"A fresh, first generation tape in a good machine blows 320x240 away any day."
Yeah, and a 128kbit MP3 may not hold a candle to a fresh, properly mastered CD. But most CDs aren't properly mastered: they have their dynamic range compressed so much that they are clipping almost constantly. When most people think of VHS, they think of their own personal recordings or old tapes from Blockbuster, not the full capability of the medium.
This is improvement, but it's still not good enough. I can get a full two-disc DVD set (movie+bonus features) for around $13 - new. At Blockbuster, you can get (slightly) used DVD sets for $6-$10. I'm sorry, but a single CD, even with enhanced content, is still not as valuable as a 2 hour movie plus several hours of bonus footage. Heck, "The Matrix" included a soundtrack-only mix.
And GTK+'s fully-adjustable font sizes with automatic resizing makes any kind of zooming applet look like a piece of crap.
Windows does this too, although not as elegently.
Oh, and the "new" contrast enhancing functions of OS X have been in my NVIDIA drivers since 2001. You can adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, and there's a control called "Digital Vibrance" that makes colors more pronounced.
1: Documents, MP3s, etc. all go under your home folder. This is for Linux and Windows as well. If you want something to be accessible by all users (e.g. MP3s), Windows provides a special virtual-user folder called "All users" which works nicely. 2: Everything you care about goes under "My Documents" on Windows - the Desktop is temporary and is deleted regularly. 3: Folders under My Documents. I have "Text Documents", "Notes", "Photos", "Music", "Applications", "Programming", and "Other". 4: If I work on any project that takes more than one file, it gets it's own subfolder under one of the main category folders.
This way, I can find everything that I want very easily. And when it comes time to backup, I just copy the entire "Documents and Settings" tree (alanagous to/home and/root).
Does this remind anyone of "Kirby's Tilt and Tumble"? It was a Game Boy game where you tilted the entire system to move Kirby, and flicked the system up to jump. Very cool.
"For example, you'd have to ensure that VRAM was inaccessable to the users,"
Microsoft's DRM (at least in Windows Media Player), when set to the highest level, only outputs to signed sound/video drivers (WQHL certified), which means you'll need to play some crafty tricks to access the VRAM. Not that it can't be done.
"all pc users do is trash the mac. it's all disinformation, and i never see any examples of how the pc is better."
OK,
1: More software. Period. 2: Cheaper hardware. The 1.6Ghz G5 is $2000. A similarly equipped P4 2.8Ghz Pavilion (Yes, with a DVD burner) is less than $1000. 3: Upgradibility. What if I want to put a DVD+RW in my PowerMac G5? What about an HDTV tuner card? Whatever I buy, it will likely work with Windows; the same can not be said of a Mac. 4: Choice. I can get a Mac from one vendor. I can get PCs from hundreds of small and large vendors, and if I don't like what they have, I can get one fully custom built - or custom build my own. Don't like a particular style of case? There are thousands of designs to choose from. There are essentially six models of Macs (G5, G4, iMac, eMac, iBook, PowerBook). Just one PC vendor has more models than that. There's everything from the 3lb Sony Picturebook to a 12lb desktop in a laptop. I can even choose processors from 4 different companies (Transmeta, Via, AMD, Intel) - more if you include older x86 processors. Pentium 4, Pentium III, Athlon XP, Opteron, Athlon 64, Xeon, C3, Eden, Crusoe.
4 good reasons to choose a PC. Oh, and Macs are not "easier to use". Show me the studies that prove this. They may be more secure, but Windows gets better with every service pack and hotfix. Every major worm in the past year has had a patch released at least one month before it hit. Microosft's "Security Push" is paying off.
I do agree with your points - the old concepts of cable/telecom being regulated are on their way out. Indeed, I can get my telecom service from 3 different companies (through the same wires). Ironically, it works this way with my power as well. I still think that power should be regulated because the reliability of the service is paramout (lives can be lost when it fails) and because otherwise crucial maintenence would not be done (cutting corners to cut costs). That is why there are consumer regulations, airline regulations, auto regulations, environmental regulations, and other regulations - these are all ways in which the government disrupts the "free market", but they are crucial ones as they set minimums that corporations must meet and prevent the abuse of customers and the environment.
"In that respect, it's an inherently bad idea to handle power generation the way we do today."
Actually, today, it's quite a good idea. Power loss in the system is minimized by having substations and transformers. One estimate I heard put it at around 3% of used capacity. Since larger generators are usually more efficent, perhaps a centralized approach isn't so bad.
"Yeah, well, some of us live in the US, where we like to Let the Market Decide(TM), and we apparently Decided to get Screwed with crap like CDMA instead of the pre-existing global fucking standard of GSM. Hooray for free market capitalism!:-P"
GSM has a 16km hard cell-size limit. CDMA cells can be 4 times as large and handle 2 times as many calls. Oh, and it has lower-latency, higher bandwidth data service. And better voice quality.
Hmmm, so we have a better, more economical, easier to deploy technology, or a less good, more expensive, harder to deploy technology. Is it any wonder why the US cellular industry chose CDMA.
By the way, there is GSM service in the US. Three major providers: AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile.
"The USA just does not work like this: most significant industries are incredibly regulated, and telecoms is one of these. Energy is another."
Energy and telecoms are regulated out of necessity. It makes sense for one company to run power lines and one company to run phone lines. Having 10 companies compete would be nice, but it is not likely to happen. So regulation is how the industry is kept from price-gouging. The power blackout in New York was caused by a (British owned) power company that neglected upgrades and maintenence - this happened because of deregulation, not because of regulation.
Wireless telecoms don't work the same way. That's why they are much less regulated in the US.
And, frankly, we have the best, cheapest mobile phone services. Yes, we have the odd "recieving party pays", and we pay a monthly fee. But for my $40 a month ($30 without the data), I get:
- Unlimited calling on nights, weekends, and to other phones on the same network - 600 minutes to use anytime else - Unlimited SMS and 1xRTT (144kbit data), not billed by the messege or the kilobyte - Free roaming in a country roughly 3x the size and with as many people as the EU - Free long-distance, anwhere within the same area
My friends all have the same provider, so I can call them whenever I want, for as long as I want, wherever I am in the country. Now, is coverage as good as it is in Europe? No. But all the major roads are covered, as well as all towns and cities with more than a couple of thousand people. And it's CDMA, too. I thought that my GSM phone sounded good until I got CDMA. No static, no wierd artifacts, no hiss. And data service with 3x the bandwidth and 1/2 the latency of GPRS.
Prefer GSM? Fine. T-Mobile, AT&T, or Cingular will be happy to have your business. They even have roaming agreements so you can roam (free, of course) onto other GSM networks in the US. Prefer CDMA? Verizon and Sprint will be happy to give you service.
Look at the progression of the US wireless industry:
1983: First (analog) cellular service in US begins 1992: First GSM service in Europe 1995: First GSM service in USA, First CDMA service in US 1999: First "No Roaming, No Long Distance" promotion (AT&T OneRate) 2000: First "Free Nights/Weekends" Promotion (Verizon), First "Others on the same network" promotion 2001: AT&T Goes GSM 2002: LEAP introduces Cricket, $32 unlimited calling, but only works in your home area. 2002: Sprint introduces unlimited 1xRTT 2003: Cingular introduces "rollover", lets you keep unused minutes for 1 year after they are (not) used. 2003: Free Nights/Weekends, Free Roaming, Free Long Distance, Same network promotions are the standard. So is unlimited data.
So, are we really that far behind? CDMA, GSM, 1xRTT? Our wireless system works differently. Yes, the person recieving the call pays (with plan minutes (or with unlim. night/wknd/same service), but the person calling doesn't pay (no $0.25 per minute; it's just another local call, or, if the cellphone number is in a different area code, it's $0.03 a minute). It's partially because the US had cellphones in 1983. It's not "worse" just because it doesn't work like the European system.
Actually, I sort of like what Microsoft's strategy is. XP is "Good Enough", and I don't mind that it will be *the* windows for the immediate future. One thing that bugs me with Apple's approach is that you always seem to need the latest OS to use the latest softaware. Yes, 10.2 is a lot better than 10.1, but what if I'm happy with 10.1 and don't want to pay $120 to upgrade? Many Mac apps now *require* 10.2 - that's stupid. There are very few Windows apps that won't work fine on 98 or 2000. And Microsoft gives you *free* upgrades for 98 - my old computer (Pentium 300, 192MB memory) doesn't really nead XP (It's in the kitchen for web-surfing, mostly), but since I got it, I've recieved, free:
Internet Explorer 5.0 and 6.0 Windows Media Player 7.0 and 9.0 DirectX 8.0 and 9.0 Internet Connection Sharing (98SE) Outlook Express (Several New Versions) Lots of bugfixes and security patches
All of these updates make the OS just a little bit better. Moreover, I can still run games like Jedi Outcast. Try tunning a recent Mac OS game on OS 8.0 - it's not going to happen. I love Apple's upgrades to the OS - each major version has had substantial, worthwhile upgrades. I just don't like the fact that I need the latest OS to run the latest software.
Now, admiddadly, Microsoft has abandoned Windows 95 - but if you have a computer that old, you probably shouldn't be running DirectX 9 or Windows Media Player 9 or Internet Explorer 9 anyway. Well, actually, Internet Explorer 5.5, the last version for Windows 95, runs fine on my Omnibook 800CT (Pentium 133, 32MB memory). I know that people claim that Mozilla renders faster, but in my experience, Internet Explorer is faster, especially on older hardware.
In general, the "K" sound is hard to pronounce and hard to spell. "Q" is also uncommon and makes words harder to spell. So does "U". Konquerer is extremely hard to spell, and it does an extremely bad job of describing a web browser/file manager. Epiphany is little better (easier to spell, but still lacks descriptiveness). Safari is better yet (common word, easy to pronounce and spell, somewhat descriptive). The best name for a web browser would have to go to Microsoft: you don't get much more obvious than "Internet Explorer". Media players? There's GStreamer and XMMS and Xine, all of which have horrible names (not common words, hard to spell, don't describe the product). iTunes is quite good, as is Windows Media Player.
Good: Internet Explorer iTunes iPhoto Windows Media Player Notepad Calculator Paint Word Windows Messenger iChat Windows
Bad: Epiphany (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive) Konqueror (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive) GNOME (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive) KDE (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive) gCalc (Non-Standard) Gnumeric (Non-Standard, Semi Descriptive) Evolution (Not Descriptive) XMMS (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
Notice a trend here? Apps should be named on what they do rather than some obscure pun. "System Monitor" is better than gtop. "Spreadsheet" is better than "Gnumeric". "Web Browser" is better than "Epiphany". "Notepad" is better than "Gedit". "Dial-Up Connections" is better than "KPPP". "Media Player" is better than "gStreamer".
Both the GNOME and KDE projects need to standardize on their own set of applications and encourage those applications to use simple names. gStreamer could become "GNOME Media Player" (this would be the project name; it would simply be called "Media Player" in the GNOME menu).
"However, Gtk is not getting any better on any platforms other than Linux."
It's still quite "rough", but I've seen a lot of improvement from the GTK 1.x days. With the WIMP skin and a little work on a consistant interface (drag and drop, copy and paste, etc.), it could be quite good. Look at GAIM - it's still "rough around the edges", but it's not really any worse than the QT apps I've used on Windows.
I'm a Gnome user myself, but let's face it, KDE is more similar to Win32.
Many companies actually choose GNOME for exactly that reason - it's NOT like Win32. KDE looks too similar to Windows, and users expect it to behave in exactly the same manner (which, of course, is impossible). GNOME keeps a clean, consistant interface with far fewer options and commands than KDE, as well as easier to spell and pronounce names (Konquerer? Kontour?). GNOME doesn't look like windows, and it doesn't act like windows - so users expect it to behave differently and are forced to learn instead of being confused by the small differences.
Or, at least that's what UI professionals tell me.
At 135 watts each (and the largest die size of any major microprocessor), the Itanium does a fine job of being a space heater. Better than any AMD chip.
AFAIK, there are no actual studies that prove this (except an Apple-sponsored Gartner study that was recalled by Gartner), so this is a 100% subjective thing. Also, I'm already familiar with Windows, thus better "ease of use" means nothing to me.
"Now it's also as fast (or significantly FASTER) the the PC."
We've seen benchmarks from one company, Apple. Well, by your logic, AMD's Athlon XP 3200+ is signifigantly faster than the P4 3.2ghz. We all know how false that is. Apple's released SPECMarks don't impress me. On single processor tasks (e.g. 90% of all code), in integer mode (also 90% of code), even Apple's benchmarks say that the PC is faster. Apple only wins in the rates and in fp. If you have nice, multithreaded code, and code that requires lots of fp, you might see a benefit... or not. Apple's benchmarks use GCC; most production code will use the faster ICC. As better compilers emerge for the PPC970, the gap between optimized PC performance (over 1000 in the specints vs. ~800 on the dual G5) may shrink or even reverse, but there is no telling how long that will take.
So, "Just As Fast" or "Faster" is an extremely dubious claim to be making now.
These are the tools I use regularly. They happen to be considerably cheaper than the Mac equivilents. And they fit my workflow.
Is there commercial software for the Mac? Yes. Is it "all I need"? Not even remotely.
"It can emulate proprietary in-house apps with VirtualPC."
Well, yeah, but then you need a Virtual PC license and a Windows license.
"It can play all the latest games, even if they laga couple months (get a PS2, also!)."
Hmmmm... I don't think so. "All the latest games" is a very strong claim. One that I doubt you can back up. All means everything.
"It's UNIX under the hood and runs X11 for added compatability."
It's UNIX under the hood. Wow. That's some kind of a great feature, I'm sure. For POSIX compliance, Windows has cygwin. I can even run KDE under Win32. And you can always run Linux on a PC... or a Mac.
"All of this, and it's not any more expensive than comparable PC hardware."
Bzzzt.... wrong answer. Maybe if you compare to Xeon, but Xeon is extremely overpriced. Apple's $2000 G5 (1x1.6ghz G5, 256MB PC2700 DDR, GeForceFX 5200 64M, 80GB SATA HDD) is actually a mid-range PC. A similar HP Pavilion (2.6Ghz P4, 256M PC2700 DDR, 80GB 7200rpm HDD, 4X DVD+R/RW, GeForceFX 5200 128M) is less than half the cost ($929.99). Faster Processor (Even if you go by Apple's FP numbers; the rates don't apply on 1P systems), same amount of memory, better GPU, and a similar HDD, and a DVD burner. And it's less than half as much.
So, equivalently priced, yet twice as expensive? Quite a contradiction here.
"It's time to take an objective look at these systems if you're in the market for a new machine. Just take a look. If you don't like it, then don't buy it... but the Mac is a VERY viable platform these days. More so now than ever."
Your right, it is time to take an objective look. The numbers don't lie. Mac's are more expensive. The're more proprietary. They have less available software. And not even Apple's $3000 computer can beat a $1200 PC (that same Pavilion, with a 3Ghz P4) in SPECInt, by their own numbers. Apple's product is the same that it's always been - spectacularly marketed, overpriced, underperforming equipment. You might say that the're the BOSE of the computer industry.
1: It's quite simple, just right-click on a directory and choose properties, click security, click advanced, and you can deny execute permission on an entire directory (and subdirectoiries if you like)
2: I'm not sure about the permission method, but the group policy method does deny vbscripts and other types of executable files.
3: Yes, but it can be on by default in Linux too. I didn't have to do a chmod to execute NVIDIA's binary installer.
The platform is far more than the hardware, it is the OS, the libraries, and the compilers. AMD is comparing Opteron to Xeon, and running ICC to generate their binaries. Why? Because there's no better compiler for Opteron. Is it a disadvantage? Yes, but that's life. With all things equal, perhaps the G5 is faster. But all things are not equal. 95% of Windows programs are not compiled with GCC. The performance-dependant ones use ICC. You can't just compare the hardware because software also plays an important part in system performance.
Oh, and Apple is the only major computer company that benchmarks compeditors systems and releases the results. AMD, HP, Dell, Intel, and other companies submit their results to SPEC and draw their graphs from submitted SPEC scores. Why didn't Apple do this? Because their results aren't very impressive. That could be because there are no G5 optimized compilers. In the future there may be, but there will also be better x86 compilers.
We're not running a science experiment here. This is reality. And a test that cripples the P4 to make things "equal" ignores the simple fact that the real-world isn't equal.
"Over here on my Linux systems, I can deny execute permission to entire filesystems (such as users' home directories)"
This is very easy to do on Windows. You just deny execute permissions - you can do it for users or groups, and on whole directory trees/filesystems.
There's also a "software restriction policy" - you can determine what files can be executed based on filename, directory, a hash of the file, or a signature on the file.
"I did an strace of a (brand new, designed-for-XP) program on Windows XP recently. The program changes the mouse cursor when you mouse over certain UI features. According to strace, Windows XP uses WOW (windows-on-windows -- Win16 emulation!)"
From your language, I would assume that this is a 3rd party program. The "Designed for Windows XP" logo doesn't require an application to be legacy-free, it simply requires that it:
- Follows the human interface guidelines - Installs and runs as a limited user - Doesn't overwrite system DLLs (not that it matters, anyway)
There are a few more requirements, but those are the primary aspects.
Slashdot Mirror
"A fresh, first generation tape in a good machine blows 320x240 away any day."
Yeah, and a 128kbit MP3 may not hold a candle to a fresh, properly mastered CD. But most CDs aren't properly mastered: they have their dynamic range compressed so much that they are clipping almost constantly. When most people think of VHS, they think of their own personal recordings or old tapes from Blockbuster, not the full capability of the medium.
This is improvement, but it's still not good enough. I can get a full two-disc DVD set (movie+bonus features) for around $13 - new. At Blockbuster, you can get (slightly) used DVD sets for $6-$10. I'm sorry, but a single CD, even with enhanced content, is still not as valuable as a 2 hour movie plus several hours of bonus footage. Heck, "The Matrix" included a soundtrack-only mix.
And GTK+'s fully-adjustable font sizes with automatic resizing makes any kind of zooming applet look like a piece of crap.
Windows does this too, although not as elegently.
Oh, and the "new" contrast enhancing functions of OS X have been in my NVIDIA drivers since 2001. You can adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, and there's a control called "Digital Vibrance" that makes colors more pronounced.
1: Documents, MP3s, etc. all go under your home folder. This is for Linux and Windows as well. If you want something to be accessible by all users (e.g. MP3s), Windows provides a special virtual-user folder called "All users" which works nicely.
/home and /root).
2: Everything you care about goes under "My Documents" on Windows - the Desktop is temporary and is deleted regularly.
3: Folders under My Documents. I have "Text Documents", "Notes", "Photos", "Music", "Applications", "Programming", and "Other".
4: If I work on any project that takes more than one file, it gets it's own subfolder under one of the main category folders.
This way, I can find everything that I want very easily. And when it comes time to backup, I just copy the entire "Documents and Settings" tree (alanagous to
Does this remind anyone of "Kirby's Tilt and Tumble"? It was a Game Boy game where you tilted the entire system to move Kirby, and flicked the system up to jump. Very cool.
"For example, you'd have to ensure that VRAM was inaccessable to the users,"
Microsoft's DRM (at least in Windows Media Player), when set to the highest level, only outputs to signed sound/video drivers (WQHL certified), which means you'll need to play some crafty tricks to access the VRAM. Not that it can't be done.
"all pc users do is trash the mac. it's all disinformation, and i never see any examples of how the pc is better."
OK,
1: More software. Period.
2: Cheaper hardware. The 1.6Ghz G5 is $2000. A similarly equipped P4 2.8Ghz Pavilion (Yes, with a DVD burner) is less than $1000.
3: Upgradibility. What if I want to put a DVD+RW in my PowerMac G5? What about an HDTV tuner card? Whatever I buy, it will likely work with Windows; the same can not be said of a Mac.
4: Choice. I can get a Mac from one vendor. I can get PCs from hundreds of small and large vendors, and if I don't like what they have, I can get one fully custom built - or custom build my own. Don't like a particular style of case? There are thousands of designs to choose from. There are essentially six models of Macs (G5, G4, iMac, eMac, iBook, PowerBook). Just one PC vendor has more models than that. There's everything from the 3lb Sony Picturebook to a 12lb desktop in a laptop. I can even choose processors from 4 different companies (Transmeta, Via, AMD, Intel) - more if you include older x86 processors. Pentium 4, Pentium III, Athlon XP, Opteron, Athlon 64, Xeon, C3, Eden, Crusoe.
4 good reasons to choose a PC.
Oh, and Macs are not "easier to use". Show me the studies that prove this. They may be more secure, but Windows gets better with every service pack and hotfix. Every major worm in the past year has had a patch released at least one month before it hit. Microosft's "Security Push" is paying off.
I do agree with your points - the old concepts of cable/telecom being regulated are on their way out. Indeed, I can get my telecom service from 3 different companies (through the same wires). Ironically, it works this way with my power as well. I still think that power should be regulated because the reliability of the service is paramout (lives can be lost when it fails) and because otherwise crucial maintenence would not be done (cutting corners to cut costs). That is why there are consumer regulations, airline regulations, auto regulations, environmental regulations, and other regulations - these are all ways in which the government disrupts the "free market", but they are crucial ones as they set minimums that corporations must meet and prevent the abuse of customers and the environment.
"In that respect, it's an inherently bad idea to handle power generation the way we do today."
Actually, today, it's quite a good idea. Power loss in the system is minimized by having substations and transformers. One estimate I heard put it at around 3% of used capacity. Since larger generators are usually more efficent, perhaps a centralized approach isn't so bad.
"Yeah, well, some of us live in the US, where we like to Let the Market Decide(TM), and we apparently Decided to get Screwed with crap like CDMA instead of the pre-existing global fucking standard of GSM. Hooray for free market capitalism! :-P"
GSM has a 16km hard cell-size limit. CDMA cells can be 4 times as large and handle 2 times as many calls. Oh, and it has lower-latency, higher bandwidth data service. And better voice quality.
Hmmm, so we have a better, more economical, easier to deploy technology, or a less good, more expensive, harder to deploy technology. Is it any wonder why the US cellular industry chose CDMA.
By the way, there is GSM service in the US. Three major providers: AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile.
"The USA just does not work like this: most significant industries are incredibly regulated, and telecoms is one of these. Energy is another."
Energy and telecoms are regulated out of necessity. It makes sense for one company to run power lines and one company to run phone lines. Having 10 companies compete would be nice, but it is not likely to happen. So regulation is how the industry is kept from price-gouging. The power blackout in New York was caused by a (British owned) power company that neglected upgrades and maintenence - this happened because of deregulation, not because of regulation.
Wireless telecoms don't work the same way. That's why they are much less regulated in the US.
And, frankly, we have the best, cheapest mobile phone services. Yes, we have the odd "recieving party pays", and we pay a monthly fee. But for my $40 a month ($30 without the data), I get:
- Unlimited calling on nights, weekends, and to other phones on the same network
- 600 minutes to use anytime else
- Unlimited SMS and 1xRTT (144kbit data), not billed by the messege or the kilobyte
- Free roaming in a country roughly 3x the size and with as many people as the EU
- Free long-distance, anwhere within the same area
My friends all have the same provider, so I can call them whenever I want, for as long as I want, wherever I am in the country. Now, is coverage as good as it is in Europe? No. But all the major roads are covered, as well as all towns and cities with more than a couple of thousand people. And it's CDMA, too. I thought that my GSM phone sounded good until I got CDMA. No static, no wierd artifacts, no hiss. And data service with 3x the bandwidth and 1/2 the latency of GPRS.
Prefer GSM? Fine. T-Mobile, AT&T, or Cingular will be happy to have your business. They even have roaming agreements so you can roam (free, of course) onto other GSM networks in the US. Prefer CDMA? Verizon and Sprint will be happy to give you service.
Look at the progression of the US wireless industry:
1983: First (analog) cellular service in US begins
1992: First GSM service in Europe
1995: First GSM service in USA, First CDMA service in US
1999: First "No Roaming, No Long Distance" promotion (AT&T OneRate)
2000: First "Free Nights/Weekends" Promotion (Verizon), First "Others on the same network" promotion
2001: AT&T Goes GSM
2002: LEAP introduces Cricket, $32 unlimited calling, but only works in your home area.
2002: Sprint introduces unlimited 1xRTT
2003: Cingular introduces "rollover", lets you keep unused minutes for 1 year after they are (not) used.
2003: Free Nights/Weekends, Free Roaming, Free Long Distance, Same network promotions are the standard. So is unlimited data.
So, are we really that far behind? CDMA, GSM, 1xRTT? Our wireless system works differently. Yes, the person recieving the call pays (with plan minutes (or with unlim. night/wknd/same service), but the person calling doesn't pay (no $0.25 per minute; it's just another local call, or, if the cellphone number is in a different area code, it's $0.03 a minute). It's partially because the US had cellphones in 1983. It's not "worse" just because it doesn't work like the European system.
SP2 is scheduled for this fall.
Actually, I sort of like what Microsoft's strategy is. XP is "Good Enough", and I don't mind that it will be *the* windows for the immediate future. One thing that bugs me with Apple's approach is that you always seem to need the latest OS to use the latest softaware. Yes, 10.2 is a lot better than 10.1, but what if I'm happy with 10.1 and don't want to pay $120 to upgrade? Many Mac apps now *require* 10.2 - that's stupid. There are very few Windows apps that won't work fine on 98 or 2000. And Microsoft gives you *free* upgrades for 98 - my old computer (Pentium 300, 192MB memory) doesn't really nead XP (It's in the kitchen for web-surfing, mostly), but since I got it, I've recieved, free:
Internet Explorer 5.0 and 6.0
Windows Media Player 7.0 and 9.0
DirectX 8.0 and 9.0
Internet Connection Sharing (98SE)
Outlook Express (Several New Versions)
Lots of bugfixes and security patches
All of these updates make the OS just a little bit better. Moreover, I can still run games like Jedi Outcast. Try tunning a recent Mac OS game on OS 8.0 - it's not going to happen. I love Apple's upgrades to the OS - each major version has had substantial, worthwhile upgrades. I just don't like the fact that I need the latest OS to run the latest software.
Now, admiddadly, Microsoft has abandoned Windows 95 - but if you have a computer that old, you probably shouldn't be running DirectX 9 or Windows Media Player 9 or Internet Explorer 9 anyway. Well, actually, Internet Explorer 5.5, the last version for Windows 95, runs fine on my Omnibook 800CT (Pentium 133, 32MB memory). I know that people claim that Mozilla renders faster, but in my experience, Internet Explorer is faster, especially on older hardware.
In general, the "K" sound is hard to pronounce and hard to spell. "Q" is also uncommon and makes words harder to spell. So does "U". Konquerer is extremely hard to spell, and it does an extremely bad job of describing a web browser/file manager. Epiphany is little better (easier to spell, but still lacks descriptiveness). Safari is better yet (common word, easy to pronounce and spell, somewhat descriptive). The best name for a web browser would have to go to Microsoft: you don't get much more obvious than "Internet Explorer". Media players? There's GStreamer and XMMS and Xine, all of which have horrible names (not common words, hard to spell, don't describe the product). iTunes is quite good, as is Windows Media Player.
Good:
Internet Explorer
iTunes
iPhoto
Windows Media Player
Notepad
Calculator
Paint
Word
Windows Messenger
iChat
Windows
Bad:
Epiphany (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
Konqueror (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
GNOME (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
KDE (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
gCalc (Non-Standard)
Gnumeric (Non-Standard, Semi Descriptive)
Evolution (Not Descriptive)
XMMS (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
Notice a trend here? Apps should be named on what they do rather than some obscure pun. "System Monitor" is better than gtop. "Spreadsheet" is better than "Gnumeric". "Web Browser" is better than "Epiphany". "Notepad" is better than "Gedit". "Dial-Up Connections" is better than "KPPP". "Media Player" is better than "gStreamer".
Both the GNOME and KDE projects need to standardize on their own set of applications and encourage those applications to use simple names. gStreamer could become "GNOME Media Player" (this would be the project name; it would simply be called "Media Player" in the GNOME menu).
You used CDParanoia, which is designed to work around read errors and rip the same every time. Not every CD ripper is so precise.
Let's see, we're going to link a JVM and a media player into a web browser? And people think Mozilla is bloated already.
Introducing Mozilla AntiFirebird(TM). 62.3 megabytes and counting!
"However, Gtk is not getting any better on any platforms other than Linux."
It's still quite "rough", but I've seen a lot of improvement from the GTK 1.x days. With the WIMP skin and a little work on a consistant interface (drag and drop, copy and paste, etc.), it could be quite good. Look at GAIM - it's still "rough around the edges", but it's not really any worse than the QT apps I've used on Windows.
I'm a Gnome user myself, but let's face it, KDE is more similar to Win32.
Many companies actually choose GNOME for exactly that reason - it's NOT like Win32. KDE looks too similar to Windows, and users expect it to behave in exactly the same manner (which, of course, is impossible). GNOME keeps a clean, consistant interface with far fewer options and commands than KDE, as well as easier to spell and pronounce names (Konquerer? Kontour?). GNOME doesn't look like windows, and it doesn't act like windows - so users expect it to behave differently and are forced to learn instead of being confused by the small differences.
Or, at least that's what UI professionals tell me.
At 135 watts each (and the largest die size of any major microprocessor), the Itanium does a fine job of being a space heater. Better than any AMD chip.
"The Mac is easier to use."
AFAIK, there are no actual studies that prove this (except an Apple-sponsored Gartner study that was recalled by Gartner), so this is a 100% subjective thing. Also, I'm already familiar with Windows, thus better "ease of use" means nothing to me.
"Now it's also as fast (or significantly FASTER) the the PC."
We've seen benchmarks from one company, Apple. Well, by your logic, AMD's Athlon XP 3200+ is signifigantly faster than the P4 3.2ghz. We all know how false that is. Apple's released SPECMarks don't impress me. On single processor tasks (e.g. 90% of all code), in integer mode (also 90% of code), even Apple's benchmarks say that the PC is faster. Apple only wins in the rates and in fp. If you have nice, multithreaded code, and code that requires lots of fp, you might see a benefit... or not. Apple's benchmarks use GCC; most production code will use the faster ICC. As better compilers emerge for the PPC970, the gap between optimized PC performance (over 1000 in the specints vs. ~800 on the dual G5) may shrink or even reverse, but there is no telling how long that will take.
So, "Just As Fast" or "Faster" is an extremely dubious claim to be making now.
"It runs all the commercial apps you need."
Sonic Foundry Vegas 4? Acid Pro? Sound Forge? Paint Shop Pro?
These are the tools I use regularly. They happen to be considerably cheaper than the Mac equivilents. And they fit my workflow.
Is there commercial software for the Mac? Yes. Is it "all I need"? Not even remotely.
"It can emulate proprietary in-house apps with VirtualPC."
Well, yeah, but then you need a Virtual PC license and a Windows license.
"It can play all the latest games, even if they laga couple months (get a PS2, also!)."
Hmmmm... I don't think so. "All the latest games" is a very strong claim. One that I doubt you can back up. All means everything.
"It's UNIX under the hood and runs X11 for added compatability."
It's UNIX under the hood. Wow. That's some kind of a great feature, I'm sure. For POSIX compliance, Windows has cygwin. I can even run KDE under Win32. And you can always run Linux on a PC... or a Mac.
"All of this, and it's not any more expensive than comparable PC hardware."
Bzzzt.... wrong answer. Maybe if you compare to Xeon, but Xeon is extremely overpriced. Apple's $2000 G5 (1x1.6ghz G5, 256MB PC2700 DDR, GeForceFX 5200 64M, 80GB SATA HDD) is actually a mid-range PC.
A similar HP Pavilion (2.6Ghz P4, 256M PC2700 DDR, 80GB 7200rpm HDD, 4X DVD+R/RW, GeForceFX 5200 128M) is less than half the cost ($929.99). Faster Processor (Even if you go by Apple's FP numbers; the rates don't apply on 1P systems), same amount of memory, better GPU, and a similar HDD, and a DVD burner. And it's less than half as much.
So, equivalently priced, yet twice as expensive? Quite a contradiction here.
"It's time to take an objective look at these systems if you're in the market for a new machine. Just take a look. If you don't like it, then don't buy it... but the Mac is a VERY viable platform these days. More so now than ever."
Your right, it is time to take an objective look. The numbers don't lie. Mac's are more expensive. The're more proprietary. They have less available software. And not even Apple's $3000 computer can beat a $1200 PC (that same Pavilion, with a 3Ghz P4) in SPECInt, by their own numbers. Apple's product is the same that it's always been - spectacularly marketed, overpriced, underperforming equipment. You might say that the're the BOSE of the computer industry.
You haven't been reading Slashdot for long enough, have you.
Comparing Slashdot to journalism is like comparing a McDonald's cheeseburger to Prime Rib.
1: It's quite simple, just right-click on a directory and choose properties, click security, click advanced, and you can deny execute permission on an entire directory (and subdirectoiries if you like)
2: I'm not sure about the permission method, but the group policy method does deny vbscripts and other types of executable files.
3: Yes, but it can be on by default in Linux too. I didn't have to do a chmod to execute NVIDIA's binary installer.
The platform is far more than the hardware, it is the OS, the libraries, and the compilers. AMD is comparing Opteron to Xeon, and running ICC to generate their binaries. Why? Because there's no better compiler for Opteron. Is it a disadvantage? Yes, but that's life. With all things equal, perhaps the G5 is faster. But all things are not equal. 95% of Windows programs are not compiled with GCC. The performance-dependant ones use ICC. You can't just compare the hardware because software also plays an important part in system performance.
Oh, and Apple is the only major computer company that benchmarks compeditors systems and releases the results. AMD, HP, Dell, Intel, and other companies submit their results to SPEC and draw their graphs from submitted SPEC scores. Why didn't Apple do this? Because their results aren't very impressive. That could be because there are no G5 optimized compilers. In the future there may be, but there will also be better x86 compilers.
We're not running a science experiment here. This is reality. And a test that cripples the P4 to make things "equal" ignores the simple fact that the real-world isn't equal.
"One of the advantages of Qt is that it provides a common interface to X-Windows, MS Windows, and Mac OS GUI programming."
Thankfully, GTK+ also does this. Gaim/Win32 is proof of that. With the new Wimp skin, GTK+ even matches the Windows look, for the most part.
Of course, there are also QT apps that I enjoy on Windows. MySQLAdmin, for one.
"Over here on my Linux systems, I can deny execute permission to entire filesystems (such as users' home directories)"
This is very easy to do on Windows. You just deny execute permissions - you can do it for users or groups, and on whole directory trees/filesystems.
There's also a "software restriction policy" - you can determine what files can be executed based on filename, directory, a hash of the file, or a signature on the file.
"I did an strace of a (brand new, designed-for-XP) program on Windows XP recently. The program changes the mouse cursor when you mouse over certain UI features. According to strace, Windows XP uses WOW (windows-on-windows -- Win16 emulation!)"
From your language, I would assume that this is a 3rd party program. The "Designed for Windows XP" logo doesn't require an application to be legacy-free, it simply requires that it:
- Follows the human interface guidelines
- Installs and runs as a limited user
- Doesn't overwrite system DLLs (not that it matters, anyway)
There are a few more requirements, but those are the primary aspects.
Actually, they couldn't. All of Microsoft's patches are cryptographically signed, so unless RSA-2048 has been cracked, users are fine.
It is far more likely that the US people would be demanding that we nuke Mecca.