Fine - that's cool, and more power to you if that's what you want.
But this article was about the eventual success of OS X on the desktop. All I'm saying is that for that to happen, there has to be some pretty major changes at the UI level first.
Well to be honest I never used to drag the disk to trash to eject it, I always used to use the 'Put Away' menu option, or command+Y for short. Really, that's the only really dumb UI thing that exists on the Mac (and has been resolved on OS X), so I can live with it.
However, if the average Linux UI was put under the same scrutiny, you can't honestly say that it wouldn't have a long list of problems.
Besides which, the useability of database & server applications isn't crucial because they are only going to be used by technical computer people, so that's not really an issue.
With respect, the things you've mentioned are more 'I'm used to it done this way' than any problems with Mac OS, although I certainly wouldn't argue that it's perfect.
Believe me, when you're used to command+C, command+V for copy/paste, the X windows mouse driven version takes some getting used to. It's just force of habit.
However, some systems (eg. MacOS X) do a much better job of making things easy (on top of a FreeBSD-a-like) than Linux does. Why shouldn't Linux aspire to this?
The problem is that its greatest strength (its open nature) is also its greatest weakness. It has no unifying direction where it comes to UI, like it does at the core OS level.
The look and feel of OS X was devised by a small group of people, and then implemented by a number of professional programmers. Unfortunately, on Linux, everyone wants to be a creative genius when it comes to UI, and there is no unified look and feel.
If you're admitting that non-technical computer users (Sheep as you put it) won't be able to deal with Linux, then why should they bother using it at all?
The Linux interface needn't be identical to Windows, it just needs to be a lot better.
As a person who has installed Linux on a Mac, I find the above post ludicrous. Infact, why has it been modded so highly when the majority of people have no idea what the actual experience of installing Linux on Mac is like?
Comparing the 'useability' of Linux to the MacOS is laughable. It really is. Why do you think people pay a premium for Mac hardware? For the performance? It's for the UI, and the UI alone.
So I don't think I'm being particularly unkind to Linux to suggest that it has a long, long way to go to be comfortable at all to the average Mac (or Windows for that matter) user.
Remember, one of the first stages in solving a problem is accepting that it exists. Denying it to everyone you meet isn't going to make it go away.
Have you ever used a Mac (previous to OS X that is)? Because if you did, you would know that troubleshooting a Mac is *so incredibly easy* that it completely negates your arguement.
If what you were saying was true, I would have experienced problems that couldn't be easily resolved by deleting a preferences file. Or removing a (clearly named) driver extension. I can tell you that in many years using Macs, this has never, ever happened.
The problem with people on Slashdot, is that they really *can't* believe that a computer can work the way Macs do. They can't believe things could be that simple. Sorry to say, but prior to OS X at least, they are.
And, a little off-topic (but a general misconception)... I think a lot of the reason that people don't buy Macs is not because they're harder to use (they aren't) or more expensive (a little) or alien (any more than the computer they use at work is). It's because they can't pirate Apple software from their friends. They can't just drop by Bob from accounting and get the latest version of MS-Office to take home and install (Of course, that's becoming harder too with Microsoft's current registration schemes).
This is certainly true. Also, people are used to having someone around to assist them when something goes wrong. Since there are fewer Mac people around to provide this support, people are going to be wary of committing themselves. The fact that they are far less likely to experience problems unfortunately doesn't seem to be considered.
This whole article is based around the uninformed and ridiculous concept that Microsoft got where they are by creating the most 'easy to use' OS.
It also makes a ludicrous comparison between classic MacOS (extremely easy to use, technically inferior) and Linux (technically sound, extremely difficult to use).
This is struggling to get beyond the CNET level of tech journalism.
Its not a player - the player is just a gui for controlling a quicktime movie object. You could equally embed your quicktime movie in a word document and play it from there without using the Quicktime player app (awful POS that it is).
What The Matrix did, really, was show us the same old story in such a way as to fool us into thinking we hadn't seen it before. It took something old and tired and made it look good again. The fight choreography was perfect, the cinematography was superb, and the special effects were on a level we've never seen before.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen Fist of Legend.
You seem to have missed the original posters point. Yes other operating systems had these features already. But in many other respects (like ease of use for example) they are substandard.
So MacOS X is ease of use + power.
Anyway, a few of your points addressed...
I thought OSX didn't use gcc.
Yes it does use gcc. Not only that, it uses it within a full featured and easy to use IDE.
Including dev tools is awesome. I don't know if they're really awesome in and of themselves.
Exactly why should we care that you don't know if the dev tools are awesome? When did this become a useful comment?
'Does anyone know if Mac OS X includes gcc?'
'nope'
Very informative.
Word is, OSX is dirt slow and unstable precisely because of the eye candy.
Where did you hear that OS X is unstable because of the eye candy? This is complete news to me. How exactly does eye candy make an OS unstable? Does it cause a kernel panic?
Rip that shit out of there (and port to x86) and maybe I'll give it a try.
What makes you think they have you in mind as a potential user?
There is a big difference between labelling mock-up as 'actual screenshots' and photos of plastic burgers in McD ads.
If McD had a message saying 'actual burgers photographed' then it would be equivalent. Although I still feel screenshots are taken in good faith by the gaming public and should not be tainted with this sort of thing like other industries.
Actually the best visuals I have seen on an actual game from the current crop of consoles have been GT3 and MGS2 on PS2. Sure, X-Box will have more power when it's released (although the steep learning curve for developing on the PS2 will mean its games will be improving for a while yet), but it's not really the same generation of console as the PS2. PS2 will have been released 1.5 years before X-Box (at least).
I personally think that the actual difference between PS2 & X-Box graphics in a couple of years time will be negligible.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine - that's cool, and more power to you if that's what you want.
But this article was about the eventual success of OS X on the desktop. All I'm saying is that for that to happen, there has to be some pretty major changes at the UI level first.
Well to be honest I never used to drag the disk to trash to eject it, I always used to use the 'Put Away' menu option, or command+Y for short. Really, that's the only really dumb UI thing that exists on the Mac (and has been resolved on OS X), so I can live with it.
However, if the average Linux UI was put under the same scrutiny, you can't honestly say that it wouldn't have a long list of problems.
Besides which, the useability of database & server applications isn't crucial because they are only going to be used by technical computer people, so that's not really an issue.
With respect, the things you've mentioned are more 'I'm used to it done this way' than any problems with Mac OS, although I certainly wouldn't argue that it's perfect.
Believe me, when you're used to command+C, command+V for copy/paste, the X windows mouse driven version takes some getting used to. It's just force of habit.
Sure, I agree, computers are not easy.
However, some systems (eg. MacOS X) do a much better job of making things easy (on top of a FreeBSD-a-like) than Linux does. Why shouldn't Linux aspire to this?
The problem is that its greatest strength (its open nature) is also its greatest weakness. It has no unifying direction where it comes to UI, like it does at the core OS level.
The look and feel of OS X was devised by a small group of people, and then implemented by a number of professional programmers. Unfortunately, on Linux, everyone wants to be a creative genius when it comes to UI, and there is no unified look and feel.
lack of standardised UI = poor ease of use.
If you're admitting that non-technical computer users (Sheep as you put it) won't be able to deal with Linux, then why should they bother using it at all?
The Linux interface needn't be identical to Windows, it just needs to be a lot better.
As a person who has installed Linux on a Mac, I find the above post ludicrous. Infact, why has it been modded so highly when the majority of people have no idea what the actual experience of installing Linux on Mac is like?
Comparing the 'useability' of Linux to the MacOS is laughable. It really is. Why do you think people pay a premium for Mac hardware? For the performance? It's for the UI, and the UI alone.
So I don't think I'm being particularly unkind to Linux to suggest that it has a long, long way to go to be comfortable at all to the average Mac (or Windows for that matter) user.
Remember, one of the first stages in solving a problem is accepting that it exists. Denying it to everyone you meet isn't going to make it go away.
http://www.absoft.com/newosxproductpage.html
Have you ever used a Mac (previous to OS X that is)? Because if you did, you would know that troubleshooting a Mac is *so incredibly easy* that it completely negates your arguement.
If what you were saying was true, I would have experienced problems that couldn't be easily resolved by deleting a preferences file. Or removing a (clearly named) driver extension. I can tell you that in many years using Macs, this has never, ever happened.
The problem with people on Slashdot, is that they really *can't* believe that a computer can work the way Macs do. They can't believe things could be that simple. Sorry to say, but prior to OS X at least, they are.
And, a little off-topic (but a general misconception) ... I think a lot of the reason that people don't buy Macs is not because they're harder to use (they aren't) or more expensive (a little) or alien (any more than the computer they use at work is). It's because they can't pirate Apple software from their friends. They can't just drop by Bob from accounting and get the latest version of MS-Office to take home and install (Of course, that's becoming harder too with Microsoft's current registration schemes).
This is certainly true. Also, people are used to having someone around to assist them when something goes wrong. Since there are fewer Mac people around to provide this support, people are going to be wary of committing themselves. The fact that they are far less likely to experience problems unfortunately doesn't seem to be considered.
This whole article is based around the uninformed and ridiculous concept that Microsoft got where they are by creating the most 'easy to use' OS.
It also makes a ludicrous comparison between classic MacOS (extremely easy to use, technically inferior) and Linux (technically sound, extremely difficult to use).
This is struggling to get beyond the CNET level of tech journalism.
Its not a player - the player is just a gui for controlling a quicktime movie object. You could equally embed your quicktime movie in a word document and play it from there without using the Quicktime player app (awful POS that it is).
Mod this up for gods sake! It's all true and for once someone actually gets the point of Quicktime!
Quicktime only even asked to take over Macintosh native formats when I last installed (V5.0)
What The Matrix did, really, was show us the same old story in such a way as to fool us into thinking we hadn't seen it before. It took something old and tired and made it look good again. The fight choreography was perfect, the cinematography was superb, and the special effects were on a level we've never seen before.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen Fist of Legend.What's wrong with indian women?
The case should be screened peaktime:
'Who want's to be a billionare?'
Actually I live in London and the vast majority of situations are resolved without guns - there are special units which have firearms.
Did you know that over here someone dying from gunshot wounds (in any circumstances) is headline news? Doesn't happen very often.
But please carry on thinking that the free availability of firearms in your country doesn't encourage the use of them if it makes you feel better.
Why is the alternative (eg. as in UK) worse?
Good post. Mod up please!!
I can see it now...
'Manic Miner turned my son into a psychopath'
It's from the K & D sessions - a superlative album.
You seem to have missed the original posters point. Yes other operating systems had these features already. But in many other respects (like ease of use for example) they are substandard.
So MacOS X is ease of use + power.
Anyway, a few of your points addressed...
I thought OSX didn't use gcc.
Yes it does use gcc. Not only that, it uses it within a full featured and easy to use IDE.
Including dev tools is awesome. I don't know if they're really awesome in and of themselves.
Exactly why should we care that you don't know if the dev tools are awesome? When did this become a useful comment?
'Does anyone know if Mac OS X includes gcc?'
'nope'
Very informative.
Word is, OSX is dirt slow and unstable precisely because of the eye candy.
Where did you hear that OS X is unstable because of the eye candy? This is complete news to me. How exactly does eye candy make an OS unstable? Does it cause a kernel panic?
Rip that shit out of there (and port to x86) and maybe I'll give it a try.
What makes you think they have you in mind as a potential user?
There is a big difference between labelling mock-up as 'actual screenshots' and photos of plastic burgers in McD ads.
If McD had a message saying 'actual burgers photographed' then it would be equivalent. Although I still feel screenshots are taken in good faith by the gaming public and should not be tainted with this sort of thing like other industries.
Actually the best visuals I have seen on an actual game from the current crop of consoles have been GT3 and MGS2 on PS2. Sure, X-Box will have more power when it's released (although the steep learning curve for developing on the PS2 will mean its games will be improving for a while yet), but it's not really the same generation of console as the PS2. PS2 will have been released 1.5 years before X-Box (at least).
I personally think that the actual difference between PS2 & X-Box graphics in a couple of years time will be negligible.
Except there are numerous easily available 'mod chip' patches available for VGS so it does encourage piracy.