Slashdot Mirror


The Ultimate MacDate

Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech - the PC hardware site - took the Apple challenge and tried a Mac out for a month. The result was the most indepth Macdate I have even seen. As quoted by Anand, 'In the end, Apple has developed a very strong platform.'"

706 comments

  1. I am not surprised by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once you're under Windows,you want the Linux hackability, once you are on Linux, you miss the bells and whistles, since I switched, I got both and I am happy :)

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:I am not surprised by RangerRick98 · · Score: 1

      Personally, under Windows I wanted Linux stability, and the apps I use on my Linux box are featureful enough for me, so I have no reason to switch to a Mac for "bells and whistles."

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
    2. Re:I am not surprised by malchus842 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not surprised either. I used a Mac back in 1985, but then ended up on DOS/Windows boxes until about 18 months ago. Having switched and used a Mac for this period of time, I would NEVER switch back to Windows. Heck, I made it a requirement of accepting my last job offer that I have a Mac, not a PC.

      Why? Because the Mac gives me the best of both worlds - a Unix box (BSD no less), and a fantastic UI. I've been a Unix guy for a LONG time (1980). Linux is great, but when it comes to Unix-like boxes, I'll take the Mac any day as a user environment.

      I've switched my whole family - we now have 4 macs in the house. I got my pastor to switch to the Mac, and when I was a consultant, several comapnies I supported took my advice and switched. EVERYONE is happier than they ever were on the Windows box.

    3. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bells and whistles? The main thing that keeps me on Windows are the games. :|

    4. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bells and Whistles are all you get with a Mac, I want a computer.

      I bought a 12" PB 4 months ago when the new models came out. It is a beautiful machine with a pretty OS, but that's all it's got going for. Trying to do anything other than surfing the web or watching DVDs is nightmarishly difficult (like setting a KVM or printing to a networked printer)

      The apps are designed the same way. iPhoto looks pretty to sell computers, but is not useful for storing a digital photo album because it's missing a simple feature like sub-folders. So if you want to store your vacation pictures in a folder with subfolders for each thing you did on the trip...don't use iPhoto. Even the DVD player is missing most of the features even the most basic freeware PC players have like still picture capture.

      As far as the hardware itself, as I said it looks nice, but it's cheaply made. The hinge is already seizing up, the esc and F1 keys have to be pressed very hard to work, and taking it apart looks like a pita...you have to snap off 4 of the function keys to get at screws just to start -- and the plastic is so brittle, I doubt it's possible without breaking them. I would be surprised if the authorized apple shops didn't have a large supply of replacement function keys that are free with repair because they won't admit they broke it or $30 each if you try on your own.

      By contrast, I've taken apart and reassembled several G3 Wallstreet models; they're built like a dream, everything has an easy and logical way of taking it apart, and the build quality is excellent except for 2 design flaws which are the reasons I've had to take the machines apart.

    5. Re:I am not surprised by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My father seems to have recently (sort-of*) switched. He recieved a PowerBook because a company he is doing work for wants the development on the Mac. The stability and the interface seem to really impress him. Now, he even has an iPod and an AirPort Express. (Okay, so both of those are good even without a Mac.) He said that he (and the family) has a Mac before, but he switched to a PC because Macs were lagging in some areas at the time.

      *I say "sort-of" because he still has Windows desktop and laptop, but he hates the spyware and other junk that gets on those. He seems to prefer the Mac.

    6. Re:I am not surprised by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really "bells and whistles", that's a common mistake that many people (including me in the past) make when thinking about what the mac can do.

      AppleScript may look like a dumb language, but I've never seen VB do what it can do to a desktop, and there's certainly no comparison on linux. Need to add a feature to your favorite app? You can normally do it with little pain and the Script Editor. If there's not API support for it, you can always just write a script that controls the GUI directly.

      I also have always been a big fan of the dock concept, but WindowMaker really doesn't do it justice - it's not really WM's fault, either. The fact that when you have 10 copies of FireFox open they are joined at the hip by the OS makes the dock concept that much more powerful. Alt-tab to the firefox app, alt-` to cycle firefox windows only.

      I could go on, because there are tons of "little things" that make it so nice. After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?

    7. Re:I am not surprised by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 0

      After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?

      Just the other day, when I installed Windows 98. Absolutely everything worked first time, without the need for downloading any new drivers, patches or anything.

      Although admittedly it's running in QEMU on my iBook, so perhaps the Apple influence is infectious. :-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    8. Re:I am not surprised by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm a recent convert of a sort. I just recently got a used iBook 800Mhz, G3. Good price on eBay..with software, carry case, 14" screen...all hardware.

      I got it to experiment with putting Gentoo Linux on it...heard good things. I decided to dual boot it. I've been using OSX a lot at the beginning...while I was installing and figuring out how to get Linux on it. More and more...I find I really like a lot about the OSX side. Its really a learning experience...I think I'll be even more comfortable once I get a replacement mouse that had 2 buttons and a clickable wheel....I really miss the Linux/Unix way of clicking with left button to drag to highlight...and just click middle button (wheel) to paste. I understand with will work on OSX too with a new mouse.

      Overall..I do like it. I think I'll really like it more when I can figure how to get the Gentoo for OSX portage kit put on...and start to run more native X applications on it.

      I'm still having to finish the Linux install...got to troubleshoot some problems with it not waking up from sleep...and occasionally locking up hard for no reason on the Linux side...so, till I get that rectified...I'll keep using OSX more. The more I use it, the more I like it. Even when the Linux side gets fully functional...I'll still jump back and forth. And I'm looking forward to trying to run MOL (Mac on Linux) while in the Linux partition...and have the best of both worlds.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:I am not surprised by ThousandStars · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not old enough to have used computers in the 80s, but I've been using DOS and then Windows for as long as I remember.

      And Windows has been frustrating for as long as I can remember. Linux, although more stable, brings its own nightmares with it. During summer upgrade time came along, and I bought a Powerbook. I get portability, power (relative to other laptops) and ease-of-use. If I must use Windows I have VPC.

      In addition, I'm no longer tethered to the phone-home crippling of Windows and Office XP. The last two times I had to format and install those two (an experience I hope to avoid from here out), I also had to call MS central. I don't like being treated as a criminal when I'm trying to legally use products I bought.

      In short, I don't want to sound like an Apple ad, but I'm quite happy with the Powerbook. That doesn't mean you should get one, or that there aren't reasons to stay with Windows, but I'm pleased. And so is the parent poster.

    10. Re:I am not surprised by Bastian · · Score: 4, Informative

      AppleScript does have a comparison from the UNIX world - shell scripting. AppleScript is the natural extension of shell scripting into a GUI environment.

      Yes, the language itself is a travesty, but thena gain, so is bash. And just like with shell scripting, there are all sorts of convenient replacements, like the AppleScript-JavaScript bridge.

      w00t.

    11. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      "Why? Because the Mac gives me the best of both worlds - a Unix box (BSD no less), and a fantastic UI. I've been a Unix guy for a LONG time (1980)."

      This has been discussed so many times but people just don't seem to understand that OS X != BSD. Saying OS X gives you a solid BSD install is a huge simplification.

    12. Re:I am not surprised by KH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that I disagree with you, but I saw AppleScript as extension of HyperTalk. Apple indeed did not have an equivalent of shell scripts and users had to rely on third party solutions to automate repeated tasks. It was a welcome addition to the system when it came around. But just like everything else from Apple, when something shows up first, it's dog slow. I mean slooooow (remember Opendoc/CyberDog anyone?), and didn't have the cleanliness of HyperTalk. I don't think great many people used AppleScript. I personally realized that general users don't write scripts. Those who write shell scripts are not exactly your grandmas. I highly doubt that there will be a day when people actually start writing scripts however it may become simple. It's not their thing.

      Oh, nice thing about AppleScripts in these OS X days is that we have do shellscript (or sometihng).

    13. Re:I am not surprised by sploo22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More and more I'm finding out that Mac OS is, and indeed has been for a long time, very elegant and well-designed.

      A number of features that modern Linux distros and desktop environments are priding themselves on have been part of Mac OS for a long time. Graphical boot? Check. Graphical disk partitioner? Check. LiveCD installer? Check. Loads of nifty little features like an application-accessible encrypted keychain manager, desktop sticky notes, multi-user logins with profiles stored on a server... you name it. Mas OS 9 even has VOICEPRINT IDENTIFICATION for crying out loud.

      I'm now pretty determined that my next computer is going to be a PowerBook.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    14. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could go on, because there are tons of "little things" that make it so nice. After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?


      a week and a half ago.

      I set up a new system with Windows XP Pro. Worked right out of the box, connected to the net and all.

    15. Re:I am not surprised by network23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "AppleScript may look like a dumb language, but I've never seen VB do what it can do to a desktop, and there's certainly no comparison on linux. Need to add a feature to your favorite app? You can normally do it with little pain and the Script Editor. If there's not API support for it, you can always just write a script that controls the GUI directly."

      And you can control your shell from AppleScript, or control your AppleScript from shell. And control PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, Webservices and everything else included in MacOS X, using extremely powerful solutions like Folder Actions where you connect a script to run when the content of a folder changes.

      Whoa. This is pure gold.

    16. Re:I am not surprised by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I have used all Windows 3.1-XP, Linux, several flavors, BeOS, etc etc. I can use and get along in all. About 2 years ago I loaded OS X 10.1 on a upgraded clone 604 with a G3 upgrade and some other parts tossed at it... I have never looked back and today carry an iBook.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    17. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?

      Every time. Maybe you just need to lower your expectations for Windows.

    18. Re:I am not surprised by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bells and whistles? The main thing that keeps me on Windows are the games. :|

      And even then. Since consoles are really starting to come into their own, and Microsoft is encouraging the usual Windows games developers to develop for their console, you really have to ask yourself whether you still need a PC for your games?

      With the games argument assigned to the consoles, you no longer have to include that as a major requirement when buying your computer. Because of that the Mac becomes more appealing, as does any other non-MS-Windows solution.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    19. Re:I am not surprised by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The freedom to use any controller I want is what keeps me playing PC games. You have to rely on kludgy hardware and funky hacks to use unsupported controllers on console systems.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:I am not surprised by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Sadly the only operating systems to ever have gotten GUI scripting really right would be OS/2 and AmigaDOS. I don't know if the majority of OS/2 applications had REXX ports, but basically everything for AmigaDOS did. Unfortunately I wasn't a scripting type back then and I made no use whatsoever of this fantastic functionality.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:I am not surprised by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      If games don't count as 'bells and whistles,' then I'm not sure what does. ;P

    22. Re:I am not surprised by Magic5Ball · · Score: 2, Informative

      setting a KVM

      The lack of legacy PS/2 ports on the Mac would pose a problem, but KVM/IP or KVM/USB work fine.

      iPhoto ... is not useful for storing a digital photo album

      Indeed. Real photographers use a 3rd party CMS/workflow solution anyway, while there are cuter solutions from Adobe and anyone else for consumers.

      still picture capture

      Built in to the operating system...

      printing to a networked printer

      Autometic network printer discovery makes things easy. It begs you do do it the first time you print.

      As far as the hardware itself, as I said it looks nice, but it's cheaply made

      They come off the same production lines as many commodity PC laptops, so yes, they are cheaply made. But, unless you are using a PowerBook where you should be using a hardened unit, this isn't normally a problem for end users.

      you have to snap off 4 of the function keys to get at screws just to start

      The keyboard peels back as a unit by pressing two tabs. The structural screws are under the detachable keyboard itself, and on the lower chasis (you would know this if you're as good at servicing things as you later claim).

      or $30 each if you try on your own

      Not a user-servicable part unless you want to void warranty. Not a part that needs servicing unless you are attempting repairs in the field that should be done at the factory.

      except for 2 design flaws

      Please, fail to elaborate on this point when you criticise everything else in such detail...

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    23. Re:I am not surprised by mirko · · Score: 1

      Bells and Whistles...
      I'd say the apps.
      Compare what you get on Linux and what you get on a Mac :
      Interface builder, ms office (for Mac), Flash...
      Last I checked one could still wait to get a decent audio midi program.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    24. Re:I am not surprised by WiseWeasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Automator is an interesting new feature of Tiger (10.4), due in the first half of 2005. It's basically a graphical way of writing scripts. I'm sure app developers will also be adding Automator plugins to ensure that their apps are easy to script visually. I think that's really going to broaden the appeal of AppleScript, to the point that your grandma just might be writing scripts, even though she might not think of it that way, since it looks to be so intuitive (for some things). I'm keeping a close eye on that one, and hope that it pushes more app developers to add native AS support.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    25. Re:I am not surprised by torpor · · Score: 2, Informative

      I switched, and I have to say that the one Mac I own has been the best computer investment I've made in a computer for years. I've gotten so much work done with this aging tiBook, it just keeps on ticking, and it always works.

      Sure, I'm mostly a Unix hacker anyway, so I'm not a typical 'gotta have all the software written for me' kind of computer user, and I don't play video games, or have any 'office' needs which can't be met with vi.. so OSX is really mostly icing in the already well-made cake.

      Still, I have to admit, I am sorta surprised that its 2004 now, and the #1 vendor of Unix is Apple. I don't know why its a surprise, but its a surprise.

      I'd had a lot of hope for SGI, back in the day.. if only they'd made it, and done a laptop worthy of the SGI legend! I wish someone would get into the 'making a better laptop Unix than Apple' competition now, anyway..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    26. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The keyboard peels back as a unit by pressing two tabs.

      Not on Powerbooks. You're thinking of an iBook, dummyhead.

    27. Re:I am not surprised by steeviant · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I think I'll be even more comfortable once I get a replacement mouse that had 2 buttons and a clickable wheel..."

      You will be more comfortable, although the machines don't ship with two button mice, the OS supports them seamlessly.

      In the meantime, you can turn your trackpad into a 3 button trackpad with a scrollwheel by getting sidetrack here.

      "I really miss the Linux/Unix way of clicking with left button to drag to highlight...and just click middle button (wheel) to paste. I understand with will work on OSX too with a new mouse."

      Sadly no, the Linux method of copy/paste won't work except in X11 applications, but OS X supports text drag and drop which can still be done entirely without moving your hand from the mouse, and is independant of the clipboard.

      "Overall..I do like it. I think I'll really like it more when I can figure how to get the Gentoo for OSX portage kit put on...and start to run more native X applications on it."

      It wasn't until I started using OS X as just another Unix with a fancy GUI that I really started to feel comfortable.

      As a person coming from the linux world, you might want to install the GNU fileutils, which is the same ls/rm/mv/cp/ln/chmod/chown etc that Linux uses, then just alias to the GNU versions instead of the FreeBSD tools it comes with.

    28. Re:I am not surprised by ZackSchil · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a setup where I let people stream and browse (not download) my iTunes library via Apache and PHP, upload their own music via a CGI script, which places the file in a folder watched by Applescript, which then passes the song off to iTunes, which adds it to my library and sorts it. Then the original in the folder is deleted.

      I should probably release my system but it's so hard to set up that very few people would use it. I was writing an installer a while back but stopped due to a lack of time.

    29. Re:I am not surprised by Senjaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Automator.app isn't really a graphical way of writing scripts. The best way of looking at it is a graphical equivalent to pipes on the command line.

      Although these sort of automation tasks can be done using AppleScript, AppleScript itself is much more versatile as you might expect.

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/automator.html

      Saying much more than that would probably be breaking my NDA. But there is probably more information to be found on the usual rumour sites.

      --
      Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.
    30. Re:I am not surprised by PurPaBOO · · Score: 1

      I almost bought a Mac about 2 years ago. Recently I was considering it again, until the power supply went in the G4 at work. £300 for a power supply! Madness. Gimmee 2 boxes, one Windoze 2K, one *nix (currently Mandrake 9.1) That's all.

      --
      If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
    31. Re:I am not surprised by Van+Halen · · Score: 1
      Sadly no, the Linux method of copy/paste won't work except in X11 applications

      I just discovered by accident a while back that Terminal does support this style of copy/paste. The only catch is that it must be in the same Terminal window, and the text must still be highlighted when you click the middle button. Not as useful as I'd like, but still nice. Of course, half the time I still use Command-C / Command-V since I've gotten so used to it.

    32. Re:I am not surprised by steeviant · · Score: 1

      I sit corrected. :)

      *some applications may implement their own support for X11 style copy/paste.

    33. Re:I am not surprised by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Linux does have a strong analog to AppleScript: open source. You can modify most anything.

      On the one hand, a well written program, whose internal functions are libraries and whose GUI is writen in an effecient langauge (as opposed to these god aweful GUI APIs we use today), is probably far far better then AppleScript for medium sized projects, i.e. anything where you want to change the GUI. Plus, such a structured system will lend itself to "interaction with a running program" ala true AppleScript.

      On the other hand, our current technology lags in terms of making programs comprehensible, and some things are hard to do that way.

      In the end, AppleeScript is damn nice, no two ways about it. The following schell script grabs the session cookies from the front Safari windoww, and prints them in a manor suitable for curl.

      #!/bin/bash
      echo -n "Set-Cookie: "
      osascript _EOF_ | perl -pe "s/; /\\nSet-Cookie: /g"
      tell application "Safari"
      do JavaScript "document.cookie" in document 1
      end tell
      _EOF_

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  2. 20 IE Windows?!!! by jaaron · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article:

    When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open, Outlook with another 5 - 15 emails, Power Point with NDA presentations, ...

    20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by falcon5768 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      He doesnt even have THAT excuse... Safari does tabbed browsing and is already on the system. Obviously a windows user

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    2. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about those Non Disclosure Agreements put in presentations? Hope he changes the font to wingdings in order to obfuscate some of the verbiage!

    3. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 3, Informative

      That or any of the many other alternate browsers that allow tabbed browsing. And that includes Opera, which did it in the first place.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    4. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by ageoffri · · Score: 0, Troll

      Joy of tabbed browsing? I've tried and found it very annonying. I like alt-tab between multiple windows at work, many times it is several IE windows. I tried friefox's tabbed browsing and it just didn't work for me.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    5. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by sgant · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um...RTFA...he was talking about his Windows experience...and yeah, he is a Windows user that used MacOSX for a month...hence the name of this article and the whole fricken point...

      RTFA

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    6. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Ianoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why on earth would I want a closed source browser that contains Adware when I can have an open source browser that has more features (with easily installed extensions) for free? Opera works great on my Nokia, but I don't think I'll be installing their desktop software any time soon.

    7. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Croaker-bg · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can CTl+tab in firefox between tabs and ctl+shift+tab to go backwards through the tabs. Same functionality. There is also an extension that will allow you to ctl+tab to the last tab you used in a historical order. These are very handy features and save you the overhead of having multiple IE windows open with the same at the keyboard functionality to jump around.

    8. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by bburton · · Score: 1
      Safari does tabbed browsing and is already on the system.

      Did I miss something here? I thought he was talking about using WINDOWS when he was complaining about window management problems, not OSX.

      --
      Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    9. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.

      Or just stop going to the porn site that spawned them.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    10. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, I don't like tabbed browsing myself - and I've had that many windows open at the same time on a fairly regular basis. It has more to do with the desire to be able to ALT-TAB around. Now, if I knew the shortcut to switch tabs easily, and the shortcut to close tabs easily, and clicking on links on blogs didn't open up a new window, I'd probably use tabs.

    11. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      The reason I prefer Opera is that it handles tabs the way I want. In Firefox, if I click on a link that wants to open up a new window, it opens up a whole new window instead of just a tab. If I knew beforehand that the link was going to go to a new window I could just ctrl-click on it and get it in a new tab, but that's not something I know I have to do before I click. In Opera, nothing gets put into a new window unless you ask it to. Why Firefox can't be changed to implement something so simple is beyond me.

      $30 won't kill you if you don't like Adware. But even with the Adware, you can barely notice it anyways. *shrug*

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    12. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firefox/Mozilla gestures do not even close to compare to Opera's (well not last time I tried.

      The only reason I dropped Opera is it didn't feel right on Linux (being QT, but not feeling as nice as Konquerer in the environment).

      Maybe they fixed this in Mozilla, but opera has these gestures/shortcuts that I find great, and miss:

      1) right mouse+mouse wheel (cycle tabs)
      2)hold right mouse+tap left mouse (back)
      3)revers of 2 for forward
      4)CTRL+mousewheel for a supurb zooming, way better then any other zoom.

      Also the ram ached forward and back buttons are blazing fast. Just amazing, even on older systems.

      Fast foward and rewind was nice, but pretty much jusdt a gimmick.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    13. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's called the Single Browser Extension. It's existed for Firefox and Mozilla for a very long time.

    14. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 0

      Whoops, $39. My bad.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    15. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      You could always get the Single Window extension from here.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    16. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ctrl+Tab, Ctrl+Shift+Tab.
      Ctrl+W.
      Single Window Extension or Tabbrowser Preferences.

    17. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      CTRL-TAB

      simple things are already their, you just have to look.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    18. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by pricedl · · Score: 1

      In Firefox, if I click on a link that wants to open up a new window, it opens up a whole new window instead of just a tab.

      They've got a fix for that. See Bug 172962 (and don't forget that bugzilla won't let you click through that)

    19. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      It's not quite the SAME functionality. With multiple IE windows, cutting and pasting is a lot easier. But once you get used to it, you can't go back. Especially if there are multiple sites you like to have open at once (e.g., Slashdot and gmail and a news site)

    20. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, another Smug Opera Weenie. It's like the Smug Lisp Weenies, whose only reaction to any programming language is "lisp did it first, they're all trying to be lisp, why not just use lisp". Smug ___ Weenies are wholly incapable of listening to criticism of ___, redirecting them into snippy point-for-point replies that usually don't really address the shortcomings that were brought up.

      So you use opera, you like opera, bully for you. Now shut the hell up about it already. There really just isn't a single person left who actually cares what browser you use or recommend.

    21. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by damiam · · Score: 1

      Firefox does #4 in the default install, and #2 and 3 with an extension. I don't know about #1, I've never really wanted that, but it'd be trivial to implement if someone hasn't already done so.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    22. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by ViolentGreen · · Score: 0

      You opera zealots are worse then the gentoo ones.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    23. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bad day?

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    24. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      It really isn't. I use firefox and tabbed browsing. Often I need to switch back and forth between 2-3 web pages. It is not efficient with tabbed browsing, especially if the tabs are not right next to each other. There is still a place for multiple browser windows.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    25. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you want from the lame-ass Mac zealot? I'm a Mac user and idiots like him make feel embaressed about it.

      Can't you just see the elistism dripping from him, he thinks "windows-user" is the greatest insult mankind has ever come up with, and he thinks the Mac is absolutely perfect.

      There are many Mac zealots like him, though they're in the minority even in Mac circles. I think that attitude is one of the main things holding people back from buying a Mac; they don't want to be associated with the zealots.

    26. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please.

      Opera utterly crushes Firefox, unless you have the time and patience to install 50 incompatible, butt-ugly, buggy "extensions".

      It is hilarious to hear Firefox users crowing about "revolutionary new features" that have been in Opera for YEARS.

    27. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Opera's zoom does pictures,

      I prefer that, but I guess it is 6 one half a dozen the other.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    28. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by powerlinekid · · Score: 1

      Firefox also zooms pictures with an extension that takes 20 seconds to install.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    29. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by shawb · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Firefox 1.0 Pre with some mouse gesture extensions installed (Don't remember offhand which ones) I can:
      1) cycle through tabs by rolling the scroll wheel when the cursor is over the tabs.
      2) back page by right click, move mouse left.
      3) Forward page by right click, move mouse right.
      4) And CTRL+Mousewheel does zoom in Firefox for me, although it does not zoom as well as Opera, in my opinion. Basically just changes text size, no images zooming, formatting within frames or CSS gets kinda wierd. So I guess You still do have the zooming thing. Which isn't much of a deal for me in particular, but for people who's vision is going and would normally need glasses for reading, this is actually a very useful feature. More usable than most ADA hacks I've seen

      But in my experience, Mozilla just has a more polished feel. This is something that very pieces of OSS really seem to get right, and I congratulate the Mozilla team on working this through. No cryptic configuration files (I may be able to properly configure one of these, but our Aunt Tillie may have some more problems with it.) I enjoy the light footprint that the browser takes up on my screen space, The ad-blocking and pop-up/pop-under general annoyance control are VERY effective, and best of all, just about every website (with the exception of SlashDot... I've heard a fair number of people complain about this) that I visit regularly seems to render properly, and if it doesn't I usually think twice about trying to load it up in a different browser, because often times that means some IE hook for delivering unwanted (in my mind) advertising content to me.

      Oh, and one thing that FireFox shares with Opera is how fast pages seem to load. Sure, I'm theoretically limited by the file throughput, and don't have anything to back up my observations, but FireFox and Opera (Along with Mozilla to a lesser extent) just FEEL fast when rendering pages. I remember this effect MORESO back when I was on dialup. I don't know if Mozillas/Opera try to start rendering before the whole html file is downloaded, or if they do this with displaying partially loaded images, but the feel was just somehow much much faster.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    30. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      has anyone else felt that being able to move a tab from one window to another would be awesome?

      yea, i know, 'just fsckin write it up then if you want it so bad'. well, i do write code, i just don't have any time open to hack on mozilla, nor am i familiar enough with their code base. it's just that this would be a killer feature

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    31. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Pop Up Blockers are your friend.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    32. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by perseguidor · · Score: 1

      I find using ctrl+pageup/pagedown more comfortable and easier; two mod keys are too much for me, given my lack of coordination.

      --
      O make me a mask
    33. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      Man--between this and the thread here, I can see the Opera users are ready to rumble. (ironic that parent post was made by Tyler Durden).

      I use them both. Firefox 0.10 has the perfomance needed that I am thinking about dumping Opera. But Opera is a nice piece of commercial software.

    34. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Noksagt · · Score: 2, Informative
      and don't forget that bugzilla won't let you click through that
      Actually, he uses Opera. There is a decent chance that he's discovered the joys of "Disable Referral Logging." Which would allow him to click-through.
    35. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      tab browser exensions will let you do that. it is among the more heavyweight extensions and could slow your browser down a lot. mini-T is much more sprightly and will let you *copy* a tab into another window. No doubt there are others --

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    36. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      No offense to the poster, but I find it hillarious that these days you can get a +4 or 5 just by posting "And Opera too" to any post mentioning a Firefox feature.

    37. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what's WITH all these Opera trolls lately??

      yes we know you like Opera... nobody cares. everyone else likes Firefox, which is open source.

    38. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by michaelbuddy · · Score: 1

      Opera, hate it. especially since all its users are elitists. buggy extensions? Um, sync bookmarks. Firefox Rules! If you don't like them, write your own... Oh wait you're too busy bitching about firefox.

      --

      ...::----::...

      I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

    39. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by anethema · · Score: 1

      Here her, ctrl-pgup or ctrl-pgdown is much faster and easier than using the shift key (for me)

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    40. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by twbecker · · Score: 1

      You don't even need that anymore. A recent Firefox checkin duplicates this functionality without having to use an extension. Just download a recent nightly.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    41. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by period3 · · Score: 1

      Uh, what difference does that make? Whether your 'tabs' are in a browser window or on the taskbar makes little difference if most of what you have open are browsers.

      Actually, the easiest way to navigate a lot (30+) of windows is ctrl-alt-del, t, find the one you want, and hit alt-s. I'd prefer it if they got rid of the task bar and just docked the task manager at the side. Might be shitty at low rez though.

    42. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      based on the article, the only thing i can say
      about the author is 'end user'

      i would buy a mac for one reason : music composition

      otherwise, no damn way

    43. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who made you 'everyone else'? Some of us don't subscribe to Slashdot groupthink.

    44. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 No Sense of Humour

    45. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by GiantMonkey · · Score: 1

      It's likely already been pointed out, but using Optimoz mouse gestures you can do every single one of those things, plus customize your own gestures to do whatever you want.

    46. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why on earth would I want a closed source browser that contains Adware when I can have an open source browser that has more features (with easily installed extensions) for free?"

      The fact that it is open source really means nothing to 99.9% of the world. How many people do you know that are making code changes and then recompiling the browser?

    47. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by astro-g · · Score: 1

      Fast forward really comes into its own when browsing Forums and galleries

    48. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The network.http.sendRefererHeader pref in Mozilla/Firefox can do the same thing (set it to 0).

    49. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Noksagt · · Score: 1

      I know, but thanks for bringing this up.

      Why would you obscure features that people could reasonably say "wow--that's cool." I'd think you'd want to make them as easy to access as possible, especially if it is a setting that could be frequently changed.

      Anyway, setting it to 4 (send the referrer only to the same host, otherwise none) might be a better setting since it is somewhat tedious to change.

    50. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's also CrazyBrowser and AvantBrowser which will give you tabbed browsing, popup killing, and much of the other firefox-type stuff with internet exploder, handy if you still use a lot of IE-only sites. I don't, so I use firefox, but a number of sites render improperly, including slashdot. Incidentally I noticed /. rendering improperly in Mozilla 1.7.2/Windows yesterday, so I suspect the problem goes much deeper than firefox.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      That or any of the many other alternate browsers that allow tabbed browsing. And that includes Opera, which did it in the first place.

      Why would you pay to use Opera when Firefox is just as good, if not better, and is free? Sure, you can use the ad-supported version of Opera, but who wants to watch ads in their web browser?

    52. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Stick_Fig · · Score: 1

      I for some reason can't believe that this man is a power user when he still considers IE a solid application. I also think the bullshit with him timing load times of sites on Safari and IE was nothing short of pathetic. Two seconds is nothing.

      --
      ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
    53. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      If you use X windows, and don't need a heavyweight window manager, you might like fluxbox. It puts a small tab on every window. Picking up a tab and dropping it onto another groups them together. Any number, any app.

      Anybody knows of a windows hack that does this?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    54. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to give you a reality check and point out that mozilla had tabbed browsing before opera even imagined having that feature. They actually copied it from the mozilla project, so you shouldn't be so quick trying to pretend that opera was the creative genius behind them. Opera copied from mozilla and that part of history will never change.

    55. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by FrenZon · · Score: 1
      20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox ...
      Or better, irider, which offers a far better implementation of tabbed browsing than anything else (think of it more like a tree-based history).

      It's an IE shell, but so what.
    56. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody repeat after me :

      "We don't subscribe to Slashdot groupthink"
      "We don't subscribe to Slashdot groupthink"
      "We don't subscribe to Slashdot groupthink"

    57. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      optimoz.mozdev.org is your friend!

      A couple of those are done by default, and the others can probably be managed by adding custom gestures.

    58. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by ageoffri · · Score: 1
      Wow we have some moderator who is more biased here then in the Politics section. Just why in the hell is it a troll to say I don't like tabbed browsing and when I'm working with multiple windows including things besides browser windows that alt-tab works far better then any other key combonation?

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    59. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There really is no joy to tabbed browsing. I've used it, and unless I'm trying to hide what I'm doing from my supervisor at work multiple windows flat-out beat tabbed browsing.

  3. I read this article... by JoeNiner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and wondered "How many of these features have been incorporated into Linux / BSD?" I just recently installed MEPIS on a spare box to start learning about linux, so I am quite a bit in the dark on some features he mentions. Are a lot of these available in KDE/Gnome/???

    --
    Mod Me, Bee-yotch!!!
    1. Re:I read this article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For linux, check out KDE with Baghira, which is a Mac OSX clone theme for KDE. There is also some extension that copies Expose functionality. http://www.kde-look.org is a good place to go looking for extensions to the standard KDE environment. All in all it's the best knock-off Mac environment I've seen to date. There is also Karamba which adds some nice python sciptable desktop elements. Knock-off OSX docks and many pretty system monitor, weather, rss and other little desktop resident apps are done with it.

      I don't have a Mac, but some at my work do, so I see OSX every day, but I don't actually use it. So there are likely many nuances that are missing. I'd just go buy the Mac if I had tons of money to drop into a new system. Until that day arrives, linux, KDE, and the ever-improving state of open source makes a PC good enough for me.

    2. Re:I read this article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are a lot of these available in KDE/Gnome/???

      All but two.

  4. Office 2004 for PC? by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Funny

    He keeps mentioning things like iCalendar, Office 2004 for the PC and Outlook 2004 for the PC. But I can't seem to find these anywhere? Am i going insane?

    1. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Mac versions of Office always have the "year" label 1 year higher than the current Windows version. Office 97 (Windows) = Office 98 (Mac). Same for Office 2000/2001 and Office 2003/2004. Oh...and Office XP/v.X.

    2. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by boaworm · · Score: 5, Informative
      iCalendar is shorted iCal, more info here.

      Office 2004 is the Applized version of Office XP. More info here. Outlook is renamed Entourage btw...

      And... it's probably more correct to say that Office XP is a Windowized version of Office 2004, since much development/innovation at Microsoft is implemented first at their Apple department in California (not in Redmomd like the rest of the stuff). As an example, they tried out a sidebar in IE for Mac. Dont think it ever made it to Windows...


      I wouldnt say you are insane, just that you misread the PC/Mac stuff. Some apple software ends up on win32 though, like iTunes.

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    3. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Outlook is a full-fledged Exchange client with basic support for IMAP and POP mail.

      Entourage is a full-fledged IMAP/POP e-mail client with basic support for Exchange. It doesn't support shared calendars, public folders, or many other features of Exchange.

      For home users this is meaningless information. For companies that use Exchange as a groupware solution, it's very important. Microsoft doesn't develop a full Exchange client for the Mac, and it's very unlikely that they ever will.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      umm...actually, Office 2k4 is built off the office 2k3 codebase

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    5. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      I wouldnt say you are insane, just that you misread the PC/Mac stuff. Some apple software ends up on win32 though, like iTunes.

      And I say you didn't understand. The point was incorrectly called called Office 2003 for Windows Office 2004 for windows. Same for Outlook. I was just pointing out the typos on his pages.

    6. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Informative

      ICalendar is a standard that is cross platform. A whole buncha programs (including Mozilla Calendar/Sunbird) for linux/winders support it.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    7. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft doesn't develop a full Exchange client for the Mac, and it's very unlikely that they ever will.

      Yeah... except for Outlook. Sure, it's the OS9 Office 2001 version, but you didn't specify MacOS X. And you can run it in Classic.

    8. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      umm...actually, Office 2k4 is built off the office 2k3 codebase

      Yeah, I saw that 2. What I think he meant to say is that Office 2003 was based on Office X(?), they introduced a lot of new features on the Mac that they brought back to the PC. Which makes sense, each time a new product comes out it introduces new ideas.

      Bigger point is that the Mac platform is really what got MS into applications, prior to that MS did OS'es and compilers; Lotus was reluctant to bring their industry leading 1-2-3 spreadsheet to the Mac, so Jobs asked Bill (notorious for taking advantage of others misteps, ie DOS when Mr CP/M didn''t care to port to IBM's new PC) to develop one. Bill jumped all over it (partially to get early access to the ground breaking UI), the rest is history.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    9. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by batzo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ummm, actually Entourage does support public folders and shared calendars... (even those e-mailed meeting requests are supported), although you do need Exchange 2000 or above.


      Unfortunately it's not too stable...


      Even mail.app supports public folders as well


      http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/entourage200 4/entourage2004.aspx?pid=exup2004

  5. Re:Macdate? by Ironix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And your comment sounds rather redneck. Makes sense, considering the narrowmindedness of most PC users I've met.

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
  6. Re:Apple = Proprietary by wileycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it works, very very well

  7. Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, to install an application, you simply drag the application's installer to any folder on your hard drive and it's "installed". Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive, but the fact that you are separated from that process, it really made me feel like I wasn't in control of my system. On the flip side, installing and uninstalling applications couldn't be easier. There are no full screen installers to deal with; just drag and drop, and get back to work while the application installs. The fact that I don't know where everything is being copied contributes to my feelings of file system disconnect. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit too philosophical about my OSes.

    He doesn't need to feel so disconnected. All the files are exactly where he put them, nowhere else. Mac applications are actually directories packaged up to look like individual files. All the files he saw copying were just part of the application directory. Nothing to worry about. :-)

    1. Re:Installing apps by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 4, Informative

      Further, some Mac OS X applications do have installers. Office 2004 has both an installer and a drag/drop folder. The Office 2004 installer lets you choose to not install certain features. Or you can just drag and drop the folder onto your hard drive.

    2. Re:Installing apps by Manuscript+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I would say that the Windows way of installing apps leaves the user with less control. You don't necessarily have any idea where an installer is putting files, what it's overwriting, what it's messing up. OS X app bundles stay in one place.

    3. Re:Installing apps by nine-times · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what he means when he says "Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive..." It just copies the .app folder, right?

      Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.

      On the other hand, more and more OSX apps have actually gone to using an install program, including Apple's apps, which I find unfortunate. I like the whole drag-and-drop method of installation.

    4. Re:Installing apps by arekusu · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that you normally do not need to install AT ALL. Not even copy. If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

      The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)

    5. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.

      I think he's talking about the progress bar for long copies. That actually shows you the name of the files being copied. If one doesn't know any better, it might look like the files are being installed.

    6. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

      What are these 'CDs' you are referring to? I have shiny disks for movies, could that be what you're thinking of? ;-)

      Joking aside, I'll often test programs by running them directly out of the DMG file. If I don't like it, I'll unmount the DMG and trash the whole shebang. Never even touches my applications folder. :-)

    7. Re:Installing apps by Gryffin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even Mac apps that don't use installers need to put various pereference files, support files and the like in certain directories, such as the user's Library folder. THis is actually done at first launch. The Anandtech guy apparently thought that they were installed when he dragged the app file over; that would creep me out, too, if dragging one one file actually dragged a bunch into seemingly random locations. But the file system isn't that magical; the application just created those files/folders as needed. No mystery here, no need to feel disconnected.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
    8. Re:Installing apps by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's worth pointing out that you normally do not need to install AT ALL. Not even copy. If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

      The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)

      Firefox also freaks out if you try to run it from its disk image. Not pretty.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    9. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He clearly expects that applications MUST scatter files all over the place just to run.

      After years of dealing with \, \WINDOWS, \WINNT, %windir%\system, %windir%\system32, \progra~1, the Start Menu directories (in which "shortcuts"/aliases to directories/folders don't result in navigable file-system menus), the registry, etc., etc., he's obviously got some fear of what HAS TO BE going on without his knowledge. That's the Microsoft Windows legacy, where even supposedly "power" users are afraid of what's going on, either because it's actively hidden from them but apparent in frightening ways, or because he is asked to participate so actively in the process.

      On Mac OS, the majority of users generally know what's going where, because everything goes where it makes sense in the first place, because (get this) things aren't so much hidden as made plain to see, but harmless to modify. No pop-up warnings if you decide to unhide mysterious "system files."

    10. Re:Installing apps by ILikeRed · · Score: 1
      Is he under the delusion he knows where every dll and other file is put when he installs something in Windows?!? Not that it is not nice to be able do something like
      rpm -ql program
      with Linux, but I have not seen anything similiar with windows.....
      --
      I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
    11. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Even Mac apps that don't use installers need to put various pereference files, support files and the like in certain directories, such as the user's Library folder. THis is actually done at first launch

      Windows programs do the same, except they either screw up your registry or leave .ini droppings all over the place. :-)

    12. Re:Installing apps by mewyn · · Score: 1

      He's a bit wrong on this. When you drag an application to the /Applications directory all the system does is copy the contents of that application (a specially structured directory) into its destination. The application, once it's first run will then put any support files in place. These files always end up in either /Library, or more typically ~/Library, and 99 times out of 100 it's just a preferences file.

    13. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      the Start Menu directories (in which "shortcuts"/aliases to directories/folders don't result in navigable file-system menus)

      A fun Mac experiment:

      - Drag an application onto the taskbar. This will create a shortcut. Now move the location of the application. The shortcut will still work!!!

      - Open a text file in TextEdit. Move the file. Make a change to it in TextEdit. Notice that TextEdit doesn't care you moved (or renamed) the file, it writes to the correct place! No more accidentally duplicated files!

      Gotta love the Mac file system! :-D

    14. Re:Installing apps by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 1
      It sounds like he needs a reference to the install log, or he's referring to iPhoto and iTunes, which do actually trigger copying whatever files you import to various places on your drive.

      I was wary at first of deleting MP3 files on my Desktop because it seemed like iTunes was playing them from the Desktop. Only after I explored ~/Users/Music/iTunes Music Library did I figure out what was going on. It's not intuitive, to 90% of users it doesn't need to be (unless you want to know whether or not you can delete that MP3 file)... but clarification may be necessary for those particular applications.

    15. Re:Installing apps by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Except for the entries in /Library and ~/Library. Those can be a pain to find. If there are problems in those, a simple uninstall/reinstall of the app doesn't fix it. With windows, a reinstall of the app will usually fix any problems.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    16. Re:Installing apps by uvsc_wolverine · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason for some programs to have installers (especially programs that are large enough to span over multiple disks), is to get everything organized into those packages that you find in your Applications folder. Unreal Tournament 2004 had an installer for the CD-ROM version, and all that was for was so that all of the files across the four CDs could be loaded into the package for the program.

      --
      This space for rent...
    17. Re:Installing apps by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Aren't DLL supposed to be registered somewhere with pointers to all the apps that use them (so they won't be uninstalled while some other app still needs them)? I guess there could be an application that queries the registry for this info. I haven't seen it myself, tho.

      --
      No sig
    18. Re:Installing apps by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      And a sense of "file system disconnect" is going to occur for new users of Windows, MacOS, or Linux.

      In Linux, I was originally baffled by the seemingly random placement of binaries & .SO files in RPM installation.

      I think it's worse for Windows, but whatever. Still certainly black magic for someone who's used to Unix.

      In MacOS, many system folders are totally invisible to the Finder. The "top level" in the Finder isn't the / directory. I don't even know what that is.

      It takes a little getting to know, but there are smart people working on all three operating systems. None of them want to feel filesystem disconnect.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    19. Re:Installing apps by bnenning · · Score: 1

      The "top level" in the Finder isn't the / directory.

      Yes it is. "touch /foo" and you'll see it in the Finder.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    20. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      In MacOS, many system folders are totally invisible to the Finder. The "top level" in the Finder isn't the / directory. I don't even know what that is.

      It's all the media mounts. You'll notice that all your drives are listed there, along with any DMG, SMB, FTP, or otherwise mounts.

      Opening your drive will show you the top level, but it hides the Unix directories like /usr, /var, /bin, and /etc.

    21. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aren't DLL supposed to be registered somewhere with pointers to all the apps that use them

      Yep. It's very simple. You're supposed to dump all your DLLs in c:\Windows\System32, then all apps can access them. Amazingly simple and beautiful (*gufaw*) isn't it?

      That's actually where the term "DLL hell" comes from. And now you know, the rest of the story.

    22. Re:Installing apps by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Right, but you'll see it inside "Macintosh HD" or whatever, right? I'm not at a Mac right now, so I can't check.

      I guess it's as if the finder's top level is /Mount/, and if you're used to other Unix systems, that's a little weird.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    23. Re:Installing apps by shog9 · · Score: 1

      Installers / uninstallers are supposed to do this. The problem is, it's more of an honor system than anything else. Even sticking with Microsoft's own Windows Installer you can mess things up pretty well.

    24. Re:Installing apps by Arcady13 · · Score: 1

      What taskbar? (I think you mean the dock.)

    25. Re:Installing apps by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      Opening your drive will show you the top level, but it hides the Unix directories like /usr, /var, /bin, and /etc.

      True, but you can get to those from the Finder by pressing Command-Shift-G ("Go To Folder") and then typing one of those or any other valid path into the dialog box. The folder will then appear in a Finder window.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    26. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In OS X, the top level is '/'.
      Under OS 9, its the boot partition, I believe. And yes, you can name it whatever you want, and the default was 'Macintosh HD'. From a users perspective, however, the top was the Desktop.

    27. Re:Installing apps by dan14807 · · Score: 1

      This worked on classic MacOS as well. I always wondered how this was done. What's going on in the filesystem code that allows this? I always thought it was pretty cool...

    28. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh OK whatever you pedantic nigger fuck.

    29. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      My guess is that programs acquire files with a filesystem handle instead of the path name. i.e. Shortcuts use a pointer number of the file instead of the file path and name. That allows them to look up the file even if it gets relocated on disk.

    30. Re:Installing apps by Mike+deVice · · Score: 1

      It gets worse.

      There are "vanilla" DLLs, which often live in C:\Windows\System32\. They can also live in C:\Windows\System\ or C:\Program Files\Common Files\, your application's directory, or tucked away Lord knows where on your PATH.

      You also have COM DLLs. These are DLLs that need to be registered in the registry upon installation. Once registered, any application that needs it can find it and make use of it. In theory, this was supposed to alleviate DLL Hell.

      It didn't. And it just adds more hassles to both the installation and uninstallation process. A power user can't move this kind of DLL to another place on your PATH without first unregistering it and then reregistering it with an obscure command line utility, for example. Uninstall apps are far too frequently guilty of failing to either unregister these DLL at all, or leaving crap behind in the registry regarding them.

      I do not like COM DLLs. At all. Hehe. ;) In best practice, these things work out okay, but in reality it's just more complication and mess.

    31. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for the textedit thing, what is really written is a temporary file that is copied to the final save location (which I presume is modified if the file being worked on is moved).

      I ran into this little issue when I was writing a networking app for Mac OS X, and I started seeing funnily named files show up.

    32. Re:Installing apps by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      From what I can remember files are given a 'file reference' when they are opened. This is probably some sort of handle ( pointer to a pointer ). This following technote, while not explaining how it works probably gives an idea how applications can take advantage of it.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    33. Re:Installing apps by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      - Drag an application onto the taskbar. This will create a shortcut. Now move the location of the application. The shortcut will still work!!!

      The same is true under Windows XP (at least; possibly 2k and NT too). Create a shortcut to a file (eg by dragging and dropping it on the quicklaunch toolbar), then move the file, and the shortcut will be updated automatically. That's done by the Distributed Link Tracking Client service, which "Maintains links between NTFS files within a computer or across computers in a domain network". Switch it off and move the file, and Windows will popup the traditional "can't find the file..." dialogue and start searching for it.

      Open a text file in TextEdit. Move the file. Make a change to it in TextEdit. Notice that TextEdit doesn't care you moved (or renamed) the file, it writes to the correct place! No more accidentally duplicated files!

      Now that *does* sound useful - although occasionally, I'll move a file I have open in a text editor in order to back it up before saving some sweeping change to it; I assume that copying the file would have the desired effect though.

    34. Re:Installing apps by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aren't DLL supposed to be registered somewhere with pointers to all the apps that use them

      Yep. It's very simple. You're supposed to dump all your DLLs in c:\Windows\System32

      This is not true. You're supposed to put any DLLs that are actually supposed to be shared by applications other than your own into %WINDIR%\System32. DLLs required only by your program are supposed to go into the program's directory, usually "C:\Program Files\Developer\Application". Any DLLs needed by only your programs, but an assortment of them, belong in "C:\Program Files\Common Files".

      The fact that lazy and/or stupid programmers put the files into C:\Windows\System32 is not, repeat not Microsoft's fault. SOME of it might be their fault but I seem to remember the same directory structures were around in Windows 95. Also, in Windows 95+ and NT4+ you can register a DLL anywhere on the system and if the program looks at the registry to find the functionality instead of expecting a DLL to be in the %PATH% then it doesn't matter where it is. In other words there is no reason for any DLL not related to a driver to be in System32, and even drivers don't really need to be there.

      Blaming Microsoft for DLL hell is pretty lame. It's honestly not their fault. Should they have designed the system such that you couldn't put anything in that directory unless it was part of a driver install?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Installing apps by MeauxToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the term DLL hell does not come from where the DLLs are placed on the hard disk, but wacky versioning scheme used by COM to identify which DLL to use. For example, you define an interface, IFoo with a method public int getFoo(), in the bar.dll. When you build the DLL, it will be assigned version 1. You then go about writing your application that uses bar.dll and IFoo. It gets built and deployed to use bar.dll version 1. As you continue to develop, you determine that IFoo needs a doFoodles method so you update the interface and rebuild bar.dll and it gets assigned version 2. Now, you application is looking for version 1, but you want version 2. Furthermore, both versions of bar.dll are in the registery. You have now arrived in DLL hell. Imagine the fun when you aren't developing but instead trying to distribute a version your applications. Your users have bar.dll registered on their system, but your application doesn't work. Oh, now you have to determine if they have the right version of bar.dll. Of course, we move into double prize money when they inadvertantly install the new bar.dll, but not the new version of your application. This versioning scheme is so braindead that even Microsoft gave up on it. These days, when they need to change an interface such as IFoo, they change the name to IFoo2, IFoo3, etc. In summary, DLL hell has nothing to do with where DLLs are placed on the file system, but instead, the braindead versioning notion used by COM and the registry.

    36. Re:Installing apps by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Good point about /Library and ~/Library, although there's no guarantee a reinstall of a Windows app will fix problems (registry keys, etc). Plus uninstalls of Windows seem to fail disturbingly often.

      Windows has something similar now; %APPDATA% which the same as "%HOMEPATH%\Application Data". Many applications, including Mozilla, now put your files there so that the Files and Settings Transfer utility can pick them up to be moved to another machine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Once, when copying a ton of stuff from our G4 to my wife's new iBook, I accidently moved the target folder mid-copy. Not being a Mac guy, I was thinking that I just ruined the transfer, and would have to start over (she's a photographer, tons and tons of Gigs of images)...

      But then it just kept copying along, no problems, not even a hickup. I was very impressed!

    38. Re:Installing apps by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I switched around 6 months ago, and have to agree that this is one of the things that absolutely has impressed me consistently. You can even move a file to the trash while you have it open (deleting a screwed-up MP3 file while it is playing in iTunes, for example).

      I got sick of "that file is open" errors in Windows, especially the notorious AVI "file is in use by an application" bug that's been around for several years.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    39. Re:Installing apps by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      As it has been mentioned by others, the filesystem assigns a unique number identifying each file/directory. You can see this if you open and save a file in MS Office v.X or other Carbon apps which have not been updated to support long filenames(or classic apps) if the original filename was longer than 31 characters. The file gets a really really weird filename with a series of numbers.

      I don't don't see why other *nixes could not have this feature via inodes since they are not supposed to change when you move or rename a file.

      Come to think of it, HFS+ might be using inodes to reference to the directories/files in these operations internally.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    40. Re:Installing apps by GrumpySimon · · Score: 1

      Hell no! I tried this a few months ago (wasn't thinking & just double clicked the icon...

      Result: open...close...open...close... repeat...

      No escape until I hard rebooted.

    41. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI,

      I read somewhere about this. Basically, in addition to symlinks and hard links (as other Unixes), OS X has a 3rd link type called alias that allows this move.

      I'm not an expert and I am not sure how it is actually implemented however.

    42. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in an ignorant apple thread would this bullshit get modded up, and to +5 no less..

      The DLL files can be anywhere the programmer wants them to be. If it's a DLL specific to the app, it'll be in the app's directory. If it's a shared DLL (mostly DLLs that have been supplied with the system), it'll be in the system32 directory.

    43. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And only an ignorant jackass would ignore what he was responding to. "Aren't DLL supposed to be registered somewhere with pointers to all the apps that use them" Gee. Think he might be talking about system wide DLLs? Jackass.

    44. Re:Installing apps by larkost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well... there is a bit of complexity behind all of this:

      For Aliases (equivalent of shortcuts) both a path and a HFS file id are stored (also a disk id that can include network information... even passwords if you choose). The file id is tried first, and if it fails, then the path it tried. Only after both are tried does the operation fail. All of this is done in low level code, so programmers don't get a chance to screw things up.

      For programs that have open files... then things work this way if you use the Cocoa file handling system. It does all of that work for you, and you never have to notice. It even handles things like atomic-writes, so you never have to deal with that (although as a programmer I wish that it handled re-setting permissions better).

      If you use other API's (Carbon, pure Java, or POSIX) then you get the more "normal" behaviors expected from those systems.

    45. Re:Installing apps by saha · · Score: 1
      The review touched on many points, some which are valid like Apple's stubbornness to provide a multi button mouse in this day and age. My point of contention in the article was with the installation of applications in OSX and the elegance it offers compared to its Windows counterpart. As a system administrator for a heterogeneous environments I would say that Mac OSX is one of the easiest systems to maintain, reload and install applications.

      The folder structure under OS X is probably the one thing that has taken me the longest to get used to - mostly because I've been such a heavy DOS/Windows user that I still feel too foreign with anything other than C:\Windows or Program Files. It's a shame, and even after years of using *nix boxes at school, it's still something with which I'm not totally comfortable. Because of that, I continue to feel that the folder structure under OS X is quite disorganized, but there is also another reason why I don't feel as in touch with the location of all the files under OS X as I'd like to be - and it comes down to how applications are installed.

      Default Mac OSX (if one doesn't have OS9 installed as well). Very much the NeXTStep way.

      /Applications
      /Library
      /System
      /Users

      Also navigating through the file system using spatial view is more suited to older OS9 users. One can easily switch on column view by default

      Default Windows XP/2000 install.
      C:\Documents and Settings
      C:\Program Files
      C:\Windows

      The factory install from Dell for example will place extra folders like I386, DELL and other extra folders in the root of the C:\ drive. Which brings me to the other issue. Windows still carries the legacy of naming their drives by letters as was done in the prehistoric days of DOS.

      Installing (and conversely, uninstalling) applications under OS X is quite possibly the most disconnected feeling that the OS gave me, while at the same time, it was pleasantly easy. How could installing an application possibly be made any easier than it already is? Well, to install an application, you simply drag the application's installer to any folder on your hard drive and it's "installed". Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive, but the fact that you are separated from that process, it really made me feel like I wasn't in control of my system. On the flip side, installing and uninstalling applications couldn't be easier. There are no full screen installers to deal with; just drag and drop, and get back to work while the application installs. The fact that I don't know where everything is being copied contributes to my feelings of file system disconnect. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit too philosophical about my OSes.

      I think his "philosophy" is too steep in Windows ideology to objectively appreciate the elegance of Mac OSX installation. If one ever wanted to feel disconnected and lack of control, try using InstallShield for Windows. Now when installing applications on a Windows computer the user has no ideas exactly where all the DLLs and programs files are written into and what exactly is being modified with the registry. Mac OSX relieves the user from the DLL nightmare and registry labyrinth. If one wants absolute control then download the source file and read the make file, but thats a whole other ball game.

      Update: A number of people have written to provide some clarity to this statement. It is not the actual installation that copies files everywhere, in fact the installation is quite contained with all files remaining in a single folder. It's the process of running an application that will copy preferences over to your Preferences folder. The paragraph above as it stands does apply to Microsoft Office 2004 but not the vast majority of OS X applications, this isn't the only way in which Office 2004 differs

    46. Re:Installing apps by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      No escape until I hard rebooted.

      It happened to me a while ago, I believe I managed use killall. Lucky for me most of my work is from the shell so I had a local terminal open.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    47. Re:Installing apps by Graff · · Score: 1
      Come to think of it, HFS+ might be using inodes to reference to the directories/files in these operations internally.

      You are basically correct. HFS (and HFS+) use an inode-like system to keep track of files and aliases to files. You can read more about it here. You can also see some more interesting information about filesystems under Mac OS X here.
    48. Re:Installing apps by jcr · · Score: 1

      Drag an application onto the taskbar

      The what?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    49. Re:Installing apps by jcr · · Score: 1

      Open a text file in TextEdit. Move the file. Make a change to it in TextEdit. Notice that TextEdit doesn't care you moved (or renamed) the file, it writes to the correct place!

      I guess I must have missed some of the hilarity on other platforms, but is this not the case for other systems?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    50. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      File ID.
      You don't access a file by its location, but by its file ID. Since the file ID is constant, you can change its location and won't affect the access of the files in open applications.

    51. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. When you save the file, the app saves it in the directory where the original file was stored with the original file name. As you move the original file, there is nothing to rewrite in the original directory and the app creates a new file in that directory with the original file name. So, now you have 2 files: the original you have moved and the new one in the old directory.

      With the Mac, the apps overwrite the original file, even if you move it around. If you want to keep a backup, you use 'Save As...'

    52. Re:Installing apps by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      There is a funnier thing but can be dangerous. Its there since at least 7.6 macos.

      Drag MS word to trash (application) and while its there, open a .doc file.

      OS says "The application which opens file is in trash, please restore it to open this document' or something ;)

      of course, I am not saying I moved ms word to trash accidentally ;) yes I did!

    53. Re:Installing apps by legolas_a20 · · Score: 1

      Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.

      Exactly: when you copy a bundle (i.e. a 'program' in a directory that looks like it's just a file) nothing happens, it's just copied. But when you start it, most of these things auto-configure the stuff they need, copying/creating things like preference files everywhere they want/need them, without your knowedge or control.

      On the other hand, more and more OSX apps have actually gone to using an install program, including Apple's apps, which I find unfortunate. I like the whole drag-and-drop method of installation.

      Strange, because the behaviour above feels to me like the good old times of windows 3.1 : sure we have an easy way to install our software. See, here it is. What, you want to get rid of it again? Euhm, well we have a ton files there and some there and a few here and one there, but that may be used by another progam too, and then there's a change we made in this file here etc etc... I'm glad when someone takes the time to write an (un)installer!

    54. Re:Installing apps by legolas_a20 · · Score: 1

      Look at the directory /Library/Frameworks on your mac. It's apples version of dll hell waiting to happen: shared frameworks (equivalent to dll's), with no way of knowing who uses them. MS came up with a system to fix this in windows 2000. Seems apple just can't learn from others' mistakes...

    55. Re:Installing apps by legolas_a20 · · Score: 1

      And you can turn much of the hiding off with things like OnyX or TinkerTool.

    56. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Download NeoOfficeJ, and the next time you put MS Word into the trash it won't be an accident. :-D

    57. Re:Installing apps by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Actually the other way around. The path is checked first, then the file id. It used to be the other way around, but they fixed that several versions ago.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    58. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A twit, even!

    59. Re:Installing apps by pod · · Score: 1

      That's just standard behaviour of standard i-node based filesystems. If on OSX an app locked a file, and the user tried to delete it or rename it, the OS could very well popu an error saying the file is locked. In the UNIX world (where i-node FSes abound) it's standard procedure to allow a user to do anything with a file that is currently open; edit, rename, move, delete. It's because files are basically links. If you delete a link, whoever has that particular file open will continue to have it open. When all 'opens' of a particular file close, the file THEN goes away. Notice that if in Linux you have an app open, you can delete all it's files, and it will continue to run. Until you exit and restart the app. This MAY be a little dangerous, as when you have long-lived processes, and you change some library on your system, everything will seem fine until you restart that process, perhaps months later. Then suddenly it doesn't work. Still, the benefits of this scheme FAR outweigh any drawbacks, IMO.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    60. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are right, the term "DLL Hell" predates COM programming by some time.

      It origianlly referred to the fact that vendors would fork system DLLs like msvcrt and/or fuck with the filedates to install back-level DLLs.

    61. Re:Installing apps by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      I read somewhere about this. Basically, in addition to symlinks and hard links (as other Unixes), OS X has a 3rd link type called alias that allows this move.

      I'm not an expert and I am not sure how it is actually implemented however.

      With volfs. See this note on the Apple developer Web site. (For volfs, think "open by i-number", at least for some file systems:

      % ls -li ~/Desktop/CRONIN.pdf
      2065484 -rw-r--r-- 1 {me} staff 1937893 24 Feb 2000 /Users/gharris/Desktop/CRONIN.pdf
      % file ~/Desktop/CRONIN.pdf
      /Users/gharris/Desktop/CRONI N.pdf: PDF document, version 1.3
      % ls -li /.vol/234881029/2065484
      2065484 -rw-r--r-- 1 {me} staff 1937893 24 Feb 2000 /.vol/234881029/2065484
      % file /.vol/234881029/2065484
      /.vol/234881029/2065484: PDF document, version 1.3

      Ignore the blank in the pathname in the output of the first "file" command, that's Slashdot's friendly anti-widening stuff in action.

      Note the caveats on the Apple page in question. Volfs is not guaranteed to work the same way forever, so your application should not rely on it continuing to work that way.)

    62. Re:Installing apps by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I am licensed Thinkfree office owner already ;)

      Pure java is way to go, heheh...

    63. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, really, what taskbar?

      I can't take these morons that are used to windows words and names. you poor, poor people, you'll never get your brain clear.

    64. Re:Installing apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see, pedantic doesn't mean nitpicky. Don't use a word you don't know anything about, AC dipshit.

    65. Re:Installing apps by nine-times · · Score: 1
      ... I'm glad when someone takes the time to write an (un)installer!

      An UNinstaller, yes. I like when someone goes through the trouble of creating a program that will undo any of the copying/creating of preference files that are copied/created at first run. However, most of these preference file don't take up a lot of space and aren't much of a bother, so it doesn't worry me too much.

      But either way, installers/uninstallers- I'd prefer that someone came up with a system that made them pretty unnecessary. And that was what apple had done. Programs were pretty self-sufficient, all contained in one folder, and that folder was disguised as one file. So, you drag that file, and you've got everything. You delete that file, and you've deleted [almost] everything.

      And what's wrong with that system? Not much these days, with hard drives as big as they are. Installers should be reserved for occasional rare programs that alter the way your system works, and therefore absolutely need to alter system files- IMHO anyway...

  8. McDate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

    1. Re:McDate by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 1

      Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

      We can only wish my friend, we can only wish

      --
      >
    2. Re:McDate by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 2
      Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

      We can only wish my friend, we can only wish

      Yeah, I dream about greasy girls covered in cheap pickles and ketchup too.

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    3. Re:McDate by ajrs · · Score: 4, Funny

      do you realy want to pay money for a McBride?

    4. Re:McDate by seedman · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. I got my last girlfriend at McDonald's. (In my defense, she was a manager.) Let me warn you guys, they're just like everything else you get at McDonald's. McDates seem really tasty at the time, but they're really bad for you in the long run. I can vouch for that.

      --
      "The things you see when you don't have your over-voltage cattle prod, a shovel and a sack of lime..." -- BOFH
    5. Re:McDate by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but they come "Super-sized" by default.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    6. Re:McDate by eclectus · · Score: 1

      OK, I have mod points. Where's the freaking [ -1, Ewww!] option?

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    7. Re:McDate by the_weasel · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is bound to be a website for you somewhere......

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    8. Re:McDate by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Hehe.. That cracked me up!

      I once walked into a crowded McDonalds resturant in Germany with a friend of mine. I ordered my McDonalds meal and so did my friend. When he was done he looked around the place which was pretty crowded and added that he would also like a couple of McChairs and a McTable with his meal. It took the drone at the counter all of 10 seconds to figure out he was being sarcastic....

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    9. Re:McDate by hellfire · · Score: 1

      *perk* Supersized?? If by that you mean well endowed, then *Schwing*!! Woo hoo!

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    10. Re:McDate by menace690 · · Score: 1

      Whats wrong with that, more cushion for the pushin'

      --
      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. -- FDR
    11. Re:McDate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nahh! the one's you usually pay money for are the McBi*tch's!

    12. Re:McDate by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if you get them in any other size, they're always cold.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:McDate by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Special introductory price, $6.99!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Welcome to the club... by trance29 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i rid myself of all WinTel PC's in my home (still need them for my job)... but since going to the Apple side i have to say i have had pretty painless computing. My Apple iMac just works and the apps that go with it. People argue that it is a single vendor platform but there is something to be said for that. The tight integration between the hardware and software makes things work smoothly. No mucking around with silly patches or resource settings. Personally i feel that Apple will be gaining a lot of ground in the 'market share' department in the next 3 years.

    1. Re:Welcome to the club... by michaelbuddy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why is this modded up and When the other guy says he'll only stay with Windows, he's modded down. Apple will continue with More of the Same BS and windows will impress a few with long Horn and Linux will be taking both of their market share. yeyyy!!!

      --

      ...::----::...

      I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

    2. Re:Welcome to the club... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except everything is so much more sluggish under the Mac and OSX.

    3. Re:Welcome to the club... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh whatever faggot. Saying Longhorn will only impress a few is one fucking stupid interpretation of reality. Saying Apple will only continue with more of the same proves you're a mouthbreathing nigger dickchewer.

    4. Re:Welcome to the club... by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that tight integration will keep apple as a niche player. One of the reasons that the PC market has such a large share is the number of different configurations. You can have a $300 bargain basement computer, or a $5000+ god rig that'll blow anything away. This means that you can find the system that is absolutely right for you, instead of almost right. I tried apple for a while, and while it was almost right, I found that a lot of the included programs didn't have the power I expected in the Linux world, so in the end, moved back to my trusty, if a bit cranky, Linux box. I even find that a Windows box is much nicer than a mac, after a few customizations, like Litestep and one of the transparent windows mods out there. Yeah, it's nice to have a well-made car with the hood welded shut while it runs well, but it, much like the mac, starts showing its weaknesses when you start to think differently.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  10. Finally by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's nice to see a respected hardcore site like Anandtech confirm what we Mac users have known all along.

    1. Re:Finally by stinkyfingers · · Score: 1

      That was a long-ass article, wasn't it? I don't blame you for not reading it all before posting. Let me include a snippet, in which he says that this article doesn't mean he's "switched" or even endorses it.

      More than anything, I'm glad to be aware and somewhat proficient in dealing with yet another hardware/OS platform, even though it's a very small percentage of the total computing population out there. It's nice to know that I'm not to totally lost if I find myself stuck with nothing else to use but a Mac. But this experiment has clearly gone far beyond just a "trying it out" stage. The G5 is a computer that I use on a daily basis and it's something that I do enjoy using. I find the multi-tasking capabilities, some of the little gems that I talked about throughout this article, and the overall stability of the platform to be great for most of the computer usage that I do on a day-to-day basis. Despite my appeasement with Apple's platform, this is far from a "switch" story.

    2. Re:Finally by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 1
      I never said anything about him switching (that's just part of my sig). Let me quote from your quote to exemplify my statement:

      I find the multi-tasking capabilities, some of the little gems that I talked about throughout this article, and the overall stability of the platform to be great for most of the computer usage that I do on a day-to-day basis

      There's never a need for patronizing comments.

    3. Re:Finally by punkin · · Score: 1

      That might go along with the set that you already have.

    4. Re:Finally by kundor · · Score: 1
      Despite my appeasement with Apple's platform,

      You cannot keep appeasing Apple! Next thing you know it will annex Sun, then there will be illegal buildup of forces on the borderlands of IBM, until it all comes to a head in a blitzkrieg invasion of Novell, at which point the international community will no longer be able to just stand by. But by that point, Apple may be too large and mobilized to stop!

      We can only hope that they foolishly open a second front with Microsoft, and that our overseas allies at Intel overcome their isolationism to come to our aid.

    5. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Anand didn't advise anyone to switch, you brainless nigger.

  11. Re:Macdate? by 0racle · · Score: 0, Troll

    You both sound like your hung up on labels. Makes sense considering the elitism of most Linux users I've met.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  12. It's good to hear by Iter+Impius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple created a very good operating system, which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web. They really should start advertising the usability and stability of Mac products, I see that as the quickest, and most effective way. The only downside to Macs really at this time is the lack of support for gaming, and I just don't see why more people don't switch, or at least give Macs a try.

    1. Re:It's good to hear by phdorbust · · Score: 1

      In part this still is caused by pricepoint (and FUD).

      I am a regular Mac and Linux user (and sometimes Solaris) but your average Mom/Pop using it for email/web/quicken is still looking closely at the price. Although Apple has improved drastically on that front in the last couple of years it is still cheaper to get an entry level windows system.

      (Entry level eMac: $800, entry level Dell Dimension 2400: $470)

    2. Re:It's good to hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just don't see why more people don't switch, or at least give Macs a try.

      Because they're so ungodly expensive. I honestly want to try a Mac for my next desktop, but I can't justify c$1050 for an already-obsolete, bottom-of-the-line eMac (yes, I'm poor) when I could have a cutting-edge Athlon 64 box for less than that.

    3. Re:It's good to hear by Kourino · · Score: 1

      ... but you don't need AMD64 for basic desktop tasks. Remember, poster said " ... which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web."

      Granted, I'm speccing dual G5 and dual AMD64 systems as possibilities for the next desktop I buy - but I want it to last at least a decade, and have it serve as a desktop system while I'm doing development and content creation at the same time. Most people don't need that sort of power - hell, I'd be perfectly happy with my 866 MHz Pentium 3 based system if the hardware wasn't going.

    4. Re:It's good to hear by raitchison · · Score: 1

      What's better for one set of users or another has very little to do with it. It's all about marketing. Mediocre product marketed brilliantly = >90% market share Superior product marketed stupidly = niche player Still not sure if Steve Jobs would do it differently if he could go back in time.

    5. Re:It's good to hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are too expensive for what you get, have no applications, are not any more stable than Windows (or any other desktop OS), etc...

      That's why. Really, it ain't all that different from a Windows or Linux PC it just costs more and looks pretty.

    6. Re:It's good to hear by bogie · · Score: 1

      " which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web."

      Not to start a flame war but that sounds like a waste of money to me. If you just need to surf the web, do email, and light word processing your better off just buying one of those $199 Linux boxes from walmart. Linux isn't for everyone but if you buy it preloaded its retardly easy these days. http://images.linspire.com/screenshots/ss_coho1_bi g.jpg

      Personally I think that most users are more advanced then that these days, but for grandma who just wants to surf the web and get pictures of her grandkids via email Linux seems like the better choice at this point. I mean for what your talking about Linux IS useable these days. Granny doesn't need to open up the box and install anything afterall. Even at $399 an XP box would do the job , although compared to Linux and OSX the lack of decent builtin apps hurts.

      For what your talking about it just doesn't seem necessary to spend $1000 on an Mac. Anyway now you know how many Linux users feel. They have this decent OS that although it has warts doesn't reach many people would find it useful and effective.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    7. Re:It's good to hear by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The laptops are more competitive ($1099 for a 12" iBook compared to ~$1200 for a low-end PC laptop).

      However,the weird thing is that big PC laptops (i.e. "desktop replacements") are cheaper than small (i.e. "actually portable") ones, while Mac laptops are the opposite.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:It's good to hear by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Gah...this article makes me sad. The one thing apple seems to do is create a real emotional attachment to your computer. Recently - after banging around in my backpack here on campus for 3 years - my ibook died. Not something I blame ol' iskank for at all - totally my fault in being a bad owner...and now...well...i miss the little skamp. Sure, he's still in my room, flipped open on my desk in remembrance, but we had some good times. Well, now i have to wait until i graduate to get a new one. Stupid money and it's habit of not growing on trees. Apple didn't just create a good OS, they created a drug.

    9. Re:It's good to hear by gdbjr · · Score: 1

      I would also have to say that the 'perceived' cost is also a downside. The average user will see a dell/gateway ads for a $499 box then then see the $1299 cost for a new iMac and always go for the cheaper one.

    10. Re:It's good to hear by hai.uchida · · Score: 1

      Apple created a very good operating system, which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web.

      I think the average PC user would love to do more than surf the web and check their e-mail. Apple's campaign should never be, "Our computers are just as good at surfing the web as cheap windows boxes." It should be-- and I think it pretty much is-- that it's pretty easy to do things with our computers that you never knew you could do. Like manipulate photos, edit video and burn DVDs (complete with menus)... And so on.

      Of course there are myriad ways to do these things in Windows-- but they'e more often than not intimidating and hard to learn. iLife apps, included with the system, really hold the novice's hand through the process.

      --
      my password is private, but unchanged.
    11. Re:It's good to hear by Shinglor · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I'd love to try a Mac but they cost a crapload and it's money I could be spending on my x86 PC. If Apple ported Mac OS to x86 I'd at least try it out for sure.

    12. Re:It's good to hear by BenFaremo · · Score: 1

      Parent claims: "Apple created a very good operating system, which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web."
      The way I read the review, one of his major compaints is how _poorly_ the Mac web browsers ran. That what bugged me when I tried out the Mac. Slow rendering, painful scrolling, whether you used IE, Safari or Firefox. I believe that a $3000 computer should be able to scroll text.

    13. Re:It's good to hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then they'd die, because Apple is primarily a hardware company.

  13. Nice little blurb about Windows... by bburton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    For starters, heavy multi-tasking management under Windows had caused me a lot of grief... After a certain point, the cramped taskbar became difficult to use as a locator tool, and while I could ALT+TAB forever, I just felt like I was idle for too long. I knew what it was that I needed to get to, and I knew I had it open, but the process of getting to it was a pain.

    This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.

    Unix based window managers (along with others) have had virtual desktops for years, where did Microsoft drop the ball?

    --
    Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    1. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by mdbales · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even though it's not built in, you can add virtual desktops to Windows XP. You can download the add-on here

    2. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.

      See, that makes no sense to me. I just make my taskbar larger (did you know you could do that?), and I can easily get to my 20+ windows I have open. I can't imagine having to remember what virtual desktop each app is running in and play hide and seek every time I switch. That's a real nightmare for me.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.

      I'm a OSX guy. At this moment: 66 windows on 9 desktops (with 3 desktops still empty).

    4. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      The silly thing is that both KDE and GNOME, which are supposedly leading the usability pack on the FOSS side of the curtain, copy the Windows taskbar. I've been looking for a way to get it NEXTSTEP-like (icons for open windows), but short of switching Window managers, I haven't found a way. What's up with that?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by fitten · · Score: 1

      I've always had my taskbar on the right hand vertical side of the screen. I can put a ton of windows/apps over there and not be cramped.

      However, I usually don't have more than 20 or so apps open at a time.

    6. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Why would you be averse to switching window managers? I use Fluxbox on my primary linux machine, and either windowmaker or enlightenment on the other two. I can load KDE or gnome, but have yet to find a compelling reason to do so.

    7. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      I personally find it counter-productive for most situations. Microsoft does have a downloadable "powertoy" for those who would like the feature

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    8. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Kasbar does that on KDE - add it as a panel.

    9. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by bburton · · Score: 1
      See, that makes no sense to me. I just make my taskbar larger (did you know you could do that?), and I can easily get to my 20+ windows I have open. I can't imagine having to remember what virtual desktop each app is running in and play hide and seek every time I switch. That's a real nightmare for me.


      Well this seems a little trollish to me, but I'll bite.

      Most people who use virtual desktops organize apps by assigning like programs to individual virtual desktops. IE Desk1: Terminal/File Manager, Desk2: Internet Apps, Desk3: Chat/IM, etc...

      Where as with your technique you minimize/maximize tons of apps all on one desktop to a huge taskbar, we virtual desktop users spread out windows in a much less hectic, more organized fashion.

      Plus (with Gnome at least) you get the nice "tasklist" in the corner, which is a drop down menu that lists all windows, providing the same functionality as the windows taskbar in a lot less space. WAY more efficient.

      Don't forget window shading, sticky windows; flexible panels such as floating, edge, aligned, sliding... I could go on.

      In my eyes there is NO contest. Windows has had years to add in this functionality that I've come to expect from a modern GUI enviroment.

      --
      Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    10. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft's implementation is neutered at best.

      It's limited to 4 desktops, and (when not using shared desktops) you can't select to move a window from one desktop to another. No sticky windows either.

    11. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by kempokaraterulz · · Score: 1

      Sun's OS has had the ability to do this for a very long time as well. CDE (the window manager that was used in the -OLD- sun machines) allowed for 4 virtual desktops if i remember right. My sun sparcstation is probably 10 or 11 years old...

      --
      I have accepted Provolone into my life!
    12. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      KDE groups similar windows always (not only when it feels like (which windows does).

      Also middle click cycles through an apps Windows (on the taskbar). Which means if you know the app you can find the window real quick. I can cycle through many broser windows real fast.

      And how do you manage so many windows on a MAC?

      with the deafault setting it is hard to differentiate between word documents with only 2 minimized.

      Also what if I have the same thing open in 2 apps, the little icon is very small.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    13. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Castaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Solution for this problem for Windows users:

      Move your Windows task bar to the left or right side of your screen. (I prefer the left side.) In a vertical task bar configuration you can have 40-50 applications open before the bar 'fills up'. I also turn off 'always on top' so I can get the full use of my screen. This also allows you to set the task bar's horizontal width so you can read the applications' names displayed in the task bar. Clicking on the visible edge of the task bar brings it to the foreground if I need to access any thing on the task bar itself.

      --
      Chew: You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
      Roy: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
    14. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      Windows has had native virtual desktop support, I believe since Windows 2000.

      The trick is simply to download the Power Toy that enables it, freely available off Microsoft's website.

      The only downside is that it supports a max of 4 desktops. But it does work rather smoothly.

      --
      -David
    15. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, that's fine, since OSX doesn't have virtual desktops anyway -- those are a 3rd party hack*. What you really need to compare it to is expose, which sounds like it would be more useful to you than virtual desktops anyway. Plus, it doesn't use up extra desktop space all the time.

      *I mean "hack" in a good way -- Desktop Manager uses the API and is actually a really polished program (compared to UI hacks on Windows using undocumented behavior and such).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      And how do you manage so many windows on a MAC?
      Expose.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DesksAtWill from www.idyle.com (downloadable from various places) is a good virtual desktop for Windows - I have used it for several years.

    18. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by heli0 · · Score: 1

      "Unix based window managers (along with others) have had virtual desktops for years, where did Microsoft drop the ball?"

      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

      Virtual Desktop Manager
      Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    19. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get a Virtual Desktop manager in the WinXP power toys. Win+V to switch, Full screen preview.

      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

      It's not as good as linux VDs but it is better than nothing.

    20. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that _I_ am averse to switching WMs, in fact I don't use KDE or GNOME (too heavy) - I use ratpoison.

      What I mean is, with KDE and GNOME supposedly being the best FOSS has to offer in terms of usability, why is it that they have taskbars which don't work well for more than a few windows, and don't even have the option of switching to a better system, without resorting to software outside the project?

    21. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      As I used Linux on my PC for at least 1 year, when I moved to G5, there was something obviously lacking.

      I figured it after making needless experiment to install windowmaker (fink) and figuring what a stupid thing I did.... Of course, Finder is an advanced NeXT UI :) Aka Openstep...

      People moving to Apple, move dock to right or left side (based on which hand you use I guess) and try to get used to it.

      Also make it "auto hide".

      You will love it when you are used to it. Apple dock is at wrong place IMHO. The reason maybe is to be nice to windows converts?

    22. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      And how do you manage so many windows on a MAC?

      I use the Desktop Manager thingy mentioned a few posts up. It's a very simple VD (hehe) implementation that lets you choose from about a dozen mindbending CoreGraphics/OpenGL transtitions for the switch, which is instantaneous regardless of CPU load. I've got mine tied to F5-F8 and ShiftF5-ShiftF8. Exposé works just as you'd expect on each individual desktop, so I get the best of both. Here's a typical day in my ~.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    23. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Moving the dock to the right side means it gets in the way of the scroll bar in a full-screen window when auto-hiding. I also more often have something I need to click on the left side of the screen than on the bottom. Furthermore, the dock gets small and the icons more difficult to look at. The bottom of the screen is easily the best place to have it. I make it auto-hide too.

      --
      Lalala
  14. Cheaper Macs by Puchku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While Anand has done an excellant job of descrbing the Mac platform to people like me who have never used a Mac but always wanted to, he does not tell us how a cheaper Mac, say a $1500 Powerbook would compare to a $1500 Windows machine. I am considering buying a Powerbook, but am hesitant because I don't want a $1500 system that feels slower than a $1200 system. So all you Mac users, please help. Is there a significant/noticible difference between a Powerbook which costs $1599 or $1799 and a similarily priced Windows laptop?

    1. Re:Cheaper Macs by brasten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Puchku,
      I was in the same position you are not too long ago(http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02 /05/024208&tid=/)

      I ended up purchasing a PowerBook 1.25GHz 15" machine for around $2,600... My experience is basically that the PowerBook FEELS as fast as most notebooks you'd buy in doing every day things (word processing, browsing, email, etc)... the interface is extremely snappy that way, and I rare ever need to run around closing apps to speed your system back up.

      That said, if you plan on doing any extremely intensive processing... program compiling, etc... (that's about it), the raw power behind the cheap is disappointingly slow.

      That said, I haven't touched a Windows machine for a significant length of time since I picked up my PowerBook 9 months ago, and after experiencing the awesomeness that is Apple, I'd rather complain that my Apple is a little slow than be proud that my Windows/Linux laptop is a little fast.

    2. Re:Cheaper Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about raw hardware.. Macs are about the experience.

      I'm still using an old 800MHz iBook with OS X panther and, honestly, I wouldn't trade it for the latest and greatest PC laptop. I've got a 2.4 GHz Dell at work. At home, I have my Mac.

    3. Re:Cheaper Macs by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Yup, the PC laptops are faster. But it's not just about speed. I have a 1.25GHz Powerbook and it's plenty fast. The difference is in usability. Partly, it's OSX that makes the Powerbook better. However, the hardware is also very nice. You can use it without the fan turning on, it's nice and small, the sleep function is just excellent, and when you're using it, it just feels like you're using a quality piece of equipment. Most (not all) of the PCs out there are huge, have a fan that turns on if you open a singe IE window, and are made of plastic that feels cheap.

      I have a friend that bought a Dell ~6months ago. Over the summer he hung out with a guy that had a Powerbook. Now he says he wants to sell his Dell and get a Powerbook - they're that much better.

      If you need speed, get a desktop. The Powerbooks are plenty fast for 99% of people in the market, just don't expect them to be faster. Expect them to be more productive.

    4. Re:Cheaper Macs by x.Draino.x · · Score: 1

      I have a 12" G4 1.33ghz Powerbook.. I got rid of my 2.3ghz ( celeron ) Dell laptop and couldn't be happier. The speed thing scared me too, but I took the plunge anyways. I will admit at some things it's a tad slower, but not too bad. One place where it really shines is I can burn a DVD, surf the web, and listen to my music in iTunes all at once on my powerbook with no hiccups. Windows would have choked.

    5. Re:Cheaper Macs by Jord · · Score: 1
      Is there a significant/noticible difference between a Powerbook which costs $1599 or $1799 and a similarily priced Windows laptop?

      Yes there is a difference. I find my 1.33Ghz Powerbook to be a more efficient machine than any windows laptop I owned in the past. The multitasking of OS X blows the doors off of windows.

      As a coder I have been far more productive since I "made the switch."

    6. Re:Cheaper Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to laptops, apple(specifically powerbooks) are the only way to go. Bottom line, they just work. One of the most important things is the way apple has done wireless networking. You turn it on and your on the network. If the network is secure it asks you for a password instead you you having to hunt through menus like in XP. I have a 15" powerbook and I will never go back to an XP machine. I have had my girlfriends thinkpad and my powerbook side by side in her apartment and she won't connect to the unsecured network but mine will. If you want email, web browsing(Safari is incredible), and office that works with no hiccups then go with a mac. The best way to describe a mac for an average user is that it works the way you would expect a computer work.

    7. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      Well, I can't say anything about the Powerbook line, but I have a iBook G4 933mhz, with 640MB of ram. Running OSX 10.3(? - whatever it came with), it feels fine. Programs launch very quickly, save/loads fell the same as my P4 2.4ghz desktop. Using things where raw power comes into play, such as some of the more complex GIMP filters, you can see the difference. It's just lacks the raw computing power to do them almost instantly like my desktop can. That said, all of the interface tasks run very smoothly.

      I atribute that to the QuartzExtreme deal they have where the menu/human interface effects are handled in the GPU. You get nice transparancy effects, very slick minimize/maximize animations, etc. For things like word proccessing, editing spreadsheets, browsing the web, checking email, listening to music, reviewing digital photos, etc, you won't know that there isn't a P4 2+ghz CPU in there. (I am even able to play Warcraft3 and Unreal 2003 without much issue on it).

      You'll thank yourself for getting a Mac later, though, as the years go by and it is still a stable machine, with plenty of usable life left in it.

    8. Re:Cheaper Macs by jdwest · · Score: 1

      I used to worry about this, because the overall responsiveness under Jag was slightly slower in feel. Panther removed much of my concerns here.

      But, funny, I began to not worry about this nearly as much after just a short time.

      After a couple of weeks on the PowerBook, I realized that my overall savings of time -- with the whole "It Just Works(TM)" concept of computing -- more than overshadowed differences in speed - perceived or real.

      I don't have to worry about wasted processes allocated to AV, ad/spyware detection, firewalls.

      I don't have daily alerts telling me there's a new security patch available for installation (reboot required).

      I don't have Norton AV updating its defs file up to twice a day.

      I DO NOT live in fear about clicking on an attachment. I DO NOT keep my fingers crossed when surfing the Net.

      To be certain, MacOS X is not quite perfect. But I will be damned if it is not the most incredible OS I have ever used, and that includes everything from DOS to XP, from AUX to IRIX to Solaris, a good number of Linux distros, and, even, OS/2 and Be.

      --

      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet ...
    9. Re:Cheaper Macs by gunnk · · Score: 4, Informative

      If there is one in your area, go to an Apple Store and lay your hands on one. They're really good about letting you try it out there. You can play with it enough to get a feel for whether or not it meets your speed needs. Take a CD with some big docs on them and open them up. Do a little surfing. Check your email. Play with iPhoto and iTunes.

      I have a two year old PowerBook. It's beginning to feel a little sluggish to me here and there. Apps take a couple more seconds to open than I like, but I'm spoiled by having a dual 2Ghz G5 at work. EVERYTHING feels slow by comparison.

      That said, the feature mix on my PowerBook is awesome in a very portable package. A few years ago I bought a dining room table for my computer at the time (a Wintel box) and it's peripherals. Now we have the PowerBook in "office nook" in the kitchen. The size and portability are huge plusses to me.

      Now, if you really need a little more power, consider one of the new G5 iMacs. The housing is VESA-compliant, so you can wallmount it. Add an Airport card, wireless keyboard, and a wireless mouse if you want nothing but a power cord.

      Given the trade-offs, I'd definitely make the same decision to purchase a PowerBook.

      Now, as for comparing Wintel laptops to Powerbooks. I find that much of what makes a computer seem fast or slow is the smoothness with which the OS runs. The G4 chip is not going to perform as well as the newer P4 laptops. However, the OS runs VERY smoothly, so it FEELS more powerful than many Wintel laptops. Animations are silky. Expose provides incredibly slick window management when you have 20 things open in 12 different windows. Multimedia is smooth even when you are busy doing other things.

      Like I said -- go try it! The Apple web site will point you to the store nearest you.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
    10. Re:Cheaper Macs by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm typing this on a 1.33 GHz 12" PowerBook ($1599 retail, I got it for $1399 on a student discount).

      This Powerbook flies. The 1.33 GHz G4 is damn fast for a mobile chip, i.e. something that won't suck down batteries like an Irishman sucking down Guinness. Maybe more importantly, the FX Go5200 in here allows OS X to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. Let's face it, with a laptop people are generally going to be more concerned with responsiveness than absolute number crunching power. By offloading system graphics to the GPU via Quartz Extreme, OS X is incredibly responsive.

      Through work, I've used some nice (for Dell at least) mid-range laptops. My Mac feels faster in comparison. although I've been a Mac user my whole life so part of it may just be that I'm more comfortable with the system. Either way, I could say for sure that the Mac will not be noticeably slower.

      Also, speed aside, you would be hard pressed to find a Windows laptop that will compare with a Mac on the features to price ratio. I've yet to see a $1600 Windows laptop that comes with a comparable CPU, comparable battery life, dedicated GPU, built-in 802.11g, and built-in Bluetooth while still weighing in at 5 lbs.

    11. Re:Cheaper Macs by fitten · · Score: 1

      Strange... my Pentium-M 1.4GHz has no such problems as you describe. Of course, a P-M@1.4 is faster than a P4 based Celeron at 2.3GHz. (Mine compares equal to slightly better than a P-4M 2.2GHz laptop).

    12. Re:Cheaper Macs by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

      I seem to type at about the same speed on my 1.5GHz PowerBook at home and my 2GHz Centrino-based Dell at work.

      Most of what I do is programming, and between the two platforms, I have noticed that it takes about the same time for Visual Studio to compile on the PC as it takes XCode to compile on the Apple. Borland C++Builder on the PC is faster than either, though.

    13. Re:Cheaper Macs by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

      Opps! My bad; I mistyped. That's a 1 GHz Centrino-based Dell. Sorry.

    14. Re:Cheaper Macs by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't say anything about the Powerbook line, but I have a iBook G4 933mhz, with 640MB of ram. Running OSX 10.3(? - whatever it came with), it feels fine.

      I've got an effectively identical machine - something I've wondered about is what extra stuff you get with a Powerbook over an iBook.

      I've been incredibly happy with my iBook, and have no real complaints whatsoever, and I regard it as being the best machine I've ever had. But what extra do you get for a significantly more expensive Powerbook, apart from a bigger screen, wireless networking and a sexier silver finish?

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    15. Re:Cheaper Macs by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      I've got a Powerbook 1.5Ghz 15", and it feels as fast as any Windows laptop I've used.

      As for intensive processing, I've noticed that .aac encoding in iTunes is fast and painless, as is DVD burning. Best of all, the system stays responsive in other applications while those tasks occur.

      I can't speak to compiling speed because the most intensive program I've compiled is ~1000 lines of Java, which isn't much and didn't take long.

      As the parent seems to imply with his last paragraph: YMMV.

    16. Re:Cheaper Macs by thinwater · · Score: 1

      I really wanted to become one of the "Mac Fan Club" guys. Bought a 12" powerbook (768M OS 10.3) and jumped in full time (only used the Mac Laptop while on the road for over 3 months). Now it's up for sale, and my trusty Dell Latitude is my laptop of choice. To me, OS X is way way way to slow. The eye-candy interface bugged me after the first few days, and although BSD is there, it's pretty much buried under the interface (MacFreaks start your flameing at how I'm too stupid to use it properly). I dual boot a WinXP/Gentoo laptop and it works best (and very fast) for me. My advice, don't buy your Powerbook via mailorder without first going to a store and giving it a real life test drive. Remember, it's a tool, not a religion, so choose whatever works best for you.

    17. Re:Cheaper Macs by angrist · · Score: 1

      I recently bought a 12inch 1.33Ghz Rev.C powerBook with 768megs ram for about $1650 and can compare it to a Toshiba ...satellite 40 (i think) 1.8 Ghz pentium M with 1 gig of ram taht cost $1300

      The PowerBook is MUCH zippyer with all common use, i haven't combiled or rendered anything to compare full load use.
      the PowerBook also gets much better battery life, 4-5 hours per charge, the toshiba only got about 3 1/2.

      Ontop of those differences, the powerbook is MUCH smaller and sleeker than almost every wintel laptop i've seen here at school ( except for the really really tiny sony vaios).

      Bottom line, a powerbook is a great purchase. But as a word of advice, if you're concerned about price, get the 12 inch with combo drive unless you NEED to burn DVDs. All the other models start to get really expensive really quickly.

    18. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It's mostly the little details that are better with a Powerbook. Powerbooks (except for the 12") have PCMCIA slots; iBooks don't. Powerbooks have a mini-DVI connector; iBooks have mini-VGA. Powerbooks can stretch the desktop over an external monitor; iBooks can only mirror. Powerbooks have Firewire 800, iBooks only have 400.

      Also, Powerbooks are, by default, a little bit better: WiFi and Bluetooth, faster CPU, bigger HDD, SuperDrive instead of Combo, etc., although you can add most of these to an iBook and still spend a bit less.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:Cheaper Macs by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      I was looking for the appropriate place to post this comment after reading the article, and I think it applies well to this section of your comment.
      I don't want a $1500 system that feels slower than a $1200 system. So all you Mac users, please help. Is there a significant/noticible difference between a Powerbook which costs $1599 or $1799 and a similarily priced Windows laptop?
      Yes, apparently--a slower processor, less memory, crappier video card, and a mouse without a secondary button or scroll wheel! When he was first talking about buying the machine for this experiment, I cringed at hearing the $3,000 price tag, but I thought, "OK, he said he's buying basically top of the line so he can really focus on what the OS can do without hardware limitations." But then he went on to mention how it needed a better video card and more memory to perform well. WTF??!! For THREE FRICKETY THOUSAND smackers, it'd better perform well out of the box! Geez, I can stand a 20% price increase because of Mac's ease of use, but that's awful!
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    20. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, everybody else has already said most of what I'm going to say, so I'll just throw in a "Me too!"

      I have a 12" iBook, which is the slowest computer Apple sells, and moreover it's the older 800Mhz version (they had a speed bump a month or so back to 933Mhz). I use it more often than I use my Athlon XP 2100+ Linux desktop. It really is that good in terms of usability and UI performance. Although I know that it's a slower computer it doesn't feel like it. I, too, was worried that I'd buy the Mac and then hate it, but my fears were unfounded. Even my worries over the one-button trackpad turned out not to be a problem, since the modifier keys (ctrl, option[alt], and cmd[apple]) are close enough that it's easy to just move my hands down a little from the keyboard.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    21. Re:Cheaper Macs by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Informative

      Powerbooks can stretch the desktop over an external monitor; iBooks can only mirror.

      Actually, iBooks can do dual-head too... :-)

      The rest of the Powerbook extras do sound as if they'd be potentially very useful for many people, but (apart from the faster processor) I think I'll stick with what I've got. It makes my iBook seem like even better value, but if anyone wants to give me a Powerbook, it'd be more than welcome!

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    22. Re:Cheaper Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, it's a tool, not a religion,

      Amen!

    23. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, I was talking about officially supported features. An iBook can run with the lid closed too, but that doesn't mean Apple recommends it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    24. Re:Cheaper Macs by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      my 15" PB G4 1.5Ghz has a standard-size DVI output...not a mini. iBooks have a mini VGA out, similar to some Sony VAIO laptops (my former Sony Picturebook had an adapter that looked exactly like the iBook one)

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    25. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      It's mostly the little details that are better with a Powerbook. Powerbooks (except for the 12") have PCMCIA slots; iBooks don't.

      I was looking at that when I got mine, and can't for the life of me think what I would do with a PCMCIA slot. There's a built in modem and ethernet, the WiFi goes into its own special slot, and you have firewire and USB for connecting other devices... I'm not being condesending, but what do you use your PCMCIA slots for?

      Powerbooks have a mini-DVI connector; iBooks have mini-VGA. Powerbooks can stretch the desktop over an external monitor; iBooks can only mirror.

      As mentioned above, the iBook can mirror with a simple, safe hack. I don't see the appeal of the DVI connector, the quality isn't really that much better, and if you were looking for something with excellent desktop monitor performance you probably wouldn't want an iBook OR a Powerbook.

      Powerbooks have Firewire 800, iBooks only have 400.

      That I will give you is a biggie, but imho, the only biggie... Even that isn't huge unless you use either lots of DV equipment, or if you have tons and tons of stuff, mainly applications, stored on an external HD. Plus the lower cost PBs have Firewire 400 anyways...

      Also, Powerbooks are, by default, a little bit better: WiFi and Bluetooth, faster CPU, bigger HDD, SuperDrive instead of Combo, etc., although you can add most of these to an iBook and still spend a bit less.

      Like you said you can add all of these things to the iBook, and it is STILL cheaper than the same config in a Powerbook. The CPU speeds of the iBook can't be brought up to the PB levels, but it's close, and if you were concerned about a 10% or 15% increase in raw power, you should probably be looking at a desktop machine anyways.

      There are still some other differences. The PB line has better video hardware available to it (more VRAM, arguably better card in general), and at the higher end has nice displays (higher res overall, plus more pixles per inch). Lastly, the PB has a potential for a little more RAM, I think the higher end PBs can go up to 1.5gb and the iBooks up to 1.25gb. The PBs are a tad lighter for the size, something like a quarter pound difference. In the iBooks corner, you do get AppleWorks free with it, which is pretty decent, imo.

    26. Re:Cheaper Macs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The lack of three distinct buttons is what keeps me from buying a super cheap mac. In terms of power, for what I want, an old colorful ibook would make a sufficient laptop, but I want all three buttons because I want to primarily use it like a Unix system, not like a Mac. I know the two are now one, but I also think you know what I mean.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Cheaper Macs by Bigbluejerk · · Score: 1

      No, it's a religion. I found God and it's Mac OS X. We need an inquisition to deal with these heretics. :P

    28. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That's EXACTLY what my concern was, because I switched to Mac from Linux, not Windows (I still use Linux, by the way -- I just like the interface on my Mac better).

      Anyway, I was pretty surprised to realize that I don't have a problem with the one-button touchpad. Not only can I still attach my Intellimouse Explorer (just about the only good thing MS makes!), but the one-button touchpad + modifier keys is easier to use than a multi-button touchpad. Instead of having to use my right thumb for N different buttons, I can just put my index finger on the pad, my thumb on the button, and the first three fingers on my left hand on cmd/Apple, alt/option/meta, and ctrl respectively. If I was trying to use a regular PC touchpad (e.g. the one on my dad's Compaq laptop), I would have to either look down at my hand to find the right button (or the 4-way hat it has), or use two hands anyway. Let me put it this way: I can attach my mouse but most of the time I don't bother, because attaching it is more effort than using the touchpad and modifier keys!

      Now, my my iBook is one of the newer white ones, but I imagine the colored ("clamshell") ones work the same way. If I were you, though, I'd consider getting a white one because, being newer, it would last (i.e., remain supported by future versions of OSX) a bit longer. Also, although I've heard people say that they're satisfied with the performance of their 300Mhz G3s, I wouldn't want anything much slower than what I have, and I typically run the OS, iTunes, Firefox (and/or Safari), Preview, Terminal, iChat, and Mail -- not a whole lot of intensive stuff. If I were running Linux it'd be different -- but then why would I bother buying a Mac?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    29. Re:Cheaper Macs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't run OSX on anything less than a ~700MHz G4, frankly. Linux, on the other hand, is light and fast if you put it together that way, so that's what I'd be running unless I had a notably speedy Mac. However, I'm definitely not willing to shell out for an expensive mac because I already have a capable PC. For the $2500 a mac I'd throw my PC over for would cost (considerably more machine than my PC, admittedly) I can get a turbo diesel mercedes in pretty good shape...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Cheaper Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I borrowed my flatmates mac laptop the other day (left my linux one at work) and opened a spreadsheet.

      I picked a value in a drop down list. And was horrified (I know how much my flatmate spent on this thing) to have to wait 30sec for control to come back, and the poor thing to recalculate the rest of the worksheet.

      Now it was a 4 sheet spreadsheet. But hell, a 486-DX4-100 with win 3.11 could have done that faster.

      I put the mac down at that point. I realised that to do what I wanted to do would have taken a couple of hours instead of 5-10 min.

    31. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, ok. I was only looking at the 12" models, so I didn't notice. The 12" Powerbook, at least, has a mini.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    32. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      I think you misunderstood me -- I chose the iBook. ; ) I was just pointing out the differences, which is what the OP asked.

      Anyway,
      I'm not being condesending, but what do you use your PCMCIA slots for?
      If I had one, I would use it for my CF->PCMCIA adapter so I wouldn't have to deal with an external USB reader (and its cord).
      There are still some other differences. The PB line has better video hardware available to it (more VRAM, arguably better card in general), and at the higher end has nice displays (higher res overall, plus more pixles per inch). Lastly, the PB has a potential for a little more RAM, I think the higher end PBs can go up to 1.5gb and the iBooks up to 1.25gb. The PBs are a tad lighter for the size, something like a quarter pound difference. In the iBooks corner, you do get AppleWorks free with it, which is pretty decent, imo.
      Yeah, I forgot a few things. I think the Powerbooks are actually an equally good value as the iBooks -- no better, no worse. For me, the weight, CPU, and video hardware would be the biggies -- I wouldn't mind a few more FPS in Warcraft 3. I think if I could have afforded the extra $200 I would have sprung for the Powerbook. My next laptop will probably be one, at least.

      Appleworks is really good (better than OpenOffice?), but I don't use an office suite enough to notice. Anything I need fancy formatting for gets marked up as HTML in TextEdit and then gets "printed" as a PDF : ), and I have exactly one spreadsheet file.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    33. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I have an 800Mhz G4, and it runs OSX perfectly fine. Also, at this point you could get an identical machine for less than $1000.

      Besides that, I have a capable PC too: an Athlon XP 2100+ (running Linux). I got the Mac (an iBook) to use at school, but I use it at home too -- even with the 2100+ around.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    34. Re:Cheaper Macs by dracvl · · Score: 1

      As further advice - I just bought a Powerbook 12", got it stolen a few weeks later, and bought a 15" instead.

      I originally thought the 12" would be fine, but the Window Management of OS X leaves a lot to be desired, and it's almost *designed* for wide screen.

      So while I thought the lower weight of the 12" would be better for me (I do a lot of travelling all around the world), it's actually not a subnotebook - so the additional weight of the 15" is very much worth it for the screen and resolution alone.

      1024x768 resolution on an operating system that doesn't have anything like a "show one application at a time" functionality really sucks.

      (As a curious footnote, that feature was in the pre-release betas of Mac OS X, but they removed it before they released it. Wish they would put it back.)

    35. Re:Cheaper Macs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      See, less than a grand is not a good price unless it's considerably less. I can get a refurb P4 2.4 or better for about $500 that will run any PC Operating System known to man, and run it well, maybe with a smidge more memory added to the system. (Machines that cheap usually have 256MB, which ain't enough for doing anything fancy in basically any OS.) That's what gets me. I'd like to get a little clamshell iBook to disassemble and make into my car computer, as I want it for playing mp3s and doing navigation and anything capable of running Linux will do the job. My car, however, has an alternator that only puts out 22A@1500RPM :(

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Cheaper Macs by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      I think you misunderstood me -- I chose the iBook. ; ) I was just pointing out the differences, which is what the OP asked.

      Yup, I know, I was just pointing out that the differences that there are, are quite small. :)

      If I had one, I would use it for my CF->PCMCIA adapter so I wouldn't have to deal with an external USB reader (and its cord).

      Ah, that would be pretty usefull if you used flash media on a regular basis. Still can't think of anything else I would use it for, tho.

      the weight, CPU, and video hardware would be the biggies

      The video card is no doubt the biggest one for most people. I think that the difference in CPU speeds are small enough that the casual user would never notice. The higher quality screens in the higher end models do look quite a bit nicer than the iBooks... To me the PB is a typical Apple. It is an extremely nice machine, in all respects, and you pay for that quality. The iBook ont he other hand is the Dell of Macs, imo. It's pretty well built, has all the features that you will need, if not everything you want, and for a really good price.

      Appleworks is really good (better than OpenOffice?), but I don't use an office suite enough to notice. Anything I need fancy formatting for gets marked up as HTML in TextEdit and then gets "printed" as a PDF : ), and I have exactly one spreadsheet file.Appleworks is pretty decent. Can't say much better about it... if you were to compare Appleworks to OOo running on Windows or Linux, OOo would win hands down. However the Apple XServer doesn't integrate very well with Aqua, imho, and is also a little slow (I assume it doesn't take advantage of QuarzExtreme) when viewed side by side with native apps. Because of this, on a Mac I would choose Appleworks over OOo, until there is better XWindows support in OSX or until there is a native Aqua build. Sadly, MS Office X (I think that's the one I was running) was horribly unstable, so I used Appleworks most of the time).

    37. Re:Cheaper Macs by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Apple recommends against running an ibook with the lid closed.. it was not designed to operate properly this way.. heat problems.

      As for dual screen.. apple doesn't discourage it at all. it's simply not a feature of the ibook line, and presumably a future version of the ibook might have a video card that doesn't support this.. so they don't enable it. IT's perfectly acceptable to do so, however, and the ibook works just great.

    38. Re:Cheaper Macs by dreamjunkie · · Score: 1

      I bought a 12" powerbook only a couple of months ago, and I realised within a very short time: absolutely Everything just feels /smooth/ ...on a windows box, you'll have some things happen real quick, others will lag, hang, pause for whatever reason... there's no rhythm. on the mac, it won't do that - things will get done as quickly as they can, and you can keep going with other tasks. the result is that you never need to worry about things going quickly or slowly... I don't grudge my 1.33G4 doing something a bit slower than some faster cpu - because I know everything will run smoothly. I've found that OSX has reduced the time it takes to get just about anything done at all... and that saving of thought-effort gets to be spent on what I'm actually wanting to do, not wasted fighting the OS along the way... I'd been using windows boxes for years, and I was always worried about components falling behind the newer speedier gear... and after falling in love with a mac, I realised, hang on, when everything just works smoothly, you don't need to care about extra megahertz - because what you've got already works just fine. the real reason you want a 4Ghz P4 rather than just 2Ghz is because the OS you'll be using it with, will do just about anything it can to slow down your system, reproduce its bloated offspring everywhere it can, and generally make you wish there was something the heck you could do about it. Enter the Shiny New X Chip! but it never really solves the problem, which is that using windows makes your computer /feel/ sluggish. you'll never feel cheated, spending that extra money on a premium mac - you get a product that after a while you'll realise is worth every last cent. OSX is simply the most /friendly/ interface I've ever seen or used. not to mention that it is actually helpful, quick, pretty, and functional. it's got the most important ingredient of all: it Just Works. Someone asked one of my friends, how easily does a mac fit into a windows network? and he said, Better than a windows machine ;) and I gotta say, that goes for just about anything a mac can do. there is nothing like having a computer you can actually enjoy using for hours and days - and it gets better, not worse! less stress, more fluidity, the hidden bonuses of an environment that doesn't stab you in the back, at all. took me a few weeks before I stopped reflexively 'looking over my shoulder' as it were, and then it was like... hey, wow, I don't need to be on the defensive! I can actually just have fun, and get things done! Trust me. You won't look back. I'd type more but I'm starting to get the feeling I've given in to the macfever... ah but it truly does feel so good... buy one. please. you'll make the world a better place.

  15. Cheaper than Dell by jocknerd · · Score: 4, Informative

    And a comparably equipped Dell will run you about $1000 more. Spec out a PC that has all the features of the G5 and you'll see that the PowerMac is very reasonably priced. When comparing it to the crap Dell and Gateway advertise, yeah it sounds expensive. But those machines are crap.

    1. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, to be the MSDevil's advocate, although the OS X OS is superior in ease-of-use, Apple hardware still falls behind in many of the areas Anand depends upon -- most noticeably in the GPU department. Since the entire OS depends on the GPU, this becomes an issue on macs. You can't buy a comparably equipped Dell, because there are some things that come standard with a Dell that don't ship for the Mac, and some things that come standard on a Mac that don't ship with a Dell. Anand was having problems with the first issue.

    2. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps Apple should consider selling a "cut down" with less features. For $3000 I could purchase a system that would blow Apple's kit clear out of the water for the features that *I* am interested in.

    3. Re:Cheaper than Dell by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's assuming you buy apple's line that a G5 and a Xeon/Opteron workstation are equivalent. I have both of them here. I'm pretty impressed with the system on the Mac, but it is by no means fast enough to compete with a dual Xeon/Opteron.

    4. Re:Cheaper than Dell by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      Actually, to be the MSDevil's advocate, although the OS X OS is superior in ease-of-use, Apple hardware still falls behind in many of the areas Anand depends upon -- most noticeably in the GPU department. Since the entire OS depends on the GPU, this becomes an issue on macs.

      I'm not sure what you mean by this. The only thing the OS really "depends" on the GPU for is Quartz Extreme. All new Macs come with a GPU capable of running Quartz Extreme, and it has been this way for a couple years now. Even with a GPU that just barely meets the QE minimum specs, the speedup in responsiveness is quite noticeable. I've yet to see any Windows machine that can match a OS X Mac running QE for general GUI responsiveness, all other things being equal.

    5. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OSX is far inferior in ease-of-use. The whole philosopy is make the easy stuff even easier and make the hard stuff practically impossible.

      The easy stuff is already easy, so I don't really care which machine it's easier on. It's the hard stuff that counts, and that's where windows is far easier than Mac.

    6. Re:Cheaper than Dell by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Apple never said the G5 was as fast as the Opteron. They did say it was comparable to the Xeon, which it is in many cases.

    7. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Zakabog · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ok, I've done this before and I know the results but just to be sure here's what I got.

      The cheapest PowerPC G5 I could manage, there's no monitor by the way this is JUST a tower -

      Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
      256MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x128
      80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
      NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra w/64MB DDR SDRAM
      Combo (CD-RW/DVD-ROM)
      Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
      Mac OS X - U.S. English

      Subtotal
      $1,870.00


      Now for a PC, I'll put in an AMD FX-53, gotta be fair, compare the top end PC to the bottom end G5.

      ASUS "SK8V" K8T800 Chipset Motherboard $172
      AMD FX-53 $650
      512 MB DDR2-533 (PC 4200) Corsair Valueselect - 2x256 (for dual channel support) $130
      250 GB Western Digital SATA 7200RPM Hard Drive $156
      nVidia GeForce 6800 GT $369
      Logitech MX1000 Wireless Optical Mouse $75
      Plextor 8X DVD-RW/+RW Drive$95
      Microsoft Natural Keyboard $41
      19" Perfect Flat Viewsonic CRT $250
      Some Random case, that kind of resembles the G5 case in a different color (with PSU) $65

      Subtotal
      $2,003.99


      Damn you're right the apple is cheaper. Oh wait that's right I priced out the PC with the best video card, processor, double the ram, over triple the hard drive space, great mouse (with more than one button!), and a great keyboard. Oh and I forgot, a 19" CRT, if the CRT wasn't there the PC would actually be cheaper (and still better since the Apple didn't even come with a monitor.)

      Apple's are sweet computers, but they're VERY expensive. The PC has an advantage since many many companies make parts for PCs, only one company makes apple hardware, and do they even sell any of it by itself if you want to build your own?

    8. Re:Cheaper than Dell by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      You're comparing apples to oranges. Go to dell's website and build that same pc you built from parts, and you won't get it for 2 grand. It's common knowledge, and an old tired argument that you can build your own pc cheaper than buying a pre-made mac.

    9. Re:Cheaper than Dell by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you want to do with it. You can't push a trillion polygons through 'em, and you can't render video on 'em, but for office suites, email, and web browing, a $500 Dell is entirely sufficient. ($300 if you take into account the fact that you already own a monitor by now and don't need a new one.)

      The entry point to Windows is lower than the entry point to Macintosh. I believe you can score an eMac for around $800.

      Whether you'll enjoy it as much as an eMac, which is a few hundred dollars more, that's a matter of taste. The article is about top-of-the-line systems, but a lot of the nice things it has to say apply just as well to the bottom end of the Mac line.

    10. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      The whole philosopy is make the easy stuff even easier and make the hard stuff practically impossible.

      Odd... I'll be doing movie editing in iMovie, and with one key combo, I'm using a full fledged unix-style shell to grep the output and process it through a perl script. The debug and compiling tools come with the OS, all of the settings for the OS underpinnings are tweakable, and readily accessible. What exactly is it that you consider to be "hard stuff"?

    11. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see this. Post or link me.

    12. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      * You are comparing a single processor machine with a duel processor machine (compare an Opteron).

      * Your case is not comparable, the G5 case (and internal design) is much nicer.

      * Your RAM type doesn't match what the motherboard supports.

      * DIY vs. Pre-built.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    13. Re:Cheaper than Dell by jurv!s · · Score: 1
      Go ahead and drop the monitor from your bottomline. What about the complete absence of any software on this homebrew of yours? How much would you have to pay to get an OS comparable to OS X and the bundled iLife apps? I know this is /. and we are all Linux guru's here, but my last Mac purchase was motivated purely by OS X. Not the hardware.

      I could have tweaked and compiled my way to the 1337357 gentoo box with your hardware then ripped it down and done it again when the new distro of the month comes along (did someone say yoper?). But OS X is solid, has a simple software update system, runs MS Office, Dreamweaver, Photoshop and still gives me ssh, X11 and all that *nix goodness for running the Linux server farm. I wanted to beat the Apple tax so bad that I considered a DIY system but gave up when I had to quantify how much OS X was worth to me. It is worth so much more to me than the almost any difference you could contrive with a cheap version of windows xp pro and some media apps thrown onto your bottomline. It cannot be compared to any other OS package out there in terms of polish and utility. And thems my zealoutous $.02...

      --
      sigs are for fools and trolls. no signature is *always* appropriate. you should turn them off in your preferences.
    14. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do NOT want a premade computer.

    15. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      Then you're not going to be buying a Mac, now are you?

    16. Re:Cheaper than Dell by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong comparison, you're matching a uniprocessor system to a dual processor system. Here's the above comparison, but corrected for accuracy:

      First, let's correct the Mac. Giving it an ATi 9600XT, and subtracting the modem (because you forgot), makes the price $1920.

      Now for the PC:
      MSI K8T Master2-FAR Dual Opteron motherboard $220
      2 x AMD Opteron Model 144 - 1.8 GHz $422
      Kingston ValueRAM 184 Pin 256MB(128MBx2) DDR PC-3200 $59
      80 GB Serial ATA hard disk $64
      SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9600XT Video Card, 128MB DDR $162
      Logitech Deluxe Desktop (Deluxe Keyboard & Mouse) $11
      Sony Beige 52X32X52X16 Combo Drive $38
      Lian-Li Silver ATX Full Tower Case, Model "PC-V2000A" (much more comparable to the G5 case) $261
      Fortron 530W Power Supply $76

      Microsoft Windows XP Professional With Service Pack 2 -OEM $145
      I'll assume that this will be a Windows machine, but this cost is optional, since there are a number of free operating systems.

      In total, the equivalent PC (as equivalent as it can be purchased) comes out to $1,458 (including the cost of Windows).

      However, this cost is for a bunch of boxes with parts in them, not a computer that's ready to go once you plug it in. How long will it take to get it ready? Assuming you're fairly speedy, it's at least a couple hours removing stuff from boxes and getting it all into the case in a tidy manner. Then add another hour for installing Windows, then another couple for installing drivers / configuring Windows. How much is your time worth?

    17. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not matter, I can't aford one anyway.

    18. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can now get the iMac G5 for about $1400 with a 17" monitor. Which seems pretty inexpensive considering it has a 17" lcd.

      And, look at notebook prices. The powerbooks (and definately ibooks) are cheaper than their similarly configured dell equivilent.

    19. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, this cost is for a bunch of boxes with parts in them, not a computer that's ready to go once you plug it in. How long will it take to get it ready? ...... How much is your time worth?

      Wait! That's not a tenth of the matter. Now assume that you will be using the machine for 2 years. Assume that Windows/Linux will cost you an hour of frustration a week, a conservative estimate. That's $1000 a year, at $20 an hour. Now recall that the mac is perfectly quiet. How much is that worth? Would you pay $2 a day for silence? I would! That's another $700. And what is the monetary equivalent of two years of soothed nerves and a pleasant stress free work experience? THAT is what you are buying.

    20. Re:Cheaper than Dell by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, the cheapest PowerPC G5 I could find on http://store.apple.com is only $1,299.

      And it comes with a 17" LCD

    21. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the wrong speed chip. A 1.8 G5 in my experience is about 130% the speed of a 1.8 Opteron. Drop in 2x 2GHz AMD Opteron Model 246 at $474 a pop, and we're looking $1984.

    22. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say if there were only MS-Windows and Apple-OSX based computers. Well, I would have to save up the money for a Apple an go to the local library and use an MS-Windows based computer. I really greatfull that I have the Linux option because that is all that I have used now for three years. Yet, if linux were not around I still would be saving my money for a Apple-OSX G5 based computer, period....

      Walt

    23. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      You forgot the Firewire on the Dell. But I agree that's minor. Also, what about the Airport Extreme card, I thought it was standard on Pro Apple machines ?

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    24. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't spell "afford" either you stupid nigger.

    25. Re:Cheaper than Dell by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did forget firewire. Airport is only built into the Powerbooks by default, though.

    26. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      And you spend how much time looking at the case?

      I would think that the Area within the 14 (or 15 or 17 or 19 or 21) inches is where you spend most of the time. ( or maybe that should be 5 3/4 :O )

      "Form follows function" has been a concern of architects and designers for many years - brought to the forefront by Frank Lloyd Wright last centery.

      But as long as the design *works*, whether it is ugly or pretty, is in the eye of the beholder.

    27. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      You cannot make assumptions like that.

      Theses (frustration/silence) are *intangibles* because how they effect each individiual (or not) cannot be easily measured.

    28. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Not talking about single processor G5 iMac.

      Talking about dual processors on a PowerMac G5.

    29. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the argument has been lost when people start pulling stupid bullshit like this into it.

    30. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A 1.8 G5 in my experience is about 130% the speed of a 1.8 Opteron"

      Oh, in 'your experience'.. Right. Let's not waste time with FACTS now, because we have an end user's best guess here.

    31. Re:Cheaper than Dell by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you said, "The cheapest PowerPC G5", which happens to be the $1299 iMac G5.

  16. There is a lot of open source software for MacOSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those Mac OS X people with Linux envy, there is a lot of open source programs available on http://fink.sourceforge.net/.
    To install fink, you need to give a root account on Mac OS X even though there is an administrator account. Mac OS X does not have a root account as default for security.

  17. Re:Apple = Proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorta like _Microsoft_ Windows?

  18. Re:Macdate? by RangerRick98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd think up a better reply to your post than this, but my head is still swimming from the irony.

    --
    "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  19. I take it... by Beek+Dog · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're not using an Xserve.

    1. Re:I take it... by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

      Actually OS X does have X11 as a free download. I've been using it for years and use a lot of OSS apps via X.

  20. Too many windows! by conebrid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:

    Maybe it's just because of the nature of my work, but I tend to have a lot of windows open at any given time. ...
    When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open...

    Two words: Use Firefox!

    1. Re:Too many windows! by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

      No kidding... Oh the joys of tabbed browsing! To be honest, I dont know how I survived without it~

      --
      "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
  21. Supersize me! by October_30th · · Score: 1, Funny
    tried a Mac out for a month

    You mean like this?

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  22. Re:Cost by sgant · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean for Macs, right?

    Cause I"m sitting here on a AMD 2500+ Barton with 1 gig of RAM, 120 Gig HD, Geforce Video, DVD/CDROM burner all for around $600.

    Built it myself. Sure, it's not a dual processor with DVD burner...but it's fast and stable.

    But I will say that Apple has been consistant with their prices...their top of the line machines have always been around the 3000 mark. But at the moment they only have one machine that's below 1000, and that's with very little RAM.

    Do NOT get me wrong, I LOVE Macs...but you do have to pay a premium to use them and yeah, I think it's worth it. I just can't afford it...yes, I'm poor.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  23. Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 4, Funny

    We've /.'ed his Windows servers. I've always found the Anandtech site to be rather sluggish. Must be a Windows thing.

    1. Re:Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server by nfsilkey · · Score: 0

      Too bad it isnt slashdotted. Its just nullrouting referrals from /.

      Copy the URL, open a new tab/window and paste in the URL. ~yay~

    2. Re:Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server by Bozdune · · Score: 1

      Sorry, wrong. He's slashdotted thoroughly.

    3. Re:Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a mac browser thing.

      Here's a nickel, kid. Get a real OS.

  24. Coral Cache Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Unfortunately, it looks like it may have been slashdotted before anyone loaded the whole cache..

    but, you're free to try it

    1. Re:Coral Cache Link by davron05 · · Score: 1

      the mirrodot cache is even faster than the coral link.

    2. Re:Coral Cache Link by cTbone · · Score: 1

      Just use mirrordot.

    3. Re:Coral Cache Link by AGTiny · · Score: 1

      How do you use MirrorDot beyond the first page of the article? The links aren't standard like with Coral.

  25. Re:Macdate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? What suggests they are linux users? .. And then you hypocritically label linux users as elitists.

    I should let this form a stereotype in my mind that anti-linux posters are illogical trolls.

  26. thorough and fair by BobWeiner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I applaud Anand for taking the time to thoroughly put the G5 through its paces. If Apple were still running the 'classic' OS, I seriously doubt Anand would have even bothered to look at the platform, let alone review it. OS X is the main reason why I prefer Macs. It doesn't get in the way of what I want to do. At work, I have a G5 on one side, and a HP XW8000 on the other. Both have their advantage, but as far as OS intuitiveness goes -- the Mac wins hands down.
    The PC Weenies:Tech toons with a byte!

    --
    The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
    1. Re:thorough and fair by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It might be a contraversal statement, but I think (and I'm ignoring the technology here-- pre-emptive, cooperative, virtual memory, whatever), I think honestly that MacOS 9 is easier to use than MacOS X. Most of this is because MacOS 9 had a truly spatial Finder, while OS X's Finder barely even bothers to pretend to be spatial. In addition, OS X removed the single most time-saving feature I used in OS 9-- tabbed folders! How Apple could actually *remove* a feature from the OS and not have an uprising is a mystery to me.

    2. Re:thorough and fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you did use OSX, however, you'd have automatic spell-checking in your web browser, so you wouldn't look like such a moron... That aside, the new interface features in OSX more than make up for the ones lost from OS9.

  27. Re:But I like my apps.... by the+pickle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fine. Don't switch. Stick with Windows and suffer the nightmares of spyware, viruses, trojans, and security holes big enough to fly a 747 through.

    Apple isn't losing any sleep over the incredibly tiny minority of users who are in your shoes and who can't afford to switch. Not that I believe your $100,000 figure in the first place. How many one-man freelance operations out there need Maya/[insert other über-expensive software here]? (Then again, why should I believe a guy who thinks assembling an iMac from Apple-branded parts constitutes "building" a Macintosh?)

    For the rest of us, our employers will provide the software necessary to get Real Work(tm) done, and the software besides that *isn't* that expensive. Even if you had to re-purchase every single game you own for the Mac platform (and you typically don't, since a lot of games can be had in cross-platform CD versions now, with both Mac and PC versions in the same box), that would still be well under $10K, and if you're *that* into PC gaming, why the hell are you buying a Mac in the first place?

    p

  28. Quote... by CatGrep · · Score: 1

    ...from the article.
    If you want any sort of software compatibility, driver support and don't want to be made fun of, Windows is the way to go.

    Huh?

    Actually, if you want to be made fun of (by those who count) you would be running Windows.

    1. Re:Quote... by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      I actually sent Anand an email (no reply yet) stating that I felt this was far outside his normally balanced and reasonable reporting. Apart from the first two being up to debate (no problems here on Linux) the being made fun of part just sticks out like he's being a jerk. I usually don't bother sending email to anybody who posts their opinion to the net because it's almost never worth the time. Here, however, he's adressing a decent sized readership and the least he could do is not make people fear trying something different which may work well for them because they'll be made fun of. Seriously, what does anybody apart from the corporations selling OSes care what I'm running? I don't think you'll gather a dispropotionate amount of criticism for running any one OS over another, unless you insist on holding on to something dead like DOS for a primary desktop. (Waiting for the I still use DOS and like it flames)

      Usually I like AnandTech's articles, but I was saddened by that sentence. I hope he wasn't intentionally taking a jab at what's likely a few percent of his readership.

      --
      If not now, when?
    2. Re:Quote... by duplicate-nickname · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the rest of the article?

      --

      ÕÕ

    3. Re:Quote... by kahei · · Score: 1



      Actually, anyone who would make fun of someone for using a particular operating system pretty much doesn't count...

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    4. Re:Quote... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      You might be oversensitive due to years and years of Apple Bashing, but I think you should consider this as just a lame attempt at humor. But then, maybe I'm de-sensitized due to years of Apple bashing. =)

      The rest of the article is one of the best I've read. If he continues to use his Mac, I'd be very interested in reading a follow up at 6 months and one year.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    5. Re:Quote... by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      How I read it, it didn't seem to be a bash on Apple but more a statement that you should be made fun of if you run anything but Windows on a PC. Having run Linux quite happily for over a year on my desktop and much longer than that on a server I was left scratching my head as to why Anand would make such a comment.

      A good natured rip I can accept fine. But here Anand, who's commentary I've come to respect, is making what seems to be a rip at the start of an informative article. It didn't seem to fit his style.

      I guess what really tripped my response though wasn't that it was a rip in general, but he threw it out as the consensus of everybody that those who don't run Windows should and will be made fun of.

      If it was a joke perhaps I just overreacted, something I try not to do. This is probably the first time all year I've sent email to somebody over comments they made on the net. But even if it was a joke he should know that it had the effect of putting off one of his regular readers who appreciates good, balanced reviews of PC hardware even if I don't run the same OS as he uses to generate the reviews and test the hardware.

      --
      If not now, when?
  29. Go Screen virtual desktop manager by mekkab · · Score: 1

    Someone sent me a copy of Go screen and I've been using it for the past 5 years on two different work PCs (NT and 2k).... and it does what you'd expect; it acts like a virtual desk top!

    I'm sure there are a thousand others out there.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  30. Re:Macdate? by 0racle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did it hurt to have your sense of humour removed? There was a Mac users are gay, PC users are rednecks, I just kept it going.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  31. Re:Cost by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    I mean for PCs. Up until a couple years ago 3K was the price for a good personal computer. Starting in the 80s and up through the mid to late 90's. Hell, my computer I custom built in 2000 cost about that much too. Course it was top o the line but so is this one.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  32. Re:The problem with Apple Users by Beek+Dog · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No, we can fix our own machines. We just don't need to. We buy new ones with the money we save on support/repairs/time. "Oh, but you can't upgrade a iMac!!!" They're call EXTERNAL peripherals, dumbass. Just bought my aging G3 a new 120gb HD.

    By the way, how's that spyware treating you? Looked at any JPGs lately? Good luck with SP3!!!

  33. Well now by Dolphy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After doing the necessary research to make sure that I could actually get work done on a Mac, I whipped out the trusty credit card and decided to give the experiment a try.

    That single sentence gives quite a bit of insight into a very major reason that Windows is so popular. The very fact that one has to research into applications is a drawbridge for many would-be switchers. With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...all you need to do is download (or buy). Gamers and "specialists", who require either very today-trendy or very specific function software, are turned off by the belief (or disbelief, possibly) that Linux and Mac simply can't support their needs.

    Then, of course, there is the whole hardware debate. Once again, for Windows...it's out there somewhere; go find it. For Linux, well, it's out there, but have fun finding drivers and getting Linux to be a happy landlord. For Mac, it's out there if Apple or an approved sales associate has decided you need to have it.

    In short, very few users are debating the worthiness, usability, or power of an operating system these days. It's the flexibility that they want. That may sound like quite a trite argument to have in favor of Microsoft...but in the context of the applications and hardware discussed above, I think it's pretty appropriate.

    1. Re:Well now by AgentFred76 · · Score: 2

      "After doing the necessary research to make sure that I could actually get work done on a Mac, I whipped out the trusty credit card and decided to give the experiment a try.
      That single sentence gives quite a bit of insight into a very major reason that Windows is so popular. The very fact that one has to research into applications is a drawbridge for many would-be switchers. With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...all you need to do is download (or buy). Gamers and "specialists", who require either very today-trendy or very specific function software, are turned off by the belief (or disbelief, possibly) that Linux and Mac simply can't support their needs."

      Now wait a minute.
      The only thing that sentence proves it that there is WAY too much ignorance as too the change in program availability brought out from the change to OS X.
      That said: I agree wit hthe end statement. I beleieve that it's not evidence of lack of applications, it's proof that old FUD dies hard.

      --
      There is more simplicity in the man who eats caviar on impulse than in the man who eats Grape-Nuts on principle.
    2. Re:Well now by technomancerX · · Score: 5, Informative
      "In short, very few users are debating the worthiness, usability, or power of an operating system these days.

      You're right on this point. However most people could give a damn about flexibility. They want a machine that isn't going to get eaten alive by viruses every other week. Windows does not provide this. Period.

      As for the other points you raise, aside from gaming I have never had a problem finding either hardware or software for my Mac.

      I am also not a Mac zealot, as I use Linux, Windows, and OS X on a regular basis. I have to say for servers Linux wins every time. For games Windows wins every time. For actually getting work done, OS X wins hands down every time.

      --
      .technomancer
    3. Re:Well now by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      I'm finding myself in an odd position of nearly opposite disconnect actually. I've been running a Linux desktop and server for a while now and when I end up on a Windows box I find myself wondering if certain software which I know exists on Linux has a Win32 port or not, or if there's an analogous application. Then I wonder what kind of hassle one has to go through to get it installed.

      Fortunately(?) I've used XP to a decent extent since it's been released, mostly due to availablity of licenses through the university I attend. I wonder how alien the next version of Windows will seem should they change around how settings are changed.

      Also note, a few seconds with Google will give you a good impression of the difficulty of getting Linux to play with a given bit of hardware. Also of note is that there's certain older hardware that is dead on Windows past 98SE that still works wonderfully on Linux.

      --
      If not now, when?
    4. Re:Well now by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...

      Perhaps, but there's no guarantee that it will work very well.

      I'm not talking just about dinky little shareware apps, mind you. I fired up Microsoft Word the other day after not using it very often for quite a while. Word must be the most intrusive program I've ever used! It kept moving text around on me, reformatting it, and telling me that I'd misspelled things. A long look at the preferences failed to reveal a way to turn off many of the features which were getting in my way.

      Unfortunately, Word does the same sh*t on the Mac. But fortunately, most other programs don't. Using both platforms, my feeling is that Mac programs present a much more consistant interface. And there's more than enough Mac software out there that outside a few very narrow, very specialized fields, anyone will be able to do their work on a Mac.

    5. Re:Well now by testcase · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is actually quite simple to find hardware Macs -
      http://guide.apple.com/

    6. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If tools->options>spelling & grammar was that hard to find, it's obvious why you prefer the Mac.

    7. Re:Well now by burns210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "That single sentence gives quite a bit of insight into a very major reason that Windows is so popular. The very fact that one has to research into applications is a drawbridge for many would-be switchers."

      I would argue that is the perception, not requirement of needing research that hurts. I have yet to find a single thing I can't do with my mac that I can do with my Windows box. Period. And I knew coming in, the names might be different(Winzip vs. Stuffit Expander) but the functionality is all their.

      The perception of difference and change is what hurts the mac, in my opinion.

    8. Re:Well now by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      However most people could give a damn about flexibility. They want a machine that isn't going to get eaten alive by viruses every other week. Windows does not provide this. Period.

      That's funny, I haven't had a virus or spyware on my PC in months. I wonder why that is? Probably the firewall, the use of Mozilla, and most importantly not opening every attachment someone sends me, which wouldn't be a good idea on a Mac, either.

      You might say that the average person would use IE, but I would counter by saying that the average person would get pissed off at how Safari only does one thing at a time and when one site ain't loading all other tabs are useless, and they'd probably rather use IE :P

      Now, I don't have anything bad to say about Macs really, other than the usual pissing and moaning about price and the lack of available hardware, but please, pick a real problem to complain about next time. I wouldn't put a naked Mac on the internet either, and I wouldn't run IE on mac if it were even available for OSX. I admit though, I did use Safari on my G3, because anything else was too slow. But, I didn't open a zillion tabs in it either, because it was still slow :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? My computer has yet to get a single virus. All I have is a free firewall. Now Windows firewall is ony by default.

  34. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa, not so fast. That's not exactly the cadillac of X86 computers. Try buying a dual-processor Opteron with a fast video card, a DVD burner, liquid cooling, an OS (XP Pro costs quite a pretty penny to buy ... unless you're running a Linux system), a LCD monitor, a high-end logitech mouse and keyboard, etc, etc.

  35. Re:But I like my apps.... by Kenja · · Score: 1, Informative
    "Fine. Don't switch. Stick with Windows and suffer the nightmares of spyware, viruses, trojans, and security holes big enough to fly a 747 through"

    Dont run Outlook, dont use IE. Tell you what, you start holding your breath and I'll tell you to stop as soon as I get a virus or trojan. Kay?

    "Apple isn't losing any sleep over the incredibly tiny minority of users who are in your shoes and who can't afford to switch. Not that I believe your $100,000 figure in the first place. How many one-man freelance operations out there need Maya/[insert other über-expensive software here]? (Then again, why should I believe a guy who thinks assembling an iMac from Apple-branded parts constitutes "building" a Macintosh?)"

    So only an "incredibly tiny minority of users" buy software? As for building a Macintosh, your right if you buy parts off eBay (or even retail) lighting comes down from the sky and strikes you dead. So its impossible, and all the auctions and web sites selling parts and upgrades are just trying to kill you.

    "For the rest of us, our employers will provide the software necessary to get Real Work(tm) done, and the software besides that *isn't* that expensive. Even if you had to re-purchase every single game you own for the Mac platform (and you typically don't, since a lot of games can be had in cross-platform CD versions now, with both Mac and PC versions in the same box), that would still be well under $10K, and if you're *that* into PC gaming, why the hell are you buying a Mac in the first place?"

    What? Photoshop, 3D-Studio, Autocad etc are expensive. Buying Macintosh equivilents or versions costs money and thats just the tip of the ice berg for the software I own and use. As for games, I thought we where talking about "real work"? Non the less, most games dont have a Macintosh version, on the CD or any other place.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  36. Re:But I like my apps.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Stick with Windows and suffer the nightmares of spyware, viruses, trojans, and security holes big enough to fly a 747 through.

    Spybot. Avast. Firefox.

    > Apple isn't losing any sleep over the incredibly tiny minority of users who are in your shoes and who can't afford to switch.

    No. Just customers. I like macs, but once I spec out a mac with an adequate amount of RAM in it, it always jumps up to about 3 grand.

  37. 12 pages by bware · · Score: 3, Insightful

    12 pages, all of them slashdotted, the print command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari, the email command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari. Bah. Maybe he's got something useful to say, but I'll never get past the first page. At least it's not green on black like ArsTechnica.

    1. Re:12 pages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously haven't read ars-technica lately.

    2. Re:12 pages by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Uh, maybe your browser just sucks. I can click the print button and the email button just fine in firefox. It opens up the links in new windows, maybe you just need to change your popup blocking settings.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  38. Re:The problem with Apple Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fix by taking it to an Apple specialist or by fixing it with buying something new? haha
    So buying new hardware makes you a geek? HAHA

    And no I don't run billy goat's bloated OS.

  39. Re:There is a lot of open source software for MacO by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, the root account exists; it just has the password disabled. Also, you don't need to install it for fink; sudo works just fine.

    As for linux envy... OS X is a BSD derivative! http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ and http://gentoo-wiki.com/Gentoo_MacOS are some more ports friendly systems, as opposed to Fink's apt-style system. Maybe "Linux curious" would be a better term ;)

  40. cost versus price by Onan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Building it yourself is a very different proposition. You've paid less in dollars, but more in the requisite time, knowledge, effort, tools, parts acquisition, and additional responsibility for its functioning.

    Which might very well be a worthwhile deal for you, nothing wrong with that. But it's not really meaningful to compare just the price in dollars for these two systems and pretend that the other costs don't exist.

    1. Re:cost versus price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that if you're going to add in time/knowledge/etc on the self-built then you need to add the instantaneous on-site, 24/7/365 technical support, that you would get with the self-built, to the Mac.

      How much is Apple charging for that these days?

  41. Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if Apple ever intends to crack the gaming nut.. I think there is a huge community of gamers that would drop windows in a heartbeat if Apple even came -close- to being a competitive games platform. Gaming also drives hardware sales like nothing else imaginable. If I could play all the same games on a Mac that I do on a PC, I think I'd be willing to pay around $400 more for a similar powered computer without the wintel platform nuissance.

    Actually, from my perspective, it's becoming too late. Whereas Windows 98 was pure hell in terms of usability, hardware compatibility, inconsistency, and stability, Windows XP massively shrunk the gap between itself and the overall Mac platform. By the time Apple would catch up, if ever, in the gaming market, the gap might be too small to bother a migration.

    1. Re:Games games games games by the+pickle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Will someone explain to me the point of building a $3500 Windows-based gaming system when you can buy a console for 10% of the price and have better graphics, a far bigger screen, a better selection of games, and none of the problems associated with, well, Windows? I mean, when's the last time a PlayStation 2 caught a virus, or needed to have its OS reinstalled?"

      I've never understood this mentality *at all*. I really wish someone could explain it to me, because if someone can explain it to me, maybe they can explain it to Apple.

      p

    2. Re:Games games games games by DogDude · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Apple ever intends to crack the gaming nut.

      They won't if they're smart. The PC gaming community is just that: a community. PC gaming has been declining steadily since the advent of Nintendo, I think is where it started. People just don't want the complexity and expense of PC gaming, and neither do the manufacturers, for that matter. PC caming is just going to continue to become a smaller and smaller market.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Games games games games by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      It is not just game availability that makes my PC a better game platform. It's also the low cost of upgrades. Every two years or so I drop about $300-$500 on a new (but not top of the line) mainboard and video card to keep up with the latest games. My imac on the other hand has been relegated to a part time MP3 and web browser position because that's about all it can do with 10.2 loaded on it.

    4. Re:Games games games games by cheide · · Score: 1

      Will someone explain to me the point of building a $3500 Windows-based gaming system when you can buy a console for 10% of the price and have better graphics, a far bigger screen, a better selection of games, and none of the problems associated with, well, Windows?

      Well, there's the obvious utility of being able to do more than games, of course.

      But besides that, there has in the past been a somewhat different 'flavour' to gaming on home computers than there was on the consoles. Console RPGs have had completely different styles and mechanics than those of CRPGs. Strategy games were far more common and in-depth on the PCs. Simulators could use the extra CPU power to get better realism. There was less of a limit in how much of a world state you could save. More long-distance multiplayer options were available. And so on and so forth, and some people simply preferred that PC style of gaming. With consoles getting so much closer to PCs in ability though, and the console/PC styles merging or disappearing, you may very well be correct about the future. PC gaming isn't going to drop dead overnight either though, as there's still a lot of inertia behind it.
    5. Re:Games games games games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A PS2 isn't going to have better graphics than a $3.5K PC. Or a $1500 PC. It's also got a very limited selection of online games, no mods, addon maps or fan expansions and mouse + keyboard is a better interface for some types of game (FPS and RTS, mostly).

      Consoles are probably better value purely for gaming, but when you start looking at the other things you can do with a PC, things start looking a bit different.

      And competant people shouldn't have too much trouble with Windows. I've had my consoles crash more often than my Win2K box recently... Console QA seems to be slipping a bit.

    6. Re:Games games games games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have to just experience it to understand. Console games just seem small scale. Theres no modding communities and the online gaming experience on a console is kind of a joke.

      Btw, better graphics? Played Farcry? Played Doom3? Played any game that is actually on both PC and console? The PC will always be superior.. minus the 6 or so months after a console launch. And even that is debatable.

    7. Re:Games games games games by laard · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. I think the mac is interesting but I've never considered it as a viable option because of the lack of games and even the ones that do make it to the mac are usually released a bit later than their win32 counterparts (The same might be said about linux, its nice but just not a real solution for gamers). I think the guys over at RedvsBlue said it best with their mac gamer video (can't find the link on their new site)

      Another reason I won't switch... call me a geek but I like assembling my own PC from parts I researched and selected. This was once to save money but now I do it more out of enjoyment... prebuilt systems seem cheaper than ever now but I like tweaking my own machine and knowing what's "under the hood."

      --
      --- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
    8. Re:Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bigger screen : True

      Better graphics : ... err.. no. PC is still king of graphics. Every time the gap appears to close, it widens radically again. Consoles have the advantage of consistency, they can be sure that it will look the same for every person playing. This is being annoyingly offset by cross platform games that either take a lowest common denominator approach or just release somewhat stripped down inferior versions on the weaker platforms.

      $3500 : Huh? Try less then a 1/3rd of that for a very high-end machine. You can go 1/5th of that for a capable machine. More expensive sure, but it's going to be more powerful then any console, and it's going to be .. well.. a computer too. Web, office apps, email, IM, you know. If -all- you do is play games, then yea, your cost-benefit analysis throws you right into the lap of a console.. unless..

      Better selection of games : Pure opinion. Entire genres aren't even represented on console systems (and visa versa). Consoles don't have anything even remotely resembling the (legal) gaming mod community. I don't argue that consoles are way more carefree, and I also don't argue that Apples are more carefree then PCs. That's my whole point, the PC has a lot of extremely good games you simply won't ever get represented properly on any current console system or the Mac. If it weren't for the PC exclusive games, I most definitely would -not- be running windows.

      There's the possibility that say, 5 years from now, everybody will have these awesome HDTVs, and all consoles will have hard drives ( unlikely, it seems that every console manufacturer is backing off the HD idea ) and with all games running at 720p or higher, the main advantages of PC gaming could potentially evaporate. I honestly don't think it's going to happen. As far as I can tell, the PC's upgradability and modability are going to leave it perpetually on the cutting edge and there's always going to be development houses that are going to knock on that door and consistantly unleash the most technologically advanced games on PC first. More likely then anything, we'll have our awesome high end PCs attached to those awesome HDTVs and PC gaming may hit a new stride must-have-it-ness.

    9. Re:Games games games games by Luscious868 · · Score: 1
      I wonder if Apple ever intends to crack the gaming nut.. I think there is a huge community of gamers that would drop windows in a heartbeat if Apple even came -close- to being a competitive games platform. Gaming also drives hardware sales like nothing else imaginable. If I could play all the same games on a Mac that I do on a PC, I think I'd be willing to pay around $400 more for a similar powered computer without the wintel platform nuissance.

      Exactly. I've been wanting to make the switch for some time now. But I'm an avid gamer and a Mac simply won't cut it in the gaming department. When a game I've been waiting a long time for is released, I don't want to have to wait for a Mac port (if there is one in the works). Case in point, Doom 3 and Half Life 2. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to Counter Strike: Source.

    10. Re:Games games games games by avandesande · · Score: 1

      the new xbox will be on powerpc

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    11. Re:Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 1

      PC gaming declining since the advent of the NES?

      *tilts head sideways*

      Umm.. I wonder just how many orders of magnitude bigger the PC gaming industry is now. I somehow doubt that Kings Quest 1 and friends were in the hundreds of millions in terms of revenue. It goes through cycles of growing and shrinking, overall yea, consoles dominate over PC gaming.. but..

      Considering that Consoles dominate PCs and PCs dominate Apple, doesn't that actually kind of support the logic that an emphasis on gaming can be a seriously good thing?

    12. Re:Games games games games by renoX · · Score: 1

      If I had moderator points, I would moderate you as troll.

      Either you're trolling or are you too dumb to have noticed that there is quite a difference in game's genre and style of play available on Windows or on a PS2?

      Are you able to see the difference between DeusEx (designed for PC) and DeusEx2 (designed for XBox and PC)?

      And there's the flight simulators games (IL2 rocks)..

    13. Re:Games games games games by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      There are 3 excellent Mac perhipherals that let you play a wide variety of games that are well under the $400 mark, and they work perfectly regardless of your graphics card or system spec. They are available in many shops and are called the PS2, the Gamecube and the Xbox.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    14. Re:Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 1

      This is a good example of what I find so striking.

      I fess up that Windows is an inferior platform to the Mac in terms of usability/stability, hence my desire to migrate to it. But instead of fessing up that the Mac is so inferior for gaming, the non-solution is to hand wave the problem away instead of actually addressing it. As far as I can tell, Apple is doing the same thing.

      See my other post in this thread justifying the existence of PC as a gaming platform coexisting with console systems.

    15. Re:Games games games games by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You could just use ... BOTH computers. I have a Windows XP machine for games and a OS X machine for actual work.

      I hate that term "switch." It's not like buying a Mac will suddenly cause the other computers in your house to stop working or anything. If you want one, get one, if not, don't... if you want a Mac and want to play games... well, you already have a PC that can play games, so just buy the Mac. Makes sense?

    16. Re:Games games games games by jcr · · Score: 1

      It's not like buying a Mac will suddenly cause the other computers in your house to stop working or anything.

      True, with a caveat: most of my friends who buy a Mac will stop attending to routine maintenance of their windows box (virus scanning, updating their countermeasures, etc.), and if they've left the MS machine connected to the net, it's a horrendous mess in very short order.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Games games games games by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Bigger screen? With the lucidity of your other arguments I had you pegged for someone who would realize that you can hook your PC up to a TV. There are video cards designed for the purpose, and there are now televisions with DVI inputs. Plus, you can always use a projector :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 1

      I realize that, and even mention it at the bottom of my post. I was simply speaking in terms of the typical reality that most people don't have their computers hooked up to $1000+ HDTVs, and if they do hook up to a standard TV, a lot of the PC only type games become kinda unplayable, whereas console games are designed to be played on larger TVs from the get go, so overall, console == bigger screen at the moment.

    19. Re:Games games games games by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In my experience basically any game is playable on a 25" television or larger, as long as you have S-Video. If you're relying on composite then text will be basically unreadable in most menu situations. I imagine that with progressive scan, a smaller TV would be acceptable - but I have a 21" monitor which I only paid about $350 for, so I see little reason to hook a PC up to a television of less than 25 or maybe even 30 inches.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Games games games games by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Will someone explain to me the point of building a $3500 Windows-based gaming system when you can buy a console for 10% of the price and have better graphics, a far bigger screen, a better selection of games, and none of the problems associated with, well, Windows?

      I payed less than $300 to upgrade my computer to an AMD64 and FX5700, which lets me play Doom3 on highest detail and still max out the 60fps cap. I have far better graphics than any console.

      But I also own a gamecube. I say, why not do both? Gamecube for 3rd person platformers like Prince of Persia, etc.. PC for 1st person games that are better with a keyboard/mouse.

    21. Re:Games games games games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/3 of that for a *very* high-end machine? Surely you jest. $1200 does not get a decent machine with a high-quality LCD monitor, an ATI vid card, a full suite of software, etc. Are you planning to build your own PC? Well, that's a different story than buying a pre-assembled machine with tech support, isn't it?

      1/5 for a capable machine? Those $700 Dell pcs are crap, pure and simple.

      Sure, Macs are more expensive. But your cheapest Mac is a capable machine ready to go. The cheapest Dell is junk, until you add RAM, a better OS, a decent video card, etc.

      Try comparing at least apples to oranges, not apples to anchors.

    22. Re:Games games games games by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      This is being annoyingly offset by cross platform games that either take a lowest common denominator approach or just release somewhat stripped down inferior versions on the weaker platforms.

      "Annoyingly"? There isn't really a third choice here- either the game looks the same on all platforms, or it doesn't. If it looks the same, it's going to look the same as the weakest platform- there are some things that some consoles simply cannot do, and the game can't do those things if it wants to stay consistent. Conversely, having more hardware capacity available allows more to be done per frame- why should the developer be forced to ignore that, and the player and extremely competitive gaming market have to put up with wasted cycles? If the core gameplay is identical across platforms (which it usually is), then the rest is just bells and whistles.

    23. Re:Games games games games by Bud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that the Mac is not a competitive gaming platform is not a bad thing. On the contrary; only the very best games are ported to the Mac, and when they arrive, 6-18 months after the PC version, they are largely bug-free too. Bottom line: the PC crowd are very good beta testers, weeding out the bad games and the bad bugs.

      A good game is just as good tomorrow as it was yesterday. Write down your personal top-ten list of the all-time best games, and chances are seven of those games have been released for the Mac. Mine is: Tetris, Pirates, StarFlight, Civilization, Descent, Quake, Carmageddon, WarCraft, Halflife and Halo. (Of these, only Halflife is not available on the Mac.)

      I play computer games to relax and get my thoughts off the daily grind, much like others watch TV and still others go to the gym. I spend around 2-6 hours a week on computer gaming. I have no reason at all to complain about the games available to me. The only people who complain about the state of gaming on the Mac are the 0-day dudes, and I think it's mostly because they want to induce envy in their (online) friends. You know who you are, and you're not even close to the middle of the Gauss curve.

      --Bud

    24. Re:Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 1

      The implied 3rd choice is that a game is exclusive to a platform and is designed from the ground up for that platform, which has classically been the greatest strength of any console system, developers can get down and dirty and cater directly to the hardware.

      Also it's been my experience that cross platform games tend to have a very homogenous look, unless the ports come out several months from each other. All the particularly stylish and artistic games I can think of came out on one platform at first.

      I don't think the devs shouldn't use the greater capabilities when developing a cross platform game, but I think sometimes they just abstract the hardware and then do all testing on the best platform and just kinda throw the other versions out there.

      True Crime for example, must've been tested on the xbox mainly because the video output on the PS2 is too grainy to see the street signs until you are like right under them.

  42. Mirror Anyone?!? by sidepocket · · Score: 0

    Mirror Anyone?!?

  43. A recent switcher by Twid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last week, I got my 20" iMac G5 and decided to shut down my Windows box and my debian server and see how it went.

    Moving the Linux stuff to the iMac was a breeze. I was mainly using the linux box for running Squid, for acting as a shell server for IRC, and for a general purpose file server. The iMac does all that and now does easy print sharing for me as well. With BSD under the hood and the power of (a href="http://fink.sourceforge.net">Fink, anyone used to Linux can probably easily move their stuff over to OSX painlessly.

    Moving the Windows files was painless using the built-in SAMBA on OSX. I installed OpenOffice (under X11) for times when I need compatibility, but I'm intentionally staying away from MS Office on OSX for now, just to see if OpenOffice is good enough. I'm giving up gaming on the PC, which I'll miss a little, but I've got a GameCube and PS2 which can get more use now.

    The real strength of OSX is in iLife. My wife really had a lot of trouble with Windows and the complexity of all the different apps we had to use to manage media (ThumbsPlus, Premiere, etc.) With iLife, she can publish or email or get prints of photos out of iPhoto very easily. iChat and iTunes are nice too. I've had quite a few MP3 players, but the iPod plus iTunes is the first one I didn't have to manage for my wife.

    As an aside, the iMac G5 is a beautiful machine too and it's totally silent. Spookily silent. When I walked into the home office after shutting down the windows and linux box, I thought we had a power outage. :)

    I think Anand's review is accurate and very fair. The only thing I would add is just a comment that for anyone non-technical or anyone with a lot of digital media, I think an apple machine makes a lot of sense, especially with the low cost of the new iMacs.

    (disclaimer: apple employee :) )

    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    1. Re:A recent switcher by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      A recent switcher...
      disclaimer: apple employee :)

      You are an Apple employee and you "just switched"?????

      That's it. Upon order of the field of distorting forces of reality, you are hereby commanded to turn yourself in to ye Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Master of All to receive your severance package.

    2. Re:A recent switcher by Twid · · Score: 1

      Oh please. We're allowed to run other stuff at home. Really! :)

      --
      - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    3. Re:A recent switcher by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I too am a recent switcher (in fact I just typed up a long-winded, pro-mac thing on Eugenias propaganda machi- Er... OSNews), and love my Mac.

      However there is one area that my Mac's a letdown: You cannot watch mpeg2 video in Quicktime without buying an addon. And then you still cannot edit an mpeg in any Quicktimes-based app (idvd, imovie, and so on).

      It's just ridiculous that this "Media Machine" cannot perform even simple edits on one of the most common video formats around! Don't think that a Mac doesn't understand the mpeg format at all: Even those aforementioned iapps can output mpeg2. They have the ability to output mpeg2 for burning DVD's. But if you want to re-encode those videos, or simply chop off a commercial or something, you have to re-encode it as an avi or quicktime file. Or use some stopgap shareware solution (A seperate app that keeps numerical track of where I'm editing, and then I paste those numbers into Quicktime. What a pain in the ass!)

      Again, I love my Mac, but I think it's so stupid that to chop up an mpeg file that I recorded, I have to switch over to my Pentium box to do so.

      Stupid, stupid, stupid....

      Since you work at Apple, maybe you can let them know why this particular switcher, and probably countless more amateur video editors, are unable to completely switch over from the PC platform.

    4. Re:A recent switcher by bnenning · · Score: 1

      However there is one area that my Mac's a letdown: You cannot watch mpeg2 video in Quicktime without buying an addon.

      The reason for that is the silly mpeg2 royalties. If Windows supports mpeg2 out of the box, that just means the licensing cost is hidden in the cost of Windows itself.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    5. Re:A recent switcher by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason for that is the silly mpeg2 royalties. If Windows supports mpeg2 out of the box, that just means the licensing cost is hidden in the cost of Windows itself.

      BUZZ! Wrong Answer. That answer doesn't make any sense to me!

      Whether Windows does or not is irrelevent(sp?) to the arguement! You're saying that this platform, which is known to be on the pricier side of the computer experience, is unwilling to pay for mpeg licensing? Doubtful, and if it's true, then it raises the issue of the Macs price/value even further. Pay more, and get less? I don't like the idea of that (although I'm sure the "Macs are overpriced crowd would love to add it to their collection").

      Then, let us also consider that many of the included applications can output mpeg video. How could they avoid licensing fees for editing the but not be forced to pay for creating and outputting the format?

      It also raises the question of why no 3rd party's stepped forward to offer the codec as an addon for OS X. If the issue were simply licensing, it's a given that someone would be filling this gap and selling an addon to allow this.

      Finally, all of OS X's competition offers mpeg2 output for nothing. Windows, Linux, BeOS even did, if I recall. To me this could be considered "low hanging fruit" to Apple, yet there's no way to do this currently.

      So, not to disagree, but I'm disagreeing with your take on the issue

    6. Re:A recent switcher by Twid · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the historical background is for this, but yeah, kind of annoying. I know some people on quicktime, I'll pass on the comments.

      --
      - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    7. Re:A recent switcher by nsayer · · Score: 1
      I installed OpenOffice (under X11) for times when I need compatibility, but I'm intentionally staying away from MS Office on OSX for now [...]

      Both you and the article author have ignored Appleworks. Why? It's cheap, and it's probably more than enough word processor and spreadsheet for anyone reading this. Add Keynote if you need a PowerPoint workalike, and substitute the Mail/Address Book/iCal troika for Entourage and you've achieved at least parity without spending nearly as much money (and giving none of it to Microsoft).

    8. Re:A recent switcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said you are an Apple employee and JUST switched. I'm curious how long you've been working for the company and in what facility. Are you on the business side, are you a hardware engineer, or are you a code monkey or retail store employee? I just simply can't fathom how you can work for a company like Apple and not go home to a Mac. (To be honest, I'm actually a little annoyed because I've been an avid Mac user all my life and have been trying to get a non-retail job at Apple for a while now)

    9. Re:A recent switcher by Twid · · Score: 1


      Personally, I'm just more comfortable with OpenOffice under X. AppleWorks just feels dated to me (for example, the lack of wheel mouse scroll is really annoying.)

      Nothing wrong with AppleWorks in my opinion, it just needs a good refresh. I've got high hopes for NeoOffice, but it's a little too alpha to run for real work. I hope the OpenOffice guys deliver a native port to OSX in late 2005 as promised.

      --
      - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    10. Re:A recent switcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find even more stupid is the fact that I cannot watch a DVD movie in Windows without buying additional software. Yeah, most users get software with their drive, video card, or pirate it, but that's not my point. Windows and Windows Media Player do not have a dvd decoder and Microsoft points you to third parties in order to address this shortcoming. OS X at least provides a working DVD Player out of the box.

      Chances are, if you're really into editing video, you'll be buying some additional toys to improve the experience... maybe Final Cut Express or Pro, maybe some third party iDVD themes or iMovie transitions. Regardless, Quicktime Pro is ONLY $30... if you need it, it's worth the minimal fee. How much do some of those video editing software packages on Windows cost?

    11. Re:A recent switcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, this is one thing I don't like-- editing all the crap out of recordings pulled from my TiVo was very painful for a while, but I found an acceptable solution: DropDV.

      It's a nifty $20 utility that turns MPEG2 into DV. It also chops up the DV into <2GB segments that iMovie can handle, and creates an iMovie project file that, when opened, has the clips sitting on the clip shelf waiting to be used.

      Stuff has been flying out of my TiVo and onto DVDs in the weeks since I found this.

      ~Philly

    12. Re:A recent switcher by nsayer · · Score: 1
      the lack of wheel mouse scroll is really annoying

      There's an update that fixes that.

      I do agree about the hopes for a full Aqua open source office suite (NeoOffice or otherwise).

    13. Re:A recent switcher by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Don't macs already come with a software DVD player? I thought they'd done that for some time. If they do, then your excuse just evaporated. If not, I'm really surprised.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:A recent switcher by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Wrong Answer. That answer doesn't make any sense to me!

      Be that as it may, it's the truth. See the table of licensing fees here: here. Note that mpeg2 has no cap on fees for encoders and decoders, while mpeg4 has a maximum of $1 million per year. This is why QuickTime can support mpeg4 for free, but not mpeg2.

      Then, let us also consider that many of the included applications can output mpeg video.

      I don't believe any OS X bundled apps output mpeg2 out of the box. I could be wrong, and if I am that is indeed strange.

      Finally, all of OS X's competition offers mpeg2 output for nothing. Windows, Linux, BeOS even did

      I don't know what Windows is doing; Linux is using open source tools that are likely technically illegal due to patent violations. (Not that I have any ethical problem with that).

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    15. Re:A recent switcher by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Having recently watched two people switch (helping one because she's family, helping the other because she's my responsibility as her IT admin), one thing that I have noticed about their Mac usage is that they have no problem playing with it.

      Most midrange users (and power users, when other things are going on in their life) do not mess with their computer if they can avoid it. These two avoided other programs like the plague, worried that it would interrupt their day.

      Two weeks after using the Mac, they're listening to music, on AIM, and one of them is taking about 3 times as many digital photos as she used to.

      And they're more interested in why certain things are the way they are. Regardless of truth, their impression was that Windows had no logic to it. It did what it wanted to, and they did their best to keep up.

      Oddly enough, it's made both users more gadget-friendly. Maybe it's the fact that they're using their computers far more than they were (voluntarily, even). I don't know. But one of them just bought a DVD player (she'd been shying away from them because they looked more technical than the VCR), and the other got a TiVO. And they're eye-ing some other things as well.

      And I get far, far fewer calls from these two regarding the computer: they're mostly willing to troubleshoot it themselves.

      In other words, I'm getting more sleep.

      Parent: I wonder what effect moving to a Mac will make on your wife's computer use. Good luck with it.

    16. Re:A recent switcher by NivenHuH · · Score: 1

      Hehe.. I have 'other' stuff at home as well.. (athlon xp 2800+ and a 3.4ghz p4 with HT.. both running Gentoo..) They only get turned on when I game (ut2k4 or doom3).. Otherwise that.. I'm always on my PowerBook.. ;) Actually.. I started working at Apple because of my experience with the OS.. I fell in love when I used it for admin work at my previous job.. and lucked out when I was seeking out my next "unix admin" role.. :D

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    17. Re:A recent switcher by Kristopher+Johnson · · Score: 1
      As an aside, the iMac G5 is a beautiful machine too and it's totally silent. Spookily silent. When I walked into the home office after shutting down the windows and linux box, I thought we had a power outage. :)

      I keep hearing about these "totally silent" iMacs. My new 20" G5 iMac is not totally silent. It is not loud or annoying, but the fan does run continuously.

    18. Re:A recent switcher by kristjansson · · Score: 1

      Since Final Cut can handle MPEG-2 editing. I think the lack of editing support of MPEG-2 in all of the iApps may simply be a method of discouraging piracy of copyrighted materials. It kind of makes sense if you think about dvd studio pro/motion/final cut pro being targeted towards studios, or whomever the studios contract for development of the DVD version of a flick.


    19. Re:A recent switcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they do: it's called "DVD Player" ;) And there's always the Mac versions of VLC or mplayer if you're not a fan of the crappy basic Quicktime Player or DVD Player.

      As for editing, he does have a somewhat legitimate argument. though why you'd need to work with MPEG2 is quite confusing: it's a lossy final-output format -- much the same as say MP3 is in the audio world -- so your working source should be encoded in a better non-lossy format that's much more suitable to the rigors of editing. Still, ffmpegX will allow you to convert MPEG2 to another format fairly easily. Though it is shareware (well, nagware: it doesn't restrict any features) and costs USD15, it's purely a nice interface around free open-source tools like ffmpeg and mpeg2enc, which you can use from the command line if you don't want to pay for the convenience.

      But, as someone else already pointed out, FinalCutPro supports MPEG2 out of the box, and anyone serious about video editing should be using a package like this rather than the "toy" iLife apps (capable as they are), so the point is moot.

    20. Re:A recent switcher by ManxStef · · Score: 1

      Sounds like there's a problem with your machine (either software or hardware). I'm pretty sure there are some known issues with the new G5 iMacs (particularly something dodgy with some power supplies that cause a buzzing that's often mistaken for fan noise): do a search on Google or take a look here:
      http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-90 304
      http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:wQoarms_HOMJ: www.macfixit.com/article.php/20040324083206608+G5+ iMac+fan+fix&hl=en

      Alternatively, save yourself time, hassle and worry and ring up Apple's phone support. They're really quite helpful and should be able to provide a solution (as it's a known issue). Good luck!

    21. Re:A recent switcher by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      My Mac comes with DVD player software, and iDVD. My windows comes with no support for MPEG-2. Sure, it doesn't have pro level direct MPEG editing built in, but MPEG was never designed as an editing format. It is designed as a distribution format. doing frame accurate editing in an MPEG format is a very annoying experience, because of the way MPEG is stored. Much easier to just take an MPEG, convert it to an QuickTime file for editing, use that, and then output back to MPEG for distribution. You want a codec that is easy to seek randomly, and get at individual frames, and a codec that compresses fast for editing. MPEG has intermediate frames defined only as GOP's with a P-frame at either end, and is horribly asymettric, taking a very long time to encode. Seriously, what is your beef? And what is the mpeg2 encoder that comes with Windows like you claim?

    22. Re:A recent switcher by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Windows does not come with MPEG2 support.

      --
      Lalala
  44. Re:Cost by sgant · · Score: 1

    Whoa, not so fast. That's not exactly the cadillac of X86 computers. Try buying a dual-processor Opteron with a fast video card, a DVD burner, liquid cooling, an OS (XP Pro costs quite a pretty penny to buy ... unless you're running a Linux system), a LCD monitor, a high-end logitech mouse and keyboard, etc, etc.

    True, I didn't compare apples to apples and having a dual Opteron would be more fair...

    But the OS is Linux...so that didn't cost anything, and I didn't include any monitors at all because the 3000 price for the G5 doesn't include a monitor. And of course, good keyboard and mice are not that expensive anymore.

    But I hear where you're coming from...but still, I could build a system for under a Grand that would be considered "top of the line" (again, sans monitor).

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  45. Send me your wishlist by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    I can't reach TFA, but if you tell me what features you're looking at, perhaps I can help you. I am a hardcore Debian user, but I know OS X as well (I used it before I installed Linux on my iBook).

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  46. Re:But I like my apps.... by techsoldaten · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm in the same boat, please no flames.

    The price for me to move starts at around $30k. It would cost me $12k for ArcView, $3k for 3DSMax (is there a 3DSMax for Mac?), $4k for Maya, $4k for Adobe products, $1k for Office, and that is just for everyday usage. There are also a number of CAD programs without Mac equivalents that would force me to keep a Windows box around and introduce the issue of cross flatform files.

    Ironically, I actually have a G4 sitting upstairs that I used until about 6 months ago when I determined it was becoming a paperweight. High end users really have issues when it comes to talking about migration.

    M

  47. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with Geforce Video? hahaha. We're comparing modern computers here. If I wanted a Geforce I'd pick one out of the trash. Except last time I went dumpster diving I got a Geforce 2 Pro. And what are the odds this guy bought high quality components like motherboard and powersupply, and got a really nice case? You don't buy two cheap used cars, mix and match the parts, and when it works compare the cost to a BMW.

  48. Re:But I like my apps.... by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's something very close to this already, and has been for years. Generally speaking, if you have version N of a major piece of Windows software, the price to upgrade to N+1 on Windows, or move to N+1 on a Mac, is the same. Upgrade pricing usually doesn't seem to care about pricing.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  49. True, but FF supports both by xant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tabs are nice for a number of usability reasons.
    * The browser window size is predictable; that is, it won't change from one tab to the next, unless you change it for all of them.
    * The browser window location is predictable; same reason.
    * The number of things floating around on your desktop/taskbar is controllable. Having all those browser windows open slows you down in the most common use scenarios.

    OTOH, your point about being able to switch back and forth between web pages is well taken. For that reason, it's still easy to open a new window: right click, new window (same as IE). Middle click is tab by default; I'll bet there's a FF extension somewhere that lets you do double-middle-click as new window.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    1. Re:True, but FF supports both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      your point about being able to switch back and forth between web pages is well taken
      Caveat - I haven't checked Bugzilla, any of the forums, or even the extensions.

      I can't imagine it being too hard to keep an ordered list of last ACTIVE tabs - and then have a keyboard shortcut, together with mouse gesture, for switching back and forth between them. This would duplicate the 'Alt+Tab' switching process between windows more accurately amongst tabs, if that is what is desired. (Yes, I know, there's probably an extension, no, I don't have the inclination to go hunting for it right now).

      I'm an extremely happy FireFox user. I may as well take this opportunity to express a couple of pet peeves though.

      Dragging and dropping text into a form doesn't (seem to) work between tabs! Note: I have TabBrowserExtensions, maybe there is an obscure option hidden somewhere which enables this.

      Also, I often want to clear out my 'form input' cache simply because others very occasionally use my browser. However, I don't want it to clear my search box form input when I clear the other form input. Surely separation can't be hard...
  50. Re:But I like my apps.... by the+pickle · · Score: 1

    I like macs, but once I spec out a mac with an adequate amount of RAM in it, it always jumps up to about 3 grand.

    Are you insane? Do you buy RAM from Dell? Or from IBM? Of course not. So why should you buy it from Apple?

    Here's a hint:

    http://froogle.google.com/

    Here's another:

    http://ramseeker.com/

    And one more just for good measure:

    http://dealram.com/

    If you can't find more RAM than you could ever use for less than $(3000 - costOfNewMac), I'll eat my socks.

    p

  51. Re:Apple = Proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorta how? Windows PCs use commodity hardware and run all kinds of software. This guy misses the point better than Shrub Wrong Bush.

  52. Re:But I like my apps.... by vhold · · Score: 1

    "and if you're *that* into PC gaming, why the hell are you buying a Mac in the first place?"

    Indeed.

    If it were computer gaming and not PC gaming, I'd own several Macs and not several PCs.

    I think Apple really dropped the ball here by not aggressively marketing to developers, making it easier to port and assisting them. Nothing drives hardware sales like games. People who play games would prefer to have a simpler care free platform to do it on, but the games just aren't there. It's a giant missed opportunity.

    It seems like even if they started trying now, by the time they even were respectable enough for games to be an option, Microsoft will probably have caught up with Apple in most regards. Apple knows you hook people young on a platform, how could they have not factored games into that ?

  53. Re:But I like my apps.... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

    $1k for Office

    Sorry, but what are you smoking? Office 2004 for Mac runs for $500 at the Apple store, and this is for the Pro edition that contains VPC. I also heavily doubt the figure for the Adobe products.

    Methinks you are exaggerating just a bit...

  54. Re:Cost by sgant · · Score: 1

    with Geforce Video? hahaha. We're comparing modern computers here. If I wanted a Geforce I'd pick one out of the trash.

    Gee, can't understand why you would have wanted to post this as an anonymous coward...

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  55. WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grey Type on a red background! You even have a drop shadow. DId you design that crap yourself?

  56. Re:Cost by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative
    You built it yourself. That's completely different from buying a pre-built machine from a reputable vendor because you don't have the benefits of somebody having spent the time to qualify each of those parts for compatibility. Your cost savings brings with it a significant risk, which might be fine for a geek's home system, but isn't acceptable in most environments unless you are mass-producing your own custom hardware and have the time to do qualification yourself.

    More significantly, that AMD box (albeit lacking in details) seems to have specs roughly equivalent to a G5 iMac, maybe a little faster, but not much. Add a name-brand 17" DVI flat panel to it (you don't mention a monitor for that price), and you're awfully close to the price of the new iMac, without the sleek design, the small form factor, the hardware qualification, or the pre-installed OS. So much for your big savings.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  57. Re:But I like my apps.... by njfuzzy · · Score: 1
    ...or about platform.

    Duh. Sorry.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  58. Re:There is a lot of open source software for MacO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent makes a good point. Darwinports is a much "nicer" system, as far as staying true to the OS's roots goes. I picked up a free G4, and started off the first day of using with Darwinports. Much smoother than fink.

  59. All the features *I* am interested in... by SoTuA · · Score: 1
    You can spec all you want, but I'd buy an apple to get OsX, not for any hardware.

    The design is nice too, but OsX is the seller. If apple was still offering Os9, even with top hardware the only people who would buy them would be the apple zealots. Instead, with OsX you get fast expansion of the apple zealot tribe :D

  60. Oh, way to go, guys! by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Funny

    You've /.ed my favourite hardware review site.
    What else am I supposed to read when I'm supposed to be working??!

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  61. Oh God... by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From reading the posts thus far, I have this nagging feeling:
    Am I going to be one of those MacIdiots now? It's starting to look that way...


    (I am imagining a world where my PC is mostly in my control. Very few viruses. Very little spyware. Things run as I expect them to. Actually, now that I think of it, very few problems at all. There seems to be very little to "fix". Shit, now what am I going to spend my time doing?)

    1. Re:Oh God... by nightgeometry · · Score: 1

      I switched. I seem to have turned into a MacIdiot. Can't believe how much i crow about how good they are.

      This from an MS fanboy of just a few years past. It is a very strange thing.

      --
      The best is the enemy of the good
    2. Re:Oh God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mixing song in Garage Band, editing movies with iMovie and FinalCut, and playing with photos in iPhoto of course. And for a more technical use of your time, there's always XCode, Darwin and open source for you... hell even Applescript is pretty cool.

  62. iMac by lbergstr · · Score: 1

    If you're interested in a cheaper Mac, not necessarily a laptop, have a look at the iMac. G5 processor, just like the PowerMac, starting at around $1200. The correct term I believe is "badass".

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

      Actually, the correct term is "fagass".

  63. Re:Apple = Proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which other company provides Microsoft Windows other than Microsoft?

  64. Re:But I like my apps.... by techsoldaten · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, whatever.

    The cost to replace Office is accurate.

    $500 for professional edition and I am including some cash to purchase alternatives for Access and Publisher.

    The Abobe figures are accurate.

    $450 for Acrobat, $1250 for Creative Suite, $1500 for Video Collection, and I'm not going into the cost of all those plug ins.

    M

  65. Re:The problem with Apple Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Common now....I run a WinXP machine at home, and Mac AND a WinXP machine at work. I have never once had to all tech support, or repair my WinXP home machine. Not ever. So how exactly would I be saving money here?

    I have however upgraded many features on my Win PC over time. Sorry, but a WinXP machine just makes sense (for me) at home because I can keep it chugging along just fine, play games if I want, and upgrade the machine when I want to.

    Oh - and I have no spyware either thank you - at least as far as the scanners can tell me.

    Hey I like Mac too - just like the article says, they both have good and bad points - and do not tell me Mac OSX is flawless because it is far from it - very good yes - but perfect - no sorry.

    By the way - why is there no spyware/viruses for MacOSX - you think it is because the OS is superior? Sorry think again - no one would bother wasting time writing spyware for an OS that used by 4% of the population (okay I don't have the exact numbers handy). Trust me - if MacOSX became the standard for 90%+ of the population there would be plenty of spyware, viruses and all kinds of security holes found.

    The biggest problem with Apple users is that the Fanatics all sit around with blinders on.

    Oh - and external peripherals are not a great solution for upgrades. Try plugging in a new External Video card some day.

  66. A bit underwhelmed by the review... by FortranDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kissing some Karma goodbye...

    I was a bit underwhelmed by the review. While there were some fair cops (video card underpowered, not enough RAM, game releases lagging behind, etc.), I was bugged by some of his comments.

    A few examples:

    It's iCal, not iCalendar. He seemed to have gotten it wrong more often than right. (If you use a program you can see its name in the menu bar.)

    He didn't bother to check on how the drag-n-drop installs work. (Not good for a supposed hard core tech site.)

    No, Macs aren't overpriced against other name-brand manufacturers. They are price competitive. (I'll grant you that if you build your own and zealously look for bargains you can build a slightly cheaper PC.)

    Of course Windows is going to be more stable if you buy specific hardware for Windows servers as (is implied) using any old hardware for Linux.

    He's used Unix at university and he still doesn't feel comfortable about the concept of home directories? Or the Unix hierarchy? (The names can be cryptic, but the hierarchy is pretty simple compared to Windows splatter approach.)

    Unfortunately it is little glitches in reviews that leave you wondering just how technical the reviewer is in their other reviews. This one could have stood a little more fact-checking. I know I would hesitate before recommending this article to a knowledgeable Windows-using friend. I'd probably point them towards Ars Technica instead.

    Funny note: I think he meant he's used Windows since 3.0, not 2.0. Using Win 2.0 would have been the act of a masochist. ;-)

    --
    "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    1. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by yamla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A slightly cheaper PC? We had to replace a computer at work. We just wanted a low-end system, already had a monitor. We were pricing systems out and found Dell offered a system for $419 U.S. (including the mail-in rebate). This is a Dell Dimension 2400, sans monitor. Comes with a 2.4 Ghz Celeron CPU, 80 gigabyte hard drive, Windows XP Home Edition with SP2, etc.

      Now, we didn't end up going with the Dell, we got a cheaper computer locally.

      Please price me out a similar Apple machine. The closest we could find was almost twice as expensive. I certainly don't think that is price-competitive.

      Now, granted, if you want the specific parts that Apple bundles with their Mac (or makes available as an option), their prices do tend to be quite competitive with the Wintel world. But not everyone wants a DVD burner (or they want a REAL burner, one that can do DVD+-RW), or wireless network access, or any of the other things you tend to get bundled with Apple desktops and workstations.

      I'm not trying to get into a flame war here. Apple computers are very nice. Their bottom-end systems are pretty decent, but they aren't price-competitive with Wintel bottom-end systems. Their higher-end G5s are probably more competitive because you are more likely to want the extras they throw in.

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    2. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by FortranDragon · · Score: 0

      I was considering high-end to high-end machines. Definitely the lowest cost computer is a Wintel box if you don't look at software. As you say, when you consider the whole equation of hardware + software Apple is right back in competitive territory.

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    3. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by jayhawk88 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, Macs aren't overpriced against other name-brand manufacturers. (I'll grant you that if you build your own and zealously look for bargains you can build a slightly cheaper PC.)

      You really need to stop buying your PC's and PC equipment at Tiffany's.

    4. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by yamla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you, that is exactly my point. Apple hardware is competitive if and only if you really want all of the hardware they bundle together. Lots of people don't need a DVD-ROM/CD-RW (or want a DVD+-RW) drive. Lots of people don't want a firewire connector. Lots of people already own a monitor and so don't need a built-in LCD monitor.

      Yes, if you want all of that, the Apple bundles are very competitive. Great. But lots of people (and lots of businesses, especially) don't want them. If they decide to go the Apple route, they have to pay for these things anyway.

      Now, had I been arguing feature-richness, your point would be valid. But as I was only talking about price competition, it isn't.

      And by the way, the bottom-end Dell system I priced out came with a CPU much more powerful for our needs (and yes, I'm not just comparing clock speeds) and twice the hard drive space. So while the PC was missing some features from the Mac, the Mac was a lot further down the features scale if CPU power and hard drive space are important considerations. They are for me, they aren't for the average office employee.

      I'm not saying the bottom-end Dell kicks the Apple's butt. But you (third-person) also can't say the bottom-end Apple is superior in every way to a bottom-end Dell as this is clearly false.

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    5. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by yamla · · Score: 1

      This time next year, I'll be looking to buy a new computer for my home. My budget will be roughly $3000 Canadian, putting me in the market for a low to mid-range Power Mac (I already have a monitor).

      I will at that time seriously consider a Mac. I figure I'll be able to pick up a 3.5 Ghz Athlon 64 (that is real speed, not the model number), 2 - 4 gigs of RAM, two 300 gigabyte hard drives, and two optical drives (DVD+-RW dual layer and a DVD-ROM). Also, a mid-range $200 video card that's comparable or better than the current top-of-the-line. I will be wanting firewire and the like, so much (though by no means all) that is bundled with the Apple is stuff I'll be paying for one way or another.

      I'll be looking closely at the PowerMacs then. I'm willing to sacrifice some processing power because, hey, the PowerMac will probably be dual-processor while I'd likely go with a single processor Athlon64 solution. So, perhaps, a dual 2.5 Ghz or Dual 3.0 Ghz PowerMac, and I'd go after-market on the extra RAM and hard drives (Apple charges a premium). I truly hope Apple will be selling something close to these specs for around $2400 U.S. by then, it'll make my life much more interesting. And it is certainly possible.

      There's no doubt that OS X is superior to Windows XP. There's a few things I find missing compared to KDE (smart window positioning, snap-to windows, etc.) but I'm sure I'd find enough in OS X but missing in KDE to make me happy. And while I don't care much for iTunes, I think even Bill Gates would admit it is nicer than Windows Media Player. :)

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    6. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well if you don't want the features, Apple doesn't want your business. Honestly, you aren't in Apple's target market.

      Apple is selling a whole-package, a very media-rich machine. They don't want their consumers realizing 6 months after the purchase of a computer that they need an upgrade to interface in their digital camcorder, or burn a DVD or whatever.

      Apple is trying to lead the way and promote the concept of media manipulation to the mass market. They want it to be on every machine they sell, not just the 'top of the line'.

      If you want to buy a $400 Dell box with an inferior motherboard chipset, limited maximum RAM, a slow throughput bus, etc etc etc, then go right ahead. If you want a PC that actually does more than the bare minimum, don't forget Apple in your comparisons.

      Also...

      So while the PC was missing some features from the Mac, the Mac was a lot further down the features scale if CPU power and hard drive space are important considerations

      Excuse me? Please don't tell me you're stupid enough to believe the Megahertz Myth. Please, please, please. A 2 GHz Celeron is still a Celeron, with all the cut corners.

      And harddrives are cheap. Nothing is stopping you from swapping a new drive into the Mac when you start to run out of space.

    7. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by yamla · · Score: 1

      The media-rich machines come, by default, with very underpowered video cards these days. In all fairness, though, you can upgrade at least the high-end Powermacs to a high-end video card, and it is probably reasonable to upgrade this 6 months after purchase if you care about media richness.

      On the other hand, Apple won't sell you a DVD+-RW, something I think is a terrible oversight when it comes to DVD burning. I don't know, perhaps you can answer this for me. Can you replace the apple optical drive with an after market DVD+-RW? If so, great. Apple users may find themselves having to upgrade that 6 months after purchase. Or immediately, if they require a DVD+-RW now, or capabilities to write dual-layer.

      As to the Mhz myth, no I certainly don't buy it. However, in my testing, a G4 clocking at 1 Ghz runs the tasks I want it to run (primarily compiling software) at approximately the same speed as a 1 Ghz Athlon XP, and therefore quite a bit faster than a 1 Ghz P4. However, a 1.25 Ghz G4 (in the low-end eMac) simply cannot hold a candle against a 2.4 Ghz Celeron (in the Dell low-end), not for the tasks I want it for. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any serious task that a 1.25 Ghz G4 could do faster than a 2.4 Ghz Celeron.

      I hope you aren't buying into Apple salesmen's claim that a G4 runs twice as fast as a Wintel machine, because it just doesn't. The G5 is a much more powerful CPU than a G4, of course, but now we start comparing it against Athlon64 and Opteron CPUs, and you certainly don't see the G5 giving substantially more performance, clock-for-clock, than the Athlon64 and Opteron chips, not in comprehensive benchmarks.

      On the other hand, the PowerMacs have very very nice FSBs and lots more space to add oodles of RAM. No PCI-Express but that's not likely to make a difference for another year.

      And just for the record, virtually any motherboard I look at supports Firewire these days, though I strongly suspect many low-end Dell systems (and for all I know, high-end Dell systems) do not.

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    8. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the things that was driving me nuts about the article was his apparent obsession with caching and how the excuse for everything being fast was caching ("Mail.app searches fast because of great caching"). It annoyed me that he didn't realize that perhaps the code Apple wrote is just plain fast instead of Microsoft slow?

    9. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by John+Newman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking of obvious, he complained that Safari doesn't auto-complete URLs. Huh? How can you not notice this feature? Maybe he expected it to auto-complete a URL that he had never visited before? Steve Jobs is still polishing that mind-reading software - look for it in 10.4. But now, Safari even auto-completes terms you type into the Google search box. Every text box on any website you visit auto-completes, too.

    10. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to qualify your comment about price. Well, it's your comment, so maybe I'm trying to clarify reality :P A top-end mac is about price-equivalent to a similar PC, like a dual opteron with the same features, there's not much price difference there. A low-end mac is typically far and away more expensive than a low-end PC capable of performing the same tasks. In addition, the upgrade paths for PCs and Macs are very different. PCs are either traded in through a program with a vendor for credit against a new one, or they're upgraded in pieces. Macs you sell the old one to someone, and buy a new one. You can do that with PCs too but Macs tend to hold more value. The low end machines hold their value better than the high end ones, because no one can conceive of paying a large percentage of the price of a new mac a few years down the road. Anyway, you might consider these things when deciding whether to buy a PC or a mac.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      You were replacing a machine at work and you were considering "XP Home Edition" and a low end Dell? Is it a small business?

      Were I work, we buy IBM ThinkCentre A50 $1,208.00 USD with:
      40GB 7200RPM ATA/100 (EIDE) Hard Drive
      Microsoft Windows XP Professional
      Intel Pro/1000 T Gigabit Adapter
      IBM 1.44MB 3.5-Inch Diskette Drive
      IBM 48X Max CD-ROM Drive
      512MB PC3200 CL3 NP DDR SDRAM UDIMM For A Series
      IBM Preferred Pro PS/2 Keyboard
      IBM Optical Wheel Mouse
      64MB DDR NVIDIA Quadro4 200NVS VGA or DVI-I Dual Head
      plus a 3 year extended support warranty.

      I consider that low end for "business".

      If you want to do an "honest" comparison of a dual G5, you have to compare against another dual proc workstation machine. The P4 is a "consumer" CPU.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    12. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by prockcore · · Score: 0

      Can you replace the apple optical drive with an after market DVD+-RW?

      No.. OSX won't work with non-apple DVD burners. And with the new G5's you'll have trouble replacing them with Apple branded burners.

      Why? Poor design (oh, blasphemy!) We got a bunch of G5 towers, with the combo drives (that's CDRW/DVD readers). One person needed a DVD burner, so we took his DVD burner out of his old Dual G4, and put it in the G5. It works, but the poorly designed drive door (the one that slides down) doesn't work with anything other than the drive it came with. So he has a shiny new G5, with the drive door rigged so the drive door is always open.

      Excellence in design.. or something.

    13. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? An dual-headed Nvidia Quadro4 is needed for a 'low end business machine'? WTF business are you talking about?

      Most business PC users need email and MS Office. That's it. You don't need gigE. You don't need 2GHz CPUs. You don't need 'CL3 NP DDR SDRAM UDIMM'.

    14. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fine, stick with the the integrated gfx but the price is still over over 1150USD.

      As for your other comments... do you really expect to be taken seriously? Come on. We are talking about corporate workstations here. I configured the 2.8Ghz base model for that series of "workstation" which is the low end for a small to medium sized business workstations these days.

      Gigabit is cheap these days and not out of line for business users requiring a lot of network bandwidth for multiple data sources with low latency.

      That is the ram IBM provides for this workstation. Are you suggesting cheaping out and taking the risk of buying third party ram to save a few cents and risk spending money on IT troubleshooting and lost productivity?

      Even if I removed the gigabit, it will still be over 1100 USD. I'm not removing the RAM since 512MB is reasonable and "business" users would not nickel and dime things like you are doing.

      You are grasping at straws and trying to compare hobbyist's computers with "corporate" level machines.

      PS. If you suggest XP Home is satifactory for "business" use, I will laugh my ass off.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    15. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by yamla · · Score: 1

      First, I wasn't comparing a bottom-end Dell against a dual G5, I was comparing against an eMac. Really only an Athlon64 or an Opteron system (preferably dual Opteron) can really compare against the dual G5s.

      And yes, it is a small business, 15 employees. We already have licenses for Windows XP (and also run Linux on some systems). We don't have gigabit ethernet and honestly, there's no reason we need it in the next few years. Certainly, 512 megs is nice if you are doing much of anything on a computer (my workstation has 1 gig of RAM and that's just barely enough), but let us remember that the eMac has only 256 megs of RAM. In fact, not until you hit the dual 2 Ghz G5 Powermac does the system come with more than that as default.

      Anyway, apart from the gigabit ethernet, which wouldn't help us, I really don't think we'd need a Quadro4 as a minimum for business. Heck, most of our users do nothing other than MS Office all day. In any case, I don't think you can even get a comparable card in any Mac (i, e, or Power).

      So, I must say that I think you are going overboard for a low-end PC. You quote over $1200, I quoted a little over $400. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    16. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What corporation do you work for that has 2.8ghz machines? Boeing programmers don't have anything remotely close to that...

    17. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      Come look for work up here in Canada then. Data centric industries such as the financial industry or the intelligence community have enough budgeted for hardware replacement every 2-3 years.

      There is nothing wrong with fiscal responsibility but being cheap is a bad idea if it hinders productivity and cash flow.

      I don't know what it's like in the US but 2.8 Ghz is considered a standard machine for business these days considering it's a mid-range processor in Intel's current P4 desktop lineup (compared to 3.0,2.2,3.4,3.4EE or Xeon CPUs). Buying anything below that is foolishness considering it will be obsolete that much faster.

      We also don't suffer with slow net access either (fiber).

      To put things in prospective, all the things people on here questioned are less than 3/4 of the payroll cost of an IT worker in Canada for one day of work. FYI. It cost a company roughly twice of what they pay you to keep you employed as they have to pay workers comp. and other payroll "taxes" on top of your wages.

      Guys, I did not even suggest a Xeon workstation or suggest a DVD-ROM/CDRW combo drive or a Gib of ram and you are jumping down my throat? Don't blame me if you have unreasonably cheap bosses. Do a business case for how faster hardware would increase your productivity and show how the hardware upgrade costs would be minimal compared to what they are paying to employ you.

      Put it this way, the faster you can get work done, the more value for their dollar they get from paying you your wages.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  67. 20 IE Windows? Well, if you have expose... by SoTuA · · Score: 1
    Having multiple $BROWSER windows in OsX wouldn't be all that annoying since you have Expose. :)

    Better than switching between tabs, IMHO.

    For the Apple Challenged like me (x86 boxen both at work and at home) there's this nifty little app called "winplosion" wich mimics Expose exactly, and costs all of US$9.95. In fact, it mimics it so well that I'm surprised they haven't been hit with a C&D from apple.

    Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with WinPlosion. I just found that it is the best Expose clone there is for windows, and, as bonus points, doesn't require you install something like the .net framework. Only requirement is a bit of RAM (I woulnd't use it in 128MB systems) and some _REAL_ 2d acceleration hardware, since it relies in DirectX/DirectDraw to do the thumbnails/animation (a friend tried it with a SIS based integrated-graphics laptop and it sucked :).

    1. Re:20 IE Windows? Well, if you have expose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      In fact, it mimics it so well that I'm surprised they haven't been hit with a C&D from apple.

      Back when they called themselves WinExpose, they *did* recieve a note form apple legal, that's why they're called WinPlosion now.
  68. Re:But I like my apps.... by the+pickle · · Score: 1

    I know I'm feeding a troll here, but...

    So only an "incredibly tiny minority of users" buy software?

    No, an incredibly tiny minority of users can't afford the extra $3-500 it would typically cost to cross-grade the few Windows applications they absolutely need.

    Think about this for a second. Most users only buy OS upgrades and games. Those who work for themselves probably buy Office, perhaps Photoshop or Illustrator, or maybe Final Cut Pro/Logic/etc., depending on the field they're in. Those who work for a company get their software bought for them, so it's a non-issue. The number of people who work for themselves and also have tens of thousands of dollars' worth of legitimately-purchased software on their Windows boxen are an incredibly tiny minority, and Apple won't care one bit if the four of you in the world don't switch.

    I don't know what your day job is, but from other comments I've seen on /., I'd hazard a guess that you're into software development. Sure, Photoshop, 3D Studio, Autocad, etc. are nice toys, but they're hardly essential tools for a software developer. If you wanted to switch your software development over to a Mac, Xcode is *free*. As in, it costs zero dollars.

    If you expect us to believe the $100,000-worth-of-software figure, you'd better start coming up with some specifics. I don't buy it for a second.

    p

  69. You could spend even less than that. by SamTheButcher · · Score: 1

    An Xbox or PS2 (and soon, PS3) or GameCube are all sub-$150. Why even bother gaming on a lowly computer?

  70. No shit by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the end, Apple has developed a very strong platform.

    Anyone that's USED one in the past 15 years will tell you that. There's no question that Apple has some good technology in their arsenal. The question is "Is Apple right for you?". For me it used to be, but now it's not.

    There's no need to make it any more complicated than it needs to be.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about the same 15 years? Where Mac OS had cooperative multitasking?!

    2. Re:No shit by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are we talking about the same 15 years? Where Mac OS had cooperative multitasking?!

      Yes, and Apple also had on-board SCSI, built in networking, 3.5" Floppy drives when everyone else still had 5.25" drives, they were never constrained to 640k of memory. No need for XMS, EMS, or "conventional memory", it was all just memory to the Mac OS.

      Remember, until WinNT, Microsoft was using cooperative multitasking as well. ME's task scheduler was a lot better than the one in 95 but it was still cooperative as well.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:No shit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Onboard SCSI was a benefit only until the development and widespread popularity of IDE, which for the average user is superior to SCSI in that it is generally significantly cheaper, both for the controller and for devices. Most people don't need six (or fifteen) devices on one cable and they don't need the throughput of SCSI. Apple's 3.5" floppy drives were originally multiple-speed and proprietary, thus very annoying. You're right about their memory model, but by the time PCs got much memory, Apple was so far behind in terms of power that it was hopelessly screwed and their inability to update for so long (Waiting for PowerPC?) almost put them in the circular file.

      I'm pretty surprised that System 7 didn't kill Apple dead. 6.0.8 with the Multifinder was a quite usable if agonizingly slow system, and it was very very stable. Actually I have a Mac SE here with 6.0.8 and Word 5.1 on it. It's older than dirt and hasn't been maintained by anyone essentially ever, yet it still works fine. (The monitor is kind of dim, I may need a maccasecracker to fix it.) System 7 was a festering bowl of dog snot in terms of reliability. It taught me the meaning of "Force Quit"... reboot! Because 99 times out of 100 if you forced an application to quit your system became unusable.

      As bad as Windows 95 was, MacOS was a jillion times worse. System 7 was a step backwards and the whole 7.x series was just bandages on top of band-aids. By the time 8 came out the PC was so far ahead of the Mac that there was just no point any more... up until OSX. My hat is off to all you Mac users who stuck with them through all that, though. I wanted to do the same thing with Amiga but they attained Mac-like hardware prices when the PowerPC accelerators became "the thing" and I had to give them up and go to the PC. Now that XP is out, and Linux has gotten so good, I don't see any real reason to switch back to anything else, including Macintosh which I used for several years.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  71. Linux user considering buying an iBook by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm primarily used to running Linux on my desktop, but lately I've been considering buying a laptop. I've heard many good things about OS X, so I'm thinking of buying an iBook.

    I have a question for people who've used both sorts of systems: Are there any features/characteristics of x86 Linux machines that are lacking on OS X machines?

    1. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The "Desktop Sucks Ass" feature is definitely missing from OS X. You'll have to stick with Linux if that is a deal-breaker.

    2. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by mdlbear · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Features that Linux has that MacOS X doesn't include:
      • choice of window manager
      • everything runs under X (allowing all programs to be run remotely)
      • support for auto-raise and focus-follows-mouse (the single menubar on top makes click-to-type a necessity and auto-raise a nightmare)
      • multiple virtual desktops by default (there's apparently some third-party extension that gets you this)
      • virtual terminals
    3. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by poetic+justice · · Score: 1

      I've been using an iBook for a year now and I can tell you, it will be a downer after a while. I'm a software developer (java, perl) and I initially bought the box to be a test bed for an app. When I first got the the box, it was great. I enjoyed the novelty of a different OS. After a while though, I began to realize just how slow the 800MHZ iBook was in comparison to my other boxen (IBM Thinkpad R32 w/XP Pro, and Compaq Evo 1500 w/Suse 9. If I had it to do all over again, I would buy a Powerbook. I use the Eclipse IDE for my Java work and it allows me to build, and test my work on all three platforms easily, but for now, I'll just use my little iBook for testing only. I still love it though.

    4. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by qa'lth · · Score: 3, Informative
      Benefits of MacOSX over Linux/*BSD:

      Everything always looks and acts the same, unless it's a ported OSS app. You have no idea how nice this is, until you've tried it for a month or two.

      It doesn't use X11, so you actually get a consistent, clean UI that actually works.

      Photoshop. No, the GIMP is just a toy, no matter what you think.

      Driver support! They don't offer much, but what they do, works flawlessly. Contrast with spending a week trying to get a Wacom tablet to both a) insert the module correctly into the kernel, and b) get Xf86 to acknowledge it correctly.

    5. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by _|()|\| · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are there any features/characteristics of x86 Linux machines that are lacking on OS X machines?

      If you're the sort of person who lives in Emacs, be aware that the iBook's Ctrl key sucks. I wonder if it's possible to swap Ctrl and Caps Lock.

    6. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I'm actually a vim guy. Any issues with using vim on iBooks?

    7. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I skimmed through apple's store, and the powerbooks don't seem drastically faster than the iBooks (1.5 ghz versus 1 ghz, I think). Is there something besides the processors which makes them much faster?

    8. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The L2 cache on the PowerBook is larger. (512k vs. 256k)

    9. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      All my home machines (including the gaming box) run Linux. My new 12 inch PowerBook will be arriving next week, I'll let you know how it goes.

      Currently I'm using XFCE4 as my desktop.

    10. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by MrFancyPants · · Score: 1

      You can install X11 on OS X if you want to have all of the above features.

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/

    11. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      The main differences are a nicer keyboard (illumination option!) plus a much, much, MUCH nicer screen. Also, the ram upgrades work a little differently... less max capacity due to a SODIMM built into an iBook, and not swappable.

    12. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not at all. vim 6.2 comes with the OS.

    13. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Photoshop. No, the GIMP is just a toy, no matter what you think."

      It is the shoddy workman who blames his tools.

      I've seen some truly professional looking work done in Gimp and I've also seen some real shite from photoshop. What's that prove? It's the artist that produces the work, not the tool.

    14. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      Everything always looks and acts the same, unless it's a ported OSS app. You have no idea how nice this is, until you've tried it for a month or two.
      Fine, then use just gnome or just kde. Problem solved.
      It doesn't use X11, so you actually get a consistent, clean UI that actually works.
      Or use X.org 6.8. Now that it's obvious where the dead weight really was in X, change will come real fast. Plus you get virtual desktops, real good virtual window support, the ability to run cross-platform apps, and the knowledge that you're running the first operating system that had opengl-assisted compositing
      Photoshop. No, the GIMP is just a toy, no matter what you think.
      Photoshop runs under wine. Also, not all of us are graphics geeks.
      Driver support! They don't offer much, but what they do, works flawlessly. Contrast with spending a week trying to get a Wacom tablet to both a) insert the module correctly into the kernel, and b) get Xf86 to acknowledge it correctly.
      Depends on the hardware, I guess. I'm not a graphics guy, but support for my antique bt848 card is a lot better for Linux than for the Mac.

      Also, out of curiosity, what distribution were you using? different distros are more suited for the desktop than others; more often than not, I've noticed that those that bitch loudest about Linux on the desktop use Debian or Slackware rather than something designed for desktop work, like Mandrake or Suse or the likes.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    15. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by midifarm · · Score: 1
      While they use the same processor, the iBook uses a 133MHz System Bus vs the PowerBook's 167MHz. There's a different graphics card in the PowerBook which also allows you to run dual displays, the iBook only has mirroring for video out. If those are things that you can live with, get the iBook.

      Peace

    16. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by qa'lth · · Score: 1
      Fine, then use just gnome or just kde. Problem solved.

      Until I have to run a KDE app in the GNOME environment. Or a GNOME app in KDE. Suddenly, consistency and proper interaction completely goes out the window.

      Or use X.org 6.8. Now that it's obvious where the dead weight really was in X, change will come real fast. Plus you get virtual desktops, real good virtual window support, the ability to run cross-platform apps, and the knowledge that you're running the first operating system that had opengl-assisted compositing


      The problem isn't the technology of X11 - X is actually a really good system, save one facet - the toolkit insanity. Upgrading to X.org or using Xsgi or X11.app doesn't change the fundamental problem that everything looks and acts differently. I've been working on a spec to map GTK and Qt onto a single widget set, so that a consistent interface can be done on X11 and still retain everyone's desire to do things differently.

      Photoshop runs under wine. Also, not all of us are graphics geeks.


      Photoshop runs natively on OSX.

      Driver support! They don't offer much, but what they do, works flawlessly. Contrast with spending a week trying to get a Wacom tablet to both a) insert the module correctly into the kernel, and b) get Xf86 to acknowledge it correctly.


      Depends on the hardware, I guess. I'm not a graphics guy, but support for my antique bt848 card is a lot better for Linux than for the Mac.

      True, it does depend on the hardware, but getting my tablet running under Xf86 really did take a week, of trying an assortment of different modules for both the USB driver in the kernel, and for the wacom driver in X. Even when it finally worked, it was flaky and finicky.

      And then there's the graphics driver support.

      As for distribution, I was running various Slackwares from 1995 to 2000 or so, when I finally gave up on Linux. I do know, more or less, what I'm doing with the system, and I got tired of constantly having to fight to make it do something that windows (or OSX now) just does without a problem... I'd rather just sit down and work, than fight with the system.

      I do keep up with things on my FreeBSD-based server, and KDE/GNOME still don't get along, and nothing ever feels like it was designed to work with anything else
    17. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      Until I have to run a KDE app in the GNOME environment. Or a GNOME app in KDE. Suddenly, consistency and proper interaction completely goes out the window.
      So find an alternative. Gnome and KDE have pretty much the same base of apps, it's just a matter of finding the app you want to use.
      The problem isn't the technology of X11 - X is actually a really good system, save one facet - the toolkit insanity. Upgrading to X.org or using Xsgi or X11.app doesn't change the fundamental problem that everything looks and acts differently. I've been working on a spec to map GTK and Qt onto a single widget set, so that a consistent interface can be done on X11 and still retain everyone's desire to do things differently.
      So once again, you just need to choose one and stick with it. It's just that simple.
      And then there's the graphics driver support.
      What, nVidia's silly licensing so that distro makers can't include the graphics drivers with the kernel? Most desktop oriented distros make it real easy to install and upgrade the graphics drivers, and the support is for a much greater base of cards than is available for the mac.
      As for distribution, I was running various Slackwares from 1995 to 2000 or so, when I finally gave up on Linux. I do know, more or less, what I'm doing with the system, and I got tired of constantly having to fight to make it do something that windows (or OSX now) just does without a problem... I'd rather just sit down and work, than fight with the system. I do keep up with things on my FreeBSD-based server, and KDE/GNOME still don't get along, and nothing ever feels like it was designed to work with anything else
      Again, the problem was/is your distro. The distro you are using isn't designed to give you a desktop, the distro you are using is designed to give you everything, with the caveat that you have to go through some work to set things up. I use mandrake on my desktop system for the simple reason that things do have a tendency to Just Work a lot more often than with debian or with slackware.
      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    18. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 1
      I'm primarily used to running Linux on my desktop, but lately I've been considering buying a laptop. I've heard many good things about OS X, so I'm thinking of buying an iBook.

      I have a question for people who've used both sorts of systems: Are there any features/characteristics of x86 Linux machines that are lacking on OS X machines?

      I've posted three Usenet articles on this very topic.

      In one of those posts I wrote:
      I see no reason why I can't
      make this my primary system, in the sense that in addition to a local Firebird I can easily run my other key applications (Emacs for email
      and editing, and slrn for news) on the Linux server through ssh and GNU screen.


      I still run my life this way. I like having none of my work interfered with when I reboot the iBook for an Apple software update. With a simple "export DISPLAY=:0" on one of the GNU screen virtual terminals, I can easily watch a movie on my Linux box's 17" screen using mplayer and control the action from the iBook keyboard. All in all, it's all just about as ideal a computing environment as I could wish for.
    19. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by qa'lth · · Score: 1

      I notice that you're not actually meeting any of my points here.. How does finding a different app fix my point that having to use a KDE app in a GNOME environment throws the usability and consistency out of the window?
      How does telling me to get an actual GNOME app which may be vastly inferior help the basic problem that, no, none of the competing systems interact the same way? And what happens when I have to load a Motif-based app on my KDE or GNOME (Like Maya, which has precisely zero OSS equivalents)? Motif apps are completely different. Or an Athena-based app. Or something like Wings3d, which developed their own internal widget system on top of SDL? There's just zero cross-app consistency, which Apple actually does bring to the table.

      My choice of distro doesn't have any effect on these: Yes, Slack is harder to get running than the others, and I knew that at the time, and I still know that, and I'd still use it by choice since it's a superior system. But using Slack does not invalidate my points: X11-based apps have terrible consistency.

      as for the graphics driver problem, who cares about licensing? There's, what, 3 companies that have actual Linux drivers (nvidia, powervr, and ati), and the rest are handled by OSS solutions, which I might add, are generally crap implementations. The support for the hardware just isn't there if you want the new, whizz-bang features that cards have to offer. And the ATI drivers are just absolute shite anyway.

    20. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by ocelotbob · · Score: 0, Troll
      Your entire argument boils down to the fact that you dislike the fact that many different visual operating environments can live on one binary platform. Let me guess, you don't like a mixture of carbon and cocoa apps, because there are differences in the ways those two apps run as well, right? Also, your distro does have a bearing on behaviors; most distros come with tweaks to kde and gnome to make them much more consistent. You're comparing a server distro to a desktop OS, of course the desktop-oriented OS is going to work better out of the box and be more consistent. Try comparing Apples to Apples here (pardon the pun)

      With regards to driver support, where is 3dlabs' support of OS X anyways, I mean, it's easy to get Linux drivers for high end cards. Googling for support for the same company for OS X was much less fruitful. Additionally, licensing has everything to do with drivers. Were nVidia and ATi much more open with the distribution of their binary modules, it would be easier for desktop-oriented distro makers to create a better, more consistent product. Apple can ship with ATi drivers in the box; there's no need to go to ATi's site to download drivers; ATi, and nvidia, don't afford the same luxury to Mandrake users.

      Try using a real desktop-oriented distro some time, you'll see that your experience of Linux on the desktop has been soured by trying to use an environment designed for servers to perform desktop tasks. Other distros are a lot more friendly.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    21. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by rthille · · Score: 1

      Yes. i forget the name of the driver/utility/control-panel, but if you search for it, you can find it. On the other hand, I've had my powerbook longer than it was available, so I took my keyboard apart and cut and rerouted traces so that my Caps-Lock key is identical to the control key as far as the OS is concerned (ie, works in OS-9 as well).

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    22. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by qa'lth · · Score: 1

      Evidently I haven't made my point correctly, I'm sorry.

      Why would I care if it's a Carbon app or a Cocoa app? Apple goes to very special pains to make sure that things look and act consistently across both toolkits, there's no suprises - when I click a button, things happen in X way. Always. Menus always have the same things, keyboard commands are consistent across all native apps, etc. I've never noticed if an app is Carbon or Cocoa, because it's never jumped out at me and screamed "HEY I'M DIFFERENT BECAUSE I HAVE A DIFFERENT TOOLKIT!!!!", which has happened repeatedly with OSS software.

      A GTK/Qt split can never guaruntee that. If I click a widget, anything could happen. Certainly there are defined behaviours, internal to whatever project is working on that software, that might ac tually happen, but if I'm running a pure KDE system and need to load a GNOME or Motif or Athena-based program, it WILL ACT DIFFERENTLY. Things that I click won't work quite the same. Things will look different. Stuff won't copy and paste properly. Etc. That's the crux of my argument. What distro I use is irrelevant to that, because the basic foundation that the apps don't act the same way doesn't actually change, and no distro provider can go through and change every single application to act the same. Hell, often inside two KDE apps, things don't act the same.

      You're arguing from a purely visual standpoint, and yes, the desktop-oriented distros do some visual matching, but the entire underlying system still acts differently and that shows up any time you need to load a KDE app in GNOME, or vice versa. Things never, ever actually act the same.
      Even across two apps from the same toolkit, you're rarely guarunteed that things will work the way you expect them to work. It's a hodge-podge, and it shows.

      What distro I use is irrelevant, because those problems are inherent on every distro there is. They were there on Mandrake 9 when I tried it, they're there when I custom-build my own stuff on Slackware, they're there when I load things from the ports tree on FreeBSD. Say it with me now, DISTRO IS IRRELEVANT. The problem is there is no standard on how the user should interact with the computer, and all the OSS programmers are, quite frankly, retarded baboons when it comes to UI design. Come up with a standard, make everyone adhere to it, and then you'll solve the problem. Until then, no matter what distro I use, no matter how Linux proponents scream that it's desktop-ready, things will still be an insane hodge-podge of a billion different ways of doing something.

      I won't even go into the nightmare of actually configuring a system. And don't even TRY to tell me that I need to use a desktop-oriented Linux.
      I've used IRIX and MacOSX, and they actually have REAL gui-based configuration tools supported by a company that actually has a clue. It's all right there and it all works without a hitch.
      With proper documentation, too!
      It's amazing what a STANDARD can do for you, isn't it?

  72. Web rendering speed by Imazalil · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article actually brings something up that I have always noticed on a Mac (os 9 & X), surfing the web is painfully slow compared to a windows box. I've used IE, Netscape, Opera, everything I could get my hands on, but it is still slower than on a pc. Is this a rendering thing, but it happens in os 9 even more than X? Just curious if anyone out there knows why this is.

    Im.

    1. Re:Web rendering speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything is slower from what I've seen. Even on the beautiful brand new G5 has horrible response time with the buttons. you're better off with linux.

    2. Re:Web rendering speed by 21chrisp · · Score: 1

      This is usually due to OSX's font rendering libraries. I use Linux and have similar problems when browsing with XFT enabled firefox. I'm not sure if OSX uses XFT, but it looks like XFT... If you can turn off anti-aliasing, font smoothing, and all of the OSX eye candy, it will probably go faster. But if you're like me.. you'll probably find the more eye friendly rendering more of a benefit than the speed.

    3. Re:Web rendering speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rendering libraries...? Hm, oh yes, I heard of that. Wait...
      NO, that's utter BS.
      But on the other hand, why not just spread some misleading info on how complicated things are in *reality* on a Mac - as no one here seems to know it any better?

      Check this out:
      http://www.scifience.net/safarispeed.html
      I nstall it and be happy or just RTFM as on any *nix.

    4. Re:Web rendering speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My fastest Mac is a G4 533 ( my main machine ). I have also have a 3.0 GHz PC with Win XP. I can honestly say I haven't noticed any difference in web rendering speeds between the Mac and PC. On OS X I use Safari, on OS 9 crusty old Netscape 4.75 ( newer versions are much slower on OS 9 ) and on the PC I primarily use Firefox and occasionally IE. I do use the PC quite a lot for web stuff.

      There may very well be a difference in rendering speeds, but it isn't enough for me to have noticed, certainly couldn't call it painful. Obviously your experience is different though.

      I know which platform teh Web looks better on though, OS X and Safari hands down. Font rendering on Windows using the standard method just isn't that great, and Cleartype is pretty bad on a CRT ( haven't seen it on an LCD ). It's smooth, but with noticeable colour fringing.

    5. Re:Web rendering speed by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Just curious if anyone out there knows why this is.

      IE's caching mechanism for OS 9 blows goatse. Turn the cache off and IE renders much faster.\

      When page rendering speed was an issue, several sites did shoot outs and found Safari to render pages the fastest.

      I don't know anyone with a Windows PC not infected with malware to make a fair comparison as far as speed was concerned. I know my iBook 700MHz was faster than a friends Toshiba at 1.4 GHz. Again that was not a fair comparison because of all the garbage infested on his laptop.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  73. Re:Cost by PriceIke · · Score: 1

    That's insanely cheap compared to the Mac IIfx that was priced over $10,000 back in 1990. (40MHz single processor. 128MB of RAM?) Or the Mac Portable which was abour $6000 when first released iirc. And those aren't even adjusted dollar figures.

    Of course, if that little email appended to the above linked page is accurate, the IIfx was created to be sold to the US government. If I were Apple, I'd have made it $10K (each) too. Gift horse, mouth, etc.

    --
    It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  74. Re:But I like my apps.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100k my ass, and I like your crappy net weasel program. Tool

  75. Re:mac = suckage by Tsiangkun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just wish the mac had a start menu so I could find the shutdown option.

  76. Re:The problem with Apple Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You run Linus's bloated OS instead?

  77. Re:But I like my apps.... by technomancerX · · Score: 1
    "$500 for professional edition and I am including some cash to purchase alternatives for Access and Publisher.

    The Abobe figures are accurate.

    $450 for Acrobat, $1250 for Creative Suite, $1500 for Video Collection, and I'm not going into the cost of all those plug ins."

    Well, you can eliminate that $500. For Access use mysql/postgresql and one of the myriad of free guis for them. As for Publisher, WTF are you using it for if you've got the Adobe Creative Suite??? There's just no reason to touch Publisher if you've got the full Creative Suite.

    I'm also assuming you run your own business or are borderline insane to have purchased all of those for personal use.

    --
    .technomancer
  78. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I post all my flamebait as AC. I may be an annoying, trolling bastard, who adds little or nothing to the discussion, but you can't argue that the system doesn't work: my AC posts start at 0, so all the people with +1 thresholds aren't forced to put up with my inane garbage posts. You, however, are, and I laugh at your misfortune.

  79. I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Pausanias · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an astronomer, and my work involves a lot of coding (and running) CPU-intensive C programs, as well as intensive image processing. In the 1980s, a lot of people in our field were using VAX systems, but in the 90's they began switching to Sun/Solaris platforms because of their speed and stability; that's what I used throughout graduate school. In the late 90's, Linux-Intel became a player, because it could offer such a dramatic cost reduction compared to Suns, which were exorbitantly priced (at its most disparate, I believe a Linux-Intel system with comparable performance to a given Sun cost 25% less).

    Now we are at a point where many people at my institute are switching to macs. The top reasons are: 1) Hate to/don't have time to RTFM. Need a situation where hardware you buy just works. 2) High-end mac prices are now comparable to high-end intel prices 3) Any document can quickly be made into a PDF (a standard in our community)

    As a fan of free software, I feel guilty about this. However, I do think many of Apple's products are aesthetically pleasing, and things like iChat works with amazing simplicity. Clearly they put a lot of thought into design, and I agree with a lot of choices they've made, so I feel OK about supporting them.

    I wish Linux would eliminate the RTFM. Some of us just don't have time for that. But I still have an Intel laptop, and I intend to see how far things have come since RedHat 9 by installing sarge when it is out.

    1. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by haberb · · Score: 2, Informative
      3) Any document can quickly be made into a PDF (a standard in our community)
      Creating a PDF shouldn't really be considered the holy grail of an office environment, since there so many Open source programs that can do that already. OpenOffice and PDFcreator come to mind.
    2. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, I can't believe /. rated this comment a 1. I read this note and it could have come from me (I also do lots of scientific computing) or any number of my colleagues. What this person has to say needs to be heard. The Linux community needs to listen when people complain about RTFM being the answer to "how do I do X." Those of us who use computers as tools rather than as our reason-to-live do not have time to find the right FM and then find where in the FM it tells you what to do (typically only to find that it's the wrong FM after killing an hour). I'm dropping Linux (and Solaris and Windoze) as soon as I can find the time and moving to OS X. I could care less if it can't run DOOM 3.

    3. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also an astronomer here. All I want to say to the previous 2 posts is YES, YES, YES, and YES.

      I used to mess about with linux on a laptop and it gave me so many headaches and caused so much indigestion that I don't think I will ever do it again. It took me several days to _fail_ at getting a wireless card to work on linux, but it took me exactly 30 seconds to get 2 macs to talk to each other over an adhoc network. Never again. Linux is a fine server architecture, great for heavy crunching, wonderful for propellerheads who love computers for their own sake, but not a happy solution for a friendly desktop/laptop. And windoze, of course, is simply out of the question as a science platform.

      Time is money. Every hour I waste is worth $30. Macs are very, very economical in this respect. Most of the apps I need (like IRAF, compilers, graphics libraries) are supported very easily through fink or plain old 'configure --prefix'. I don't have to bother the Sun admin people when I have a problem, I don't have to bother trying to translate Hungarian linux howtos, things just work.

      Go to any hard science meeting, and you will be immersed in a sea of mac laptops. These people are smart, and they know what they are doing, and their time is precious - much more valuable than an extra few hundred spent on hardware.

    4. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to see how far things have come, for fucks sake don't install sarge. Install FC3 or SUSe 9.2 or whatever. That'll tell you what is going on at the leading edge of free software.

    5. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Queer+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Creating a PDF shouldn't really be considered the holy grail of an office environment, since there so many Open source programs that can do that already. OpenOffice and PDFcreator come to mind.

      You can print to PDF from ANY application in OS X. No need to "convert" or use a specific program.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    6. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by bware · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go to any hard science meeting, and you will be immersed in a sea of mac laptops

      During those scientific meetings, I take unscientific polls and count Macs vs. other laptops. Two years ago, the percentage was consistently less than 25%. Last meeting in July it was exactly 50% (and the wifi router was overloaded). Given all the people who come up to me and say "I'd like to get a powerbook but it's against policy" or "Dammit, IT is making everyone use Dell products, and they're taking away my powerbook", I suspect it would be even higher if it weren't for institutional policies forcing Windows on people. No one is making any of those folks use a Mac.

      (Academics might get to pick and choose, but lots of scientists work at institutions that either make deals or whose IT people won't support Macs.)

    7. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by defaultXIX · · Score: 1

      I'm suprised how many people don't relaize this, but there are about 50 different free windows programs out there for printing pdf's. So any thing that can be printed, can be made into a pdf. I know it is built in to OSX, but this is a problem that can be solved on windows in under 5 minutes.

      Google Search (First 3 hits):

      Free PDF Printer

    8. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by nordicfrost · · Score: 1
      You can print to PDF from ANY application in OS X. No need to "convert" or use a specific program.


      And this is truly useful! the last days I've use this feature to PDF-print booking confirmations etc., so much more practical than having stuff floating around. I think I'm approaching the paperless office now. I've ditched the printer and only use the PowerBook for all things that would include a paper sheet.


      I also got kudos from a teacher for turing in the paper in PDF where the others used DOC, even if one girl couldn't open it. We had a discussion around this, and most of them agreed that it is better to support open standards than becoming thieves.

    9. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, would you care to explain why you think that FC3 or SUSe 9.2 would fare *so* much better than sarge? Are you saying they come close to Mac OS X functionality?

      I got sarge on my Dell laptop. It installed all right, but gave me all sorts of troubles before it would work sort-of well. But i don't think it comes close to Mac OS X's functionality for "scientist-minded" people, as the parent postings describe it. I'm saying this without having used a Mac myself, just from the opinions i hear around.

  80. Re:The problem with Apple Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spyware, because windows is the most popular consumer OS

    jpg exploit, from libnjpg, not fom windows

    upgrade, that'll be cheap for a mac (sarcasm)

    SP3?? how about osX(10.1) and 10.2 and 10.3

    Flame all you want, no side is really winning(at least for the users.....)

  81. And missing the obvious... by arekusu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Re: "In order to launch the file or open the folder via keyboard, you have to hit Command-Down Arrow (Command-Up Arrow will traverse up a folder tree). This takes a bit of getting used to and if approached with an open mind, you can get used to it in a couple of days, but it can be frustrating at first - especially if you are a keyboard addict used to Windows."

    Very frustrating. Until you figure out how to use Cmd-O.

  82. The biggest problem with OSX... by el-spectre · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that Mac finally put out a good OS. How am I supposed to sneer at crapintoshes now?

    Oh well... I can still badmouth windows.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    1. Re:The biggest problem with OSX... by Thu25245 · · Score: 1
      How am I supposed to sneer at crapintoshes now?

      Just keep calling them "crapintoshes." If you say that often enough, it will make you look so knowlegable about computer platforms that people will accept your sneers as gospel.

  83. Re:Hello, mods... by Twid · · Score: 2, Informative


    Well, I really did just switch. And I really did disclose that I work for Apple. What's the problem? When a big interview with Miguel goes about about what Novell is doing, do you immediately ignore the article because of the inherent bias? "OMG Miguel WORKS for Novell!" :)

    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
  84. You suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The article states:

    After doing the necessary research to make sure that I could actually get work done on a Mac, I whipped out the trusty credit card and decided to give the experiment a try.

    You should do exactly that.. the necessary research part, because you're just full of crap at this moment.

  85. Yet another recent switcher by halosfan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Until about half a year ago, I had never even thought about buying a Mac. Then I broke a bezel on my laptop. Ultimately, that forced me to evaluate every laptop I could get my hands on for durability. A couple months and about $3K later I was a happy 17'' Powerbook owner. The only downside to that was that another couple months later my lady decided she can't live without a Powerbook either...

    And then it occurred to me:

    • 12-inch Powerbook -- $1.6K
    • Memory upgrade -- $100
    • Brenthaven shoulder bag -- $140
    • Not having to support Windows -- priceless
    --
    My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
    1. Re:Yet another recent switcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We run two 17" powerbooks at home and our PC sits in the corner gathering dust. I would say that I'm overly impressed with the Mac. I used to be one of those people that wouldn't go near one but now....I'm totally against anything Windows based! Also, how easy is it to sync up an iPod with iTunes or a digital camera with iPhoto?!! It's so simple and easy....you would never find something so simple with a PC!!

  86. Seconded... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can relate to all of what you said. I used to be a PC/Windows use because of the broad Software selection and ease of use (Point n click has some advantages), I was a also a PC/Linux user because of the stability security powerful server apps etc... OS.X is an acceptable compromise, even on my G4 PowerBook (which incidentally makes any PC laptop I have yet seen look like a brick when you see them side by side). Plus OS.X beats both Linux and Windows hands down when it comes to ergonomics (I am relly hooked on Exposé for example). Another boon is immunity to Worms/Viruses and best of all it integrates 95% into the windows network at work. My only gripe is that I wish Apple would increase the stability of its OS and the Window manager instead of adding so many 'eyecandy' features. In eight months of using OS.X have had one Kernel panic and five window manager crashes which is only marginally better than my experience with Windows XP, considering what I paid for the Mac I expected the stability of OS.X to be greater.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Seconded... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      ...even on my G4 PowerBook (which incidentally makes any PC laptop I have yet seen look like a brick when you see them side by side).
      I guess you haven't seen this then. Now, I'm a Mac user too and the Powerbook is a great machine, but I do wish they'd make something even smaller in the ultraportable segment.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  87. Re:mac = suckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your troll would have been better if you hadn't put in the half dozen incorrect 'facts' that prove you haven't seen a mac any more than over someone elses shoulder.

  88. Re:But I like my apps.... by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 1

    Dont run Outlook, dont use IE. Tell you what, you start holding your breath and I'll tell you to stop as soon as I get a virus or trojan. Kay?

    Windows and it's associated hardware has it's place - just not in the hands of people who'd rather get things done than have to plan their time around making sure they have working software on a day to day basis. "Don't use IE and Outlook and you'll be fine!" Oh - and make sure you're running a firewall. And spyware checker. And an updated virus scanner. And the latest 50MB "patch" from Bill. And never download any software. Or connect your machine to the net before you do all of the above things. Then you'll be fine. Except that's probably not the case.

  89. eMachines vs iMac by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah. I sell Macs. Yet, my $1350 laptop can crunch more audio plugins (pure CPU) than a desktop dual 2.0 ghz G5.

    That being said, I'm getting my girlfriend a PowerBook. Why? Because she surfs the web, does some e-mail, adores photography, and wants a laptop that will last. My eMachines is starting to crack around the hinge, even though it's only 7 or 8 months old. I use my laptop every day for hours on end, and so do my colleagues, but they've had their 17" Powerbooks for two years, and nothing - nothing - is falling apart on them.

    For me, I have to have Linux for sanity, and Windows for work. But if you're a "casual" computer user, Macs will work. No problems, no viruses, no bugs, no esoteric error messages or random crashing. They turn on and compute.

    That's why I like selling them - the customers don't call until two years later when they want another one.

    1. Re:eMachines vs iMac by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Exactly. As an analogy, a low-end Mac vs. a low-end PC is like a Mercedes hatchback vs. a Chevrolet* hatchback. At first glance it looks like the Chevrolet is a MUCH better deal, until you realize how much more quality and polish (not to mention reliability!) the Mercedes has compared to the Chevy.

      *The expected comparison here would be a Hyundai, not a Chevy, but Hyundais are actually better cars than Chevys (I know from personal experience!). Plus the Aveo is actually a rebranded Daewoo anyway.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:eMachines vs iMac by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty mediocre analogy since the low-end PC performs almost as well as the low-end mac, but a C320 is $29,970 and an aveo is $9,995. That's right, the mercedes costs three times what the chevy does. The Mac is usually only twice what the PC is - we are talking low end here after all. Incidentally if you are comparing german to USDM you can get a loded mustang GT for $29,205... But I'd be looking for something Japanese myself.

      If you assume the Mercedes will last three times as long as the Chevy, the Chevy is still a better deal because you can buy three of them for what the mercedes costs, and if you sell them off you might be able to get four of them. The analogy doesn't extend as well to the computer, because used PCs have basically no resale value. Used macs have some, but not after you have them for a really long time, unlike a Mercedes, assuming you care for it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:eMachines vs iMac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A working original iMac will still go for ~$60. Start getting into the 350MHz and up range and you'll be getting ~$120 or more on significantly old stuff.

  90. Re:mac = suckage by michaelbuddy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Uhh, actually I support over 1200 customers with Macs and I help design and train software on a Mac. I've also worked in a College Lab solely with Macs. I've seen and used all the OS since version 8. And although I can't complain about the kernel and bindings. I can state that Mac is more trouble than it's worth. Trademarking the trashcan. Sweet. so you my friend are wrong. You may love mac. But my point of posting is that Mac users love to justify the money they spent. But that doesn't make up for the marketing lies and BS that users spill on everyone. Like, for instance OSX never crashes. sure, never. Only every day.

    --

    ...::----::...

    I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

  91. Re:But I like my apps.... by techsoldaten · · Score: 0

    I can use MySQL / PostGres as a db solution for the backend, but not as a substitute for reports (not to mention views, which MySQL does not feature).

    But the problem is not that I need to produce Access dbs, but that I need to work with ones I receive from clients who have standardized on Access. I cannot open an Access database on a Mac and would need to find a tool for importing them into whatever I moved to. People have suggested FileMaker as a solution but I really haven't taken the time to evaluate it, nor am I that motivated to do so.

    The reason I use Publisher is to ensure compliance with my client's publishing standards, which include a myriad of solutions such as Acrobat / Quark / PageMaker / Publisher / Word / PowerPoint. Publisher is actually a complex tool that cannot be replaced simply with InDesign or Acrobat, and I really wonder what it means about someone who would simply assume this is the case.

    As far as business goes, yes, I run my own business and we do a lot of interesting things. The cost to migrate I mentioned is per desktop and would actually be closer to $400,000 per office. (You don't think I could get away with just migrating myself, do you?)

    You mentioned the theme of insanity in your message. It would be insanity for me to move my company to a Mac given the lack of support for very commonly used tools like Access and the increased cost for new desktops. When Apple finds a way to close these gaps it could become an option.

    M

  92. Ballsy (and wordy) by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad to see that Anand is open to trying a new OS. I give him lots of credit for plunking down a few grand, buying a nice Mac, and giving it an honest go. And I'm glad that in the end he had a positive experience and continues to enjoy using his Mac.

    It's pretty interesting to read the impressions of someone trying out MacOS X for the first time, particularly if that someone hasn't travelled outside the world of Windows. Anand writes:

    The uniformity really extends far beyond keyboard shortcuts...a menubar always exists at the top of your screen in MacOS X, regardless of what application you're in.

    Talk about getting down to basics, eh? I think that's a very interesting comment. It would never have occurred to me to explain that to a new Mac user, particularly one with extensive computing experience on another platform. Kudos to Anand for capturing the newness of it all.

    That said, there are a number of things that bug be about the article. For one, it seems pretty ballsy to switch to an entirely different platform and think that you've learned enough in 30 days to write an article of this length (printed, it comes to 24 pages). He clearly is laboring under a number of misconceptions that probably would have been cleared up if he'd spent some more time with his system.

    Another thing is that he seems to want his Mac to work the way Windows does. That's a pretty common thing with switchers, and it's totally understandable. But if you're going to review an OS you should really try to come to it with an open mind. To his credit, he's pretty up front about his bias being due to using Windows for so long, but his "the directory structure seems very foreign because it's different from Windows" comments make me want to choke him.

    A good editor (human editor, not text editor) would really help this article. Anand tends to use 50 words where 7 are called for, and he even manages to contradict himself occasionally. Though it clearly was not, it should have been reviewed by a knowledgeable Mac user or two to clear up some of the obvious misconceptions.

    Anand criticizes the price of the system he bought several times. He spent about $2700 on a top of the line, dual processor G5 because:

    I knew that if I was going to give the platform a good chance, I needed to get the fastest system that Apple had to offer.

    It's great that he knew what he wanted and all, but as a newcomer he wasn't really in a position to know whether he really needed that much power or whether he could have gotten along just fine with a G4 iMac. He never considered that something less than the fastest thing available could meet his needs, and he doesn't bother to try to find out. So it's a little unfair to whine about the price when something costing half as much very well might have performed acceptably.

    Overall, I'm glad he wrote it and I'm glad he's happy with the Mac. Keep at it.

    1. Re:Ballsy (and wordy) by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the directory structure seems very foreign because it's different from Windows

      This totally awesome Binary Watch on my wrist seems very foreign because it's different from a bullet going through my head.

      Anand criticizes the price of the system he bought several times. He spent about $2700 on a top of the line, dual processor G5 because:

      I knew that if I was going to give the platform a good chance, I needed to get the fastest system that Apple had to offer.

      Unfortunately, it probably never occurred to him that if he'd bought a nice $1300 iMac G5, with much lower specs, his user experience would have been just about thew same. Those cycles only come in handy when you're doing compute-intensive stuff. I run a 1GHz G4, even slower still, and get the same kind of Safari/Mail/Word performance he does. I really wish I had a G5 every time I've got 20 audio plugin instances running in my Pro Tools session, along with the obligatory 32 tracks and a DV movie.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Ballsy (and wordy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great that he knew what he wanted and all, but as a newcomer he wasn't really in a position to know whether he really needed that much power or whether he could have gotten along just fine with a G4 iMac.

      This is a guy that uses and reviews extremely high-end Intel and AMD-powered kit all the time. He's not someone that uses his computer part-time. He knows that more power will be better. And he has every right to complain about the price, because he knows how much performance he can get on the x86 platform for the same price, and it doesn't compare favorably. (Apple wins on the price/quality-of-experience, but NEVER on price/performance.)

      Hell, my 866MHz PowerBook is 'enough', but if I could swap it out for a new 1.33GHz model, I would in a heartbeat, because I know that I'll benefit from the extra speed.

    3. Re:Ballsy (and wordy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it probably never occurred to him that if he'd bought a nice $1300 iMac G5, with much lower specs, his user experience would have been just about thew same.

      First of all, the iMac G5 wasn't even out when he bought the PowerMac. You didn't RTFA.

      Secondly, the entry-level $1300 iMac is ill-equipped and incomparable to a well-equipped PowerMac. A real entry-level iMac starts around $1600. Don't kid yourself. Macs are not cheap.

      Those cycles only come in handy when you're doing compute-intensive stuff. I run a 1GHz G4, even slower still, and get the same kind of Safari/Mail/Word performance he does.

      No, no you don't. A PowerMac G5 is faster, and yes, you can feel it when you use it. True, a slower machine may be 'enough', but you're absolutely wrong to to think that you're getting the same performance as a G5.

    4. Re:Ballsy (and wordy) by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Kudos to Anand for capturing the newness of it all.
      Is that the same newness that LisaOS had in 1981, or Mac OS 1.0 had in 1984, by any chance? The fixed menubar isn't just an Apple quirk, but a deliberate design decision based on some hard theory about user interface design - that of perceived stability. If you get lost, you can rely on that menu bar to be there to get you found again. While in some ways the "menubar in a window" approach of windows makes sense, it does mean that menus move around a lot, and so it's much harder to reorientate yourself if you get stuck. These things don't matter once you're familiar with either, but the stable menubar is a boon for new users.

    5. Re:Ballsy (and wordy) by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      I was actually talking about "newness" from Anand's perspective. I'm plenty familiar with the Mac menu bar and its advantages, so (as I said) I wouldn't have even thought to mention it even to a new Mac user. It's just something I take for granted. Anand was coming to the Mac for (almost) the first time, though, and things completely basic for you and me were novel for him. It's an interesting read.

  93. True but ... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... the native OS.X installer for *.pkg packages does not seem to have an uninstall feature (at least on one that I am aware of) which obviously starts to really suck as soon as you try to remove some crappy *.pkg packaged program you downloaded on a whim. Fortunately there is OSXPM but it still sucks that Apple did not do a better job at thinking the OS.X package manager system throug.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:True but ... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Try DesInstaller. It uses the .pkg receipt to remove programs cleanly.

      It is a shame this isn't included...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:True but ... by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, PackageMaker (the utility to create said *.pkg files) has the framework in place for uninstall, but it's not done. So it seems its a future plan. But for today (and the future as far as anyone knows) no uninstall.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
  94. If you don't want it opened in a new tab.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    And want the link opened in the current window instead, do the following:

    In the url bar enter without quote marks "about:config" and hit enter.
    In the filter bar enter without quote marks "new".
    Then double click browser.block.target_new_window so that it is set to "true".

  95. Re:But I like my apps.... by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    $1k for Office

    Boy, I'd like to be your vendor for software, because I'd make a fortune from your ignorance. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    First of all, $1000 for Office? You must be crazy. You can legally get Office 2004 (the "Student/Teacher Edition") for less than $150, and it comes with all the apps that Office 2004 Standard includes. If you insist on paying the "full" price, that's $265. And an Access replacement would probably be FileMaker Pro 7, which I found for $218. And you've already got a replacement for Publisher if you're going to be buying the Adobe Creative Suite.

    The Abobe figures are accurate. $450 for Acrobat, $1250 for Creative Suite

    Secondly, why would you buy Acrobat separately when you can get it as part of Creative Suite Premium and save a couple hundred bucks? Furthermore, Creative Suite Premium is not $1250-- the freakin' MSRP isn't even that high, and only a complete moron would pay the MSRP. CDW sells it for $1139, and Pricewatch lists a few sites that offer it for even less.

    ~Philly

  96. informative?? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    c'mon, there is still a browser flamefest article of the front friggin page! Take it over there!

  97. Re:But I like my apps.... by Sebby · · Score: 1
    "Dont run Outlook, dont use IE. Tell you what, you start holding your breath and I'll tell you to stop as soon as I get a virus or trojan. Kay?"

    He won't need to... Windows is already a virus by itself.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  98. Re:But I like my apps.... by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

    Can any of you people even conceive of the fact that the product cost never reflects the actual cost to get a system to where it's suitable for usage? With any Adobe, Microsoft, CAD or 3D application the MSRP is where you start before factoring in the cost of plug-ins, support, etc. The MSRP is really only useful as a baseline for telling how bad you were ripped off when all the dust settles.

    If you were ever responsible for making a purchase that affects an operation you would know this. Instead, all you can do is point out superficial equivalencies that do *NOT* actually provide a useful alternative and call other people ignorant.

    I have researched the facts and the $30k number is probably the conservative estimate.

    M

  99. Lack of choice by snuf23 · · Score: 1

    No, Macs aren't overpriced against other name-brand manufacturers. They are price competitive. (I'll grant you that if you build your own and zealously look for bargains you can build a slightly cheaper PC.)

    Well I wouldn't mind having a Mac at home as a second machine - but the limited choices really suck. I like the expandability and choice that the PC gives me. With a desktoo Mac I basically get a choice between a reasonably price but totally non-upgradeable iMac or a very expensive PowerMac G5. Is there no middle ground? How about a $1500ish desktop Mac with a single G5 with no built in monitor? I hate all in one designs and I really hate that Apple went with the useless 5200 graphics card on the iMac.
    Sure the G5s are great but I cannot afford to drop $3000 at a time for a new computer. With a PC I can upgrade a bit at a time - and only need to drop about $800 once every few years for a new motherboard, cpu and ram.

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
    1. Re:Lack of choice by FortranDragon · · Score: 1

      My introduction to OS X (not Apple, I still have my Apple ][ to play games on ;-)) was via the original 14" iBook (600 MHz G3). Because I was going the laptop route piecemeal upgrading wasn't a concern. Perhaps a laptop might be an acceptable option? Obviously, YMMV.

      What I found was that I spent all my time (except for games) on the iBook because OS X just worked better for me. The portability of the laptop + Airport (wireless) was also a big factor. Being able to work on programs where I wanted to be was great. Great enough that I sold my iBook and used the funds to help buy a 17" Powerbook that I use for my desktop replacement.

      This could also be an age thing. I'm just not so interested in building my own computers any more. I've done enough of that that it has lost its interest for me. Now I just want a computer that will work the way I do and stay out of the way unless I want to 'get under the hood'.

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    2. Re:Lack of choice by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      I'm not interested in a laptop. I really don't have use for the portability and prefer a larger (19" or so) screen.
      In regards to your comment on building your own system. That is understandable and I myself have moved away from full system building. The nice thing is that the enthusiast market has resulted in many companies (Alienware and Falcon being the granddaddies) which cater towards custom pc building. Nowdays when its time for the full overhaul on the base system I order a prebuilt case, mobo, processor, ram. Then I just transfer my old drives/video card into the system and am good to go.
      The other nice thing is that my older components don't go to waste. When I upgrade my last model bumps down to mom and the kids. Each of them have their own PC. Helps justify the upgrade too - when I upgrade everyone upgrades. :)

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    3. Re:Lack of choice by FortranDragon · · Score: 1

      You can use a second monitor with both the iBook and the Powerbook. The iBook will mirror the screen and the Powerbook will actually span the displays.

      Just set the laptop to the side, use a USB mouse/keyboard and away you go with your bigger display in front of you. Or you could use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse of you want to get rid of cable clutter.

      (I use Microsoft's Bluetooth mouse with my Powerbook. It was fully functional without having to install the Intellimouse drivers. In my case I have the extra buttons bound to Exposé functions.)

      Need more hard disk space? Use an external Firewire drive. Makes transferring the hard drive plug-n-play. Given that you are buying the case, motherboard, processor, and RAM when you do an overhaul the only flexibility you are losing is swapping out the video system. :-)

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
  100. MACS are over priced for the general user by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I would not mind having one to toy with but as for I use my PC for the MAC will not suffice.

    That being said.

    At 1299 I can buy the lowest cost iMac. A similar PC system, discounting the nice packaging but keeping a similar sized LCD, will set me back 999 from DELL. It is the same or cheaper from some other vendors. For the very basics that most users do that price and "Windows familarity" will be all that is needed to keep people from looking at the iMac. Throw in the fact that your standard department store doesn't carrry Mac or anything related and the potential drops furhter.

    There are laptops cheaper than both that satisfy the needs of many people. Then there are the bottom end PCs that put the masses onto the net and what other progression in buying do you expect them to take? When they out grow their 499 PC they probably will end up with yet another 499 PC!

    The geek side of me says, The iMac combined with OSX is better than WinXP. The geek side in me says , SO FRICKING WHAT! I want to play game X now! The gaming geek isn't going to budge. The FPS gaming geek wouldn't even have a iMac pass the laugh test.

    Yes MAC has an OS that finally appeals to some of us. The trouble is it is still too expensive, too hard to find software for, and too hard to get general support for if your not part of the culture of Apple or geek.

    What I would like to see is a bottom end 4 piece (case, monitor, keyboard, mouse) Mac computer. It would feature OSX, at most a 15" LCD, a 1.4 or slower G5 (make them all one speed and don't publish the number), 256mb ram expandable to 512/768 and about 40gb of disk with a CDRW. Have it all for around 699 or so. I don't know if Apple can reach this low or wants too? They seem to want to maintain an air of exlusivity yet at the same time want more people to pay attention to them.

    My only worry is that Apple will steer to far away from their PC side and it will wither. I like the fact that Jobs has transformed Apple so that it is not so vulnerable to one market but I hope he doesn't take it to far away from what it was.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  101. Re:mac = suckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so you my friend are wrong. You may love mac. But my point of posting is that Mac users love to justify the money they spent. But that doesn't make up for the marketing lies and BS that users spill on everyone. Like, for instance OSX never crashes. sure, never. Only every day.

    More proof you don't actually use the machines, and are making things up.

    For what it's worth, no I don't love macs. I just have to use them from time to time. Just one more assumption.

  102. This was for a desktop machine. Try the PowerBook by BAM0027 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slightly off topic, but I feel compelled to urge Anand on this point.

    I've been using a 12" PowerBook and it's the finest piece of hardware I've ever used. Obviously I haven't tried everything, but between many desktops and laptops, this is the easiest, most usable machine for light-to-medium office work and database development.

    Portable, snappy, painless wireless and bluetooth (out-of-the-box), and OSX. It's just beautiful.

  103. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never thought about it like that.

    So perhaps I'll reside down here, in the under city of Slashdot that is the AC's home.

    It's where most of the low-lifes and dregs of our society reside it seems. So I might as well join em...

  104. Re:the debate by inkswamp · · Score: 0
    Where are the moderator points when I need 'em? I hope someone mods you as the troll you are. You're painting with a wide brush and being very insulting and making an ass of yourself all at once. Many of us using Macs have had extensive experience on other platforms and have decided on the basis of what suits us best and what works best.

    See, there are multitudes of Mac users who quietly use their machines and are happy with them and who don't fit the mold of this cultish Mac user you're trying to depict. That small percentage out there that does advocate Macs like that are loud and obnoxious and DO NOT speak for the majority of us. But they get the most attention. Anyone with half a brain cell can figure that out and wouldn't make idiotic assumptions about a whole group of people as you have.

    In short: take your stereotype and blow it out your ass.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  105. Pedantic Retort by Valthonis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've found that a lot of people complain about the price they paid for their Apple hardware when confronted with software problems...

    Yes, Apple hardware is expensive. However, OS X 10.3 (latest version) is MUCH cheaper per license than Windows XP.

    Windows XP Pro (Upgrade): $189.99

    Windows XP Pro (Full): $279.99

    Mac OS X 10.3 (Full): $129.00

    For an admittedly "better" operating system, Apple sure gives you a good deal, eh?

    Note: I neglected to mention XP Home on purpose; the lack of configurability with regards to disabling default services with known security vulnerabilities (Messenger, UPnP, etc.) make it unadvisable as a real consumer OS.

    --
    "Life in every breath... that is bushido"
    1. Re:Pedantic Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For an admittedly "better" operating system, Apple sure gives you a good deal, eh?"

      A better operating system in your opinion and many people also get Windows XP when they purchase a computer at a discounted rate which would be closer to $50.00.

    2. Re:Pedantic Retort by shaka999 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hmmm, I can turn off all the services I want in XP Home. Whats the issue?

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    3. Re:Pedantic Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      For a new user, they're most likely going to buy an OEM license of winxp at little or no cost. Also, xp has been out for how long? Lets do a little cost analysis for someone other than a brand-new user.

      Winxp Pro: $279.99 (released October 2001)
      MacOS X: $129.99 + 10.1 (free as upgrade, $129.99 new) + 10.2 ($129.99) + 10.3 ($129.99)

      Since 2001, the xp user has bought their OS once, while the mac user has had to buy their os THREE times over, for hardware that is often (though not always) more expensive.

      10.0: March 2001, last build June 2001
      10.1: September 2001, last build June 2002
      10.2: September 2002, last build October 2003
      10.3: October 2003, still in production

      Notice a pattern? I'm not sure if Apple releases patches for their earlier versions, but I doubt it.

      And Apple is already planning on extracting another $129.99 from their customers with 10.4.

    4. Re:Pedantic Retort by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course the MacOS also comes free with the initial hardware sale.

      You are right that the MacOS is pricey. On the other hand, every release of the MacOS to date has included slick, glitzy features like Expose. And every release of the MacOS has worked better with existing hardware than before.

      For example, I have a PowerBook G4 400mhz. It was the first of the G4 PowerBooks, introduced in January 2001. This system flies under MacOS X Panther. I remember feeling it was sluggish at times when I first bought it but now it feels reborn. That's an OS upgrade that delivers real value!

      In contrast, consider the upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, which confused the heck out of users by changing the options completely around, and managed to slow down even machines that were lightning fast under 2000.

      Microsoft hasn't introduced an upgrade since XP, not because they're not greedy enough to want our money, but because they have been slow in improving on the now ancient system. I'm not so sure that's a good thing.

      By buying MacOS upgrades, you're financing an innovative development team that continuously produces wonderful surprises. Sure, we have to pay for them, but at least they come, and they delight us.

      That's not so bad.

      D

    5. Re:Pedantic Retort by jjwahl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note: I neglected to mention XP Home on purpose; the lack of configurability with regards to disabling default services with known security vulnerabilities (Messenger, UPnP, etc.) make it unadvisable as a real consumer OS.

      WTF? These are not limitations of XP Home. Anyone can turn off default services and UPnP, uninstall Messenger, etc...
      Stop with the FUD. You're wrong.

      --

      You need people like me so you can point your fucking fingers, and say "that's the bad guy."
    6. Re:Pedantic Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Windows XP Pro, OEM copy is about $150, for a full version. Go to www.pricewatch.com and see for yourself.

    7. Re:Pedantic Retort by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      I thought that you couldn't disable simple file sharing in XP Home ... am I mistaken?

    8. Re:Pedantic Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You most definitely ARE mistaken. There are some limitations of Home vs Pro, but access to Services and system configuration is not one of them.

    9. Re:Pedantic Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I remember feeling it was sluggish at times when I first bought it but now it feels reborn.

      Wow... so Apple sold you a shitty and crippled OS (slow), and you're actually happy to pay $50 bucks (or whatever each incremental OSX upgrade costs every 6 months) for a properly working system. I though Apple was supposed to be different from MS? The Jobs reality distortion field must be extra strong for you...

    10. Re:Pedantic Retort by TibbonZero · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather pay 129.99 every now and then (less with Student Discount) and get real usable updates, with new features under OS X- Than wait around years and get SP that are just Court Ordered updates and bugfixes (plus new bugs).
      Believe me, the features in each version of OS X are more than enough to make me want to update. My roommates are still trying to figure out if they should put SP2 on all their systems, as it's already screwed up one. 10.3 didn't screw me up for a second. You get what you pay for (except for linux)

      --
      Tibbon
      tibbon.com
    11. Re:Pedantic Retort by Val314 · · Score: 1

      Noone is buying a retail version. just get a DSP/OEM/SB Version for 130 EUR (Austrian price with VAT)

    12. Re:Pedantic Retort by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Every copy of MacOS sold is actually an upgrade.
      The only computers you can run it on were shipped with it included to begin with. A copy of Panther is really just an upgrade from a previous version of MacOS.
      Windows has full versions and upgrade versions because you can actually buy the hardware compants seperately and build your own computer then choose to install Windows or some other OS.
      With OSX you've already paid for the OS when you bought your Mac.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    13. Re:Pedantic Retort by FortranDragon · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X 10.3 Family Pack (*5* users): $199

      For $10 more than the XP Pro upgrade you get five full copies of OS X. :-)

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    14. Re:Pedantic Retort by loraksus · · Score: 1

      yes, and windows has gotten faster over time. . .
      Oh wait. . .

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    15. Re:Pedantic Retort by valmont · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X 10.1 shipped with all the features that WinXP had, except for fast-user switching.

      10.2 and 10.3 were genuinely new operating systems with lots of useful features, that windows isn't even beginning to touch. You can't diss Apple for having kept-on innovating and producing operating systems that'd let users do more, while Windows has stagnated.

      Security updates are sent out to both 10.2 and 10.3 users, when appropriate.

    16. Re:Pedantic Retort by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

      Most people are too stupid to know how to uninstall messenger. Why is this installed to begin with anyway? Cant the user decide what software they want to install, not MS?

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    17. Re:Pedantic Retort by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Couple points:

      1) Apple does release patches for the most recent previous version. So 10.2 is still being patched.

      2) 10.0 - 10.1 was free

      3) Apple has issued statements to the fact that the upgrade cycle will be slowing down. Indeed evidence of this can be seen in the fact that 10.4 isn't due out for another 6 months at minimum.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    18. Re:Pedantic Retort by TibbonZero · · Score: 1

      Please explain how something which makes your system faster, equals that your OS that you had previously was crippled? Please tell me one thing about OS X that is 'crippled' and that I can't do, because I feel that it's alot less 'crippled' than XP Home, etc... XP Home doesn't even have Dual processor support. You can't even buy OS X without multi processor support! Talk about crippled!

      --
      Tibbon
      tibbon.com
  106. Re:Cost by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    What was the cost of the operating system on top of that?

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  107. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll concede that Apple computers are a better deal than they were 10 years ago. You are paying a premium, but it is not as bad, and the machines are nice.

    But note that the iMac G5s come with only 256MB of RAM, and he had 1 GB (4x as much). He didn't say what kind of GeForce he had, but it's probably better than what the iMac G5 has. He has 120GB of hard disk space, the iMac G5 has 80GB.

    If he just wants to play games, he can get a 17" or even 19" monitor pretty cheap. A 17" flat panel would cost more.

    So he's exactly right: his solution is much cheaper than the iMac G5, and will outperform it for gaming. The iMac G5 is a much NICER solution, quieter, takes up less space, and would be great as an all-around productivity box (email, web, word processing, etc.) but it costs more.

    The iMac G5 is better for those users who wouldn't know how to build their own computer, just want something that works, and can afford it. A home-built AMD-chip system is better for geeks with little money.

  108. Re:mac = suckage by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    If you OS-X mac is crashing everyday, you should send it in for a check up. That sounds like a hardware problem. Maybe a bad motherboard, or some faulty memory ?

  109. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are all Apple users such morrons? Who would buy a new monitor with every upgrade? Rather who would change the WHOLE system for every upgrade?!

  110. Mac bargains by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    If I wanted a cheap Mac (and didn't need portability), I'd look around for an older dual-G4 desktop, and load it up with 1-2 GB of RAM. The Mac really shines with dual processors and a good sized chunk of RAM. The OS seems to do a really good job of spreading the load between the processors. A dual-450 MHz G4 Mac feels very snappy, more so than, say, an 800 MHz single-processor Mac. It's not that it has a lot of raw power, it's that it never seems to bog down, no matter how many applications and windows you have open.

    1. Re:Mac bargains by nsayer · · Score: 1
      [...] I'd look around for an older dual-G4 desktop [...]

      Word.

      OS X behaves fantastically on older hardware. Here's my story:

      My wife and I have G5s, she has an iBook, I have a TiBook, so we're pretty thoroughly Mac-ified.

      A friend of hers told us that she was given an iMac (turns out it's a tangerine 266 MHz G3 iMac rev C from early 1999) and never really used it much. She wanted to get it online. It was running OS 8.5. It had 32M of RAM.

      I got it an upgrade to 512M of RAM, OS 10.3.5, and got her hooked up with DSL (PPPoE, no less). The whole thing wound up being about $250 (separately she also bought a low end HP scanner/printer combo).

      It works really well, for such an old machine. I can find things out there that make it bog down (it won't play DVDs and it's not going to be used for video editing or gaming), but I'm surprised at how resilient it is for most tasks.

      My wife's friend? She's very happy.

  111. Mac Gaming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If one more reviewer mentions "gaming" as a valid consideration to selecting a PC, I'm going to kill people. The $1,000's a "gamer" spends on their "toy" is fine... but don't assume that the rest of the world prefers to sit in a desk chair on their computer... instead of on the couch with a beer & xbox.

  112. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had bothered reading the fucking article, you would see that the author was a little peaved at Apple because the videocard they included in the $3000 price was a little 64meg ATI 9600, which is pretty weak, even compared to nvidia. To do anything graphically today you need at least 128meg videocard, especially with OSX since it uses OpenGL so much. So the parent is dead on and you're a dead end. Apple should bring itself up to the modern computer era and stop with the cheap videocards.

    Also, in your analogy, what if the two cars you mix and match parts with are both BMW's? But why respond to someone that goes dumpster diving.

  113. BUY RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a Mac user (desktop and laptop), I can tell you that the most important thing you can do is buy ram. You will be surprised at how much faster that 800MHz G3 feels after you put more ram in it. This is especially true if you use Office or Flash (or just like keeping a lot of apps running at once).

  114. Re:the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tricksy Macintosh, we hates them! They burns us!!!

  115. I love my Mac and I'll tell you why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love my Mac let me tell you why:

    I've been using computers for roughly 18 years now. When I started using computers, I was 11 years old and it was a C=64. I'd use my C=64 for initially for games, however I was more interested in the technology behind it so progressed writing small applications, minor games, subscribing to Commodore Run magazine, and basically just following "the scene" which was around at the time. There was no Internet, and the only means of communication between these computers was BBS's and analog modem lines.

    During the "BBS phase", I transitioned from my C=64 to IBM / compatibles because the computer market changing. C=64's were starting to have very little support, and soon withered away and all that was left was this IBM compatible PC spectrum, and Apple. At that time, after seeing the C=64 support disappear quickly, I looked at the support level for IBM hardware/software and it was rather high. I also kept watch on Apple and at the time, and their support level was low. I also personally didn't like their hardware/software because it just didn't feel right. Back in the mid 80's through most of the 90's, Apple has fallen short with their OS and it was pretty clear with the total lack of support from the entire computer community (1-3% of the computer owner population). I really couldn't figure out why schools would insist on using Apples, when you get out of school and see the "real world" doesn't use Apple computers.

    I used an IBM compatible for many years, and basically thats the only thing you could use comfortably if you were an avid PC person like myself. I don't mean to offend the "early Apple users", however most people I knew that were pro-Apple were big time snobs and I'd try to "sway" them to use a PC and free themselves from the held that Apple had on them. At the time i think I was right just because back in those days it seemed like Apple had no future.

    On the PC side, Linux started getting popular which in my eyes breathed new life into PC's. Using Microsoft Windows makes me cringe, and as i sit and stare at the hour glass it feels like I'm walking on egg shells, and every week that I read Slashdot I see a new security advisory for a MS product. Enough is enough!

    A few years ago, Apple came out with OS X , which is built on top of Unix (BSD). This was where things changed.

    If you look at the Linux OS field, there's been various distributions of Linux released, and some disappear as quickly as they surface. Even Redhat who was around for years, and even I believed would be the end all OS for Linux ... BSD has been around for so long, and it's widely supported. It only makes sense to take the best Unix OS and throw the Mac GUI on it. It's the best of both worlds!

    Apple also gives it's users many utilities built into the OS that if you were on a Windows box, normally you'd have to buy that software or find a Shareware/Freeware version. The fact that Apple OS X / BSD can compile open source software, is simply amazing. This takes me back to the C64 days of reading that Commodore Run magazine, staring at the pages keying in lines from a program that some user submitted back in 1984.

    Apple is basically taking the Open Source thoughts behind linux/unix, and opening it up to it's user community, and Microsoft basically keeps that door shut so they can profit!

    I'm sick of this Microsoft world we live in, and it brings a smile to me every time I see Linux take a step forward, or Apple release something new in OS X.

    Maybe the point of this post was not to say Apple is great, and Microsoft sux, but people who use computers need to know where we were with computers, where we are now (not where Micrsoft wants you to 'think' you are), and also know where we're all going and how to get there.

    -Rainman

    1. Re:I love my Mac and I'll tell you why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's something really strange about your post and it's this comment : "During the "BBS phase", I transitioned from my C=64 to IBM / compatibles because the computer market changing. C=64's were starting to have very little support, and soon withered away and all that was left was this IBM compatible PC spectrum, and Apple."

      Where's the Amiga in that post ? It was the computer of choice and the logical choice for a C=64 user. In fact it was the best computer at that time and by a long shot. Seems like you missed the best computer of the 80's,90's(not past 94 but oh well).

  116. It's good to hear-Mixed marriages. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The only downside to Macs really at this time is the lack of support for gaming, and I just don't see why more people don't switch, or at least give Macs a try."

    I'm certain most Mac owners realize this, but a lot of software out there is mixed disc, like PC/MAC. But one usually has to check in the PC section, not the Apple to find it(1). The same goes for hardware, look in the PC section.

    (1) Is the sale counted for the PC, or the Apple?

  117. 20 Opera windows by Misagon · · Score: 1

    I regularly have 20 Opera windows open. By choice.

    And no, of course they are not maximized. I organize them by using the windowshading and the windows-menu features of my window manager. This is of course under Linux.
    ---

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  118. What a strange comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But much like the U.S. election system, although there may be the illusion of multiple options for your OS, in reality, there is really only one. If you want any sort of software compatibility, driver support and don't want to be made fun of, Windows is the way to go. There have been righteous attempts by smaller OSes to gain traction, and some of them have (e.g. Linux), but for the most part, we're dealing with a one-party OS system.

    Heh. I've been a Mac user since 1984. I continued using Macs for several years. I switched to Unix, and then NeXT, in the 90's at school (during the Mac "lean years"). I switched back to Mac when the original iMac was introduced. I am using a PowerBook right now. I considered the NeXT the perfect system until Mac OS X came out.

    I should probably also mention I self-employed Unix consultant.

    I have *never* used Windows. For *anything*. I never really paid attention to those things he's talking about (people always make fun of me anyway, and 95% of the software you can buy is badly-written garbage).

    Now that Mac OS X is here, Windows is the "odd man out". I can write programs in Ruby, PHP, whatever, that run on FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Linux, etc., with minimal changes and without having to install too much stuff (similar tools available on all platforms).

    Windows is always a pain. I have to get other people to write Windows code for me, and it's always in some foreign language like VB.

    Get with the program dude...Mac is here to stay and LOTS of people are using it. Same with Linux.

    1. Re:What a strange comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a fucking idiot if you think Windows is a pain. I use both Windows and OSX, and on my Windows box, I've never had a single virus or instance of spyware more dangerous than a simple unwanted cookie. I've never been compromised. I've never been rooted.

      I really, really like OSX, but I wouldn't have it as my only OS. What really pains me, however, are fucking niggers like you who mindlessly chant the virus and spyware chant like fuckass lemmings.

      If you're a dumbass, naive, or careless computer user, then yes, I suppose XP is more risky than OSX or Linux. If you have a fucking brain in your head, however, XP is just fine.

      You've had problems you say? Well then, perhaps XP is a bit above you, moron. Educate yourself in some basic prevention techniques or stick to a machine whose OS isn't yet the target of malware.

      Stupid fuck.

    2. Re:What a strange comment... by bullitB · · Score: 1

      I have *never* used Windows. For *anything*.

      Hate to bring us into the political domain, but since the metaphor came from the article...

      I have *never* voted. For *anyone*.

      (and it seems about 50% of the population is with me on this one)

    3. Re:What a strange comment... by JackAxe · · Score: 0

      Did you actually read his post, or did you just see the words "Windows" and "Pain" together and then explode into a rant ? Not once does he mention Spyware or Virus in his post. But for some reason your response does. Dude... put down the crack pipe!!!

  119. Macs and BMWs by gaijin99 · · Score: 0
    My problem with Mac comes down to one thing: price. I'll admit that OSX is a sweet OS, and I've got nothing religious against any OS (except WinME, which just sucks). But for $600 in parts, and a free Linux install, I can get a computer with about as much horsepower as you'd get for a $1500 - $2000 Mac. Its self evidently a computer for the economic elite, not everybody. Much as BMW is a car for the economic elite.

    Not that either the Mac or a BMW is a bad thing, its just out of most people's price range.

    I think that's the reason why the Mac snobs bug me more than Linux snobs or MS snobs. Not only are they developing religious attachments to an OS, but there's an economic side to their snobbery as well.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    1. Re:Macs and BMWs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you're a geek snob, since your solution requires the expertise to assemble a computer. Why is that any better? I think the size of the 'elite' that can assemble their own computer is far smaller (and so more elite) than those who are able to afford a Mac. The cheapest Mac is $799, by the way.

      In any case, if you buy an already assembled computer with similar features, I think you'll find the prices are fairly similar.

    2. Re:Macs and BMWs by soricine · · Score: 1

      parent might be right about snobs, but not mac users in general. I had to scrape together every last cent to get this powerbook; and I was quite aware that i wasn't getting the world's most powerful computer for my money. Mac advocates always go on about the overall experience, but it's true. I like the way my powerbook feels under my arm, I like the shape of the power adaptor, I like the instant wake-from-sleep, I like the screen overlays for the volume and brightness controls, I like the solid battery life, I like the silence... My computer is just part of life, and it's a quality-of-life issue. (Whoops. I promised myself I would never participate in a mac v pc thread.)

    3. Re:Macs and BMWs by jbarlow · · Score: 1

      Warning: this became much more of a rant than I expected.

      To be honest, I know where you're coming from there. I never thought I'd get a Mac for a desktop. It's just that much cheaper to keep an x86 box updated.

      That said, your offhand reference to the free Linux install doesn't hold water with probably 90% (statistic pulled out of my a**) of computer users. I will grant you that Linux distros have come a long way towards some small chance of hitting the average desktop. On the other hand, I adore something Linux finds difficult: Adobe products. Say what you like about Killustrator and the Gimp; I agree that what you can do with their Adobe gene-donors you can do with Linux tools. But it takes me half the time in the native apps. Time is money. In the long run, Photoshop is cheaper than the Gimp.

      So I ended up using Windows. Which brought me to the virus-laden, popup-ridden, spyware-infested cesspool that is Windows. Now that loses me time, and therefore money. I also like the flexibility Unix variants (which notably have very few of the problems above) to run GPL and other open-source programs.

      So. I want Adobe. I want lack of Windows-style security risks. I want GPL flexibility. I'd like to save money, but those three things will increase productivity enough to justify a certain amount of increased initial hardware cost. What combines all that? You guessed it - a Mac. Or, to be pedantic, a Linux PC with Wine - 'cept I'd rather be using my computer than configuring it. And like I said, time is money.

      So to come full circle, your claim that a Mac is too expensive, at least for what I (and most of the print design world) use computers for, falls a little flat. The saved hours, days, weeks even, of production nets more income. Simple.

      It occurs to me that though you didn't specify a use for your $600 Linux box, it's more likely a weblication development tool than a prepress tool. Thumbs up to you - that makes complete sense. I wouldn't get a BMW to haul cargo or pull trailers. But you probably wouldn't get a pickup truck to commute quickly, comfortably, and stylishly. Fitting the tool for the task, you see.

      Anyway, that got a lot longer than anticipated. Thanks for watching.

    4. Re:Macs and BMWs by aflat362 · · Score: 1
      A new eMac is $749. It has a 1.25 ghz G4, 256 MB of RAM. Plenty of "horsepower" when compared to a Dell or what-have-you at the same price.

      Hardly economic elite.

      --

      Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart

    5. Re:Macs and BMWs by efishta · · Score: 1

      A new eMachine PC is $599, and you get an AMD 3200+ processor, 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, DVD +/- RW drive. Granted you get a GeForce4 MX integrated GPU, but comparing this to a 1.25 G4 I'd say you get double the perfomance for less money.

      You can find it at http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?pr od=eMachines_T3256/

  120. Re:There is a lot of open source software for MacO by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    There's DarwinPorts and Gentoo too!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  121. Rendering Speedup by imag0 · · Score: 1

    I took a look at SafariSpeed (linked here: http://www.scifience.net/safarispeed.html ) and it looks like it's just an applescript wrapper around a shell script.

    Kill safari, open a terminal and paste in (without the ""):

    "defaults write com.apple.Safari WebKitInitialTimedLayoutDelay 0.0001"

    To change the timeout. To turn it back off:

    "defaults write com.apple.Safari WebKitInitialTimedLayoutDelay 1.0"

    Try it out. I just made the adjustment so I can't tell at the moment.

    Hope that helps someone out!

  122. Re:the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What bugs me even more is the shit I've had to deal with my entire life every time I mentioned that I was a Mac user. I've used Macs for over 15 years and I still get the "Macs suck" comments all the time. I'm not a Mac Missionary preaching to the unwashed masses. I'm currently a *nix sysadmin and believe that computers are tools and people must use the best tool they see fit to use. When people ask me why I use a Mac, I'll explain it and try to dispel the numerous myths out there , but that's about as far as I go.

    You want to talk about annoying, try dealing with assholes like you on a daily basis. Assholes who generalize and make assumptions. Assholes who have no knowledge of what they speak of. Assholes who make policy changes and infrastructure changes to make my job more difficult because I use Linux, FreeBSD and OS X instead of Windows. You my friend are an ignorant fool, and it's really time to grow up. It's funny reading your previous postings where you mention life is about the little things, being nice to strangers, etc. I believe it's human nature to be hypocritical and you, sir, just proved my point. One can only hope that your attitude will be the reason why you "fail the test".

  123. Symbolic links? by netwarrior · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a function of symbolic links? (the shortcut capability, not the textedit one)

  124. Re:mac = suckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're obviously a troll, but I wanted to point out that there is a GUI application in the Utilities folder called Grab that allows you to take screenshots and it's a lot more versatile than Print Screen. There's also a third party app called Snapz Pro that extends the functionality to any key combination you want. Oh, and btw, the keyboard shortcut is Command-Shift-3 for a screenshot, Command-Shift-4 for a selection shot.

    Kinda funny how you complain about Mac users on their high horse yet feel the need to do the same...

  125. Re:Cost by droleary · · Score: 1

    The iMac G5 is better for those users who wouldn't know how to build their own computer, just want something that works, and can afford it. A home-built AMD-chip system is better for geeks with little money.

    Uh, you do realize you're making the guy's point for him, don't you? The question isn't what a geek can put together for $600, but what a company can sell for $600 (or $1200, or whatever). Unless you can point to (or sell yourself) a system that does all an iMac G5 does, you simply cannot pretend there is a price advantage for the homebuilt PC. It's two totally different markets.

  126. OT, but here's why I'll stay with WinXP... by Oswald · · Score: 1
    ...and it has nothing to do with the Mac's relative merits:

    I know I'm the last guy to the party on this one, but I just recently tried Cygwin, and it's too cool for school. One of the other windows open on this WinXP machine right now is running an X server, which is talking to an X client (via OpenSSH) that's running on the crappy old PII (450 mhz, some puny amount of RAM) that sits beside my desk. I can use my big monitor and my good keyboard, and sit in my comfortable chair, to play around on my for-practice OpenBSD server that would never, ever rate all this expensive hardware on its own. And I can alt-tab to Mozilla and waste time on Slashdot whenever I want to.

    Killer app.

    1. Re:OT, but here's why I'll stay with WinXP... by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      Mac OS ships with an X server so you can do the same thing. The server is optimized for the Aqua interface and all the X windows look and behave like Mac's standard windows.

      On my G5 2x2 it takes about 3 seconds for me to start up X and get an xterm command prompt.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    2. Re:OT, but here's why I'll stay with WinXP... by Oswald · · Score: 1
      Oh. Well, shut my mouth. Very cool, indeed.

      Thanks for the tip.

    3. Re:OT, but here's why I'll stay with WinXP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the functionality of Cygwin is *included* with OSX, right?

  127. cynical sense. by twitter · · Score: 1
    You're saying that this platform, which is known to be on the pricier side of the computer experience, is unwilling to pay for mpeg licensing?

    Could it be that an 800lb gorilla, known for fuck you deals, has made things expensive for Apple? You know, "We will use your format if you give us X per copy and charge everyone else way too much money for it," kind of deal. Sort of like the "You must make OS/2 more expensive than Windoze or we cut off your oxygen," deal they gave computer builders.

    All of this hinges on Mac not being able to play a video format, which I doubt. Macs are well known for doing video stuff out of the box. Anything is possible.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:cynical sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical sycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

      I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or Mepis or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

      If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

      To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. This is an article about email disclaimers. The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx, because "is teh free".

      Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

      Here's that drive-by advocacy and FUD in motion: twitter goes on about some topic and then drops the usual "oh and M$ is teh evil" because "WMP phones home" or some such. Called on his FUD, he then claims that WMP stores every song and movie you've ever played in a file, somewhere. Pressed further, he just sort of slithers out of sight, his FUD-spreading complete. This is not about some Microsoft technology that nobody likes anyway; it's about lying for the sake of lying. Way too many of his posts are exactly like this one.

      More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own. Or these two. Or this one. Or this one.

      Still not convinced? This is what twitter considers "humour" while going about his daily "M$" routine.

      M

  128. Re:mac = suckage by idsofmarch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then you need to find a different job. I have 2 Powerbooks and an iMac running OSX.3, and I am responsible for several more. They all work, and I have seen 2 kernal panics and only a few application crashes--most of which have been MS Office. If you're system is constantly crashing, you've busted something. As for the trashcan, WTF cares? My machines are extremely stable, fast and allow me and the people around me to get their work done. The iLife suite is unbeatable and the Pro Apps are incredibly easy to use. So, no marketing BS, I like my machines. BTW, how do you train software?

    --
    Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
  129. 12 pages-The article minus pictures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Month with a Mac: A Die-Hard PC User's Perspective
    Date: Oct 8, 2004
    Type: Macintosh
    Manufacturer: Apple
    Author: Anand Lal Shimpi
    Page 1
    This is, quite possibly, one of the most difficult articles to write; for starters, it's not a review of hardware, and it's not actually a review of anything concrete - it is a review of an experience. We all go about using our computers knowing that if we don't like something about them, if they are too slow or too unreliable or don't do something we need them to do, then we can upgrade them, or we can swap out the faulty part and put in a new one. Now, it costs us money (sometimes lots of it), but it is possible. But much like the U.S. election system, although there may be the illusion of multiple options for your OS, in reality, there is really only one. If you want any sort of software compatibility, driver support and don't want to be made fun of, Windows is the way to go. There have been righteous attempts by smaller OSes to gain traction, and some of them have (e.g. Linux), but for the most part, we're dealing with a one-party OS system. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing; quite contrary, in fact. I believe that Windows XP is the best thing to ever come out of Redmond and I have very few issues with the OS. I actually liked the XP theme when it first came out and I've been happier with Windows XP than any previous Microsoft OS (except maybe the good ol' DOS days). When installed on the right hardware with the right drivers (and with an eye to be wary of poorly written apps), I found that Windows XP was just as stable as any other OS that I'd ever encountered. My personal machine would go months between reboots without a single problem. It's not that there is anything wrong with Windows; it's that if you want the option, if there's any particular thing that you don't like about the way Windows works, you're straight out of luck.

    I think that a bit of me was feeling, after being a strictly Windows user ever since version 2.0 (with the requisite mix of DOS back then), that there were a couple of things that had started to annoy me about Windows, which I would rather do without.

    For starters, heavy multi-tasking management under Windows had caused me a lot of grief. Maybe it's just because of the nature of my work, but I tend to have a lot of windows open at any given time. I like quick access to the information that I need when I'm working and much like a messy desk, there is a method to my window-madness that only I know. When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open, Outlook with another 5 - 15 emails, Power Point with NDA presentations, Word with my article, maybe Dreamweaver if I was starting to put it into HTML, not to mention Acrobat, some sort of MP3 player, Trillian and a bunch of explorer windows as well. After a certain point, the cramped taskbar became difficult to use as a locator tool, and while I could ALT+TAB forever, I just felt like I was idle for too long. I knew what it was that I needed to get to, and I knew I had it open, but the process of getting to it was a pain.

    The other issue was with the way Windows handled having so many windows opened; after a certain number of windows were opened, stability and performance both went down the drain. Sometimes applications could no longer spawn additional windows or dialog boxes, requiring me to close a handful before I could continue doing anything, and other times, applications would simply crash.

    It's not that I was dissatisfied with Windows and the PC experience in general, but I thought it might be time for something new - to see what else was out there.

    I've always been a fan of trying alternate Oses - I was even an OS/2 user (both 2.0 and Warp) for a little while in my early years. So, a while back, I conjured up this idea to try using a Mac for a month. At first, it started as just a personal experiment, but it later developed into the foundation for the article that you're reading now. After doing the nec

  130. 3dsmax by circusboy · · Score: 1

    max is windows only, and at one point it was really Intel only, as they had based some of its pipeline on Intel extensions.

    You're generally limited to Blender, Lightwave and Maya for 3d work. which for real commercial animation out of the box leaves you with only Maya. (I know there are a lot of Lightwave fans out there, and I own/use it myself.[ Maya used to be a lot more expensive.] but lightwave lacks any sort of good 3d tracking to make it worth while.)

    If there are any others, I would love to know. I've been out of the market for a while...

    btw any one know if cinelerra is getting ported to osx?

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  131. Mac is faster. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Now, as for comparing Wintel laptops to Powerbooks. I find that much of what makes a computer seem fast or slow is the smoothness with which the OS runs. The G4 chip is not going to perform as well as the newer P4 laptops. However, the OS runs VERY smoothly, so it FEELS more powerful than many Wintel laptops.

    Going down to the store is a good idea. I did this for myself last month and was stunned by how well the Macs worked. I thought about it for a while and it made sense. OSX is a clean OS, much like Linux or BSD and requires much less processing power for what it does.

    I ended up getting a used PII thinkpad and put Sarge on it. It is a little slow for big honkers like OpenOffice and KDE3 but can easily have multiple documents up and would do everything the reviewer wanted as "work". Running Window Maker and KOffice, I don't have to wait for it. The availability of multiple named workspaces makes it easy for me to organize and find my work. This is still a killer feature of X and free software.

    Gigahertz class Macs will do everything just fine. They really are snappy.

    The same thing can not be said of the same hardware running Windoze. The OS does not do as much out of the box and most "bundles" of software only include enough to get the most basic work done. You will have to buy/download movie editing software, music ripping software, and other stuff that the Mac just comes with. You might even get your hands on some crippled version of Office that will make you even crazier than Office itself. Worse, everyone knows how Windoze gets buggy and craps out if you load it up with software or just use what you have for a couple of years. Sooner or later, some malware will get through and screw things up for you.

    My conclusion was that $1000 was about the price for a decent laptop in either camp but the Mac will be easier. When my mom's PII laptop dies, I'm going to recommend she gets a Mac.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Mac is faster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical sycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

      I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or Mepis or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

      If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

      To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. This is an article about email disclaimers. The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx, because "is teh free".

      Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

      Here's that drive-by advocacy and FUD in motion: twitter goes on about some topic and then drops the usual "oh and M$ is teh evil" because "WMP phones home" or some such. Called on his FUD, he then claims that WMP stores every song and movie you've ever played in a file, somewhere. Pressed further, he just sort of slithers out of sight, his FUD-spreading complete. This is not about some Microsoft technology that nobody likes anyway; it's about lying for the sake of lying. Way too many of his posts are exactly like this one.

      More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own. Or these two. Or this one. Or this one.

      Still not convinced? This is what twitter considers "humour" while going about his daily "M$" routine.

      M

  132. 12 pages-The Rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Page 13

    Web Browsing
    Safari is a tabbed browser much like Firefox and its usage is pretty straightforward. I've been a die-hard IE user ever since IE4 and have always appreciated its rendering speed and enjoyed its compatibility with the majority of websites out there. For an IE user, or any user for that matter, Safari is real easy to get used to.

    But before I get into the little features that make Safari a good browser, let me address its biggest shortcoming: rendering speed.

    Back before Firefox's release on the PC, the one argument that I'd always hear against IE was that it was too slow compared to lesser used browsers such as Opera. Having used Opera, I could hardly tell any performance difference in rendering speed in comparison to IE. It was the lack of any appreciable difference coupled with no real application level benefits over IE that kept me from using it on the PC.

    But when comparing Safari rendering speed to IE, the difference is much more noticeable. Webpages render instantaneously under IE compared to the multiple second delay that exists under Safari. In order to show the difference, I ran a couple of informal tests:

    IE (PC) Safari (Mac)
    www.anandtech.com 2.825 4.073333333 0.306464812
    www.cnn.com 2.75 4.123333333 0.333063864
    www.slashdot.org 2.33 2.373333333 0.018258427
    www.apple.com 2.625 4.073333333 0.355564648
    www.microsoft.com 2.365 2.44 0.030737705

    What we see here is that IE on the PC is consistently a lot faster in rendering webpages than Safari, and although the numbers may seem small themselves, they make the Mac (and actually your internet connection) feel a lot slower when browsing normal web pages. Considering the amount of web browsing that we all do on a regular basis, Safari's rendering performance is nothing short of unacceptable.

    One solution would be to use Firefox, which is available for OS X, and in doing so, performance is improved tremendously - although Firefox under OS X continues to be slower than IE on a PC.

    The performance problem, although alleviated by Firefox, is still a serious issue since I found that I personally preferred using Safari under OS X over Firefox. Safari feels much more polished and looks much more like the rest of the OS. The other problem with Firefox is that scrolling in Firefox is much less smooth than under Safari, and can get annoying when reading large web pages that require lots of scrolling. The other issue I had was that I couldn't seem to find a keyboard shortcut to switch between tabs in Firefox and for whatever reason, the autocomplete URL keyboard shortcut for a .com URL would never work for me in Firefox. Some can get used to these quirks of Firefox and won't have a problem, but I wasn't one of them.

    So, now that we know what Apple needs to improve about Safari, what is so great about this browser?

    Built-in pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing support are both must-haves with any current generation browser.

    Safari also includes a built-in Google search bar and a download manager; again, nothing revolutionary, but a nice must-have for a web browser.

    As with the rest of OS X, keyboard shortcuts are plentiful in Safari. As you would expect, Command-T will open a new tab while Command-N will open a new browser window. There is no auto-complete URL function, unfortunately (e.g. no equivalent to IE's CTRL-Enter). Although, just typing in the URL sans www. and .com will eventually find the site that you are looking for after a short lookup delay.

    While Safari lacks an autocomplete URL keystroke combination, it does make navigating to a particular directory on a website easier without unnecessary typing. For example, if you want to visit www.anandtech.com/mac/, you can simply type in anandtech/mac and Safari will fill in the www. and .com for you in the appropriate places. It's not a huge time saver, but it's a nice feature to have.

  133. vlc or MPlayerOSX by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    You cannot watch mpeg2 video in Quicktime without buying an addon.

    This is true, but then again you don't have to limit yourself to what's bundled with the system. Two capable open source players available for the Mac are VLC and MPlayerOSX. As for editiing I can't help, since I have not needed to investigate this.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  134. To be honest I didn't read the whole thing but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did read all of Anand's earlier blogs on this.
    From the parts of the final that I did read it seemed to me that his comparison is between a regular Mac OS X system and a Windows high performance gaming system that behaves well on a regular basis as a work machine. I wonder where they found that Windows system or at least who configured and maintains it and at what cost in time and money. Regarding price, It would seem that a fair comparison would be to a name brand PC like Dell or HP with similar specs and features and with similar support options. Dell's $599 TV advertisement really set me up for some serious sticker shock when I went to their website to price high end work machines. Its also my understanding that the support included in the price is basically for hardware only. As a support system for hardware and software on a work machine AppleCare is an incredible service. It costs about 10% but at least its available and based on my experience it is fantastic service and a real bargain. I haven't seen anything like it for any PC. For a hobby/gaming machine I can see Anand's point about price because you don't need to pay for a lot of the features and quality of a PowerMac and you don't need a hardware and software support option and you don't have to account for all of the effort that it takes to keep it working well. You just need to run it until you discard it for the next speed bump or until it won't take the next Windows upgrade. To some extent its an Apples and Oranges comparison.

  135. Just expand the taskbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can grab the edge of the Windows taskbar and expand it like any window, to about half the size of the screen. If you make it not always on top you can then switch to any running application in two mouse clicks, one to bring the taskbar to the top, the second to select the application. You can also put lots of programme groups on the taskbar and pretend it's a Program Manager.

  136. Impressed by whitepony02027 · · Score: 1

    I do have to say that i am not done reading yet but i do really like his out look. It's always nice for me to hear the outlook of the windows world. there are 2 points that i don't think are very accurate however. Those are the memory and the video card. I don't understand why he says it has DDR400 RAM? my G5 which sadly is one of the 1.6ghz towers has DDR2700 RAM so why would a later more powerful machine have slower RAM? The other issue with the Video card is something i saw as well before i made my purchase. However what is so far unnoted is that you can get a Radeon 9800 pro (128mb vRAM) for only 45 bucks more. I know it's still more but double the video power foronly $45 bucks? yes please!

    1. Re:Impressed by wes33 · · Score: 1

      ddr400 = pc-3200 pc-2700 = ddr333

  137. Re:the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    you're an ignorant, narrow-minded fuck and not even good at trolling. if being one of the few techies in the world who doesn't fellate bill gates every time ms issues a new patch for windows makes me a mac using fanatic, then so be it. proud to call myself such.

    --jd

  138. X11, VNC, VirtualPC... by mbaudis · · Score: 1

    OS X has X11 built in. you can run, at the same time:

    OS X "Aqua"a complete KDE or Gnome desktop environment, including KOffice, OpenOffice, Gimp...

    ssh -x into any Linux box anywhere

    run multiple Windows or x86 Linux emulations in VirtualPC

    VNC into your office Windows PC to work with your specific software

    distribute all those windows onto virtual desktops, either in OS X (extra app.), or using your X11 environment (KDE, some WM)

    too lazy to open up all those options; usually i don't do more than OS X or X11; wouldn't touch Windows (last time for the online german tax system :-( ).

    regarding screen estate: every powerbook supports monitor spanning: so you can have a 17in widescreen laptop + a 23in LCD; but your neck will hurt (like from watching tennis from close by). one reason to do it: the window minimizing effect: put the dock on one side of one screen, and minimize a window on the other one. better than any game (for five trys...)./p/

  139. Things that make it nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I could go on, because there are tons of "little things" that make it so nice."

    Yeah! Like it's awesome ablity to default any file manager you open into a "details" view.

    Oh.. wait. It can't do that.

    I like OS X, sure. But there are a lot of "little" things about it that bug the hell out of me, which is why I still prefer linux.

    1. Re:Things that make it nice. by WiseWeasel · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can do that in OS X by right-clicking on a file, choosing Get Info (selecting and hitting command-I also works), going to the 'Open with' section, setting an application for it, and if you want it to be a default for that filename extension, hit the 'Change All' button.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
  140. Re:Macdate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
  141. Re:But I like my apps.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something people tend to forget about when they talk about the cost of buying new software when switching platforms is that many of the more expensive applications out there have cross-grades or competitive upgrades. It's been a bit since I looked into it, but last I checked Adobe offered cross-grades for Photoshop at the very least. Before ruling a switch out based on software switch cost, it's worth checking into.

  142. …and start to run more native X applications by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

    Running the risk of suggesting a Lexus when you have a Rolls-Royce (I don't know that much about Gentoo), I have had fantastic luck running X applications using FinkCommander via Fink. It requires that Apple's X11 (or OSS equivalent) be installed but I have been running Gimp, OpenOffice, and GNUCash with no troubles.

  143. I Relate 100% to this article by kevn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've used many many platforms over the years, but I never owned a Macintosh until a few months ago. I still won't give up my x86 system, but I do like the mac and find myself using it more and more for "simple" tasks like writing a letter for example. It's hard to put your finger on, but the Mac OS is comfortable and friendly in a way Windows XP is not. That said, like the writer I would never give up my REAL computer. kevin

  144. You might like this by Kadmium · · Score: 1

    TaskSwitch XP might be of interest to you. It's a Windows alt-tab replacement that lets you click on object windows as opposed to bashing tab repeatedly (you can still bash tab if you like) and it shows screenshots of the windows you hover over. Open source project.

  145. 1999 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they want their cut-n-paste Mac troll back.

  146. biased and doomed from the start... by ethanms · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In an attempt to sound unbiased, the guy basically ruins the article...

    The line that caught my eye:

    $3000 for a top of the line G5 isn't a bargain regardless of what you compare it to.

    Umm... it may not be a bargain per say, but it is most certainly on par with pre-built name brand x86 offerings... running quickly through the Dell configurator I was easily able to make a Dimension XPS hit >$3000 with similar RAM, HD, optical drives and software components selected...

    1. Re:biased and doomed from the start... by JackAxe · · Score: 0

      Another thing he missed, is that it's a 64-bit workstation and shouldn't be compared to a standard 32-bit PC when it comes to price. A Dual 850 Opteron, just the workstation mobo(same basic specs as a G5's mobo) and 2 procs costs more then a DP 2.5 G5 and the Mac only needs a monitor to be up and running. So in that case, the Macs actually a great bargain.

  147. Games on PCs by chamblah · · Score: 1
    I'm sorry but the games that I play that are on the pc are only on the pc or play much better on the pc.

    Playing an FPS on any console is not fun or even comparable to playing it with a mouse/keyboard combo.

    As well as playing an RTS on the console. The menu hunting is just not very intuitive on a console with you only having a few analog sticks and 4-6 buttons.

    And with a pc I only have to upgrade a few pieces of hardware (if I choose to) to stay current. Console makers rarely make their console backwards compatible.

    Consoles do have games that work best on them, whereas pcs have games that work best on them. That's why I own the 3 newer consoles as well as my windows gaming pc, my gameboy and also my linux boxen for servers and other stuff.

    There's room in my home for everything. Only reason I own no Macs is that I can't afford the price of their systems.

  148. Re:There is a lot of open source software for MacO by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

    You can enable login for the root account with the Netinfo Manager utility. Under previous versions of OS X you had to follow a long and slightly risky procedure to manually edit the user data; under Panther (and possible Jaguar) there is a handy "Enable root account" menu item.

    You don't need to do this to use sudo, of course.

  149. Would've Liked Comments on Virtual PC7 by Deslock · · Score: 1

    We have a 20" G5 iMac.

    The hardware performance is OK (nothing special) but its design is awesome. As is pretty much everything about OS X. But there is a huge disadvantage in software choices compared to Windows (I'm a recent switcher... I've found replacements for most programs, but not for everything). So I'm surprised that Anand didn't talk about Windows performance under Virtual PC 7.

    1. Re:Would've Liked Comments on Virtual PC7 by valkraider · · Score: 1

      I am just curios. What is your "huge disadvantage in software"? Because I am a switcher, and so far I have found 2 things that OSX is lacking in, and only 2.

      1. Children's games. We all know that OSX has fewer games than Windows, but Childrens games are much fewer - and most of them that are out barely work at all.

      GPS and Mapping. OSX only really has one street mapping software - Route66. Which is merely OK. It is not the most stable, and it doesn't do a whole lot. It won't track GPS histories and such.... There is MacGPSPro, which works good. I have used it for Marine charts, I have yet to import regular maps in, but you can... And there are a few others now as well, and I think Topo! is now out... But Definately OSX, even though it might have GPS/Mapping software - they are less mature than Windows counterparts.

      Now having said that, the article missed a couple. Fire is a great IM client, I like it better than Adium. And OSX has CuteFTP and Adobe Acrobat as well...

      I have been working full time in OSX for about 2 months now, on a PowerBook 15.GhzG4 with 1GB memory. I am a Java developer, and I use eclipse and other tools. So far I am much happier working in OSX than in Windows. I have been using OSX at home since OSX 10.0.4, and I like it much more than Windows....

    2. Re:Would've Liked Comments on Virtual PC7 by Deslock · · Score: 1

      I'm specifically looking for two things:

      1) Decent and reasonably priced mapping software. Route66 blows. Topo is absurdly expensive compared to TopoUSA. And I can't load Garmin MapSource maps to my GPSMap60cs with any MAC software.

      2) A bird reference guide like Thayer Birdwatching. There are several MAC programs to assist with bird watching, but there is nothing like Thayer's program, which has plenty of detailed history and migration information, images, videos, and sound clips. Note that this will not run under VirtualPC6 (which doesn't run on the G5 anyway). There's no word yet as to whether this software will run under VirtualPC7.

      I also need to run Microsoft Access for various work-related DBs. I know there are several MAC DB solutions, but my job involves Access. And I need to run various business software packages that work only in Windows... though this last one is covered by Terminal Services (aka Remote Desktop).

      FYI, I've found a decent amount of children's software. We have:

      - Finding Nemo: Nemo's Underwater World of Fun
      - Clifford: Learning Activities
      - Clifford: Thinking Adventures
      - Dragon Tales: Learn and Fly with Dragons

    3. Re:Would've Liked Comments on Virtual PC7 by valkraider · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like I said. Route66 is not that great. DeLorme Street Atlas on the PC was 1000 times better.

      You should give MacGPSPro a shot, as it has a lot of GPS functionality and will just about work with ANY map. They only thing it doesn't do is the "locations" database, like the StreetAtlas and Route66 products do... Oh, and of course you are correct, Garmin only supports Windows for "MapSource" maps... We should suggestion bomb them... ;)

  150. Re:mac = suckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wow... I think you just confirmed that you're the personification of my of my biggest pet peeve. Let me first give you a little background on what I do for a living.

    I'm a system administrator in charge of a multitude of *nix, Windows, and OS X boxes. I help support roughly 300 Macs, over 500 Windows machines and a handful of servers running anything from OS X, Windows, Linux and even FreeBSD. This is in a university environment where different departments have vastly different needs. I am intimately familiar with all three platforms and since I also do consulting on the side and do training seminars for students, faculty and staff, it sounds like we have similar backgrounds.

    Macs are not perfect, but if you have machines crashing on a daily basis, you have problems with hardware or with how you deployed OS X. My guess is you're an old Windows or *nix admin who grew up hating macs and refuses to learn and adapt in order to do your job. Trust me, I've met more than my share of people like you. I've been administering Macs since System 7 and I cannot begin to explain my frustration when I walk into labs and offices maintained by incompetent admins who have no knowledge of how to configure and deploy the systems they support and departments who work to make deploying a heterogeneous environment as difficult as possible.

    I have labs running 27/7 and the only time the machines are restarted is when I run updates that require them to do so and when we are upgrading or cleaning the machines. These include Powermac G3s, Powermac G4s, Powermac G5s, iMacs, iBooks, and Powerbooks. Heck, one faculty member even managed to get a Cube. Since the move to OS X about two years ago, I have had maybe 2 actual kernel panics and all were the result of bad hard drives or memory. Maybe once or twice in the semester we need to repair the directory structure on a drive because a student kicked out a power plug while it was writing but this can be corrected in 5mins with a firewire HD and a new image... I won't even begin to discuss the ease NetBoot, NetInstall, and even RADMind can bring if you have the infrastructure to support them.

    Applications, themselves rarely crash and when they do, they do so gracefully. In fact, the worst problem we have lies in the finder being tied up while connecting to file shares and the fact that OS X does not have native support for Windows DFS. Despite these shortcomings, the Macs are still significantly more stable and easier to maintain. In fact, our students are beginning to use our Macs more because they tend to be more reliable on our Active Directory-based network. Yeah, I said Active Directory...

    You may try to explain your problems away by stating I'm not deploying the same software. I have labs that run OS X with all the Adobe and Macromedia applications. We run MS Office, Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic, Quark, Mathmatica, Maya, and many other custom and highend scientfic apps. It usually only takes me a few hours (At most a day depending on the software and supporting files) to create a Mac image compared to two or more days to create a Windows image where most of that time on Windows is spent applying updates, protecting it from viruses, and modifying the registry.

    Sorry, but I simply see no justification and no facts. In my experience and the experience of many of my colleagues, Mac OS X is infinitely easier to deploy and maintain than Windows. I sincerely recommend that you seek some training from Apple and visit sites like macosxlabs.org so you can learn what you're doing wrong and stop spreading FUD by running poorly maintained facilities and blaming your failings on an extremely solid platform. At the very least, spend a little more time refining your writing skills so you can be a better troll.

  151. Did someone say vitrual desktop on Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unix based window managers (along with others) have had virtual desktops for years, where did Microsoft drop the ball?

    Without the use of a shell replacement? It's right here (only a 161KB installation file and no restart required :o)

    It's a Windows XP Power Toy. It's not as zip-zip! as the unix variety, but it's about as configurable (multiple wallpapers per desktop, WINKEY + 1-4 for switching, even a full-screen view!), . It acts as a toolbar which cannot be made smaller or put into the notif area, so it takes up a bit of taskbar real estate on < 1024x768 resolutions. I like it, but as I mentioned, takes up a bit of taskbar real-estate (IMHO).

    Screenies!
    the default view after installation
    the right-click on the toolbar thinger
    desktop settings (the choosing of multiple wallpapers)
    shortcut settings (for switching between desktops and full-screen)
    view of full -screen

    That's all folks!

  152. Re:mac = suckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I cannot begin to explain my frustration when I walk into labs and offices maintained by incompetent admins who have no knowledge of how to configure and deploy the systems they support and departments who work to make deploying a heterogeneous environment as difficult as possible."

    Well, so much for the myth that "macs just work". Seems they require proper setup and administration just like every other OS. Wow, I'm in total shock..

    Let's see: more expensive than other computers, fewer available software titles than other computers, less flexibility than other computers, same amount of administration required as other computers... Where's the advantage again?

    Face it, unless there's an app you need that's only available on mac, or you're more familiar with macs than any other system, there is no reason to purchase one.

  153. Anand gone nuts? by rathehun · · Score: 1

    Okay somebody said this already. 20 IE windows? Sheesh. This is the editor of a hardcore tech site? IE faster than firefox? Is he on E? What the hell? Since when has Gecko been slower than Mosaic? Also has he heard about spyware? www.getfirefox.com

  154. 3dsmax-Blender. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Animatics_for_Motion_ Pictures.393.0.html/

    Blender helped with Spiderman-2

    Wings3D is also good for doing models in.

  155. How to display on 1 page without WinOpen script... by MojoStan · · Score: 1
    12 pages, all of them slashdotted, the print command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari
    First, here's a link to the whole article on 1 freakin' long page: A Month with a Mac: A Die-Hard PC User's Perspective.

    Note the difference between the http addresses of first page of the article and the 1 page version.

    First page: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232

    1 page version: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2232

    Just replace everything between ".com/" and ".aspx?" with "printarticle"

    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  156. Very well written by Rob+Nance · · Score: 1

    I think this is a generally well written article. It was long, but I was left wanting him to talk about so much more. Some gripes of his were due to lack of info/knowledge, but nothing major. Some things he likes are going to get even better very soon, like Mail's slew of new features coming in Tiger. Anyhow, my story reads much like Anand's. I've been using PCs since a Tandy 1000EX 8088, and have been building computers since I was in 5th grade. I was always a die hard PC guys until about 3 years ago, and I've slowly all but abandoned PCs. What I like most, is a general trend: less hatred between the two camps. I hate petty crap, people seem more open minded these days. PC guys seem to respect Mac guys and Mac guys PC guys, maybe not completely, but it's not a blind hatred anymore. Multiple systems can only benefit everyone, as it breeds innovation. Thumbs up to Anand.

  157. Another nice thing abou the Mac - a usable WP OOTB by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    One other nice thing which he did not touch on, was that OS X ships with a very nice text editor that's actually useful (TextEdit), unlike Wordpad or Notepad. It handles rich text well, and can save in RTF or (and this is kind of neat) .Doc format! In fact it can even read most Word documetns as well, though currently it lacks table support which is a big stumbling point as just like with HTML, people LOVE to use tables.

    Fortunatley in Tiger TextEdit adds table support for reading word docs (and possibly for editing?)

    I find TextEdit to be totally capabile for all the document creation I do (though again, I'll admit tbales would be kind of nice mostly to read other peoples stuff).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  158. What categories are not on consoles? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you miss PC games get an XBox and a PS2 and be done with it. I can think of no game category that is not ripe with offerings on the consoles. And I can think of a number of categories (like the whole rhythm game area) that is pretty much a wasteland on the PC.

    I'll admit Half Life 2 looks pretty cool. But you know what? It will be out in a year or so for a console anyway, and I can play it then - and a number of console games support keyboards and mice. I was on that PC game upgrade wheel for a time, and it just got old (and expensive).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  159. All of Cygwin and more is included in OS X default by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When you get OS X, Terminal.app is sitting right there - like an XTerm with a real bash shell, only with MUCH better system integration than you'll see from Cygwin! You can drag files from the Finder (explorer) into the shell and it expands the whole path out.

    X11 is also right there, as are libraries to compile X11 apps (when you install the dev tools).

    OS X also has an SSH deamon included that you enable/disable through the standard config GUI (same with Apache which is also bunded by default). And of course that means you have real ssh/scp capabilities included by default. It also uses CUPS and Samba, also built in.

    You were right about one thing - having the full set of UNIX utilities included by default in an OS with a great GUI is indeed a killer app. That's why so many technical people are going for mac laptops, then desktops.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  160. Service Pack 2? by jonhuang · · Score: 1

    and frankly, I think everyone update software too fast and patches too slow..

  161. Re:20 browser windows rock with Exposé by Judge_Fire · · Score: 1

    Exposé is a very fast and efficient way of switching to a desired browser window, competing with tabs for ultimate poweruserness.

    The feature doesn't (yet) expose the individual tabs within an application, so you'd have to have the browser pages open in separate windows.

    Separate windows also allow for faster drag&drop between them, another feature which was praised in the article.

    J

  162. Twitter: Life and times of a petulant cock-gobbler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.

  163. Twitter: Life and times of a petulant cock-gobbler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR's and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.

  164. Re:Apple = Proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which other company provides Microsoft Windows other than Microsoft?

    There's a whole bunch of guys sell windows XP pro on a gold disk, with a full page of install codes, for about $10.

  165. Latest Gen iBook by midifarm · · Score: 1
    Obviously you were using a G3 based iBook, whereas the current generation employs the G4. There are also some other nice enhancements to the current stock. Panther should speed up your performance as well, if you haven't already installed it.

    Peace

  166. Mod Parent Back Down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll.

    Please post URLs backing up your claims.

  167. Re:the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why you keep telling everyone for 15 years that you are using a MAC. Something was not working on it so you had to tell them or something ? There is no point in telling everyone that you are using a MAC and like you say : "computers are tools and people must use the best tool they see fit to use.".

  168. Re:Macdate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha, good one.

  169. Good Comparison: Mac OS X vs. Windows XP by j0kkk3l · · Score: 1

    The best comparison that I know of is http://www.xvsxp.com/ XvsXP

    Both OSes' features are compared in detail such as:
    -Login
    -Find/Search
    -Drag & Drop
    -Network capabilities

    I learned much about my new Mac on this site, as it explains how to do certain tasks on both Systems. Every switcher should have a good look here. Even a Windows-savy friend of mine learnt new stuff about XP there.

  170. Price. Apple's archnemesis. by Amiasian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not a troll, although it may at first seem like that is my intention.

    The biggest barrier to entry for Apple's products has been cost. It's clearly stated in the article as well. There is no way to get around this fact. If you buy a Mac, you pay a premium. And you can argue all you want about how that premium buys you a more reliable and integrated system, but the fact is when 3,500 dollars buys you less than what the competition is hocking, many people are going to be turned off.

    And I find three ways this could go. One, Apple tanks. With the company gone under, I can only hope that they'd fully release OS X to the open source community. Eventually, I'd hypothesize that an Intel clone would be made. With this hypothetical clone, the hardware barrier to entry would be nil. Assuming, of course, emulating Classic could be done at a decent speed. If I recall, OS X itself is highly portable - as were its NeXT predecessors.

    Next solution. Apple designs a tight, Intel box. Or AMD. They use a custom design, but it is an Apple branded machine with Intel inside. This is believed to be a route Apple would never go. But, I'm all for it - if it could be done. There needs to be a vendor who can sell chips to Apple at a low enough price that Apple can reduce their own margins. Heck, sell at a loss even - and play the Microsoft.

    Also, the Mac does need to be pumped as a gaming platform. This isn't as hard as it seems. Hardware wise, currently, no. But for the casual gamer to mid-performance gamer, Apple could easily sway the mindset. It just needs to put some high profile ads out like has been done for the iPod. I'm sure the iMac could fulfill the mid-range gamer's needs and it's a sleek design to boot.

    Now, the third solution - games. With the release of the PS III, X-Box II, and Gamecube all on the PowerPC chipset - the market for these will become so huge that Apple's prices, by scale of economics, will drop. In which case, the barrier is removed.

    In all cases, though, price is the key factor.

  171. Am I the only one concerned about lack of speed? by weedenbc · · Score: 1
    Let me get this straight. You have a DUAL 2.5 GZ system with half a gig of memory, and running office is sluggish? Dragging and dropping pictures taxes the system???

    I give Mac 1,000,000 bonus points when it comes to the design and usability of the OS and wish very much they could port it to x86, but am I the only one here who thinks it should perform a little better? I'm still running my WinXP system on a 1.6 Ghz Tbred with 1 Gig of RAM and it doesn't slow down a hitch unless I start doing CPU intensive multitasking, like video encoding + multiple browser windows + mp3 playback.

    I fear the same thing is going to happen with Longhorn. Between Avalon and the 3D desktop and everything else I fear it's going to slow the system to a crawl unless you have top of the line hardware. And donning my tinfoil hat, maybe that's the point - the industry is now choosing to boost lagging hardware sales through the OS instead of just games.

    Looking at the performance of OSX doing non-CPU intensive tasks I can't help but think that Apple has already gone that route.

    Is it too much to ask for a simple, clean, effecient UI that has multitasking convenience built-in without fancy graphics and translucence and animations and all the other useless crap?

    --

    "Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
  172. Re:a migration to java isn't an improvement. by Bastian · · Score: 1

    JavaScript and Java aren't even remotely similar.

  173. Re:But can I get the mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, so start sucking. Oh you already did. My bad.

  174. Just too painful not to use Windows by JamesR2 · · Score: 1

    Its just too hard to not go with the 95%. What I like to do is give in on the OS, but run neato GNU and other cool apps on Windows, and write my own little stuff using the tons of dev environments out there. Forget the OS ... its the apps you live in!

    1. Re:Just too painful not to use Windows by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      If you like writing your own tools, apps, etc, then you should try to give Xcode and cocoa a genuine open-minded trial. I believe that once you see the power of Cocoa and Objective-C working together, all other programming methodologies all start to look like too much hard work. How much time do you spend genuinely coding, and how much just working around the compiler's needs or the language itself? Be honest...
      Case in point - I'm working on developing a serious vector-based cartography program. Starting from scratch in Cocoa, I have a comprehensive, very powerful app almost ready for beta in just ONE MONTH, complete with a highly usable GUI (with admittedly some rough edges at the moment). I have never found anything as productive as this - it's almost a revelation. While I'm sure it's not a panacea, any programmer worth his salt should give it a serious look at.

  175. Or if he's stuck on IE by Laebshade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He can use one of the 'browsers' that wraps itself around the IE browser to add functionality. MyIE2, SlimBrowser, etc. come to mind.

  176. These are a few of my favourite Mac UI things... by lamz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been using Macs at home since 1994, but also put in at least 40 hours per week on Windows 2000 at work, and before that, NT.

    Here are the things I notice most when making the daily switch back and forth from Windows to Macs.

    1. On a Mac, when you start typing, the arrow cursor disappears, and doesn't reappear until you move the mouse. I was so used to this feature, that I really noticed its absence in Windows. I was constantly highlighting a word, typing, then having to reach over and move the arrow cursor away from what I had just typed, so that I could see if I typed it right. I watched Windows users in action, and found that they would use the mouse to place the text cursor, then instinctively move the arrow cursor out of their way.

    2. With Macs, background windows are not live until after the first click. Mac people do this all the time: Highlight some text in Document A, then switch to Document B, highlight and copy some text, then switch back to Document A and paste the copied text, replacing the highlighted text. You can't do this in Windows, unless you are very very careful about clicking a non-clickable part of the window. Even then, some Windows apps lose their highlight no matter where you click. Interestingly, MS Excel works like Mac apps in this regard.

    3. Navigating sub-menus. This demos best if you have your Recent Items set to a really high number. From the Apple Menu, you can pull down to Recent Items, then across and down to the item you want. Or you can go directly to the item you want, diagonally across 'open space.' The freaky part is this -- move the mouse straight up and down quickly, and the various sub-menus come and go -- or move the mouse diagonally, and quite slowly, to go directly to an item in Recent Items. Try it, and see how weirdly brilliant the Mac UI can be.

    4. Single-click to get a text cursor. Double-click to highlight a word. Triple-click to highlight a line. Quadruple-click to highlight a paragraph. These shortcuts are almost universal in Mac applications. Unfortunately, recent versions of IE for Windows are so broken that you can't even highlight the text from part of one word to part of another. (This was the final straw that made me switch permanently to Firefox for Windows.)

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  177. Why all the noise about gaming? by joebisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every article on the Mac and OS X makes a big deal about the lack of games for the platform. While I agree, what I don't understand is why use your computer for games when there is PS2, XBox and GameCube. These platforms are cheap and there are tons of games for them and the controllers are great. If I want to play a game, I fire up my Xbox or GameCube. Would never even consider using the computer.

    1. Re:Why all the noise about gaming? by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Because, frankly, there are plenty of people out there who don't think like you do. There's a HUGE segment of PC users who don't only buy their computers for productivity applications, but also for games. Gaming has been a driving force in hardware/software development, and most importantly: sales. Not everyone wants to have a computer and three consoles to play games, and thus for some people the determining factor of what kind of home computer to purchase is how many different things can it do, including gaming.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  178. Re:Am I the only one concerned about lack of speed by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight. You have a DUAL 2.5 GZ system with half a gig of memory, and running office is sluggish? Dragging and dropping pictures taxes the system???
    I think you just fed the troll... of course Office isn't sluggish. I use it on a 600MHz iBook and it's perfectly fine (though its interface quirks are irritating, but that's another story). I can drag and drop pictures all day long, rarely have I ever seen less than snappy response. I use a 1GHz G4 quicksilver at work and it just ain't slow. I haven't used a G5, this is an education establishment for god's sake - but I would not expect it to feel slow!! If that user's experiences are genuine (which I doubt), there must be something seriously wrong with his setup.

  179. Re:Cost by danila · · Score: 1

    Well, you can check out the specs for a Dell top-level machine, buy the parts and build it yourself. Bingo! You have a cheap system that is almost 100% compatible.

    I don't believe that big-name vendors add much value. I always buy my machines custom-built. It is a common practice in most stores here to do it for free - you just pay the list price for the parts. Unless you are aiming for the absolutely cheapest parts, you can be pretty confident that the system will work just fine - and the store will test the machine after it is built anyway.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  180. Re:Macdate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are Newton enthusiasts, not Mac.

  181. Re:mac = suckage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, for all intense purposes, the Macs have very little to configure out of the box. The problem is that there exist people who fail to learn how to do even rudimentary things like lock the machine down by changing permissions on certain files and directories... you know things you should probably do in a lab environment but don't usually have to worry too much about at home. Hell, I taught my entire staff what they need to do and in a week they were more than able to pick up most of what they need to do a better job than half the MCSE hacks that admin Mac labs these days.

    If you read my entire argument, you may have noticed how I mentioned the Windows box take twice the time to configure and deploy, if not more more time. As for administration, I do have less administrative duties on the Macs... especially after creating a few shell scripts to automate most of the tasks I may have to do.

    You also seem to have skipped over the fact that I mentioned I have more hardware maintenance issues with the Windows based machines which means they are out of use more often.

    It's funny how people always mention the upfront cost of a machine, and available software when trying to attack the Mac platform. Where you come up with less flexibility is beyond me... I'd love an explanation for that one because there's nothing I can't do on a Mac that I can do on a PC, so where's the lack in flexibility?

    As for software, we install the same software products on both or Windows boxes and our Macs. In some cases where it's a departmental lab or a faculty members computer or a server, there may be some additional software, but I have yet to encounter a situation where a user wasn't able to find a piece of software or a viable alternative to use on a Mac.

    Finally, the hardware cost. We typically replace the machines in our labs every 2-3 years on a rotating basis so we're always buying new machines and pushing the oldest ones out. The oldest machines go on sale where the general public is able to guy them. Guess which machines hold their value better? You got it, the Macs. In general, we typically pay about $200 more for our Macs than we do for comparable PCs. However, we typically get $200-300 more for the Macs when we sell them then we do for the PCs. In our situation, we break even or come our ahead on our Mac purchases. Hell, we'd do even better if I could convince the MCSEs to migrate to Xserves and save on the windows licensing and additional software expenses they have because Windows 2003 server doesn't have a lot of the capabilities OS X has out of the box or for free.

    Try again when you actually have some experience and knowledge about that you which you attack,

  182. Re:Am I the only one concerned about lack of speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all honesty I don't think the systems is as slow as Anand makes it out to be. Most of the inherent sluggishness is more perception than reality. Menus are given more delay for the animations to run which makes the system seem to respond more slowly. While I forget exactly where you can change this, it is possible to lower the delay and make the system respond faster.

    As for office, I have a 800MHz Powerbook G4 and it runs the latest Office 2004 fine. Much of the problems are the same as those in the Windows world where animations, sound and all that other relatively useless crap slow things down. Additionally, while the Mac BU is among the best group of programmers in Redmond, their own engineers admit that the releases for OS X are more of a boiler plate hack job than anything else and that there's a lot of work ahead of them in regards to removing legacy code, and cleaning it up. There's an interesting interview I read where they point this out as being one of the problems getting Unicode and long filename support in Office 2004. If they ever stop adding useless features and focus on optimizing, it would actually be a great product instead of an acceptable one.

    Personally, while I like the idea behind OpenOffice, I'm waiting for someone (Hello, Apple or Omni Group!) to create an OS X office suite. Based on what I've seen of the OpenOffice port to OS X, it simply looks like it will be as bloated in inefficient as MS Office.

    What I'm looking for is something like Camino is to Mozilla, A platform specific implementation of OpenSource ideas. Ideally, the new suite would use the same file format as OpenOffice and offer full compatibility with MS Office documents. The difference, however, is that this will take advantage of all the cool OS X technologies like Quartz, CoreGraphics, Spotlight, Voiceover, etc. That is what I want in an office suite... not another boilerplate hack like MS Office and I fear OpenOffice.

  183. Re:mac = suckage by mibus · · Score: 1

    I just wish the mac had a start menu so I could find the shutdown option.

    Call it funny if you want, but there is rarely any reason to shut down a mac - unlike Windows, macs can reliably suspend and resume :)

  184. Re:the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I explain why I use a Mac because they see my Powerbook or Powermac and ask about it. If it comes up in conversation, I explain that I have a Mac. It's not like I go around introducing myself like "Hello, my name is Joe Smith. By the way, did you know I'm a Mac user? Let me tell you how great they are!"