-mail account at the online service which does not use standard PPP to connect nor standard SMTP/IMAP to access e-mail. (I'm thinking AOL and MSN here.)

    In addition, if you're using an online service that doesn't use standard PPP to connect, I'd suggest getting another one.

    When you terminate your ISP access, you generally also terminate your e-mail address unless your ISP offers automatic forwarding for honorably terminated accounts (i.e. accounts that were not terminated because of an AUP violation or unpaid bills). For example, AOL does not. Thus, all your e-mail contacts would be unable to contact you. When you forget your password on a web site, it won't be able to send you a new password (which is what happened to Fascdot Killed My Pr[evious User]).

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:You can't forward from AOL by markbark · · Score: 2

      Ok.... I'll take it slowly this time....
      This woman wants to send e-mail to her boyfriend and maybe do a little web surfing. Unless she lives in a VERY small town, she has her pick of any of a number of ISP's. Thus, she doesn't have to deal with the likes of AOL or MSN. No non-standard PPP, no problem.

      Thus, all your e-mail contacts would be unable to contact you

      Here's a concept for you.... gather all the addresses in your address book and send each entry a small email saying

      "Hi! I got a new ISP recently.
      My email address has changed from me@old.isp.com to me@new.isp.com.
      Please update your address book Thanx!"

      As for the website passwords.... if your memory is not up to the task, I suggest writing down your passwords and storing them in a secure place..... or just put 'em on a post-it and stick it to your monitor like the rest of us do! [grin]

  248. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by Sales+Weasle · · Score: 1

    What a beautiful well written story. It poignantly details the perils of a 486 class user dropped into a G3 learning curve. Her misty eyed description of the sound of a floppy drive, slowly consuming the contents of it's magnetic meal, was almost too much for me. After all, what else could you do while the little dickens was grinding away? Every resource in your computer devoted itself exclusively to listening to the product of that grinding. Sure, it sounds pretty, but, waxing elloquent about the past wont teach our missguided heroine about USB memory sticks, or cross platform software. This shepardess could learn a few tricks from the flock of users that have converted to the one true OS.

  249. Application menus by AmbyVoc · · Score: 1


    I believe the guy was talking about different selection of software for different people, not about where to start them from or how many to start them and run similarly.

    Simple case: I use system utilities and my spouse does not, is it cool to just leave the system utilities for her to trample into all the time? If she likes her apps list to contain 'this and that', and I prefer something else should the program/apps list be the same for the both of us?

    The same thing irritates me on Windows UI too, since the program listing 'behind' the Start button always lists the same programs even if they cannot all be used by others than the systems administrator. Why the hell are the appstart options even left lying in the lists for those who do not need or have not privileges to use them?

    And this had nothing to do with many programs running similarly. Nor did it have anything to do with starting programs from the shell, finder or terminal and since I do not use docks anymore (found them irritating, I simply click right mouse button for the apps list) It doesn't even have to do with a dock applet either...

    Just letting the steam out...

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  250. Linux is already on the desktop. by AmbyVoc · · Score: 1

    (Abiword)
    Yes, to this day it is still riddled with bugs and it has been in development for almost three years now.

    You don't know about the bugs on Office XP, since they are generally not yelled about in a crowded room. And how long has MS Office been in developement? I believe the next beta is coming out soon.

    The nice thing about windows is that it is a standardized product.

    There is no such thing as a Microsoft standard unless it is the "Crippling Standard". MS is notorious in breaking up standards by making up new features noone will use.

    Every Windows book will tell you how to do something in the exact same way.

    But none of them tell you what has really happened when an Exception 0E or a BSOD occurs, nor do they provide a fix for such situation.

    Windows has some cool features like DirectX, multimedia codecs and the like.

    And Linux doesn't have multimedia abilities or 3d capabilities? Guess again... What was it SGI introduced to the computing world? Was it perhaps OpenGL?

    mplayer and xmms for video and sound... And I'd like to add I find Linux as an intriguing platform for those who like composing music DJ'ing or synthesizing and everything between. Such programs can be found on Linux too.

    Even CAD solutions can be found.

    Linux is great for developing and as a server.

    OK, I admit Linux is neat for servers, but I'd like to add I use it as a desktop and find nothing wrong with it. I Can! (Magic words)

    BSD for servers btw.

    This of course also means that you need to upgrade a whole schlew of other applications because they rely on the older libraries. So when you look at it, it's not really an application upgrade, it's a system upgrade.

    Yes, it can be considered as a problem, but thenagain on the other hand you have extremely bloated programs each created time and time again consuming not only hd space but system memory, then there is the problem of installing new libraries and/or programs due dependencies.

    Some of us can live with cruft or bloat, I don't have the resources to buy myself new hd's, ram or processors all the time. I do not need GHz hw to run my software. My software runs on my 486 as well as it does on my K6-III, a bit slower but nevertheless the reliability of the software remains. I wonder what people'd say if they'd have to use my "fastest" computer with a Windows XP as opposed to Linux. (400MHz/256Mb) Wait, let's tumb the computer down and take 192 megs off. Now, let's run XP on 64Mb...

    How's OSX with one of the older PPC's with 233MHz and 64megs of ram?

    For a simple comparing basis, the best ever desktop OS isn't OSX, it is something that can run a fancy windowed desktop under 4Mb with no slowdowns. (Reminds of something in the early 90's?)

    Gnome (Nautilus in particular) runs like a sick pig on older hardware.

    Like how much older hardware? Something older than my hardware?

    I hate the fact that Linux takes forever to boot.

    Ever seen w2k boot? Then you will know how long is "forever".

    I have never read a Linux document or help file that told me how to fix a problem or do something in a step-by-step fashion and have it work.

    So we came back to the subject of "Exception 0E" and "BSOD". Where can I find a HOW-TO to fix those?

    BeOS might be nice, haven't seen it in action, though I don't know if I would be interested enough to actually install it.

    If the open source community really wants a free desktop, why not start from scratch?

    Why reinvent something we already have? We have an Open Source desktop (in fact we have many). Why bother?

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  251. Don't feed the troll. (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't feed the troll. (nt)

  252. Re: proprietary by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    IMHO, you're nitpicking a bit. I do understand your point - but you're taking "proprietary" quite literally. On the other hand, in the world of computers, people typically use "proprietary" to designate the fact that the hardware is developed by a single vendor, using standards they invented themselves.

    The Apple computers have always fit this definition, to one extent or another. (As I said, though, this is changing in some ways. You no longer see much happening with, say, the NuBus slot.) I still can't just buy an Apple Cinema display and slap it on my PC and expect it to work properly, though.

    As for network protocols, simply publishing the details of how it works doesn't make it a defacto "standard". Appletalk might be completely and openly documented - but it will always be considered more "proprietary" than TCP/IP, just as Novell's IPX or Microsoft's Netbeui protocols are. Appletalk wasn't developed by a vendor-neutral committee - for one thing.

  253. Oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  254. Re:Linux...and shutting off lickable interfaces by jerkyjunkmail · · Score: 1

    one way would be not to use Aqua at all and rely on xdarwin and GNOME or KDE or whatever WM floats your boat. At the the login dialog you can type >console and it will shutdown WindowServer and loginwindow.app and puts you into a text based prompt login and type startx. No more aqua. hack XWindows to your hearts content. after you exit xwindows and exit the shell. WindowServer and loginwindow.app starts back up and you can go back into Aqua.

    If you don't like Aqua at all you can cause it not to startup at all by switching commented lines at the top of /etc/ttys

    #console "/usr/libexec/getty std.9600" vt100 on secure console
    "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/logi nwindow" vt100 on secure window=/System/Libra ry/CoreServices/WindowServer onoption="/usr/libexec/getty std.9600"

    and typing sudo nvram boot-args="-v" will make the bootup more verbose(same effect as command-V upon boot)
    --

    --

    --
    What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
  255. Re:Switch? Nope. (...and you never will) by gig · · Score: 2

    Darwin runs on both Mac PPC hardware and Intel hardware. Apple sells Mac OS X to run on DarwinPPC because there is a business model and demand there. Apple does not sell Mac OS X to run on DarwinIntel because there is no business model there. The first major problem is that there is a convicted monopolist selling Intel operating systems.

    If you are an Intel user, it is YOUR platform that is sick, not Apple's. Don't blame Apple for not waving a magic wand and making everything OK for you and your shitty hardware.

  256. Re:Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix User by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Jesus, Jackie Harvey , I am
    sure impressed
    by your incredible text formatting skills. Even John C. Dvorak doesn't approach the level of stupidity you exhibit. Remember, it's okay to
    • wait and calm down
    • when you post
    • so people don't
    • point
    • and laugh
    • at you
    when you go on a ridiculous rant about keyboards
    instead of taking a week to relearn the
    • lay out
    .
  257. Re: proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel will sell you a book for nearly nothing (or let you download on the web) enough information to clone their chipset.

    How do you think vmware emulates the 440bx chipset?

  258. Re: proprietary by gig · · Score: 2

    > I still can't just buy an Apple Cinema display and slap it on my PC and expect it
    > to work properly, though.

    Yes you can, but since your PC doesn't supply power to the attached display, you need to buy a power adapter for the Cinema Display. Apple sells them, and so do third parties. Once you plug the adapter onto the Cinema Display, it becomes a typical DVI display like any other. The ADC connector on the Cinema Display is a combination DVI, USB, VGA, and power, which makes it easy to split the cable out to plain DVI, USB, VGA, and power cables. The ADC connector is also known as a DVI-2 as far as I know ... you're just used to DVI-1, but both are standard DVI cables.

    Funny that you'd talk digital display connectors. On the Mac, for flat panels we went VGA (1998), DVI-1(1999), then DVI-2 a.k.a. ADC (2000). On the PC, there were a few other kinds of flat panel connectors that haven't survived, and many flat panels still ship VGA, even now. Going from a digital graphics adapter to a digital display with an analog cable ... not good.

    For my part, I have a PowerMac G4 in a rack that travels sometimes, and when I set it up and plug the mouse into the keyboard with one cable, keyboard into the display with one cable, and display into the computer with one cable, I feel pretty happy about the ADC port.

    Also, if you use a plain DVI display, you have to make sure to plug the AC power in BEFORE you attach the display to the computer, or else risk a static charge from the computer wrecking the display. ADC solves this, because you can't plug the display onto the graphics adapter without also plugging on power at the same time.

    > Appletalk

    Talking about AppleTalk within this discussion is disingenuous or at least ignorant. Mac OS 9 (1999) introduced AppleTalk over TCP/IP (Macs speaking AppleTalk over plain TCP/IP networks), and Mac OS X 10.2 (today) does all the tricks that AppleTalk used to do over plain TCP/IP (using Rendezvous a.k.a. ZeroConf, also a standard). In short, AppleTalk is memory. Why don't you complain about the Newton or something?

    > You no longer see much happening with, say, the NuBus slot.

    That could be because Apple has been using PCI since 1995. Nothing slows down a technology like being discontinued for 7 years. Sheesh.

    Instead of talking on about things you don't know, please investigate the incredible list of IEEE and ISO standards that Apple supports. Their firmware (equivalent to PC BIOS) is an IEEE standard that's also used by Sun and others. The high-speed peripheral bus is an IEEE standard. They use PCI and AGP and USB and the same RAM and storage and even the same anti-theft collars. They've included an Ethernet port standard on every Mac for more than five years, and Gigabit Ethernet has been standard on pro Macs (Power Mac, PowerBook) for two years. They were the first company to introduce Wi-Fi (802.11), as well as the first company to build the antennae and hardware inside every system they sell. PowerBooks have typical PC Card slots. Optical drives are the same, TV outputs are S-Video, Bluetooth, yada, yada, yada.

  259. Re: proprietary by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
    IMHO, you're nitpicking a bit. I do understand your point - but you're taking "proprietary" quite literally. On the other hand, in the world of computers, people typically use "proprietary" to designate the fact that the hardware is developed by a single vendor, using standards they invented themselves.
    That bastardization of the definition essentially renders it meaningless. If we accept it we are saying that thousands of copylefted applications are proprietary. Is python a proprietary language? How about C? Whether a standard is maintained by a for profit corporation or a non-profit association is of no consequence. If it is open it is open. Many of those standards maintaining bodies are simply coalitions of vendors anyway. Kind of like the NFL is a not for profit association of for profit businesss.
    The Apple computers have always fit this definition, to one extent or another. (As I said, though, this is changing in some ways. You no longer see much happening with, say, the NuBus slot.) I still can't just buy an Apple Cinema display and slap it on my PC and expect it to work properly, though.
    Even if we accept your definition Apple is no more "proprietary" than any other PC vendor. They use in-house bridge chips, but IEEE firmware. PC vendors use proprietary (literally) firmware. BTW, Apple did not develop NuBus. It was designed at MIT and Texas Instruments. They published the standard in 1979, almost a decade before Apple used it. The reason you don't see it anymore is because it isn't as good as PCI.
    As for network protocols, simply publishing the details of how it works doesn't make it a defacto "standard". Appletalk might be completely and openly documented - but it will always be considered more "proprietary" than TCP/IP,
    Because TCP/IP was developed at Berkely? Being less common does not make something proprietary. Go hang out in the Netatalk mailing lists. You'll find Apple employees exchanging information and even contributing bugfixes. If AppleTalk and AFP are proprietary, maybe Apple should tell their developers to stop working on competing implementations.
    just as Novell's IPX or Microsoft's Netbeui protocols are. Appletalk wasn't developed by a vendor-neutral committee - for one thing.
    Neither was the IEEE1394. It was developed at Apple. Is that proprietary too? Actually, it is more proprietary than AppleTalk or just about anything else in the Mac. Apple holds several governing patents and charges licensing fees, through a non-profit coalition of vendors I might add.
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  260. Re: proprietary by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
    Talking about AppleTalk within this discussion is disingenuous or at least ignorant. Mac OS 9 (1999) introduced AppleTalk over TCP/IP (Macs speaking AppleTalk over plain TCP/IP networks), and Mac OS X 10.2 (today) does all the tricks that AppleTalk used to do over plain TCP/IP (using Rendezvous a.k.a. ZeroConf, also a standard). In short, AppleTalk is memory. Why don't you complain about the Newton or something?
    You are confusing AppleTalk with Appleshare. AppleTalk is a protocol stack including datalink (LLAP, ELAP, TLAP), transport (DDP), network (ATP, AEP,NBP,RTMP), session ( ZIP, ASP, ADSP) and application/presentation (AFP, PAP) protocols. What you are calling AppleTalk over TCP/IP is actually AFP (Apple File Protocol) over TCP/IP. This is commonly called Appleshare over IP or simply Appleshare IP (as in AppleshareIP, the Apple server product).

    I wouldn't exactly say AppleTalk is memory either. OS X still supports it, and until Rendezvous printers start appearing, it is still pretty damn useful.
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  261. Testing a post. Mod down to offtopic plz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testing a post with a URL..
    www.test.com

  262. Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c by sheWhoWalksWithToesL · · Score: 1
    I sympathize with the woman, because I'm a female switcher as of May 2002, and I too had problems adjusting to the difference between Mac OS and Windows stuff. Fortunately, my husband has lots of experience on Macs, so he was able to give me pointers on how to page up, page down, end, home, how to use the delete key for deleting text behind the cursor instead of just in front of it, etc. I didn't know that the Apple key is really called the Command key, and you use it alot like the Control key on windows machines.

    People who have never used Macs before and who switch from Windows also don't know that on Macs you don't just push the button on a backpack floppy drive and eject the disk, you have to drag the disk icon to the trash. Sounds stupid, but it is basic basic stuff.

    It really is a different way of thinking about things, plus the apple help website doesn't necessarily help newnies who need to learn how to perceive things, or need to learn how to do things. ( I learn about most things by messing around and trying stuff , but after a certain amount of messing around, I want to be able to find out QUICKLY from someone how to really do what I want to do. )

    As for printing, there are two different programs out there that claim to support any PC printer, but if you want drivers for your BJC-2000 printer for OS X, forget it. If you got the PowerPrint program, PowerPrint people say to go ask Cannon, and the Cannon people say it's not cost-effective. My husband found a hack somewhere, but it still only works in a limited manner after what seems to me to be too much tweaking. So I save data to a floppy and move over to the PC to print it.

    I can't use my iBook to write my computer science homework programs using Microsoft Visual C++. Has to be done on a PC obviously. Wish I could do it on my iBook.

    Really, I'm an intermediate computer user who wants to do intermediate things on my iBook, but I don't yet know how and even that big thick book about OS X is vague about particulars. Advice and direction are welcome.

    --
    -SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras Please enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...