Personally, I love the updates. I think it is perfectly fitting for OS X -- just like a newborn baby, little things are growing and maturing every day.
I set up a bondi (original) iMac at work with OS X back in March, and it has been on crunching SETI and doing other stuff 24/7 since then. It has never crashed, burped or hiccuped, and as a result I have never had to restart. The updates give me a reason to do so.
I don't understand why some people are so turned off to updates -- especially free ones. I do tech support for Mac software, and I was called by someone who had just purchased 1.0 of one of our software titles. The FREE 1.1 updater had come out a week earlier, and we hadn't updated the 1.0 we were selling on the web site because of various marketing reasons.
Anyway, this gentleman called me about a problem, and I told him that downloading the FREE update to 1.1 would solve it. Instead of saying "cool", his reaction was "WHAT!? I JUST PURCHASED THIS SOFTWARE!!!! I WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT IF I KNEW THAT I WAS PURCHASING AN OLDER PRODUCT!". My reaction was "Well sir, a lot software gets updated and improved; that is a fact of life. But if a company is going to provide you with updates for free, then you really have nothing to bitch about."
It is not like any of these updates are REQUIRED to use OS X -- the fact of the matter is that we live in a wired world and the core of OS X is open source. I like the approach that if SOMETHING gets fixed, a patch is made available immediately.
.... but it appears as if they do not support MacMame or any of the Mac emulators. The Mac platform has awesome emulators and especially with Mac OS X out there(which in a year might be the most widely distributed distro of *nix), I have to question how cool this program really is...
Besides that, Apple's hardware has never failed on me. Every Mac I've ever owned is still operational. My 68k 33mhz Mac at home with 8.1 works a helluva lot faster than my P166 here at work running '98.
If you've had so many problems with Macs, perhaps you may not know exactly what you're doing when you sit down in front of one.
I think (somewhere) I saw screenshots of a new Metroid game for Gamecube. Could be BS, but it was a cool picture of Samus running down a hallway with a giant flame/explosion coming after her.
Of course, there supposedly was going to be a Metroid for N64.. and there wasn't. Anyone have more information about Metroid on the Cube?
Hard disk capacity has been doubling every year for at least the last 5 years and it looks like that trend will continue.
I thought I heard somewhere that we've already treached the practical limitations with standard hard-drive technology, and that this scenario may not continue...
If so, it doesn't sound too horrible to me. For most users, 4 gigs is more than enough.
In order to be a viable OS for the masses, a system needs to support a certain level of gaming. It'll be at least a couple of years before we start seeing leading-edge games released for OS X. If/When that happens, I'll revise my opinion. But I think it's at least a few years away.
I don't think an OS is defined by the games it supports...
I recently read an article concerning the PC gaming market as a whole, and how some think it may come to a screeching halt within the next two years. They argue that a popular PC game that sells a few hundred thousand copies for PCs will sell a few MILLION copies for consoles, and that it may be more profitable to concentrate purely on consoles rather than develop for the PC world. Face it, consumers generally buy computers for productivity, not for gaming.
In the case of OS X, I know that Id software has pledged to develop for it, and that Bungie (whore!!!!) has promised to release Halo for it, which will truly be a legendary game.
Strange, then, that the FSF's List of Licenses page describes the modified BSD license as "a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem [that is] compatible with the GNU GPL" -- how, then, is not free in RMS's sense?
The Unix behind OS X isn't exactly BSD (although thats what it is based on).. its OpenStep, which is their variant.
I guess if you really wanted to meddle with the source code, you could become an Apple Developer or join the company or something. =)
I agree. Seeing M$ in the console market doesn't sound very cool to me, but having companies team up to destroy it does =)
After all, they bought out my ex-favorite video game company, Bungie. Those Bastards!!!!
Of course, Bungie can't be much better for selling out to M$... How could anyone possibly be any more of a whore?
What to think about Macintosh speed
on
X On OSX Now Free
·
· Score: 1
I love it when "I hate everything except Windows Magazine" decides to rate a Mac. Oftentimes these people are so ignorant of how to use one, I'm surprised that they could even figure out how to run the applications they want to benchmark.
The way I see it is this: using a Mac is a lot like using a jetski. If you're slightly serious about either, you're going to know that a little effort is necessary to make them run to their full potential. MacAddict magazine knows this, and just like any decent Mac user, they were able to do the five minutes of software tweaking necessary to make a 500 mhz G4 match a 1 Ghz Athalon.
Sure, the benchmarks that they ran were done in Photoshop, but what about the benchmarks done by others? Can we really trust them? "This Pentium III running M$ windows was considerably faster (1.2 seconds) at running MS applications than the G4 was."
Please...
Instead of using MS applications, you refer to Quake 3. Is it anything like Unreal Tournament, which is a friggen Macplay PORT??
I am not blind to the fact that some PC applications work better than their Mac counter-parts, but I tend to believe that the root of the problem lies in company's Mac development teams.. is Microsoft REALLY going to make its office software work better on a Mac than a PC running their OS?
I suppose when OS X final is released, with its BSD core, that it won't be the "turgid, inefficient piece of crap" that you see in the current OS now. I think that Macs might perform better in other "credible" benchmarks in the future because the new OS may eliminate the need for some of the software tweaking that was needed to be done before to achieve maximum efficiency.
Interesting comment. I'd like to thank you for providing me some insight... and giving me something I can share with the students I review before they take their Novell Net-Tech Exam. =)
I think you made it pretty clear that upgrading to IPv6 isn't as clean-cut as it may appear to be. Many don't seem to recognize the difference between upgrading their Microsoft OS and putting in a new, "improved" heart into the internet -- a heart which most users probably don't even know exists.
Just picture Joe Shmoe sitting there, tooling away at Win98, hearing on the evening news about ME and throwing his monitor to the ground as he rushes out the door to buy it. He may understand that "Millenium" is "greater" than 98, but does he understand that every time he connects to his ISP (aka AOL), and goes on a "website", that thousands of pieces of information are passed down through the TCP/IP protocol stack? He doesn't even know what TCP/IP means. Neither does he understand, nor particularly care, about what IPv6 could do for him. As far as he's concerned, if there's a problem, the manufacturer of his software will take care of it.
Although many aren't bothering with IPv6 as of now, I believe eventually that more and more companies will begin to embrace it, or some other new IP technology, as the need arises... because we, the geeks who love IT, aren't going to stop improving it until we can go into VR and have sex with anime chicks!
What about Apple's wireless Airport technology, that has been included with many of their machines for over a year now? From what I understand about it, its "supposed" to provide 11 Mbps, and most of its users have been impressed with it...
Go ahead and laugh at me for mentioning Apple, but as a networking guy, I respect the fact that they developed LocalTalk (which was revolutionary for its time) and that they helped Novell with ODI.
I want to know if I am getting my money's worth (something tells me, picture or not, I am not)...
A few years back I got the chance to speak with a NASA engineer, and got to hear what he had to say about this issue.
According to him, the NASA gets 1% of the federal budget... but every dollar we invest there is returned SEVEN fold!
Do you know how many breakthroughs have happened because of NASA? Teflon, kevlar, and velcro are just some of the examples off the top of my head.
These developments happen rather quickly too. In fact, that engineer showed me what looked to be like a black square made of plastic. He said, "NASA develops things so quickly, we don't even have a name for this type of material yet. If made in large sheets, its very brittle, but if in small squares like this, its unbreakable." He proceeded to try to smash it and he couldn't. He then said, "This will probably be used somewhere on the space station."
I think that most government agencies and functions are wastes of money, but NASA ironically seems to be the exception to this rule.
I've been interested in NASA stuff for a long time, and heard about space station development a long time ago. Its cool to see that its finally going up there.
However, I was kind of disappointed by the design. Why didn't they design the station with some kind of rotating circular piece... like in 2001 and (shudder) Mission to Mars?
Having a piece like this would allow astronauts to go inside of it and have some gravity, so they don't have to float around all the time.
Don't diss the dog, man. If it sells well, pretty soon we'll have robotic chicks... think about how much money you'll save by not having to wine and dine them to get some... not to mention the time you'll save by not having to cuddle. Flip a switch, do your thing, turn it off, then make yourself a sandwich =)
Do you suggest that existing laws should not apply on the internet, just because they are difficult to enforce?
Um.. no... I didn't say that at all, brainchild. I said that non-governmental solutions are more effective in this situation. Fight against it yourself -- don't enlist your nanny-state to fight it for you, because its NOT going to work (it hasn't in the past)
Do you honestly mean that child porn is acceptable or should not be fought against just because it appears on the internet?
Um.. no... see above
Then what about internet fraud or fraud done during internet commerce? Shouldn't we fight that too?
Um..as I stated before, illegal activities are already prosecuted!! Perhaps if you had the mental capacity to understand my writing, you would have understood my explination.
This is the problem with the authoritarian jerks in the US. IF you're against more government, then they try to make it look as if you support the problem.
Face the facts: internet commerce is fantastic today. Trillions of dollars worth of transactions have taken place over the wire, and awesome wealth has been created for people because of it.
How many real problems exist with the internet today? The few that appear to be substantial problems seem to violate EXISTING laws (i.e. Napster opponents arguing copyright violation).
I would like to draw a parallel to the war on drugs, specifically, alchohol prohibition. Before prohibition, problems with alchohol existed (and will likely always exist considering it is possible to make 64 Oz's of booze in 3 days with less than $3 worth of supplies), yet imposing government sanction in regards to alchohol increased the problem to an exponential magnitude.
This does not necessarily mean that new laws restricting and confining internet trade will backfire, however, one can argue further that they will.
For example: teen porn. When was the problem larger before or after the media exposed it? Well, how many results will a query of "teen porn" to Metacrawler return? How many IRC or Hotline sites deal with that crap?
Part of the problem lies in the fact that some people don't have the "expected" reaction to these types of media attention. Instead, many see them and think "Holy crap! I can get pics of hot teenage girls doing nasty things on the internet!!!! Its illegal but... that just makes it more exciting!!" Problem escalated.
The internet (along with any other network) was DESIGNED to PROVIDE services and power, not to limit them. Attempts in the past (and made today) to limit illegal activities simply DO NOT WORK (to the point that non-governmental solutions do)!!! Even those who live within government-controlled firewalls can still (potentially) get access to information their government considers "restricted".
I agree with the laws supposed function of giving the public one extra chance to make a decision, as I am a firm supporter of democracy. However, I ask you, given the legendary success of the internet as it is today, as a free and open forum, does it need, and would it substantially benefit from, more government control?
I think not.
BTW, I do not have very much respect for WIRED magazine because of (what I percieve) is their negative attitude towards Macintosh.
Slashdot Mirror
I set up a bondi (original) iMac at work with OS X back in March, and it has been on crunching SETI and doing other stuff 24/7 since then. It has never crashed, burped or hiccuped, and as a result I have never had to restart. The updates give me a reason to do so.
I don't understand why some people are so turned off to updates -- especially free ones. I do tech support for Mac software, and I was called by someone who had just purchased 1.0 of one of our software titles. The FREE 1.1 updater had come out a week earlier, and we hadn't updated the 1.0 we were selling on the web site because of various marketing reasons.
Anyway, this gentleman called me about a problem, and I told him that downloading the FREE update to 1.1 would solve it. Instead of saying "cool", his reaction was "WHAT!? I JUST PURCHASED THIS SOFTWARE!!!! I WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT IF I KNEW THAT I WAS PURCHASING AN OLDER PRODUCT!". My reaction was "Well sir, a lot software gets updated and improved; that is a fact of life. But if a company is going to provide you with updates for free, then you really have nothing to bitch about."
It is not like any of these updates are REQUIRED to use OS X -- the fact of the matter is that we live in a wired world and the core of OS X is open source. I like the approach that if SOMETHING gets fixed, a patch is made available immediately.
Long live OS X!
.... but it appears as if they do not support MacMame or any of the Mac emulators. The Mac platform has awesome emulators and especially with Mac OS X out there(which in a year might be the most widely distributed distro of *nix), I have to question how cool this program really is...
What about first-person shooters -- games in which one runs around blowing people to bits with rockets and grenades?
Besides that, Apple's hardware has never failed on me. Every Mac I've ever owned is still operational. My 68k 33mhz Mac at home with 8.1 works a helluva lot faster than my P166 here at work running '98.
If you've had so many problems with Macs, perhaps you may not know exactly what you're doing when you sit down in front of one.
Hey Brainchild, you can buy those products for Mac.
You're going to have a hard life =(
I think (somewhere) I saw screenshots of a new Metroid game for Gamecube. Could be BS, but it was a cool picture of Samus running down a hallway with a giant flame/explosion coming after her.
Of course, there supposedly was going to be a Metroid for N64.. and there wasn't. Anyone have more information about Metroid on the Cube?
Why are you bitching about him being uneducated, when you two are discussing video games?
I thought I heard somewhere that we've already treached the practical limitations with standard hard-drive technology, and that this scenario may not continue...
If so, it doesn't sound too horrible to me. For most users, 4 gigs is more than enough.
I don't think an OS is defined by the games it supports...
I recently read an article concerning the PC gaming market as a whole, and how some think it may come to a screeching halt within the next two years. They argue that a popular PC game that sells a few hundred thousand copies for PCs will sell a few MILLION copies for consoles, and that it may be more profitable to concentrate purely on consoles rather than develop for the PC world. Face it, consumers generally buy computers for productivity, not for gaming.
In the case of OS X, I know that Id software has pledged to develop for it, and that Bungie (whore!!!!) has promised to release Halo for it, which will truly be a legendary game.
The Unix behind OS X isn't exactly BSD (although thats what it is based on).. its OpenStep, which is their variant.
I guess if you really wanted to meddle with the source code, you could become an Apple Developer or join the company or something. =)
Why is it that some people seemed to be almost brainwashed by Linux and its philosophy?
Computers are friggen tools.. having a preference is natural, but in the end, you're just using the thing to get something done.
Linux is free if your time is worth nothing
Of course, there is always a way to get free software, no matter what it is or who made it... Arrgh matey!!!!
After all, they bought out my ex-favorite video game company, Bungie. Those Bastards!!!!
Of course, Bungie can't be much better for selling out to M$... How could anyone possibly be any more of a whore?
The way I see it is this: using a Mac is a lot like using a jetski. If you're slightly serious about either, you're going to know that a little effort is necessary to make them run to their full potential. MacAddict magazine knows this, and just like any decent Mac user, they were able to do the five minutes of software tweaking necessary to make a 500 mhz G4 match a 1 Ghz Athalon.
Sure, the benchmarks that they ran were done in Photoshop, but what about the benchmarks done by others? Can we really trust them? "This Pentium III running M$ windows was considerably faster (1.2 seconds) at running MS applications than the G4 was."
Please...
Instead of using MS applications, you refer to Quake 3. Is it anything like Unreal Tournament, which is a friggen Macplay PORT??
I am not blind to the fact that some PC applications work better than their Mac counter-parts, but I tend to believe that the root of the problem lies in company's Mac development teams.. is Microsoft REALLY going to make its office software work better on a Mac than a PC running their OS?
I suppose when OS X final is released, with its BSD core, that it won't be the "turgid, inefficient piece of crap" that you see in the current OS now. I think that Macs might perform better in other "credible" benchmarks in the future because the new OS may eliminate the need for some of the software tweaking that was needed to be done before to achieve maximum efficiency.
I think you made it pretty clear that upgrading to IPv6 isn't as clean-cut as it may appear to be. Many don't seem to recognize the difference between upgrading their Microsoft OS and putting in a new, "improved" heart into the internet -- a heart which most users probably don't even know exists.
Just picture Joe Shmoe sitting there, tooling away at Win98, hearing on the evening news about ME and throwing his monitor to the ground as he rushes out the door to buy it. He may understand that "Millenium" is "greater" than 98, but does he understand that every time he connects to his ISP (aka AOL), and goes on a "website", that thousands of pieces of information are passed down through the TCP/IP protocol stack? He doesn't even know what TCP/IP means. Neither does he understand, nor particularly care, about what IPv6 could do for him. As far as he's concerned, if there's a problem, the manufacturer of his software will take care of it.
Although many aren't bothering with IPv6 as of now, I believe eventually that more and more companies will begin to embrace it, or some other new IP technology, as the need arises... because we, the geeks who love IT, aren't going to stop improving it until we can go into VR and have sex with anime chicks!
What about Apple's wireless Airport technology, that has been included with many of their machines for over a year now? From what I understand about it, its "supposed" to provide 11 Mbps, and most of its users have been impressed with it...
Go ahead and laugh at me for mentioning Apple, but as a networking guy, I respect the fact that they developed LocalTalk (which was revolutionary for its time) and that they helped Novell with ODI.
It's pretty hard to boycott polluting companies since we won't know who they are without government inspections.
Just like we would be oblivious to the fact that GAP uses sweatshop labor, Firestone makes crappy tires, and tobacco kills???
I thought I might be flamed for this..
I think NASA took them and used them to develop new things, or improved them, or something else. But thanks for pointing that out and giving more info
A few years back I got the chance to speak with a NASA engineer, and got to hear what he had to say about this issue.
According to him, the NASA gets 1% of the federal budget... but every dollar we invest there is returned SEVEN fold!
Do you know how many breakthroughs have happened because of NASA? Teflon, kevlar, and velcro are just some of the examples off the top of my head.
These developments happen rather quickly too. In fact, that engineer showed me what looked to be like a black square made of plastic. He said, "NASA develops things so quickly, we don't even have a name for this type of material yet. If made in large sheets, its very brittle, but if in small squares like this, its unbreakable." He proceeded to try to smash it and he couldn't. He then said, "This will probably be used somewhere on the space station."
I think that most government agencies and functions are wastes of money, but NASA ironically seems to be the exception to this rule.
However, I was kind of disappointed by the design. Why didn't they design the station with some kind of rotating circular piece... like in 2001 and (shudder) Mission to Mars?
Having a piece like this would allow astronauts to go inside of it and have some gravity, so they don't have to float around all the time.
Hmm... let me guess.. this MIT outreach program was for special education students??
CoRkEy LoVEs To BouNCe a BaLL!! YaY!!!!
Don't diss the dog, man. If it sells well, pretty soon we'll have robotic chicks... think about how much money you'll save by not having to wine and dine them to get some... not to mention the time you'll save by not having to cuddle. Flip a switch, do your thing, turn it off, then make yourself a sandwich =)
Now that's technology!
Um.. no... I didn't say that at all, brainchild. I said that non-governmental solutions are more effective in this situation. Fight against it yourself -- don't enlist your nanny-state to fight it for you, because its NOT going to work (it hasn't in the past)
Do you honestly mean that child porn is acceptable or should not be fought against just because it appears on the internet?
Um.. no ... see above
Then what about internet fraud or fraud done during internet commerce? Shouldn't we fight that too?
Um..as I stated before, illegal activities are already prosecuted!! Perhaps if you had the mental capacity to understand my writing, you would have understood my explination.
This is the problem with the authoritarian jerks in the US. IF you're against more government, then they try to make it look as if you support the problem.
Face the facts: internet commerce is fantastic today. Trillions of dollars worth of transactions have taken place over the wire, and awesome wealth has been created for people because of it.
How many real problems exist with the internet today? The few that appear to be substantial problems seem to violate EXISTING laws (i.e. Napster opponents arguing copyright violation).
I would like to draw a parallel to the war on drugs, specifically, alchohol prohibition. Before prohibition, problems with alchohol existed (and will likely always exist considering it is possible to make 64 Oz's of booze in 3 days with less than $3 worth of supplies), yet imposing government sanction in regards to alchohol increased the problem to an exponential magnitude.
This does not necessarily mean that new laws restricting and confining internet trade will backfire, however, one can argue further that they will.
For example: teen porn. When was the problem larger before or after the media exposed it? Well, how many results will a query of "teen porn" to Metacrawler return? How many IRC or Hotline sites deal with that crap?
Part of the problem lies in the fact that some people don't have the "expected" reaction to these types of media attention. Instead, many see them and think "Holy crap! I can get pics of hot teenage girls doing nasty things on the internet!!!! Its illegal but... that just makes it more exciting!!" Problem escalated.
The internet (along with any other network) was DESIGNED to PROVIDE services and power, not to limit them. Attempts in the past (and made today) to limit illegal activities simply DO NOT WORK (to the point that non-governmental solutions do)!!! Even those who live within government-controlled firewalls can still (potentially) get access to information their government considers "restricted".
I agree with the laws supposed function of giving the public one extra chance to make a decision, as I am a firm supporter of democracy. However, I ask you, given the legendary success of the internet as it is today, as a free and open forum, does it need, and would it substantially benefit from, more government control?
I think not.
BTW, I do not have very much respect for WIRED magazine because of (what I percieve) is their negative attitude towards Macintosh.