> Microsoft didn't get in trouble for including extras with the OS; they got into trouble by trying to tie things like IE so deeply into the OS that anybody who used anybody else's browser would lose critical OS function.
> So you've chose a dev system that only runs on one platform and you argue that that has something to do with the OS?
I'm running.net applications just fine on MacOSX which were compiled in windows, with Microsoft's compilers. Please learn more about your platform and.net.
> While taste in client software is not dependent upon the underlying OS, the stability, speed, and security of the data and application are.
I suppose lack of functionality means lack of data, hence more secure in this case?
> I can run grammar checking within my e-mail and calendar, and pretty much anything else. Can you do that in Outlook?
This has always been possible in Outlook... You haven't even used the applications it seems.
> Can you right-click and a message in Outlook to change text from Japanese to English?
No, but it's under view in the menubar. Been there since outlook was released.
> I can, because my OS was upgraded to support it.
You don't need to upgrade windows to 'support it'. You just install the language packs.
> Additional security and sandboxing could probably change Web browsing for the better as well.
Already implemented in windows vista beta and ie7 beta.
> What about support for mouse gestures?
Plenty of IE plugins/addons supported that after it was first introduced.
> Making them a global feature of the OS can completely change the way you surf, as well as do other tasks.
Personally I find them problematic on touchpads.
> Your OS's ability to add this functionality makes a difference.
A annoyance to turn off?
> What about sound? More and more pages have it.
IE was actually the first browser to support that horrible sound attribute in the body tag.
I hate music in pages, be it midis, flash, quicktime.
> would let you leave sound on for alerts from your IM client or calendar, but mute it easily for your Web browser until you get to a page you actually want to hear sound for.
The software I use does that (under linux and using opera right now). However under windows, I believe that's only supported with 3rd party addons/plugins still.
> I'll say it again, you've been using Windows too long.
Me? I use the Linuxes, BSDs, MacOSXs, AmigaOSes and obviously, Windows.
> For the last ten years you haven't had much in the way of real improvements that change the way you use your computer.
Actually, I have, and the features are quite similar to what I see on the Mac. Since this seems to be geared towards being against Windows I'll make some points about Windows vs Mac.
I find the thumbnail rendering, video thumbnail rendering etc. under windows far faster than under the Mac, I am quite happy that disabling the 'indexing' system on the OS doesn't disable the search entirely, like it does under MacOSX. I also find that while the file -> open/save dialogs are slow in windows, I find them slower under MacOSX.
iPhoto on a none super powered up Mac, is incredibly slow. Especially when you compare to windows's (on a not so powerful computer) default thumbnailing system, picture viewers etc. Of course you could compare it to something with a bit more functionality which matches iPhoto, such as Picasa2, which still beats a Mac.
> Well, you're in for a treat if they ever release Vista. It has stolen lots of real, useful innovations from OS X.
Like.. What? Like, uh? the search system which can search into documents, create databases on your file contents etc.
These things were talked about long ago in the planning of blackcomb, before longhorn even came into play. More so, it seems that Apple took what Microsoft was talking about doing, and implemented it (and some things could of been done a lot better in my opinion).
Plus, generally later implementations tend to be better than the original in many cases, since you can see where the previ
> Trying to say that an OSX user is paying $100 for an update is really deceptive. OSX "updates" are pretty much a completely new OS. It's more like Windows 95 -> 98 (which Microsoft charged for), 98 -> 98SE (which Microsoft charged for), or 98SE -> ME (which...well, I'm sure you get the point).
Spotlight certainly made it feel like windows 95 -> windows me.
> By calling it an update you imply it's the same as the hastily applied bugfixes we get on a daily basis to patch holes in Windows that should have never been there to begin with.
Speaking of which, Apple's security fixes are really apauling. It's apauling long it takes them to even acknowledge there is a issue, nevermind doing the actual fix (which they like to try to delay till the next big OS update).
> However, nearly every major release of the Mac OS has included some nifty additional software that by itself is virtually worth the price of the entire upgrade.
Microsoft cannot do this because of the anti-trust rulings and organisations, countries are still combatting them on the things they do still include, like windows media player, internet explroer. etc.
> Mac OS X is not only better documented, the components themselves are more exposed to inspection.
You can tell Apple to release their security update fixes more often (they often try to delay them and sneak them into official OS updates), they're really lagging behind every other OS I use, including Windows for security fixes.
Then tell them to stop selling faulty hardware, please! It's getting on my nerves dealing with aquaitences who need me to act the middleman to get Apple to be reasonable about faulty hardware (just a week after failing etc.) they sold.
> Second, many gamers now use laptops to make LAN parties easier,
That depends on the gamer. Actually, most I know, wouldn't, because of past expirence with using laptops for gaming.
> Third, why can't you slap a new video card in the Mac tower when it is released?
I've tried upgrading graphic cards before in macs (with pretty standard hardware), slapping a new one in, fine. Getting it to actually work properly is another thing.
> as environments will become more friendly to standards compliant OS's
As someone who writes his own software, I've found more difficulty porting my *nix applications to MacOSX, than it is to port them to windows (seriously).
Nevermind C++, it's a pain just trying to get *standard* Java applications working *properly* under the Apple java runtime enviroment. Apple certainly isn't very standards compliant in that sense.
> The real market for new Mac users, in my opinion, are those who would love to ditch Windows, but require some Windows-only software.
Linux tends to be a lot cheaper in this case than buying Mac hardware. The opensource software that runs on Macs doesn't run as well as on Linux systems (seen all the weird bugs with GTK widgets etc?). Windows software generally can be ran under Wine under Linux, while MacOSX has Darwine which is quite far behind in development, and nowhere reaches where Wine is today at the moment.
MacOSX also has issues with software installation. It's fine and dandy when you have a simple desktop application, which you can just shove into one folder. But then you come across notorious bugs in MacOSX, like the well known Apache bug whereby it only serves the first few kb of a file and stops serving. So you'll want to grab Apache or such from apache.org to get a 'fixed' version.
Unfortunately there is no real standard installer and package management on MacOSX for items that require to go OUTSIDE the application folder and into system folders.
Linux distros had this solved again with all the different package management systems availible for them.
> For some it will be their first experience using a Mac (or first using OS X anyway). They have at this point only looked over the shoulders of others and said, "hey how come you can do that?" and "wow that is really cool!"
That is a bad company, these people should be sent for training on the platform they're going to work on. Shoving people onto a system they never used before without training (unless they deem it unneccessary) is unacceptable.
> Another interesting item of note, is I don't know people that switch back.
I know a few people who have over the past years. From issues where Apple refused to deal with obvious faults in their own hardware to issues where simply, the software/games the person wanted wasn't availible there.
> It is hard to lose all that functionality, once you get used to it.
Like what?
I've not found anything particulary unique to MacOSX yet (widgets, search, integrated thumblenail views - graphic libraries, a somewhat fixed ui that can only be changed by various 'intercept' type of programs).
> This will probably influence their next home computer purchase as well.
Most home users just want a word proccessor, webbrowsing system and something that will *surely* work with their camera. Perhaps a Mac mini, but I'm willing to bet they really don't care about the OS or such, either the computer is going to be 'good' with them or 'messing'.
I was assuming you actually expirenced issues a few years back when they wern't as nicely refined and had quite a few issues for comparison, such as using the slow framebuffer video 'driver' because the graphic card wasn't supported.
> 2. It wouldn't be easy for Apple's development team but benefits outweigh it.
The benefits that it would goto a small user market?
> 3. Apple is in it for profit but nothing wrong with offering a coupon or rebate towards purchase of a Macintosh. $169 would be a better price.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, remember that.
> Apple could rebate it so AppleCare warranty is free with purchase.
With all the past issues Apple has had with their hardware, is that really wise?
No, second my comment was pretty clear that one can also get a simple case from Falcon. I don't see how that doesn't make sense.
However, Falcon is deemed a luxary computer system, and people who tend to buy them also get their 'rad cases' too. Apple can't compete against that, because they don't do anything like it. Hence, not a very good 'luxary' computer dealer when compared to the competition.
Heck, they don't even want to use the solution to their problems, which for beta software is quite good to have:
"I don't want solutions that entail using the command line. I would like something from Apple saying that they recognize the problem and are working on it."
> Companies need to stop using beta to cover their asses when they release a product, and only use it when the product is at high risk of serious flaws.
I remember there being plenty of flaws with Gmail beta.
> To compare to Linux: you've got your portage tree updates.
But people who run servers tend to use: Redhat, Debian, Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva more so than Gentoo. Infact, I've never seen a Gentoo server in a commericial setup before.
> It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with.
First Amendment protects your right of speech against the government, not against corporations. You'd think Americans would know their constition a bit better.
Corporations have every right in the United States of America to attempt to sue people for things they say.
> Someone might not be able to flop down 2 grand for a mac but they could put down upto $100 for a Live CD. And if they enjoy using OSX Live, then they might be willing to buy a new Mac somewhere down the road.
100?! Gosh isn't that a bit much for a livecd which has a OS that barely has support for most x86 hardware? Especially for a OS it's a bit expensive, since I can get a full Windows XP for 85USD (just look on froogle).
I can only imagine people would get a bad impression of it the same way they do of Linux. If it supports using fallbacks to certain VESA modes/framebuffer modes that linux livecds use when they can't figure out how to get graphic hardware working.
Then again, if Apple then produced a live cd that worked only on very specifix x86 hardware, the market would be even smaller, and people who tend to have the sort of hardware requirements for MacOSx (taking from the developer leak of macosx), are quite knowledgable users who'd probably rather spend money on a Falcon system which can out perform Macs easilly.
Slashdot Mirror
> Microsoft didn't get in trouble for including extras with the OS; they got into trouble by trying to tie things like IE so deeply into the OS that anybody who used anybody else's browser would lose critical OS function.
I can't find this on google, sources, anyone?
> So you've chose a dev system that only runs on one platform and you argue that that has something to do with the OS?
.net applications just fine on MacOSX which were compiled in windows, with Microsoft's compilers. Please learn more about your platform and .net.
I'm running
> While taste in client software is not dependent upon the underlying OS, the stability, speed, and security of the data and application are.
I suppose lack of functionality means lack of data, hence more secure in this case?
> I can run grammar checking within my e-mail and calendar, and pretty much anything else. Can you do that in Outlook?
This has always been possible in Outlook... You haven't even used the applications it seems.
> Can you right-click and a message in Outlook to change text from Japanese to English?
No, but it's under view in the menubar. Been there since outlook was released.
> I can, because my OS was upgraded to support it.
You don't need to upgrade windows to 'support it'. You just install the language packs.
> Additional security and sandboxing could probably change Web browsing for the better as well.
Already implemented in windows vista beta and ie7 beta.
> What about support for mouse gestures?
Plenty of IE plugins/addons supported that after it was first introduced.
> Making them a global feature of the OS can completely change the way you surf, as well as do other tasks.
Personally I find them problematic on touchpads.
> Your OS's ability to add this functionality makes a difference.
A annoyance to turn off?
> What about sound? More and more pages have it.
IE was actually the first browser to support that horrible sound attribute in the body tag.
I hate music in pages, be it midis, flash, quicktime.
> would let you leave sound on for alerts from your IM client or calendar, but mute it easily for your Web browser until you get to a page you actually want to hear sound for.
The software I use does that (under linux and using opera right now). However under windows, I believe that's only supported with 3rd party addons/plugins still.
> I'll say it again, you've been using Windows too long.
Me? I use the Linuxes, BSDs, MacOSXs, AmigaOSes and obviously, Windows.
> For the last ten years you haven't had much in the way of real improvements that change the way you use your computer.
Actually, I have, and the features are quite similar to what I see on the Mac. Since this seems to be geared towards being against Windows I'll make some points about Windows vs Mac.
I find the thumbnail rendering, video thumbnail rendering etc. under windows far faster than under the Mac, I am quite happy that disabling the 'indexing' system on the OS doesn't disable the search entirely, like it does under MacOSX. I also find that while the file -> open/save dialogs are slow in windows, I find them slower under MacOSX.
iPhoto on a none super powered up Mac, is incredibly slow. Especially when you compare to windows's (on a not so powerful computer) default thumbnailing system, picture viewers etc. Of course you could compare it to something with a bit more functionality which matches iPhoto, such as Picasa2, which still beats a Mac.
> Well, you're in for a treat if they ever release Vista. It has stolen lots of real, useful innovations from OS X.
Like.. What? Like, uh? the search system which can search into documents, create databases on your file contents etc.
These things were talked about long ago in the planning of blackcomb, before longhorn even came into play. More so, it seems that Apple took what Microsoft was talking about doing, and implemented it (and some things could of been done a lot better in my opinion).
Plus, generally later implementations tend to be better than the original in many cases, since you can see where the previ
> Trying to say that an OSX user is paying $100 for an update is really deceptive. OSX "updates" are pretty much a completely new OS. It's more like Windows 95 -> 98 (which Microsoft charged for), 98 -> 98SE (which Microsoft charged for), or 98SE -> ME (which...well, I'm sure you get the point).
Spotlight certainly made it feel like windows 95 -> windows me.
> By calling it an update you imply it's the same as the hastily applied bugfixes we get on a daily basis to patch holes in Windows that should have never been there to begin with.
Speaking of which, Apple's security fixes are really apauling. It's apauling long it takes them to even acknowledge there is a issue, nevermind doing the actual fix (which they like to try to delay till the next big OS update).
> However, nearly every major release of the Mac OS has included some nifty additional software that by itself is virtually worth the price of the entire upgrade.
Microsoft cannot do this because of the anti-trust rulings and organisations, countries are still combatting them on the things they do still include, like windows media player, internet explroer. etc.
> Mac OS X is not only better documented, the components themselves are more exposed to inspection.
You can tell Apple to release their security update fixes more often (they often try to delay them and sneak them into official OS updates), they're really lagging behind every other OS I use, including Windows for security fixes.
Then tell them to stop selling faulty hardware, please! It's getting on my nerves dealing with aquaitences who need me to act the middleman to get Apple to be reasonable about faulty hardware (just a week after failing etc.) they sold.
> First, gamers are a tiny segment of the market.
How many times bigger than the Mac market again?
> Second, many gamers now use laptops to make LAN parties easier,
That depends on the gamer. Actually, most I know, wouldn't, because of past expirence with using laptops for gaming.
> Third, why can't you slap a new video card in the Mac tower when it is released?
I've tried upgrading graphic cards before in macs (with pretty standard hardware), slapping a new one in, fine. Getting it to actually work properly is another thing.
> as environments will become more friendly to standards compliant OS's
As someone who writes his own software, I've found more difficulty porting my *nix applications to MacOSX, than it is to port them to windows (seriously).
Nevermind C++, it's a pain just trying to get *standard* Java applications working *properly* under the Apple java runtime enviroment. Apple certainly isn't very standards compliant in that sense.
> The real market for new Mac users, in my opinion, are those who would love to ditch Windows, but require some Windows-only software.
Linux tends to be a lot cheaper in this case than buying Mac hardware. The opensource software that runs on Macs doesn't run as well as on Linux systems (seen all the weird bugs with GTK widgets etc?). Windows software generally can be ran under Wine under Linux, while MacOSX has Darwine which is quite far behind in development, and nowhere reaches where Wine is today at the moment.
MacOSX also has issues with software installation. It's fine and dandy when you have a simple desktop application, which you can just shove into one folder. But then you come across notorious bugs in MacOSX, like the well known Apache bug whereby it only serves the first few kb of a file and stops serving. So you'll want to grab Apache or such from apache.org to get a 'fixed' version.
Unfortunately there is no real standard installer and package management on MacOSX for items that require to go OUTSIDE the application folder and into system folders.
Linux distros had this solved again with all the different package management systems availible for them.
> For some it will be their first experience using a Mac (or first using OS X anyway). They have at this point only looked over the shoulders of others and said, "hey how come you can do that?" and "wow that is really cool!"
That is a bad company, these people should be sent for training on the platform they're going to work on. Shoving people onto a system they never used before without training (unless they deem it unneccessary) is unacceptable.
> Another interesting item of note, is I don't know people that switch back.
I know a few people who have over the past years. From issues where Apple refused to deal with obvious faults in their own hardware to issues where simply, the software/games the person wanted wasn't availible there.
> It is hard to lose all that functionality, once you get used to it.
Like what?
I've not found anything particulary unique to MacOSX yet (widgets, search, integrated thumblenail views - graphic libraries, a somewhat fixed ui that can only be changed by various 'intercept' type of programs).
> This will probably influence their next home computer purchase as well.
Most home users just want a word proccessor, webbrowsing system and something that will *surely* work with their camera. Perhaps a Mac mini, but I'm willing to bet they really don't care about the OS or such, either the computer is going to be 'good' with them or 'messing'.
You fail at getting jokes.
Please use paragraphs in future, it's very hard to read your post.
> 1. Linux Live CDs work suprising well for me.
I was assuming you actually expirenced issues a few years back when they wern't as nicely refined and had quite a few issues for comparison, such as using the slow framebuffer video 'driver' because the graphic card wasn't supported.
> 2. It wouldn't be easy for Apple's development team but benefits outweigh it.
The benefits that it would goto a small user market?
> 3. Apple is in it for profit but nothing wrong with offering a coupon or rebate towards purchase of a Macintosh. $169 would be a better price.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, remember that.
> Apple could rebate it so AppleCare warranty is free with purchase.
With all the past issues Apple has had with their hardware, is that really wise?
No, second my comment was pretty clear that one can also get a simple case from Falcon. I don't see how that doesn't make sense.
However, Falcon is deemed a luxary computer system, and people who tend to buy them also get their 'rad cases' too. Apple can't compete against that, because they don't do anything like it. Hence, not a very good 'luxary' computer dealer when compared to the competition.
Only one person has so far.
Heck, they don't even want to use the solution to their problems, which for beta software is quite good to have:
"I don't want solutions that entail using the command line. I would like something from Apple saying that they recognize the problem and are working on it."
I saw something quite similar to the "LILILI" once, when I didn't install Lilo correctly.
I wonder what the bootloader is based on now.
> I was pretty frustrated that I had to hold option/alt to select my boot volume at every startup.
So MacOSX does crash regulary or require regular reboots!
> Companies need to stop using beta to cover their asses when they release a product, and only use it when the product is at high risk of serious flaws.
I remember there being plenty of flaws with Gmail beta.
Hey, what are you!? Living in a fantasy!? ... Oh wait...
It occures to me, that this technology costs more than human lives (seriously), so instead of sending these tanks to war, we should send people.
Oh poo, I just noticed I said 'directx' earlier when I meant 'active X'.
If you actually spent a little time learning how directx works, you could find the IE active x component at:
0 0C04FD705A2}
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{8856F961-340A-11D0-A96B-
and remove it.
You can always use ReactOS's activex snapin replacement for it which uses the Gecko rendering engine.
Konqueror has had this for ages for *every* plugin. Which I prefer.
> To compare to Linux: you've got your portage tree updates.
But people who run servers tend to use: Redhat, Debian, Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva more so than Gentoo. Infact, I've never seen a Gentoo server in a commericial setup before.
> It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with.
First Amendment protects your right of speech against the government, not against corporations. You'd think Americans would know their constition a bit better.
Corporations have every right in the United States of America to attempt to sue people for things they say.
Actually you can get a pretty simple case from Falcon too, so what is the problem?
And no, I'm not 17 (I'm older), and I don't work for Falcon (don't even live in the same country).
> Someone might not be able to flop down 2 grand for a mac but they could put down upto $100 for a Live CD. And if they enjoy using OSX Live, then they might be willing to buy a new Mac somewhere down the road.
100?! Gosh isn't that a bit much for a livecd which has a OS that barely has support for most x86 hardware? Especially for a OS it's a bit expensive, since I can get a full Windows XP for 85USD (just look on froogle).
I can only imagine people would get a bad impression of it the same way they do of Linux. If it supports using fallbacks to certain VESA modes/framebuffer modes that linux livecds use when they can't figure out how to get graphic hardware working.
Then again, if Apple then produced a live cd that worked only on very specifix x86 hardware, the market would be even smaller, and people who tend to have the sort of hardware requirements for MacOSx (taking from the developer leak of macosx), are quite knowledgable users who'd probably rather spend money on a Falcon system which can out perform Macs easilly.
I don't really see it happening?
> MacOS X Server (Unlimited Clients) pricing is very attractive compared to Windows...
Nah, the Windows os-tans *NSFW* are definately more attractive.