"No it doesn't have an LCD. LCDs can not compare to a Trinitron CRT monitor. The quality of his monitor is infinitely better than an LCD of the same display (20" or better) and a fraction of the price. I would call a 21" flat CRT Trinitron at $700 and higher output a better buy than the leading Sony 20" LCD for $2,000 - wouldn't you?"
Point taken. But it is extremely nice to have the design with integrated LCD, however, impractical it may be further down the line.
"No they're not using a Unix-based OS like Mac OS X. He's using Windows XP, which blows OS X out of the water. I don't wish to discuss this with anyone who has not used both operating systems for a prolonged time in a working environement on quality hardware. But if I wanted a UNIX operating system on my Dell I would probably run Mandrake 9. It's pretty, just like OS X... oh but it's fast too like Windows XP."
Explain to me exactly how Windows XP blows OS X out of the water. Jaguar boots in twenty seconds, almost never needs rebooting (I routinely get uptimes of over 75 days, and usually the only reason I need to restart is for a system update which comes every three months or so) and is organized in such a way that--oh my god--it actually makes sense. Rather than simply diss OS X because it's considered "cool" to do so on slashdot, I suggest you sit down with an LCD iMac and a similar-powered PC (do not compare Apple's consumer machine to a high-end Dell, it's simply stupid).
"Unbalanced DVD drive" sounds awfully false to me. This sort of thing may happen in your build-it-yourself UglyBox(TM) case, but Apple's machines don't have unbalanced drives. The drives are made by Pioneer and/or Toshiba and are properly calibrated before they leave the factory. If this iMac has an unbalanced drive, which I highly doubt, than so do a large percentage of both Pioneer and Toshiba's drives.
Again, complaining because an all-in-one system isn't in a tower case is a waste of time. If you want SCSI and additional drives, GET A FREAKING POWERMAC. It's quite simple.
I'd honestly love to see you compare Windows XP on a 2.5 GHz PC to OS X on a dual 1.25. Note not only the performance differences, but notice how you can easily open twenty or thirty applications in OS X at the same time and have them all click into place as if there was no difference between launching just one. Notice the login times. Discover for yourself how it auto-configures for networks in seconds. Keep in mind that this is on a full UNIX base, which Windows could only dream about. And unlike Windows, it's actually secure. Arguing that Command is even close to Darwin is just idiotic.
I have used the highest-end machines from both Apple and Dell, and while the Dell is of course a fast machine, it's not nearly as responsive as OS X is on a dual machine.
In the end, all that matters is individual experience, but I'd highly suggest that you compare tower-for-tower, or if you want a comparison to that iMac, go with that crappy Gateway all-in-one that's featured in those hideous TV ads. They're both all-in-ones, at least--then you can see where Apple has made the leap forward. If you wanted to compare the Gateway Profile to an iMac, people would laugh at you. But comparing an iMac to a tower is just as stupid--they are different machines, for different people.
All machines have their advantages. I own a 15" LCD iMac, and while it may not be the fastest machine on earth, it provides the most productive OS and toolset I've used. A computer is a tool, like any other--there may be faster PCs, but Windows is not nearly as well-designed or as useful as OS X. What it all comes down to is the OS, and that is what you pay a premium for when you buy a Mac. Nothing more, nothing less. It's about OS X versus Windows XP, and a dual 1.25 GHz machine compared to a Dell PC is a more efficient way of working. Speed is a relative concept, but intuitiveness and simplicity is not.
I suppose you're one of those people who thinks PocketPCs are better than Palm devices because they have more horsepower. By missing the point of the PalmOS' simplicity, you are also missing the point of Mac OS X's simplicity and usefulness in comparison to WinXP.
I've had about four Palm PDAs in the last three years (trading back and forth to find the one that worked for me) and ended up with my Handspring Visor. As a student, I use it daily to keep track of assignments, type notes (with the keyboard) and games, of course. However, it's getting old and slow now, and is starting to fall into that category of "too big to carry around all the time, too small to leave at home, so I'll just have to find some way to keep using it". It's been great, but I've felt the need for something a bit more exciting. Among other things, Graffiti sucks.
So if I asked you what handheld has built-in handwriting recognition that WORKS, has a long battery life, a great OS, two PCMCIA slots, a big, high-res screen, and was only the size of a pack of notebook paper, what would you think it was? A new Sony? New Pocket PC? New Palm?
What if I then told you it was four years old? What would you think then? Can you guess what it is?
Sure enough, it's the Newton Messagepad 2100, and it doesn't leave my side. Sure it's bigger than a typical PDA, but it's not intruding on the PDA space; it's intruding on LAPTOP space. It's smaller than a laptop and has a longer battery life, plus the awesome ability to include handwriting (converted to text) and drawn diagrams together seamlessly--and yet it weighs 1.5 pounds and can do most of what I use my laptop for.
So yes, I use my (big) PDA constantly. I never touch my laptop anymore... when was the last time a Palm device would make you say that?:)
Sheesh, how was that last comment flamebait? I honestly can't see anything different; I want to know other people's experiences. How is that flamebait? [sigh]
Tis true, Brak was fun while it lasted... 30 mod points I never did get around to using all of... [sigh] Days gone by.
I call for a permanent Slashdot stress-test server:)
I think the issue here is not so much about power--the PPC OS/architecture IS more powerful than the PalmOS-- but it doesn't really matter, at least to me. I can get things done on my Visor Prism, it's plenty fast, relatively stable (although the stability issues are why I'd never get another Handspring device for the rest of my life--why on EARTH did I take back my m505?) and it works. The desktop sync is effortless and simple. The applications are designed to be used with a pen, not tiny Windows apps converted to run on a small screen.
I just don't have any real use for playing music or movies on the go, I guess, but aside from that, what's the real advantage to a PocketPC over a Palm device? Wireless internet'd be nice but I don't have a WiFi network anyway, so...
"You are forbidden from using this device (the 'Device') in a manner consistent with that of a telephony system. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, placing the device in a position near the user's ears (the 'Ears') or using the device in a manner deemed inappropriate by Palm, Inc. or its subsidiaries. Failure to comply will result in said Ears being removed forcefully from the User ('End User') to prevent future issues."
OK . Microsoft gets points for putting handwriting recognition into a small device? No, we had the Newton and many other handwriting recognition devices before this. So is the fact that the 0S has suddenly integrated the handwriting recognition a big deal? They sure make it SOUND good, but do we really care?
Now the clincher. I am writing this entirely on a tablet . But not a Tablet PC. No, I'm using my Wacom via Mac OS X Jaguar;s "Ink" technology. It's not perfect, but its pretty damn close.
Handwriting recognition really isn't that big of a deal.
[resumes normal typing]
OK, my allowed edits were to correct extra spaces and to fix ONE letter per word maximum. And you know what? Once I turned the "spacing" sensitivity down, it stopped putting in extra spaces, PLUS I only had to change six letters in the entire portion above.
It works. The problem is, it's SO much faster to type. So before you start making a big deal over the fact that Windows has handwriting recognition, realize that not only does the Mac OS have it already, (as usual) but that Apple doesn't even bother making a big deal of it, even though their handwriting recognition is GOOD, because guess what? It's NOT A BIG DEAL.
Does anyone really think that I can write faster than my 96 wpm average? I think not. But you CAN do this already if you want to. The fact that Microsoft bundles their proprietary OS with a bunch of extra recognition stuff isn't a revolutionary concept. The fact that it works--and relatively well, too--isn't even a revolutionary concept. Jaguar's Ink tech, brought from the Newton era, still does its job. The fact that Microsoft can match it seven years later is really not worth making a fuss over.
So I ask again-- what advantage, besides the obvious larger screen, does this have over my carrying around a Visor Prism with a keyboard? And don't tell me that the keyboard is hard to set up-- it takes three seconds max.
Why would anyone want a Tablet PC? Really?
Again, I don't know why they let these neophyte, zealot anonymous users on here.
As for you Anonymous Coward, who can't even bother to register, it looks like you're too involved with whatever OS you're running to even consider the possibility of using anything else. Not like you'd understand the consequences of trying something new anyway.
I don't at all look forward to fscking via sshd or anything of the kind--unlike many people I didn't buy OS X just because it has a UNIX layer. I acknowledge that many people find the UNIX layer a great advantage-but no, I don't use it for much except running top and a few netstat checks every once in a while, but I know that many people DO. This does not bother me ("Why do they let these GUI-neophyte, CLI-zealot UNIX idiots on here?" is not something that comes to mind).
Since for some reason you are immensely bothered by the fact that I support Apple's efforts with OS X, I'm not going to bother to convince you that it's any good at all because you aren't going to listen. You aren't even logged in. You'll probably never read this thread again.
Next time, back up your statements (and ideas) with a bit of thought--maybe even a registration, so that we at least don't feel like you're just trolling. People who prefer the GUI are not bad or evil, they are simply non-geeks. This is acceptable, even on Slashdot. Not all of us have to know Linux to enjoy/., despite what you might think.
A few points to be made:
1) There is NO DRM whatsoever in iTunes. There never has been, and there never will be. The iPod doesn't let you copy music files off of it onto your machine (reverse copy) without a third party hack. Wow, big deal. THIS is supposedly DRM? I think not.
2) The kernel and BSD subsystem ARE completely open source. However, the hard work that Apple put into the OS is not. This is because Apple pays HUNDREDS OF PROGRAMMERS to create their software, and they aren't going to just release it for free. It's THEIR intellectual property and they have every right to charge for it. However, they use FAR more open-source software than, say, Microsoft.
3) Yes, OS X is more expensive than Linux. Wonder why people buy OS X? Because it's a more integrated system and it is far more logical than Windows or Linux. You are in the minority on OS X being harder to use than Linux. Sorry.
4) If by "free" all you mean is that we don't have to submit to The Will of Steve, it's a very, very minor issue. Simple fact? You don't HAVE to buy a Mac. No, you don't. You can buy a PC and submit to the will of Bill. Or you can buy Linux and do whatever you want--if you can figure the damn thing out and get GOOD third-party software on it. Which brings me to my next point.
5) The Gimp may be a good app (albeit rather ugly), but this is no substitute for Mac apps. When I can run LightWave, AfterEffects, Cubase, Photoshop (NOT Gimp), etc. on Linux, maybe I'd give it a shot. You can't GET these programs on Linux, because those developers see no reason to support Linux. Why, you ask? Because the vast majority of users DO NOT WANT TO USE IT. This is why they have Macintoshes. Maybe Linux is better than when I tried it last, but I can assure you that the day-to-day tasks most people (and most creative professionals) do are FAR easier and more logical on the Mac. The GUI is professionally designed by people who know what they're doing. This is why it costs more. It's rather obvious.
There, I'm done.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone put a lot of time into making their car look like crap. I'm impressed. (Oh, and first post) :P
"No it doesn't have an LCD. LCDs can not compare to a Trinitron CRT monitor. The quality of his monitor is infinitely better than an LCD of the same display (20" or better) and a fraction of the price. I would call a 21" flat CRT Trinitron at $700 and higher output a better buy than the leading Sony 20" LCD for $2,000 - wouldn't you?"
... oh but it's fast too like Windows XP."
Point taken. But it is extremely nice to have the design with integrated LCD, however, impractical it may be further down the line.
"No they're not using a Unix-based OS like Mac OS X. He's using Windows XP, which blows OS X out of the water. I don't wish to discuss this with anyone who has not used both operating systems for a prolonged time in a working environement on quality hardware. But if I wanted a UNIX operating system on my Dell I would probably run Mandrake 9. It's pretty, just like OS X
Explain to me exactly how Windows XP blows OS X out of the water. Jaguar boots in twenty seconds, almost never needs rebooting (I routinely get uptimes of over 75 days, and usually the only reason I need to restart is for a system update which comes every three months or so) and is organized in such a way that--oh my god--it actually makes sense. Rather than simply diss OS X because it's considered "cool" to do so on slashdot, I suggest you sit down with an LCD iMac and a similar-powered PC (do not compare Apple's consumer machine to a high-end Dell, it's simply stupid).
"Unbalanced DVD drive" sounds awfully false to me. This sort of thing may happen in your build-it-yourself UglyBox(TM) case, but Apple's machines don't have unbalanced drives. The drives are made by Pioneer and/or Toshiba and are properly calibrated before they leave the factory. If this iMac has an unbalanced drive, which I highly doubt, than so do a large percentage of both Pioneer and Toshiba's drives.
Again, complaining because an all-in-one system isn't in a tower case is a waste of time. If you want SCSI and additional drives, GET A FREAKING POWERMAC. It's quite simple.
I'd honestly love to see you compare Windows XP on a 2.5 GHz PC to OS X on a dual 1.25. Note not only the performance differences, but notice how you can easily open twenty or thirty applications in OS X at the same time and have them all click into place as if there was no difference between launching just one. Notice the login times. Discover for yourself how it auto-configures for networks in seconds. Keep in mind that this is on a full UNIX base, which Windows could only dream about. And unlike Windows, it's actually secure. Arguing that Command is even close to Darwin is just idiotic.
I have used the highest-end machines from both Apple and Dell, and while the Dell is of course a fast machine, it's not nearly as responsive as OS X is on a dual machine.
In the end, all that matters is individual experience, but I'd highly suggest that you compare tower-for-tower, or if you want a comparison to that iMac, go with that crappy Gateway all-in-one that's featured in those hideous TV ads. They're both all-in-ones, at least--then you can see where Apple has made the leap forward. If you wanted to compare the Gateway Profile to an iMac, people would laugh at you. But comparing an iMac to a tower is just as stupid--they are different machines, for different people.
All machines have their advantages. I own a 15" LCD iMac, and while it may not be the fastest machine on earth, it provides the most productive OS and toolset I've used. A computer is a tool, like any other--there may be faster PCs, but Windows is not nearly as well-designed or as useful as OS X. What it all comes down to is the OS, and that is what you pay a premium for when you buy a Mac. Nothing more, nothing less. It's about OS X versus Windows XP, and a dual 1.25 GHz machine compared to a Dell PC is a more efficient way of working. Speed is a relative concept, but intuitiveness and simplicity is not.
I suppose you're one of those people who thinks PocketPCs are better than Palm devices because they have more horsepower. By missing the point of the PalmOS' simplicity, you are also missing the point of Mac OS X's simplicity and usefulness in comparison to WinXP.
I've had about four Palm PDAs in the last three years (trading back and forth to find the one that worked for me) and ended up with my Handspring Visor. As a student, I use it daily to keep track of assignments, type notes (with the keyboard) and games, of course. However, it's getting old and slow now, and is starting to fall into that category of "too big to carry around all the time, too small to leave at home, so I'll just have to find some way to keep using it". It's been great, but I've felt the need for something a bit more exciting. Among other things, Graffiti sucks.
:)
So if I asked you what handheld has built-in handwriting recognition that WORKS, has a long battery life, a great OS, two PCMCIA slots, a big, high-res screen, and was only the size of a pack of notebook paper, what would you think it was? A new Sony? New Pocket PC? New Palm?
What if I then told you it was four years old? What would you think then? Can you guess what it is?
Sure enough, it's the Newton Messagepad 2100, and it doesn't leave my side. Sure it's bigger than a typical PDA, but it's not intruding on the PDA space; it's intruding on LAPTOP space. It's smaller than a laptop and has a longer battery life, plus the awesome ability to include handwriting (converted to text) and drawn diagrams together seamlessly--and yet it weighs 1.5 pounds and can do most of what I use my laptop for.
So yes, I use my (big) PDA constantly. I never touch my laptop anymore... when was the last time a Palm device would make you say that?
Sheesh, how was that last comment flamebait? I honestly can't see anything different; I want to know other people's experiences. How is that flamebait? [sigh]
Can anyone see any difference here?
:D
Damn, ya beat me to the post
Tis true, Brak was fun while it lasted... 30 mod points I never did get around to using all of... [sigh] Days gone by. I call for a permanent Slashdot stress-test server :)
I think the issue here is not so much about power--the PPC OS/architecture IS more powerful than the PalmOS-- but it doesn't really matter, at least to me. I can get things done on my Visor Prism, it's plenty fast, relatively stable (although the stability issues are why I'd never get another Handspring device for the rest of my life--why on EARTH did I take back my m505?) and it works. The desktop sync is effortless and simple. The applications are designed to be used with a pen, not tiny Windows apps converted to run on a small screen.
I just don't have any real use for playing music or movies on the go, I guess, but aside from that, what's the real advantage to a PocketPC over a Palm device? Wireless internet'd be nice but I don't have a WiFi network anyway, so...
The hidden clause in the warranty agreement:
"You are forbidden from using this device (the 'Device') in a manner consistent with that of a telephony system. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, placing the device in a position near the user's ears (the 'Ears') or using the device in a manner deemed inappropriate by Palm, Inc. or its subsidiaries. Failure to comply will result in said Ears being removed forcefully from the User ('End User') to prevent future issues."
:) That just about made my day, lol.
OK . Microsoft gets points for putting handwriting recognition into a small device? No, we had the Newton and many other handwriting recognition devices before this. So is the fact that the 0S has suddenly integrated the handwriting recognition a big deal? They sure make it SOUND good, but do we really care? Now the clincher. I am writing this entirely on a tablet . But not a Tablet PC. No, I'm using my Wacom via Mac OS X Jaguar;s "Ink" technology. It's not perfect, but its pretty damn close. Handwriting recognition really isn't that big of a deal. [resumes normal typing] OK, my allowed edits were to correct extra spaces and to fix ONE letter per word maximum. And you know what? Once I turned the "spacing" sensitivity down, it stopped putting in extra spaces, PLUS I only had to change six letters in the entire portion above. It works. The problem is, it's SO much faster to type. So before you start making a big deal over the fact that Windows has handwriting recognition, realize that not only does the Mac OS have it already, (as usual) but that Apple doesn't even bother making a big deal of it, even though their handwriting recognition is GOOD, because guess what? It's NOT A BIG DEAL. Does anyone really think that I can write faster than my 96 wpm average? I think not. But you CAN do this already if you want to. The fact that Microsoft bundles their proprietary OS with a bunch of extra recognition stuff isn't a revolutionary concept. The fact that it works--and relatively well, too--isn't even a revolutionary concept. Jaguar's Ink tech, brought from the Newton era, still does its job. The fact that Microsoft can match it seven years later is really not worth making a fuss over. So I ask again-- what advantage, besides the obvious larger screen, does this have over my carrying around a Visor Prism with a keyboard? And don't tell me that the keyboard is hard to set up-- it takes three seconds max. Why would anyone want a Tablet PC? Really?
Again, I don't know why they let these neophyte, zealot anonymous users on here.
/., despite what you might think.
As for you Anonymous Coward, who can't even bother to register, it looks like you're too involved with whatever OS you're running to even consider the possibility of using anything else. Not like you'd understand the consequences of trying something new anyway.
I don't at all look forward to fscking via sshd or anything of the kind--unlike many people I didn't buy OS X just because it has a UNIX layer. I acknowledge that many people find the UNIX layer a great advantage-but no, I don't use it for much except running top and a few netstat checks every once in a while, but I know that many people DO. This does not bother me ("Why do they let these GUI-neophyte, CLI-zealot UNIX idiots on here?" is not something that comes to mind).
Since for some reason you are immensely bothered by the fact that I support Apple's efforts with OS X, I'm not going to bother to convince you that it's any good at all because you aren't going to listen. You aren't even logged in. You'll probably never read this thread again.
Next time, back up your statements (and ideas) with a bit of thought--maybe even a registration, so that we at least don't feel like you're just trolling. People who prefer the GUI are not bad or evil, they are simply non-geeks. This is acceptable, even on Slashdot. Not all of us have to know Linux to enjoy
A few points to be made: 1) There is NO DRM whatsoever in iTunes. There never has been, and there never will be. The iPod doesn't let you copy music files off of it onto your machine (reverse copy) without a third party hack. Wow, big deal. THIS is supposedly DRM? I think not. 2) The kernel and BSD subsystem ARE completely open source. However, the hard work that Apple put into the OS is not. This is because Apple pays HUNDREDS OF PROGRAMMERS to create their software, and they aren't going to just release it for free. It's THEIR intellectual property and they have every right to charge for it. However, they use FAR more open-source software than, say, Microsoft. 3) Yes, OS X is more expensive than Linux. Wonder why people buy OS X? Because it's a more integrated system and it is far more logical than Windows or Linux. You are in the minority on OS X being harder to use than Linux. Sorry. 4) If by "free" all you mean is that we don't have to submit to The Will of Steve, it's a very, very minor issue. Simple fact? You don't HAVE to buy a Mac. No, you don't. You can buy a PC and submit to the will of Bill. Or you can buy Linux and do whatever you want--if you can figure the damn thing out and get GOOD third-party software on it. Which brings me to my next point. 5) The Gimp may be a good app (albeit rather ugly), but this is no substitute for Mac apps. When I can run LightWave, AfterEffects, Cubase, Photoshop (NOT Gimp), etc. on Linux, maybe I'd give it a shot. You can't GET these programs on Linux, because those developers see no reason to support Linux. Why, you ask? Because the vast majority of users DO NOT WANT TO USE IT. This is why they have Macintoshes. Maybe Linux is better than when I tried it last, but I can assure you that the day-to-day tasks most people (and most creative professionals) do are FAR easier and more logical on the Mac. The GUI is professionally designed by people who know what they're doing. This is why it costs more. It's rather obvious. There, I'm done.