"How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here."
That's pretty childish. Even if his point is a good one, that kind of gradeschool attitude isn't what I'd call very good journalism; well-made arguments stand on their own without the "neener neener" element.
Free software such as Linux is better because it's free; anyone can have access to what goes on under the hood, tune it, improve it and expel parts that don't work. This way, a community builds the operating system and the grassroots contributions of people who want something other than money, and they control it.
Windows is not ilke that. You cannot look under the hood. You cannot contribute your knowhow and expertise to its development. What is contributed cannot be put under the light of examination by other experts. What you do not like cannot be removed. Things that Microsoft does not intend to fix or is taking too long to fix cannot be taken care of by an individual.
The difference, therefore, between Windows and Linux is clear, and I think we've all seen the obvious evidences of it. Microsoft points fingers, blames, excuses and white-washes their OS-related problems. The Linux community simply gets to work on theirs and fixes them in a fraction of the time.
I am also a Mac user. In fact, I'm a very avid one. The main reason I've stuck with them is because they moved core elements of their OS to a UNIX-style kernel. If they hadn't, I'd be running Linux now.
You're sort of right and you sort of aren't. I think that anyone who is familiar with computer basics will know that any operating system can be crashed if you do the right things. Dropping the right bomb into either a Linux or OS X terminal will drop it like third period French.
The question is whether or not an operating system is "stable" is based mostly on whether or not it crashes during *routine* and *normal* duties and tasks. If an operating system crashes when I open up a terminal and type something that's designed to create a crash, I don't consider that OS to be unstable. If an operating system crashes when I'm trying to install a video card, save a large file, change audio settings or check my mail, well... that's when I start to complain.
"It costs twice as much as a build-it-yourself PC! You can't play all the latest games, only like 1 or 2 of them It's not really easier to use at all"
I'm glad you posted this because it's a good example of how a lot of the public doesn't understand the current G5 situation.
Three points:
1. Get a dual-CPU (2 Ghz each) 64-bit computer complete with 128-bit DDR RAM, 1 Ghz motherboard w/8X AGP and nine slow-speed fans. Add a CD/DVD burner. Add a Radeon 9800 Pro. Add a 80GB-or-larger hard disk. Add optical audio, PCI-X and firewire 800. Don't forget the case. If that PC costs half as much as a G5, well guess what? I still wouldn't buy it because I'd rather have a stable-as-hell operating system with a great interface that keeps UNIX under the hood.
2. Does your digital camera require drivers? Does your wireless networking card? Does your MP3 player? Does your printer? So far on OS X I haven't had to install drivers for any of this stuff. Still not convinced that it's easier to use? Try this: Put your Soundblaster Platinum in the PCI slot next to your ATI All-in-Wonder. Now sit your grandmother down in front of your PC and have her figure out why it is that one or both of them don't work. My grandmother wouldn't be able to do it, but she uses OS X on a daily basis and isn't the least bit hindered by random problems, conflicts or other mishaps. The Mac isn't perfect, I will grant that, but I won't budge on the fact that it is most definitely easier to use, especially for those who don't know a lot about computers.
3. If you think the Mac only has one or two of the latest games... dude... that's the kind of talk that doesn't say "I'm trying to make a point". It's the kind of talk that says "I just want to make fun of the Mac without having to know anything about it"
Don't get me wrong; I don't strive to be a Mac evangelist. I just like to play on the level field of fact vs. fact.
"The new RealPC was fake and the VirtualPC was real, but now the new VirtualPC is owned by the folks responsible for the real PCs, and the RealPC is virtually toast."
The number of "Flamebait" and "Offtopic" replies to this story should clearly show how the public at large - even game players - have a hard time really accepting that game journalism is an important part of the media stream. Personal experience has definitely shown this to be the case, despite the explosive rise of the video game industry (which is rumored to overtake the movie industry in yearly profits). You can't slight people for this; the game journalism scene has a long way to go still.
This causes me to think: If the public doesn't take game journalism seriously, how seriously do you think the journalists themselves can take it? Having spent the last five years working as a game reviewer and editor, I find the biggest problem I have with the reporters who work under me is that they themselves don't totally believe the work is "legit". As a result, game reporters don't believe in the worth of their own professionalism and, therefore, most of my hardest struggles in these past five years has been to raise the bar so that people do, in fact, take us as seriously as any other news outlet.
The good news is that it is, in fact, getting better...
Re:One of the things I find annoying...
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
One reason I think Doom stands above Wolf as the real father of first person shooter games is because it broke ground with internet multiplayer "deathmatch" type gaming that you could actually use. Many, if not most modern FPS games promote multiplayer as at least half of the product, and in that sense Doom is actually a front-runner.
I understand the point you're making, but I think you might have missed mine: Servers, WiFi and 3d acceleration aren't new ideas pioneered solely by Apple. I was only saying that it'll be years before people realize Apple uses them.
You make some excellent points. I've begun to think that general Macintosh opinion among the public lags about five years behind the reality. How many Mac users have heard non-Mac users rant about the fruit-colored iMac, a computer that's been out of production for years? On the other hand, even tech geeks in general are largely unaware of the BSD underpinnings or free iApps... all stuff that's come along largely since the advent of OS X and makes the Mac of greater value to geeks and casual users alike.
My guess is that in the year 2007 or 2008 the public will be saying "Did you know that Apple has a server box?" or "Did you know those new Apple laptops use 802.11g?" or "Hey, OS X shunts all the quartz compositing off to the video card! That's a neat idea".
I, for one, am tired of having to entertain anti-Mac arguments from people who are well-versed in the latest Wintel situation but haven't checked in on Apple in more years than you can count on a single hand.
I'm always a little surprised when someone accuses Apple of shipping products without them being fully tested first while Microsoft is still in the world. I mean... no product is perfect. That's agreed. I'm just wondering if it's such a big deal if OSX isn't perfect while Windows 95, Internet Explorer, MS Word and lots of other stuff from MS were virtually unusuable in version 1.0.
Slashdot Mirror
"How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here."
That's pretty childish. Even if his point is a good one, that kind of gradeschool attitude isn't what I'd call very good journalism; well-made arguments stand on their own without the "neener neener" element.
Free software such as Linux is better because it's free; anyone can have access to what goes on under the hood, tune it, improve it and expel parts that don't work. This way, a community builds the operating system and the grassroots contributions of people who want something other than money, and they control it.
Windows is not ilke that. You cannot look under the hood. You cannot contribute your knowhow and expertise to its development. What is contributed cannot be put under the light of examination by other experts. What you do not like cannot be removed. Things that Microsoft does not intend to fix or is taking too long to fix cannot be taken care of by an individual.
The difference, therefore, between Windows and Linux is clear, and I think we've all seen the obvious evidences of it. Microsoft points fingers, blames, excuses and white-washes their OS-related problems. The Linux community simply gets to work on theirs and fixes them in a fraction of the time.
I am also a Mac user. In fact, I'm a very avid one. The main reason I've stuck with them is because they moved core elements of their OS to a UNIX-style kernel. If they hadn't, I'd be running Linux now.
PJ did say that the Grey Havens would be in the final movie. Sorry I don't have a source for you; I heard it earlier this year.
Think linux is stable? Well your wrong!
You're sort of right and you sort of aren't. I think that anyone who is familiar with computer basics will know that any operating system can be crashed if you do the right things. Dropping the right bomb into either a Linux or OS X terminal will drop it like third period French.
The question is whether or not an operating system is "stable" is based mostly on whether or not it crashes during *routine* and *normal* duties and tasks. If an operating system crashes when I open up a terminal and type something that's designed to create a crash, I don't consider that OS to be unstable. If an operating system crashes when I'm trying to install a video card, save a large file, change audio settings or check my mail, well... that's when I start to complain.
"It costs twice as much as a build-it-yourself PC!
You can't play all the latest games, only like 1 or 2 of them
It's not really easier to use at all"
I'm glad you posted this because it's a good example of how a lot of the public doesn't understand the current G5 situation.
Three points:
1. Get a dual-CPU (2 Ghz each) 64-bit computer complete with 128-bit DDR RAM, 1 Ghz motherboard w/8X AGP and nine slow-speed fans. Add a CD/DVD burner. Add a Radeon 9800 Pro. Add a 80GB-or-larger hard disk. Add optical audio, PCI-X and firewire 800. Don't forget the case. If that PC costs half as much as a G5, well guess what? I still wouldn't buy it because I'd rather have a stable-as-hell operating system with a great interface that keeps UNIX under the hood.
2. Does your digital camera require drivers? Does your wireless networking card? Does your MP3 player? Does your printer? So far on OS X I haven't had to install drivers for any of this stuff. Still not convinced that it's easier to use? Try this: Put your Soundblaster Platinum in the PCI slot next to your ATI All-in-Wonder. Now sit your grandmother down in front of your PC and have her figure out why it is that one or both of them don't work. My grandmother wouldn't be able to do it, but she uses OS X on a daily basis and isn't the least bit hindered by random problems, conflicts or other mishaps. The Mac isn't perfect, I will grant that, but I won't budge on the fact that it is most definitely easier to use, especially for those who don't know a lot about computers.
3. If you think the Mac only has one or two of the latest games... dude... that's the kind of talk that doesn't say "I'm trying to make a point". It's the kind of talk that says "I just want to make fun of the Mac without having to know anything about it"
Don't get me wrong; I don't strive to be a Mac evangelist. I just like to play on the level field of fact vs. fact.
Corey
This was over at MacSlash:
"The new RealPC was fake and the VirtualPC was real, but now the new VirtualPC is owned by the folks responsible for the real PCs, and the RealPC is virtually toast."
And people say poetry is dead.
The number of "Flamebait" and "Offtopic" replies to this story should clearly show how the public at large - even game players - have a hard time really accepting that game journalism is an important part of the media stream. Personal experience has definitely shown this to be the case, despite the explosive rise of the video game industry (which is rumored to overtake the movie industry in yearly profits). You can't slight people for this; the game journalism scene has a long way to go still.
This causes me to think: If the public doesn't take game journalism seriously, how seriously do you think the journalists themselves can take it? Having spent the last five years working as a game reviewer and editor, I find the biggest problem I have with the reporters who work under me is that they themselves don't totally believe the work is "legit". As a result, game reporters don't believe in the worth of their own professionalism and, therefore, most of my hardest struggles in these past five years has been to raise the bar so that people do, in fact, take us as seriously as any other news outlet.
The good news is that it is, in fact, getting better...
One reason I think Doom stands above Wolf as the real father of first person shooter games is because it broke ground with internet multiplayer "deathmatch" type gaming that you could actually use. Many, if not most modern FPS games promote multiplayer as at least half of the product, and in that sense Doom is actually a front-runner.
I understand the point you're making, but I think you might have missed mine: Servers, WiFi and 3d acceleration aren't new ideas pioneered solely by Apple. I was only saying that it'll be years before people realize Apple uses them.
You make some excellent points. I've begun to think that general Macintosh opinion among the public lags about five years behind the reality. How many Mac users have heard non-Mac users rant about the fruit-colored iMac, a computer that's been out of production for years? On the other hand, even tech geeks in general are largely unaware of the BSD underpinnings or free iApps... all stuff that's come along largely since the advent of OS X and makes the Mac of greater value to geeks and casual users alike.
My guess is that in the year 2007 or 2008 the public will be saying "Did you know that Apple has a server box?" or "Did you know those new Apple laptops use 802.11g?" or "Hey, OS X shunts all the quartz compositing off to the video card! That's a neat idea".
I, for one, am tired of having to entertain anti-Mac arguments from people who are well-versed in the latest Wintel situation but haven't checked in on Apple in more years than you can count on a single hand.
I'm always a little surprised when someone accuses Apple of shipping products without them being fully tested first while Microsoft is still in the world. I mean... no product is perfect. That's agreed. I'm just wondering if it's such a big deal if OSX isn't perfect while Windows 95, Internet Explorer, MS Word and lots of other stuff from MS were virtually unusuable in version 1.0.