Slashdot Mirror
QuarkXPress 6 For Mac OS X
MikeXpop writes "Apple's front page shows that QuarkXPress has been announced for Mac OS X and will be available as of next week. Anyone else getting a flashback to when Diablo II was in stores?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Microsoft Office X is already available so what's the point in buying this overpriced word processor?
Well no, not really..but at least now you can use the latest Apple offerings.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Some of the bugs that have been encountered on OS X only happen on HFS+. I have a feeling that their VFS module for HFS+ still has some interesting bugs left within. Again, speed is about equal for both formats, at least on my machine, and again I am coming from Linux and Free / NetBSD here so don't assume I need your crufty app anyway! For fuck's sake, the TCP stack is 'largely a byproduct of having BSD code' along with a good portion of the rest of the system.
Don't even cry to me about case sensitivity. That's the stupidest thing. Files only have names so that HUMANS can easily deal with them. Otherwise they'd all have numbers -- it's all the same to the computer, right?
Are you fucking retarded? They already do! They call these 'numbers' inodes. Maybe you should grab a pen and some paper here and write some fo this down. Files have one or more names so programs can interact with them. Files can be manipulated by more than one program in the real world. Case sensitivity does indeed have uses. If you don't like having to use caps, then don't name your file with caps! You are a whiny little bitch, ain't ya?
No, I have a real reason for using UFS. It has a mature implementation on OS X, and I experience no strangeness from it on the network with other boxen. It is also a relatively long-lived filesystem, whereas a HFS+ partition will tend to accumulate unused but UNALLOCATABLE disk space over time, thus keeping slime like Symantec in business.
HFS+ isn't a toy filesystem exactly, but it needs some serious overhaul. It was almost as if it were designed with the occasional reformat as a necessary design choice.
Since the filesystem layer is fully virtualized, we shall see newer and more interesting formats than HFS+ in future versions of OS X.
Hopefully.