There simply isn't that much sophisticated (we're not talking about peachtree here) software out there that runs on the Mac.
How about Oracle? Sybase? Maya? Mathematica?
What do you consider sophisticated? I can't tell you how many unix sysadmins, java folks and web developers I know that have moved to Mac OS X in the last year or so.
if apple made an os X for pc, they could trash m$ in just a couple of years
I don't understand why people believe this to be the case. The main problem is not that the mass market wants x86 hardware. It's that Microsoft has used its infinite resources to completely obfiscate the advantages of non-Windows platforms. If the collective consciouness of computeruserdom undestood that you shouldn't have to put up with all of the problems that Microsoft throws at you, I think we'd see a substantial exodus to Mac OS X.
Moving Mac OS X to generic x86 hardward partially solves the problem of initial cost, but you're still feeding into the mindset that computers can be easy to use if they're based on such on architecture. There's absolutely no way a user can expect to consistently have a good experience when their particular computer is but one instance in a sea of configurations of varying quality.
In other words: the hardware/software integration is a core component of why Mac OS X is so good.
And regardless of the state of software/hardware compatibility, the biggest issue is and will continue to be that Microsoft has made things so confusing that it has scared people into thinking Microsoft is their only option.
So am I missing something? The early releases of 4.3.0 talked about passing objects by reference, static/private members, etc. Did this get pulled and moved back to 5.0?
It doesn't matter, people who don't like Apple's attitude can just switch to alternative suppliers of Macintoshes and buy OS X from someone else.
No they can't, but at least Apple provides the industry with another viable consumer platform. There's no money right now in making yet another x86 OS.
This industry would suck without Apple. It would also suck without Linux.
Sure, there will be a PowerBook revamp soon, but let's face it, until a new PowerPC chip comes out, Apple basically has nothing that exciting to introduce
If you're addicted to CPUs, I guess. Most of the interesting stuff coming out of Apple has nothing to do with processors.
They would crush Microsoft within 5 years if they would port Mac OSX to Intel/AMD based hardware sell copies of the OS at $50/ea, and help get software designers to include binaries for both OSes in every box they sell
So you base this assumption on what, exactly?
Perhaps you would like to be able to buy a dirt-cheap PC that Mac OS X to boot on. But I don't think the end result for both you and Apple would be nearly as picturesque as you describe.
Windows is Microsoft's core business. It's hard to imagine Apple crushing Apple on standard wintel hardware, especially in five years. Apple has a considerable product development advantage when working with their own hardware. A lot of the ease-of-use and simple management aspects of Mac OS X come from intergrated hardware.
I don't think you're really looking at any of this closely enough to understand what you're getting. Or maybe Apple isn't communicating it well enough.
Address Book, for example, is not just a simple app. It's a system-level database with public APIs. Quartz Extreme is rather mind-blowing when you see it in action, but at the bear minimum it should make your entire system feel faster, there are tons of improves at the unix level, and polish/speed improvements all around.
You're certainly not alone. Other people seem to say they don't see any need to buy it. But I just don't understand why this is the case. Maybe it's the fact that they called it 10.2. Maybe there aren't enough features that are easy to put into a brochure or web site.
It figures. Apple figures out how to defy software engineer physics, and ship an aggressive project on time -- the public's response is "what, already? I don't want to pay yet."
Apple has hit their stride in the new OS they're done putting out fires and have been absolutely flying in terms of new development. Basically, they're unshackled from Mac OS 9, now, which makes a huge difference. It blows my mind how much they got done for this release.
GeForce4 Ti (dual monitor capable) is a BTO option in the online store. I don't keep up with the Radeons, but you can select a Radeon 9000 Pro, if that means anything.
hat about Omniweb? it does a pretty good job (CSS/JS/etc). It's not IE or Moz, but apparently your javascript doesn't seem cross-platform enough.
OmniWeb's CSS and JavaScript (ECMAScript) support is not complete, and therefore, will have problems in some situations, even if the site is authored to spec.
MacIE and Netscape/Mozilla both face the same basic problem. They are ports of applications written for a system with a very limited architecture (Mac OS 9). Until the apps work in the way that is best suited to the OS X architecture (this can be done from within Carbon), they will not reach their full potential.
Try Chimera, which is a Cocoa browser app wrapped around Gecko. It's not complete feature-wise yet, but the rendering engine is quite solid and development is moving quickly.
Looking at the specs, most screw-driver shops could put together something better for $1500 or so (thousands less than the Apple tax)
All true, but you're missing the point. This one runs Mac OS X (easy to use) and intergrates with Macs better than Linux, Solaris, Windows, etc. It's ideal for design firms, education, science, etc. These people using Macs on the desktop want to use them in the server room. They're not looking for the cheapest solution, they're looking for the solution with the least fuss. Another example: this is could be the best solution for server-based video editing setups.
The prices are basically the same range as their high-end desktop machines.
Apple, once again, shooting themselves in the foot
The most shooting of the foot Apple has done has involved keeping the Mac OS 9 code base for so long. It's horribly limited and inflexible. It's hard to develop for and unstable compared to just about anything else. These aren't the type of problems that will go away if you work on them enough. The system design can no longer scale.
what percentage of gone out of their way to manually download and install Adobe's 2.5 MB SVG browser plugin?
Flash went through this too. If we think Flash has too big of a lead to catch up, I think we could be in pretty big trouble from a competiton standpoint. That's another Windows brewing -- which is great for Macromedia but bad for pretty much everyone else.
Adobe certainly has more clout than many others. Maybe they can make a dent.
Not even/. HTML complies with the W3C standards. W3C is a morgue
Hmmm, I really don't see how W3C is a "morgue," and I don't see how the fact that Slashdot pushes nonconforming documents to browsers as supporting evidence. W3C standards are the best way to create sites that work across all major browsers.
W3C is the source of XML, XHTML and CSS (as well as many others) specs. This is what most people are using now. The fact that not everyone uses it properly is no different from when people write bad C++ code.
- Scott
Re:The difference is in the presentation
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 1
Responding to myself here...
Take a look at this to see how nicely web administration is laid out in Mac OS X Server: http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/theate r/apache. html
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the above page uses QuickTime. You can see a static screenshot here.
- Scott
The difference is in the presentation
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 1
Linux distributions include an already configured Apache (yes, with Perl, PHP & stuff) for years.
True, but I don't think it's not presented nearly as cleanly or consistently. There is a button you can push to start/stop apache in many linux distros, but getting there and/or figuring out which button to push can be confusing. There is one central control panel in Mac OS X "standard" -- System Preferences. Mac OS X Server uses Admin Tool for more complex server features.
Also, as much as it has improved, installation of Linux is still a fairly big hurdle. The fact that you can go out, buy an iMac or iBook and have Apache running in 5-10 minutes out of the box with little or no technical knowledge is a big step.
But when Apple does it, people are "blown away". I think it doesn't matter what Apple does, no matter what it is, people will say that it's 1) easy 2) user-friendly and 3) innovative. The power of marketing.
Marketing certainly plays a role, but I don't think you're giving Apple enough credit on the software side. My experience has been that some long time nix users will see Linux and Mac OS X side by side, see similar features, but sometimes miss how the presentation can make all the difference for the end user.
Take a look at this to see how nicely web administration is laid out in Mac OS X Server:
Other Apache admin tools have similar fields to input data, but that's only one aspect of using the software.
Now, let's bear in mind Mac OS X Server is $500 whereas Linux is free... although many people and organizations (small design houses, for example) can actually save money and sanity by spending the cash upfront and not having to spend as much time figuring this stuff out.
But that's the nice thing about *nix, you can choose the flavor that suits you best. Even if you don't personally prefer Mac OS X to Linux, the entire community is helped by the fact that we have another alternative to Windows.
- Scott
Preinstalled X not necessarily good.
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 1
My biggest beef with OS X was that the X-Window systems was not installed by default
I'm guessing this policy is partially because Apple doesn't want developers to "port" to Mac OS X by recompiling for Darwin with X11. It would provide a pretty horrible experience and we're back to square one. I suppose this is debatable, but I can see merit in this. If apps are ported to Cocoa or Carbon, everything works very nicely together.
X11 is fine for hardcore nix folks, but arguably bad for "normal" people. The people that do want X11 won't have much of a problem setting it up.
Slashdot Mirror
There simply isn't that much sophisticated (we're not talking about peachtree here) software out there that runs on the Mac.
How about Oracle? Sybase? Maya? Mathematica?
What do you consider sophisticated? I can't tell you how many unix sysadmins, java folks and web developers I know that have moved to Mac OS X in the last year or so.
- Scott
if apple made an os X for pc, they could trash m$ in just a couple of years
I don't understand why people believe this to be the case. The main problem is not that the mass market wants x86 hardware. It's that Microsoft has used its infinite resources to completely obfiscate the advantages of non-Windows platforms. If the collective consciouness of computeruserdom undestood that you shouldn't have to put up with all of the problems that Microsoft throws at you, I think we'd see a substantial exodus to Mac OS X.
Moving Mac OS X to generic x86 hardward partially solves the problem of initial cost, but you're still feeding into the mindset that computers can be easy to use if they're based on such on architecture. There's absolutely no way a user can expect to consistently have a good experience when their particular computer is but one instance in a sea of configurations of varying quality.
In other words: the hardware/software integration is a core component of why Mac OS X is so good.
And regardless of the state of software/hardware compatibility, the biggest issue is and will continue to be that Microsoft has made things so confusing that it has scared people into thinking Microsoft is their only option.
- Scott
So am I missing something? The early releases of 4.3.0 talked about passing objects by reference, static/private members, etc. Did this get pulled and moved back to 5.0?
- Scott
It doesn't matter, people who don't like Apple's attitude can just switch to alternative suppliers of Macintoshes and buy OS X from someone else.
No they can't, but at least Apple provides the industry with another viable consumer platform. There's no money right now in making yet another x86 OS.
This industry would suck without Apple. It would also suck without Linux.
- Scott
It's not like Apple is doing so well that they can afford to play the role of protester.
If Apple was the only one having problems selling computers, you might have a point.
- Scott
Sure, there will be a PowerBook revamp soon, but let's face it, until a new PowerPC chip comes out, Apple basically has nothing that exciting to introduce
If you're addicted to CPUs, I guess. Most of the interesting stuff coming out of Apple has nothing to do with processors.
- Scott
They would crush Microsoft within 5 years if they would port Mac OSX to Intel/AMD based hardware sell copies of the OS at $50/ea, and help get software designers to include binaries for both OSes in every box they sell
So you base this assumption on what, exactly?
Perhaps you would like to be able to buy a dirt-cheap PC that Mac OS X to boot on. But I don't think the end result for both you and Apple would be nearly as picturesque as you describe.
Windows is Microsoft's core business. It's hard to imagine Apple crushing Apple on standard wintel hardware, especially in five years. Apple has a considerable product development advantage when working with their own hardware. A lot of the ease-of-use and simple management aspects of Mac OS X come from intergrated hardware.
- Scott
I don't think you're really looking at any of this closely enough to understand what you're getting. Or maybe Apple isn't communicating it well enough.
Address Book, for example, is not just a simple app. It's a system-level database with public APIs. Quartz Extreme is rather mind-blowing when you see it in action, but at the bear minimum it should make your entire system feel faster, there are tons of improves at the unix level, and polish/speed improvements all around.
You're certainly not alone. Other people seem to say they don't see any need to buy it. But I just don't understand why this is the case. Maybe it's the fact that they called it 10.2. Maybe there aren't enough features that are easy to put into a brochure or web site.
It figures. Apple figures out how to defy software engineer physics, and ship an aggressive project on time -- the public's response is "what, already? I don't want to pay yet."
- Scott
Apple has hit their stride in the new OS they're done putting out fires and have been absolutely flying in terms of new development. Basically, they're unshackled from Mac OS 9, now, which makes a huge difference. It blows my mind how much they got done for this release.
- Scott
GeForce4 Ti (dual monitor capable) is a BTO option in the online store. I don't keep up with the Radeons, but you can select a Radeon 9000 Pro, if that means anything.
- Scott
A lot of the craziness involving nested tables goes away if you use CSS, like W3C recommends.
It's not perfect, but I can't imagine going back to all those nested tables, single pixel hacks, etc. It's such much easier to maintain.
- Scott
hat about Omniweb? it does a pretty good job (CSS/JS/etc). It's not IE or Moz, but apparently your javascript doesn't seem cross-platform enough.
OmniWeb's CSS and JavaScript (ECMAScript) support is not complete, and therefore, will have problems in some situations, even if the site is authored to spec.
- Scott
MacIE and Netscape/Mozilla both face the same basic problem. They are ports of applications written for a system with a very limited architecture (Mac OS 9). Until the apps work in the way that is best suited to the OS X architecture (this can be done from within Carbon), they will not reach their full potential.
Try Chimera, which is a Cocoa browser app wrapped around Gecko. It's not complete feature-wise yet, but the rendering engine is quite solid and development is moving quickly.
- Scott
Apple didn't release a rack mount system years ago
I don't think this would have been too practical without Mac OS X in its current form.
- Scott
Looking at the specs, most screw-driver shops could put together something better for $1500 or so (thousands less than the Apple tax)
All true, but you're missing the point. This one runs Mac OS X (easy to use) and intergrates with Macs better than Linux, Solaris, Windows, etc. It's ideal for design firms, education, science, etc. These people using Macs on the desktop want to use them in the server room. They're not looking for the cheapest solution, they're looking for the solution with the least fuss. Another example: this is could be the best solution for server-based video editing setups.
The prices are basically the same range as their high-end desktop machines.
- Scott
iChat a new Apple IM client built into the 10.2 release of Mac OS X. I know the lead engineer
Could you ask him really nicely to use standard a standard Aqua background instead of brushed metal? Pleeeease?
Brushed metal stands out like a sore thumb to me. I love Aqua.
- Scott
I have the same configuration and do Java development on it. Works fine. My other machine is a G4/733.
- Scott
Apple, once again, shooting themselves in the foot
The most shooting of the foot Apple has done has involved keeping the Mac OS 9 code base for so long. It's horribly limited and inflexible. It's hard to develop for and unstable compared to just about anything else. These aren't the type of problems that will go away if you work on them enough. The system design can no longer scale.
- Scott
This is unfortunate for us OS X users because Windows Media Player is crap
Windows Media seems work fine for me on OS X. Meaning, it plays the movies I ask it to play. Appears to be better than the OS 9 version in general.
- Scott
Why bother with a crap-ass Mac anyways. My Athlon more than blows away any other home-based computer system out there
:)
Since everyone knows CPU speed is the most important factor when selecting a computer.
- Scott
what percentage of gone out of their way to manually download and install Adobe's 2.5 MB SVG browser plugin?
Flash went through this too. If we think Flash has too big of a lead to catch up, I think we could be in pretty big trouble from a competiton standpoint. That's another Windows brewing -- which is great for Macromedia but bad for pretty much everyone else.
Adobe certainly has more clout than many others. Maybe they can make a dent.
- Scott
Not even /. HTML complies with the W3C standards. W3C is a morgue
Hmmm, I really don't see how W3C is a "morgue," and I don't see how the fact that Slashdot pushes nonconforming documents to browsers as supporting evidence. W3C standards are the best way to create sites that work across all major browsers.
W3C is the source of XML, XHTML and CSS (as well as many others) specs. This is what most people are using now. The fact that not everyone uses it properly is no different from when people write bad C++ code.
- Scott
Responding to myself here...
e r/apache. html
Take a look at this to see how nicely web administration is laid out in Mac OS X Server:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/theat
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the above page uses QuickTime. You can see a static screenshot here.
- Scott
Linux distributions include an already configured Apache (yes, with Perl, PHP & stuff) for years.
. html
True, but I don't think it's not presented nearly as cleanly or consistently. There is a button you can push to start/stop apache in many linux distros, but getting there and/or figuring out which button to push can be confusing. There is one central control panel in Mac OS X "standard" -- System Preferences. Mac OS X Server uses Admin Tool for more complex server features.
Also, as much as it has improved, installation of Linux is still a fairly big hurdle. The fact that you can go out, buy an iMac or iBook and have Apache running in 5-10 minutes out of the box with little or no technical knowledge is a big step.
But when Apple does it, people are "blown away". I think it doesn't matter what Apple does, no matter what it is, people will say that it's 1) easy 2) user-friendly and 3) innovative. The power of marketing.
Marketing certainly plays a role, but I don't think you're giving Apple enough credit on the software side. My experience has been that some long time nix users will see Linux and Mac OS X side by side, see similar features, but sometimes miss how the presentation can make all the difference for the end user.
Take a look at this to see how nicely web administration is laid out in Mac OS X Server:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/theater/apache
Other Apache admin tools have similar fields to input data, but that's only one aspect of using the software.
Now, let's bear in mind Mac OS X Server is $500 whereas Linux is free... although many people and organizations (small design houses, for example) can actually save money and sanity by spending the cash upfront and not having to spend as much time figuring this stuff out.
But that's the nice thing about *nix, you can choose the flavor that suits you best. Even if you don't personally prefer Mac OS X to Linux, the entire community is helped by the fact that we have another alternative to Windows.
- Scott
My biggest beef with OS X was that the X-Window systems was not installed by default
I'm guessing this policy is partially because Apple doesn't want developers to "port" to Mac OS X by recompiling for Darwin with X11. It would provide a pretty horrible experience and we're back to square one. I suppose this is debatable, but I can see merit in this. If apps are ported to Cocoa or Carbon, everything works very nicely together.
X11 is fine for hardcore nix folks, but arguably bad for "normal" people. The people that do want X11 won't have much of a problem setting it up.
- Scott