I don't doubt it. But that's my point, you have to find that special configuration of hardware and software makes Win2k/XP actually work decently. And one hardware/software configuration isn't sufficient for any and all users.
I don't doubt you've had a lot of problems with linux.:P It could be a user issue, or another one of these hw-sw interplay issues. When I used Linux fulltime, I had no problems with stability, just had to deal with the inherent uglies of Linux.:)
Re:Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Uhh... I run OS X on a 300 MHz B&W G3, and it runs great. A 3 year old machine. Incidentally, GNOME and KDE runs OK on it (under Linux), but they're even less worth running when OS X is an option. OS X loves RAM- with 256MB of RAM, it runs like a champ.
Linux runs on a number of platforms, but it's far from practical. Sure, you can run it on a Palm, but it's not usable for anything other than the occasional embedded control (e.g. in a robot project).
Re:I did this...
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I would still be partial to Linux. I could not bring myself to run an OS full time on my machine that costs money.
Huh? Macs come with OS X, pre-installed even. Or do you mean that you couldn't run software that is sold for money? People sell Linux too, perhaps you should just run HURD- there aren't any for-money distros of that yet, are there? Or are you under the impression that you have to insert a dollar into the computer every time you boot OS X? Or does the "that costs money" part refer to the fact that computer hardware isn't cost-free?
If Apple had been willing to make hard decisions, such as dropping compatability with the Mac save through an emulator -- just as it is _now_ -- I think that they could've done better on their own.
Why would they have to drop it? Classic doesn't take away from the OS X experience at all, provided you're not using it. What would it add if it weren't there? Go ahead, delete it- it doesn't change anything other than your ability to run Classic apps.
No, OS X is a lot more (or less) than a "reheated version" of NeXTSTEP. You've obviously never used NeXTSTEP for any extended period of time. The NeXTSTEP experience was one that was way beyond what is in the Mac OS, OS X, and the Unices that use X11. I'm disappointed that OS X isn't more NeXTy, the UI and tools were killer.
Amen. To say that Unix is only worth using because some implementations are it are RMS-allowed is to insult it. I use Unix because it's the best thing there is available out there that's still viable. It's incredibly primitive, inconsistent, and is 60s state of the art, but it's still the best option until something like OpenBeOS really takes off.
I've an iBook500- and I love it. I sold my G4 tower last summer to buy it, and I can safely say that it's the best computer I've ever owned.:)
I've had similar problems with Win2k, not to mention Win9x. The Win2k machine I had to use at work was beyond my administration, I couldn't swap bits of hardware in and out. These were high end machines, top-notch AMD/Intel processers, good mobos, brand-name RAM, fancy-pants Oxygen video cards, good SCSI drives and controllers.
Frankly, it's not worth my time or money to try a dozen motherboard/cpu/ethernet/RAM combinations to find the one that actually works without flaking out constantly, even if I could administer the machines I use at work.
Couple years ago, I switched to Mac hardware in anticipation of OS X from Linux/x86. I don't have those problems. It's funny, when you talk to Mac people, they don't think this is a special thing, because they're been used to it for years. But you mention it to a x86 person, and all of a sudden it's a big deal that you computer just works.
Looking at Mono's status, it would seem that Mono isn't more efficient, just no where near as done. Some simple calculations reveal that Mono has 22.2 kloc/MB and M$ Rotor has 70.27 kloc/MB, which hints that Mono's archive is filled with something other than code- html docs or pretty pictures perhaps. Unless the Mono project writes such messy code that it's just solid, multiple statements on each line, and so on, to achieve this unnatural density.
Well, duuuh.:) The point of this shared source buisness, is to port to new platforms. Going from FreeBSD to Mac OS X would probably be trivial, provided it doesn't rely on a lot of x86 ASM, which it probably does.
we could extrapolate that Linux is significantly faster than Windows.
No, you couldn't. Writing code in C is generally faster than writing it in Java. However, surely you've seen a C program do something slower than a Java program. For example, starting up Nautilus compared to running a hello world program in Java. While this example is taken to an extreme, it still holds true- there is a big difference in the way hello world in Java and Nautilus does things, the same with Linux and Windows, and the speed of the C compiler says absolutely nothing about the amount of abstraction, the amount of bloat, the amount of optimization, the sheer amount of code or the quality of code written as a part of neither Linux nor Windows. Among plenty of other factors.
Hola! Team #MAFirc is #1855... a bunch of refugees from the dying MacAddict forums who are denizens of #mafirc on irc.openprojects.net, plus a whole bunch who aren't.:)
Why have the cells testing for opiates? Opiates are very easy to detect in the blood as it is. And furthermore, who cares of an athlete uses an opiate? It would be 'performance enhancing' for any sport other than sitting-around-and-ircing, which AFAIK, is still not an olympic sport (DAMN THEM! perhaps we should buy the OC off?)
Then buy a computer without Windows. Problem solved. You cannot force every person buying a new computer to buy a machine running Linux or BeOS instead of Windows. The best you can do is "vote with your dollars," as they say, and buy a computer that doesn't come with Windows. It's not that hard.
Regardless of whichever conspiracy theory to which you subscribe, almost all people buying a computer with Windows installed don't care to have BeOS installed on it.
Some people just can't get past the denial that BeOS didn't come out on top, and that not everyone wants to use it. I'm sorry, but not everyone shares the same tastes and opinion as you, lad.
Pssssst: ESR didn't write my kernel. And according to his projects page, hasn't written any kernel worth mentioning. Is this some joke I don't get, or do you really think that ESR is Linus?
heh, oops, cut off. I mean, what went wrong? I've never heard of anyone having problems installing something as simple as iTunes, including a boatload of very newbie mac users.
Uh... Offering the OS for free says nothing about how worthwhile it is for these manufacturers to install it. A hundred Linux and BSD distros are available to computer manufactuers for free, but almost none of them install it. If it's not worth using, they're not going to waste their time getting an install image that works with their setup.
People have different preferences in processors. I prefer the PPC over Alpha hands down, largely because they're powerful, but not sloppy power-hogs like the Alpha. Speed isn't the only thing that matters.
Re:Linux's true way?
on
BeOS For Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I run Darwin w/o Quartz. I still have all the Quartz/Aqua stuff installed, but quit out of it at boot. I run Darwin over Debian PPC for a couple reasons:
1. Power management: Darwin works very well with the hardware (iBook). This manifests in more than one place. Longer battery life, and sleep works well (by shutting the lid).
2. The option to go into Quartz/Aqua: One of the things I hated about using Linux/x86 (what I ran as my main OS for a couple years before getting a Mac) was having to reboot into Windows to play a game or use certain useful applications for which there's no equvilent in Linux. This was true back when I used Linux a lot more than it is now, though. But with OS X, I can play games and run real, useful apps. And if I choose to run XFree86 straight out of the text console in Darwin rather in tandem with Quartz, I can always quit X11, and go back into Quartz. A lot less hassle.
KDE, GNOME still lack the consistency of a real desktop environment like Mac OS 9 or X. KDE may be beautiful, but beauty has little to do with real functionality. OS X has both.
Nah, it'd be NeXTSTEP (not OpenStep) or BeOS on PPC. Actually, if the best technology really won, we'd all have Dynabooks (see: Alan Kay, Smalltalk) or portable LispMachines.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't doubt it. But that's my point, you have to find that special configuration of hardware and software makes Win2k/XP actually work decently. And one hardware/software configuration isn't sufficient for any and all users.
:P It could be a user issue, or another one of these hw-sw interplay issues. When I used Linux fulltime, I had no problems with stability, just had to deal with the inherent uglies of Linux. :)
I don't doubt you've had a lot of problems with linux.
Uhh... I run OS X on a 300 MHz B&W G3, and it runs great. A 3 year old machine. Incidentally, GNOME and KDE runs OK on it (under Linux), but they're even less worth running when OS X is an option. OS X loves RAM- with 256MB of RAM, it runs like a champ.
Linux runs on a number of platforms, but it's far from practical. Sure, you can run it on a Palm, but it's not usable for anything other than the occasional embedded control (e.g. in a robot project).
I would still be partial to Linux. I could not bring myself to run an OS full time on my machine that costs money.
Huh? Macs come with OS X, pre-installed even. Or do you mean that you couldn't run software that is sold for money? People sell Linux too, perhaps you should just run HURD- there aren't any for-money distros of that yet, are there? Or are you under the impression that you have to insert a dollar into the computer every time you boot OS X? Or does the "that costs money" part refer to the fact that computer hardware isn't cost-free?
If Apple had been willing to make hard decisions, such as dropping compatability with the Mac save through an emulator -- just as it is _now_ -- I think that they could've done better on their own.
Why would they have to drop it? Classic doesn't take away from the OS X experience at all, provided you're not using it. What would it add if it weren't there? Go ahead, delete it- it doesn't change anything other than your ability to run Classic apps.
No, OS X is a lot more (or less) than a "reheated version" of NeXTSTEP. You've obviously never used NeXTSTEP for any extended period of time. The NeXTSTEP experience was one that was way beyond what is in the Mac OS, OS X, and the Unices that use X11. I'm disappointed that OS X isn't more NeXTy, the UI and tools were killer.
Amen. To say that Unix is only worth using because some implementations are it are RMS-allowed is to insult it. I use Unix because it's the best thing there is available out there that's still viable. It's incredibly primitive, inconsistent, and is 60s state of the art, but it's still the best option until something like OpenBeOS really takes off.
:)
I've an iBook500- and I love it. I sold my G4 tower last summer to buy it, and I can safely say that it's the best computer I've ever owned.
I've had similar problems with Win2k, not to mention Win9x. The Win2k machine I had to use at work was beyond my administration, I couldn't swap bits of hardware in and out. These were high end machines, top-notch AMD/Intel processers, good mobos, brand-name RAM, fancy-pants Oxygen video cards, good SCSI drives and controllers.
Frankly, it's not worth my time or money to try a dozen motherboard/cpu/ethernet/RAM combinations to find the one that actually works without flaking out constantly, even if I could administer the machines I use at work.
Couple years ago, I switched to Mac hardware in anticipation of OS X from Linux/x86. I don't have those problems. It's funny, when you talk to Mac people, they don't think this is a special thing, because they're been used to it for years. But you mention it to a x86 person, and all of a sudden it's a big deal that you computer just works.
Looking at Mono's status, it would seem that Mono isn't more efficient, just no where near as done. Some simple calculations reveal that Mono has 22.2 kloc/MB and M$ Rotor has 70.27 kloc/MB, which hints that Mono's archive is filled with something other than code- html docs or pretty pictures perhaps. Unless the Mono project writes such messy code that it's just solid, multiple statements on each line, and so on, to achieve this unnatural density.
Well, duuuh. :) The point of this shared source buisness, is to port to new platforms. Going from FreeBSD to Mac OS X would probably be trivial, provided it doesn't rely on a lot of x86 ASM, which it probably does.
we could extrapolate that Linux is significantly faster than Windows.
No, you couldn't. Writing code in C is generally faster than writing it in Java. However, surely you've seen a C program do something slower than a Java program. For example, starting up Nautilus compared to running a hello world program in Java. While this example is taken to an extreme, it still holds true- there is a big difference in the way hello world in Java and Nautilus does things, the same with Linux and Windows, and the speed of the C compiler says absolutely nothing about the amount of abstraction, the amount of bloat, the amount of optimization, the sheer amount of code or the quality of code written as a part of neither Linux nor Windows. Among plenty of other factors.
Or, it could use the modern Newton technology, and recognize handwriting almost flawlessly...
However, it would be possible to generate mp3s of the numbers desktop-side and send them to the iPod to be played when the number is selected.
That's what he meant. He said "the program," not "the iPod."
Heh. A little offended PHP people get? So I'm modded down, but no one has any defense of it? Good work, my slashkiddiez. :)
Hola! Team #MAFirc is #1855... a bunch of refugees from the dying MacAddict forums who are denizens of #mafirc on irc.openprojects.net, plus a whole bunch who aren't. :)
No cheap hack of an IDE will get me to put up PHP.
Why have the cells testing for opiates? Opiates are very easy to detect in the blood as it is. And furthermore, who cares of an athlete uses an opiate? It would be 'performance enhancing' for any sport other than sitting-around-and-ircing, which AFAIK, is still not an olympic sport (DAMN THEM! perhaps we should buy the OC off?)
Then buy a computer without Windows. Problem solved. You cannot force every person buying a new computer to buy a machine running Linux or BeOS instead of Windows. The best you can do is "vote with your dollars," as they say, and buy a computer that doesn't come with Windows. It's not that hard.
Regardless of whichever conspiracy theory to which you subscribe, almost all people buying a computer with Windows installed don't care to have BeOS installed on it.
Some people just can't get past the denial that BeOS didn't come out on top, and that not everyone wants to use it. I'm sorry, but not everyone shares the same tastes and opinion as you, lad.
Pssssst: ESR didn't write my kernel. And according to his projects page, hasn't written any kernel worth mentioning. Is this some joke I don't get, or do you really think that ESR is Linus?
heh, oops, cut off. I mean, what went wrong? I've never heard of anyone having problems installing something as simple as iTunes, including a boatload of very newbie mac users.
Uh... Offering the OS for free says nothing about how worthwhile it is for these manufacturers to install it. A hundred Linux and BSD distros are available to computer manufactuers for free, but almost none of them install it. If it's not worth using, they're not going to waste their time getting an install image that works with their setup.
you couldn't get iTunes to work? hehe
Dude, he was making a joke. (hint: a grammar joke)
People have different preferences in processors. I prefer the PPC over Alpha hands down, largely because they're powerful, but not sloppy power-hogs like the Alpha. Speed isn't the only thing that matters.
I run Darwin w/o Quartz. I still have all the Quartz/Aqua stuff installed, but quit out of it at boot. I run Darwin over Debian PPC for a couple reasons:
1. Power management: Darwin works very well with the hardware (iBook). This manifests in more than one place. Longer battery life, and sleep works well (by shutting the lid).
2. The option to go into Quartz/Aqua: One of the things I hated about using Linux/x86 (what I ran as my main OS for a couple years before getting a Mac) was having to reboot into Windows to play a game or use certain useful applications for which there's no equvilent in Linux. This was true back when I used Linux a lot more than it is now, though. But with OS X, I can play games and run real, useful apps. And if I choose to run XFree86 straight out of the text console in Darwin rather in tandem with Quartz, I can always quit X11, and go back into Quartz. A lot less hassle.
KDE, GNOME still lack the consistency of a real desktop environment like Mac OS 9 or X. KDE may be beautiful, but beauty has little to do with real functionality. OS X has both.
Nah, it'd be NeXTSTEP (not OpenStep) or BeOS on PPC. Actually, if the best technology really won, we'd all have Dynabooks (see: Alan Kay, Smalltalk) or portable LispMachines.