Five. Years. Later. And the PC I have at work still runs Win2k. So what's your point? You can't expect from that comment that they would have stayed with Win2k indefinitely; as it was, they often became borg by rolling out new boxes, not by actively upgrading old ones. Look for the same to happen w/Vista--call it "adaptation by attrition."/Fox News, I hold a copyright on that phrase.
Now show me an article where pundits and blowhards rave about IE, Excel, etc. being the next "Netscape Killer!!!1" or whatever.
The iPod was never hyped as a killer, and it has pretty much wtfpwned its competition. The discussion is about the balleyhooed "killers," not the real killers.
By the way, maybe you should go see "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a lot of needless Gore biography, but the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).
How about you just use your pro software kit and quit complaining?
Seriously, your comment reads like you're the type who looks out the window of his monster offroad truck and pooh-pooh's a Civic because it can't rockhop like your vehicle, and then says "but I'm an offroader, u can flame now lolz."
It's a tool. It gets the job done. It might not be your job, but it's plenty for lots of people and its a way better choice then wasting money on a pro package. I have no need--or budget--for PS to do the tiny amount of video manipulation that I do. I am not a pro. A book about the GIMP ("another" you say? How many are there compared to PS??) would be useful for me. What part of this chaps your hide?
I grew up on a ranch, and believe me, farmers don't have a monopoly on "humble pie." Country folk are quite capable of breeding their own special species of snobbery.
Worthless "for the most part." Conventional wisdom would suggest that the cable news companies are a bad example because they have 24 hours to fill up. Meanwhile, the broadcast networks only have 20 mins, so they're just whoring for ratings.
But that's just for the most part. I've actually found that CBS does a decent job of reporting. Sure, you probably read it first on the news.bbc.co.uk, but it trickles over to CBS and generally without too much spin.
And if you're willing to turn off your tv and turn on the radio, NPR does a decent domestic impression of the Beeb. They run the stories nobody else has heard of (like civil wars in countries with hard to pronounce names), and they provide deeper coverage than the cable or broadcast networks. NPR's slant can probably be best classified as center-left, but the same can be said for the BBC. And hey, in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Well, I got modded "troll" so I guess you're not the only one who suffered grevious mental anguish by reading my response. Personally, I thought the grilled cheese line was pretty funny! Maybe you should read my post again, but this time, turn down your sense of outrage and persecution. You'll find that I'm really pretty gentle.
If my mom (bless her heart) had this asked question, I would helpfully guide her to the proper conclusion, with gentleness positive reinforcement.
But this question was asked by a somebody who claims to "like Linux because [he's] a tinkerer." If you're savvy enough to be able to "tinker" with Linux, you SHOULD get ribbed for making such a dumb mistake. What's the first thing every new Linux user learns? To google their problems and find solutions. If this guy had googled "install.dmg OSX" or something simple like that, he wouldn't be posting about how confusing and counter-intuitive the OSX install process is--he'd have slapped his forehead with a "d'oh," and forgotten about the whole thing.
Everybody makes mistakes, especially with unfamiliar setups (and OS's). They don't all deserve to be teased. The ones who preface their question with a speech about their computer literacy/experience and postscript it with a rant about how it's the OS designer's fault DO deserve to be teased.
I stand by my grilled cheese example. If a self-styled gourmet brought me a cheese sandwich with plastic wrap in it, and then blamed the cheese company, I'd have every right to mock them.
*cracks knuckles* OK, here I am sitting at my G4/800 iBook, running Tiger. I'm surfing slash in Safari, but just for giggles I'll open Firefox. I mouse down to the dock, click the Firefox icon. It bounces 4 times and Firefox opens.
When you download programs for OS X, they come as disk images. You double click the disk image file, and it mounts a virtual drive. You look in that drive for the application. You drag said application to your applications folder (or wherever you want, really). Then you unmout the drive and trash the image, both of which can be done by dragging the icons to the trashcan.
The only thing that I can imagine causing what you just described would be if you dumped the disk image into your applications folder. Then, of course it will have to mount etc. before you can get to Firefox. And if this is what you did, I think that everybody has every right to giggle at you. Seriously, who fscks up a Mac application install??
It's like you made a grilled cheese sandwich without taking the plastic wrap off the cheese slices, and now you're complaining that your cheese sandwich is too difficult to eat.
Simple check to see if that's the problem: right-click (or ctrl-click) on the firefox icon that you have. Select "get info". If the window says "Kind: Application," then I'm a jerk and you're forgiven. If it says "Kind: disk image," then you're a dork and you need to turn over your keys to teh intarweb.
I am a firm believer in "right tool for the job," and I call BS. Unless they're editing videos or playing Doom 3, normal users probably won't notice much difference between a properly configured G3 and a properly configured Dell 3GHz computer. I'm talking about a normal "Mom" user workload: -surfing normal websites (not watching YouTube's flash movies in full screen) -listening to iTunes or some other jukebox -chatting on AOL/iChat/MSN/yahoo/etc...and maybe a couple other light tasks.
My Mom wanted a cheap laptop this year, but she also wanted something in the 2GHz P4 on a gig-e network. And some days you'd think it was a 486!! Mostly this is due to the awful overload on our exchange, terminal server, and active directory servers (which a "normal user" still perceives as "my computer sucks"), but even local programs can be rediculously slow starting (go grab a coffee while waiting for it to load Firefox). If the vast majority of 2GHz P4 users had to deal with this, they would HAPPILY switch to the G3; if nothing else, the experience would be comparable.
So, before you pooh-pooh a G3, remember that the vast majority of users just want their web browser to open and render pages at a reasonable speed. They want to play MP3s and reload their iPod. They want to chat and update their myspace profile. They want to get FP on slashdot. At these tasks, there is a perceptable difference in speeds between the G3 and a P4, but to call it "unacceptable" is gross exaggeration.
Funny, am I the only one who remembers the price on a NES dropping after Nintendo was hammered (antitrust?) for its price fixing practices?
Maybe Nintendo doesn't over charge right this moment, but I'd bet good money that if they found themselves in Apple's shoes (popular boutique product recognized as the "BMW" of its niche), they'd charge a premium too. Remember that Nintendo is the underdog in the US market right now--they're probably willing to narrow their margins in order to win back the very mindshare that you are demonstrating, not to mention market share./thinks Apple hardware is fairly priced, too//except maybe iPods///considering Wii to replace aging N64
Plus, since Apple designs and tests the operating system and new hardware at the same time, the company can optimize software and hardware to work well together. That means on such well-designed hardware, that MacBook Pro runs even some Windows software faster than PCs themselves, according to third party results. (They're able to get these results with beta software from the next version of Mac OS X, Leopard. Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.)
If Chuck Norris is chosen as successor, you must kill him, because you will know that he is a false Chuck Norris. The Real Chuck Norris cannot be "successor" to an inferior legacy.
"Microsoft Should Buy IBM" "Apple Should Buy Apple" "SCO Should Buy Enron" "IBM Should Buy All Copies Of Mariah Carey's 'Glitter'" "The Dvorak Keyboard Layout Should Buy Me"
I would be, if virtualization supported 3D applications.
It would. Maybe you should read up on "virtualization," as the *entire point* of modern hardware virtualization would be to give the sandboxed OS access to the full functionality of the hardware--including 3D Hardware.
I would still be in Windows all the time anyway. (I play a lot of games and it hardly seems worth it just to reboot to use Opera in Mac OS X...)
No, you wouldn't. That would be a dual-boot system, not OS virtualization.
With OS virtualization, you would have Opera (and iChat and BitTorrent and iTunes and etc etc) running on your host system (e.g. OSX), and Far Cry running at (or near) full speed in a Windows session in a window... or in full screen (with the host desktop etc hidden). Hell, you could also have a Linux session (again at or near full speed) running at the same time, to run some other random program, if you had the RAM. You could have a Windows session running continously for as long as you want without logging out or rebooting OS X, and all at (or near) native hardware speed.
Need Outlook and Visio? Want to pwn some noobs in Planetside? Want to check how that webpage you built renders in IE 6? Open a Windows session. Then hit a hotkey and get back to all of your Mac software running on OS X at the same time. THAT is the point of virtualization--multiple operating systems running in parallel--and THAT is why people are excited about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Five. Years. Later. And the PC I have at work still runs Win2k. So what's your point? You can't expect from that comment that they would have stayed with Win2k indefinitely; as it was, they often became borg by rolling out new boxes, not by actively upgrading old ones. Look for the same to happen w/Vista--call it "adaptation by attrition." /Fox News, I hold a copyright on that phrase.
Sure! And I should be able to bear false witness against people that I don't like, to get them sent to the chair! Yay!
Now show me an article where pundits and blowhards rave about IE, Excel, etc. being the next "Netscape Killer!!!1" or whatever.
The iPod was never hyped as a killer, and it has pretty much wtfpwned its competition. The discussion is about the balleyhooed "killers," not the real killers.
...maybe you should just go watch the movie?
So, he, uh, flew on a plane all by himself?
By the way, maybe you should go see "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a lot of needless Gore biography, but the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).
How about you just use your pro software kit and quit complaining?
Seriously, your comment reads like you're the type who looks out the window of his monster offroad truck and pooh-pooh's a Civic because it can't rockhop like your vehicle, and then says "but I'm an offroader, u can flame now lolz."
It's a tool. It gets the job done. It might not be your job, but it's plenty for lots of people and its a way better choice then wasting money on a pro package. I have no need--or budget--for PS to do the tiny amount of video manipulation that I do. I am not a pro. A book about the GIMP ("another" you say? How many are there compared to PS??) would be useful for me. What part of this chaps your hide?
I grew up on a ranch, and believe me, farmers don't have a monopoly on "humble pie." Country folk are quite capable of breeding their own special species of snobbery.
Worthless "for the most part." Conventional wisdom would suggest that the cable news companies are a bad example because they have 24 hours to fill up. Meanwhile, the broadcast networks only have 20 mins, so they're just whoring for ratings.
But that's just for the most part. I've actually found that CBS does a decent job of reporting. Sure, you probably read it first on the news.bbc.co.uk, but it trickles over to CBS and generally without too much spin.
And if you're willing to turn off your tv and turn on the radio, NPR does a decent domestic impression of the Beeb. They run the stories nobody else has heard of (like civil wars in countries with hard to pronounce names), and they provide deeper coverage than the cable or broadcast networks. NPR's slant can probably be best classified as center-left, but the same can be said for the BBC. And hey, in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
This is no different than the previous generation Apple notebooks (Powerbook had miniDVI, iBook had miniVGA). You've always needed a dongle.
That's how Apple gets away with dumping all of those gigantic legacy connectors strewn around the back of their notebooks.
Dammit, why doesn't anybody comment on the cheese joke?? This whole thread is just a thinly veiled excuse to push that cheese example!!
/cry
Well, I got modded "troll" so I guess you're not the only one who suffered grevious mental anguish by reading my response. Personally, I thought the grilled cheese line was pretty funny! Maybe you should read my post again, but this time, turn down your sense of outrage and persecution. You'll find that I'm really pretty gentle.
.dmg OSX" or something simple like that, he wouldn't be posting about how confusing and counter-intuitive the OSX install process is--he'd have slapped his forehead with a "d'oh," and forgotten about the whole thing.
If my mom (bless her heart) had this asked question, I would helpfully guide her to the proper conclusion, with gentleness positive reinforcement.
But this question was asked by a somebody who claims to "like Linux because [he's] a tinkerer." If you're savvy enough to be able to "tinker" with Linux, you SHOULD get ribbed for making such a dumb mistake. What's the first thing every new Linux user learns? To google their problems and find solutions. If this guy had googled "install
Everybody makes mistakes, especially with unfamiliar setups (and OS's). They don't all deserve to be teased. The ones who preface their question with a speech about their computer literacy/experience and postscript it with a rant about how it's the OS designer's fault DO deserve to be teased.
I stand by my grilled cheese example. If a self-styled gourmet brought me a cheese sandwich with plastic wrap in it, and then blamed the cheese company, I'd have every right to mock them.
WTF.
*cracks knuckles* OK, here I am sitting at my G4/800 iBook, running Tiger. I'm surfing slash in Safari, but just for giggles I'll open Firefox. I mouse down to the dock, click the Firefox icon. It bounces 4 times and Firefox opens.
When you download programs for OS X, they come as disk images. You double click the disk image file, and it mounts a virtual drive. You look in that drive for the application. You drag said application to your applications folder (or wherever you want, really). Then you unmout the drive and trash the image, both of which can be done by dragging the icons to the trashcan.
The only thing that I can imagine causing what you just described would be if you dumped the disk image into your applications folder. Then, of course it will have to mount etc. before you can get to Firefox. And if this is what you did, I think that everybody has every right to giggle at you. Seriously, who fscks up a Mac application install??
It's like you made a grilled cheese sandwich without taking the plastic wrap off the cheese slices, and now you're complaining that your cheese sandwich is too difficult to eat.
Simple check to see if that's the problem: right-click (or ctrl-click) on the firefox icon that you have. Select "get info". If the window says "Kind: Application," then I'm a jerk and you're forgiven. If it says "Kind: disk image," then you're a dork and you need to turn over your keys to teh intarweb.
NOOOOOOOO! I swear I previewed and everything; half of my comment got deleted.
:( :( :( :( :(
My Mom wanted a cheap laptop this year, but she also wanted something in the less-than 5lbs department.
Then after that I told how awesome it was.
Then I told about my computers and how a slow computer is fine for surfin the web.
Then I told about how I've used fast computer that felt rediculously slow, like a 2GHz P4 on a gig-e network. And some days you'd think it was a 486!!
Dammit. Where's that post delete button?
I am a firm believer in "right tool for the job," and I call BS. Unless they're editing videos or playing Doom 3, normal users probably won't notice much difference between a properly configured G3 and a properly configured Dell 3GHz computer. I'm talking about a normal "Mom" user workload: ...and maybe a couple other light tasks.
-surfing normal websites (not watching YouTube's flash movies in full screen)
-listening to iTunes or some other jukebox
-chatting on AOL/iChat/MSN/yahoo/etc
My Mom wanted a cheap laptop this year, but she also wanted something in the 2GHz P4 on a gig-e network. And some days you'd think it was a 486!! Mostly this is due to the awful overload on our exchange, terminal server, and active directory servers (which a "normal user" still perceives as "my computer sucks"), but even local programs can be rediculously slow starting (go grab a coffee while waiting for it to load Firefox). If the vast majority of 2GHz P4 users had to deal with this, they would HAPPILY switch to the G3; if nothing else, the experience would be comparable.
So, before you pooh-pooh a G3, remember that the vast majority of users just want their web browser to open and render pages at a reasonable speed. They want to play MP3s and reload their iPod. They want to chat and update their myspace profile. They want to get FP on slashdot. At these tasks, there is a perceptable difference in speeds between the G3 and a P4, but to call it "unacceptable" is gross exaggeration.
Preview FTW
Funny, am I the only one who remembers the price on a NES dropping after Nintendo was hammered (antitrust?) for its price fixing practices?
/thinks Apple hardware is fairly priced, too //except maybe iPods ///considering Wii to replace aging N64
Maybe Nintendo doesn't over charge right this moment, but I'd bet good money that if they found themselves in Apple's shoes (popular boutique product recognized as the "BMW" of its niche), they'd charge a premium too. Remember that Nintendo is the underdog in the US market right now--they're probably willing to narrow their margins in order to win back the very mindshare that you are demonstrating, not to mention market share.
So, you deny that this hysterical article is about spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt?
/not the guy who's FUD tagging
Because that's exactly what it seems like to me: a lawyer and a small time politician spreading FUD among the unwashed masses for their own benefit.
Quote from the "Macs Aren't Slow" page:
Plus, since Apple designs and tests the operating system and new hardware at the same time, the company can optimize software and hardware to work well together. That means on such well-designed hardware, that MacBook Pro runs even some Windows software faster than PCs themselves, according to third party results. (They're able to get these results with beta software from the next version of Mac OS X, Leopard. Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.)
Whaaaa???
If Chuck Norris is chosen as successor, you must kill him, because you will know that he is a false Chuck Norris. The Real Chuck Norris cannot be "successor" to an inferior legacy.
"Microsoft Should Buy IBM"
"Apple Should Buy Apple"
"SCO Should Buy Enron"
"IBM Should Buy All Copies Of Mariah Carey's 'Glitter'"
"The Dvorak Keyboard Layout Should Buy Me"
Hmmm.... I smell a meme coming!!!!!!!!!!!1
then went back to my Clancy novel
Isn't that what they call "out of the frying pan, into the fryer?"
Wake me when they add Mach-O to the list!
Much more clear now, thanks. I can assure you that I read your post at least as slowly as you wrote it ;-)
*blinks*
I would be, if virtualization supported 3D applications.
It would. Maybe you should read up on "virtualization," as the *entire point* of modern hardware virtualization would be to give the sandboxed OS access to the full functionality of the hardware--including 3D Hardware.
I would still be in Windows all the time anyway. (I play a lot of games and it hardly seems worth it just to reboot to use Opera in Mac OS X...)
No, you wouldn't. That would be a dual-boot system, not OS virtualization.
With OS virtualization, you would have Opera (and iChat and BitTorrent and iTunes and etc etc) running on your host system (e.g. OSX), and Far Cry running at (or near) full speed in a Windows session in a window... or in full screen (with the host desktop etc hidden). Hell, you could also have a Linux session (again at or near full speed) running at the same time, to run some other random program, if you had the RAM. You could have a Windows session running continously for as long as you want without logging out or rebooting OS X, and all at (or near) native hardware speed.
Need Outlook and Visio? Want to pwn some noobs in Planetside? Want to check how that webpage you built renders in IE 6? Open a Windows session. Then hit a hotkey and get back to all of your Mac software running on OS X at the same time. THAT is the point of virtualization--multiple operating systems running in parallel--and THAT is why people are excited about it.
Funny, it won't work with Safari and Flip-4-Mac, even though that's MS's prefered Mac client for WMV now.