My PC here at work is supported by a large IT department and it crashes *hard* about once or twice a year, usually caused by Word or Excel. My iBook is supported by me and doesn't crash at all. It's being used for all the same things my PC is, and C++ development. My PC at home runs XP SP2 and has been pretty stable since I built it a year ago.
People remember the crashes in the pre-XP SP2 days. I do. Referring to them in a light-hearted ad doesn't count as flat-out lying.
What right do we have to say that OUR way is correct and take action against THEIR way?
And there's the failure of moral relativism, summed up in one sentence.
Tanks rolling over people in Tianenmen Square? Well, maybe that's what the Chinese people like! Invasion and suppresion of Tibet? Well, maybe the Tibetans love it! That Dalai Lama guy just needs to get with the program! Brutal ongoing suppression of Falun Gong? Well, those crazy guys just *love* being suppressed, imprisoned and beaten. Who wouldn't? Ongoing dictatorship? Saves all that time spent voting and rigging elections - a huge win for the people!
Hey! Who's to say that *our* way is correct? Maybe we should have dictatorships, brutal suppression of dissent, massive governmental corruption, petty fiefdoms which are laws unto themselves, and all the wonderful things China has brought us! After all - *their* way may just be better.
If you give because your religion makes you do it (as an act of worship to your god) then you're not doing it of your own free will. You don't *want* to give to the poor but you do anyway because that's what Jesus said you should do.
The result might seem the same (the poor get something) but the motivation is completely different.
I think Jesus was saying that you should feel happy to give. Any Christians would give their wealth to Jesus happily and without question because they *want* to give should he ask. Similarly they should give to the poor happily and without question, because they *want* to give.
Again, the result is the same but this time the motivation is more charitable, more in line with Jesus.
The bit about the poor always being there is just a bit of realism from Jesus. Maybe he was wrong - it'd be nice if we could prove that statement wrong someday - but he's been right on that one for a few thousand years now and there's no sign of things changing soon.
Microsoft has never been convicted of a "crime", and so are not "criminals"
That's news to me.
It was convicted under US criminal law. It appealed the conviction and failed in the highest court in the US. All the lawyers on the Microsoft payroll could not save it from clearly being guilty under criminal law.
This is not a matter of debate. It's on the public record, open for all to see. Microsoft has a criminal conviction recorded against it and it has used up all avenues of appeal to no avail.
Of course, at the time I predicted that the punishment of splitting the company into an OS division and an apps division would slowly be changed into giving it huge government contracts and putting statues of Bill Gates in front of every town hall. Still waiting on the statues, but they're not far off I think.
The bit about bribery is fair game. Donations can be viewed as bribes or commitments to the democratic process. It's a point of view, but the sums donated should be matters of record. I've no doubt at all that Microsoft donates generously to political parties, and like everything in business I've no doubt they expect some sort of return on that money.
45 And the money was distributed to the needy, but lo! the penny did not go as far as the bag of gold 46 And the medical needs of those in poverty were met by the bag of gold. 47 Men thought upon the situation and realised that maybe it wasn't quite so simple after all. 48 But good works came from both the penny and the bag of gold, even though the penny was harder to give and the bag of gold went further. 49 And the Lord smiled on both the poor widow who gave and the rich man who gave, for they both gave to the needy. 50 But the widow got an extra gold star from the Lord, and it was good.... a bit silly, I know.
If you deride gifts from the wealthy, you ignore the fact that their tremendous wealth allows them to do things that the rest of us cannot. I give a little money each month, but I'm under no illusions as to how far it stretches. Even if Buffet gave 1% of his wealth, it'd go much further than anything I could give. It might not hurt him at all, but the people on the other end get more benefit.
Perhaps they should charge her with a crime because she followed the law?
And yes, if you believe there's a sex offender 'scoping out' your child (I really hope that means 'looking at') then it's still better to do things the right way using the laws. You don't want that evil person to get off on a technicality (ie you failed to follow due process, the case is thrown out and the person sues you in a civil court for slander and harassment).
It cuts both ways as well. If someone doesn't like you they can use your methods to gather evidence about your behaviour. They may find nothing but I'd be willing to bet that anyone's life can be cast in a poor light if you're careful.
So much better to stick to the laws you have rather than throw them out when you deem it convenient.
Then consider this - if Microsoft were not doing what you claimed, would another company? Could it be that your system of government allows for corruption and lots of companies would leap into Microsoft's place if they could? I've heard of more than a few examples of Indian corruption (not that it's unique to India) and I don't see Microsoft as anything unusual in your allegations.
I don't like Microsoft's business tactics, and I won't be placed on their side. However, even after all that I still see that Gates using his *personal fortune* in the way he does is a net positive.
If you really disagree, outline to me exactly why funding research into HIV/AIDS and malaria cures is so bad or why immunising about 80 million children against diseases like hepatitis B and yellow fever. Malaria is resurging around the world but virtually no-one was tackling it until the foundation stepped in with their money. Tell me why that's morbid and twisted.
When you understand what the foundation does, maybe you'll view it differently. It's not part of Microsoft you know.
I'm not saying I like what Gates and Microsoft did to the software industry, but I believe that if a large sum of money hadn't been centralised in Gates' accounts, it would have stayed with a great number of other people and less would have gone to the third world. We don't *know* that and can only judge on how the non Gates-Foundation charities are doing (laudable but strapped for cash because people don't give enough).
I *really* have issues with the concept of "the ends justify the means" as well as with Microsoft generally (computer user since '81, Apple user since '91) but this is a case where I still say that if the net effect of the rapacious way Gates approached the software industry is that the Gates Foundation exists, then that's a positive.
I think Gates is doing something no-one else can do. He's redistributing wealth from the first world to the third world and doing what he can to make the world better.
To get his massive wealth he's done things that were dishonest and even illegal (Microsoft never could overturn the illegal monopoly decision).
But - and this is the crux - if he didn't have that wealth he couldn't do the things he can now. The wealth would be distributed throughout many people in North America, where it'd be likely to stay.
Sometimes the ends *do* justify the means.
I find it bizarre to praise Gates - as a computer enthusiast for 25 years now (I'm 35) I've come to see him as a net negative in the industry. We've got a monolithic company, a software monoculture, a history of massive security holes and illegal product tying. I believe the industry has suffered greatly because of Microsoft.
But I still see his charity outweighs any negatives.
Well, the Apple PR teams will swing into action when they read that. An anonymous person on the Internet makes some random criticism that looks more like astroturfing for Creative than a real situation.
If you don't put your name to it, you don't really mean it.
I used to be a member of Guy Kawasaki's 'EvangeList' (albeit a distant member) and it was fun at the time, and good to counter a *lot* of misinformation about the platform.
I'd be surprised if anything like it existed today though. I've not heard a peep about it for ages.
Why on Earth would the music industry want Apple to licence FairPlay?
Maybe it would loosen Apple's control on the online industry, making it easier for the industry to force deals through.
Apple recently resisted industry efforts to allow variable pricing (looked a lot like min 99c, max ++$) and they could only do that because of their strength online. A billion songs sold is a good negotiating point, and Jobs is apparently an excellent negotiator.
If the online distribution industry fractures (as it inevitably will) the ability to resist price increases will weaken.
Maybe I'm way off, but as soon as I see the music industry wanting something, I get *very* suspicious of their motives.
You know what matters to me on any computer I use?
My files.
I don't *care* if the OS gets hosed so long as my files are salvagable. I can reinstall everything except my own files that were modified since the last backup.
Restricting damage to my files is worthless to me. Worse - it's being sold as something good! It's not good at all. It's just telling me that I'll be able to boot again but nothing of mine will survive. I'll have to re-image the drive from the backup, so I don't care if the system is good or not.
REAL security provides user-level protection as well, and limits any process' access by informing the user with a clear message (like "Application 'foobar processor' is attempting to modify files outside its own folder or preferences. This can be potentially harmful! Do you want to allow this? Yes/*No*"
I remember seeing the army of lawyers put Gates on the stand. He was so utterly hopeless that I felt sorry for him. Go read the transcript. It's laughable.
I replied to a lower post before stepping up the chain, but I have to reply to this:
But that's just the beginning, because the Xgl architecture makes it much easier to implement new visual GUI technologies.
So are there any new GUI methods, unique to Linux in development? Anything that hasn't appeared or been flagged in another OS?
I would love to see a unique and powerful Linux, but I've never seen any sign of GUI inventiveness in the devs. Hopefully XGL will finally enable them to break away and actually invent something new.
So Linux GUI development is being driven by OS X and Windows? Odd - I'd have thought the devs were trying to do something new and unique, not just copy stuff. I thought Linux was more than that. Do you want to tell the Linux world, or shall I?
And then you trot out "Apple... [makes] shitty user interfaces" and expect to be taken seriously. A weak point, with no substantiation other than bile and bias.
1 - YouTube - great toy, especially if you love jerky cameras that shake so much you think you're having an epileptic fit. Maybe one day I'll see a video there that I can make out or watch. 2 - Google Earth is great. What's it good for though, other than a toy? Maybe a learning aid, but...? 3 - eBay - great site, lots of good stuff, deserves to be in the top 10 of 2000 though, not 2006. 4 - Why Sony? Overpriced hardware is nice and all, but it's nothing special. 5 - Someone who rebels against Apple! How original! Don't like video - don't use it! It's not something you're paying extra for. 7 - PSP? Nice idea, nice execution, don't see them being used on the street anymore. Looks like a flash in the pan. 8 - Haven't! Been! To! Yahoo! In! Years! I! Will! Check! This! Out! Tonight! 9 - Airbrush a hologram? Seriously? Why not make one using magic instead? You know, if we're going to drop all pretense of science. 10 - The new layout's nice enough. I'd like to play with the CSS sometime to tweak it a bit.
Outsourcing is not a hose that funnels jobs to India - it points to the cheapest or best source of labour. Today, that means India. Tomorrow it'll mean Vietnam, Russia or China. The day after it might be Nigeria.
Anyone working in an outsourced role is living on borrowed time. The company has already shown at least once that it didn't mind dumping the old workers for new, cheaper workers. As soon as they find cheaper ones in a relatively stable country, they'll dump the current workers.
This is the IT workforce today - no security, no loyalty and no promises.
That's a pretty solid point. Mac gaming hardware costs comparitively more than PC gaming hardware, mainly because the consumer line has fixed hardware.
I'm a hobby game developer and working on lots of OpenGL stuff now. I've outgrown my iBook but the next model can't be the new MacBook, MacBook Pro or iMac - I need more powerful graphics and lots of GPU memory. I'm going to need a tower just to put an X1900 (or 7900) in for developing.
I don't use pirated software, but I believe that the lack of any real chance of being caught gives them the belief that it's not so bad really, a victimless crime. They feel empowered to pirate stuff.
Open source is a nice idea, and some good things are coming out of it. Doesn't mean anything for movies, music and games, but some good software's being written.
1 - Why should Apple try to implement a closed, proprietary system like DirectX when there are better solutions like OpenGL, OpenAL and their own HID manager? DirectX is subject to change, and implementing a work-alike could be lethal for future compatibility. Better to use a shim layer over OpenGL and push devs to OpenGL rather than become dependant on Microsoft.
2 - I can only think you're talking about the lower memory cards we get on the Mac side. Perhaps that's an issue for, you know - the card manufacturers? Like ATi and nVidia? You could make a better point about the integrated graphics in the consumer models (iBook, Mac Mini) but those 'cards' are the same on the PC side anyway.
3 - Small customer base - you hit the nail on the head there. That's the reason we don't see more Mac games - there's not enough people to buy them and fund development.
4 - Not a valid point. The OS is fine for any normal tasks, and the only valid criticism I've seen was from AnandTech about server-level performance. Completely different usage, completely irrelevant to gaming.
5 - Another nail hit on its head. OpenGL is not well optimised for OS X but that's fixable at least.
The bit about PC games becoming X-Box games is great, until you actually look at what an X-Box *is*. If you think it's just a PC in a little black box, you're way off. Try writing that great game, and then fitting it in the 64MB of system memory without massive changes. System requirements for Doom3? It's a miracle they got thta onto the X-Box, a testament to the programming powers at id. (I don't know so much about the 360, so I'll not comment on that.)
Yes, you can write portable games but that is a design decision that must be made up front. Once you've made your code easy to port, you can go to X-Box, PS2, OS X and Linux. Rewriting DirectX is largely taken care of for commercial software companies, as they've either got an existing shim layer or can make one. Or they'll just leave the DirectX-specific code in a module that's rewritten for each game platform.
You only made two valid points out of your five, and clearly you don't understand software development in general and game development in particular. Amazingly, you got your final point right - the Mac *does* suck for gaming, but you missed the next logical statement, which is "but some serious attention from Apple might turn it around." It may well look different in a year or two if Apple can get OpenGL and the card drivers more optimised, and get that marketshare up.
The volume popup and live preview in the Dock sound like things that might be solved over at MacOSXHints.com. I'm not sure that you'll find a solution, but it's a good place to look.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think they're flat-out lying.
My PC here at work is supported by a large IT department and it crashes *hard* about once or twice a year, usually caused by Word or Excel. My iBook is supported by me and doesn't crash at all. It's being used for all the same things my PC is, and C++ development. My PC at home runs XP SP2 and has been pretty stable since I built it a year ago.
People remember the crashes in the pre-XP SP2 days. I do. Referring to them in a light-hearted ad doesn't count as flat-out lying.
What right do we have to say that OUR way is correct and take action against THEIR way?
And there's the failure of moral relativism, summed up in one sentence.
Tanks rolling over people in Tianenmen Square? Well, maybe that's what the Chinese people like!
Invasion and suppresion of Tibet? Well, maybe the Tibetans love it! That Dalai Lama guy just needs to get with the program!
Brutal ongoing suppression of Falun Gong? Well, those crazy guys just *love* being suppressed, imprisoned and beaten. Who wouldn't?
Ongoing dictatorship? Saves all that time spent voting and rigging elections - a huge win for the people!
Hey! Who's to say that *our* way is correct? Maybe we should have dictatorships, brutal suppression of dissent, massive governmental corruption, petty fiefdoms which are laws unto themselves, and all the wonderful things China has brought us! After all - *their* way may just be better.
I don't agree with your analysis.
If you give because your religion makes you do it (as an act of worship to your god) then you're not doing it of your own free will. You don't *want* to give to the poor but you do anyway because that's what Jesus said you should do.
The result might seem the same (the poor get something) but the motivation is completely different.
I think Jesus was saying that you should feel happy to give. Any Christians would give their wealth to Jesus happily and without question because they *want* to give should he ask. Similarly they should give to the poor happily and without question, because they *want* to give.
Again, the result is the same but this time the motivation is more charitable, more in line with Jesus.
The bit about the poor always being there is just a bit of realism from Jesus. Maybe he was wrong - it'd be nice if we could prove that statement wrong someday - but he's been right on that one for a few thousand years now and there's no sign of things changing soon.
Microsoft has never been convicted of a "crime", and so are not "criminals"
That's news to me.
It was convicted under US criminal law. It appealed the conviction and failed in the highest court in the US. All the lawyers on the Microsoft payroll could not save it from clearly being guilty under criminal law.
This is not a matter of debate. It's on the public record, open for all to see. Microsoft has a criminal conviction recorded against it and it has used up all avenues of appeal to no avail.
Of course, at the time I predicted that the punishment of splitting the company into an OS division and an apps division would slowly be changed into giving it huge government contracts and putting statues of Bill Gates in front of every town hall. Still waiting on the statues, but they're not far off I think.
The bit about bribery is fair game. Donations can be viewed as bribes or commitments to the democratic process. It's a point of view, but the sums donated should be matters of record. I've no doubt at all that Microsoft donates generously to political parties, and like everything in business I've no doubt they expect some sort of return on that money.
It continues...
... a bit silly, I know.
45 And the money was distributed to the needy, but lo! the penny did not go as far as the bag of gold
46 And the medical needs of those in poverty were met by the bag of gold.
47 Men thought upon the situation and realised that maybe it wasn't quite so simple after all.
48 But good works came from both the penny and the bag of gold, even though the penny was harder to give and the bag of gold went further.
49 And the Lord smiled on both the poor widow who gave and the rich man who gave, for they both gave to the needy.
50 But the widow got an extra gold star from the Lord, and it was good.
If you deride gifts from the wealthy, you ignore the fact that their tremendous wealth allows them to do things that the rest of us cannot. I give a little money each month, but I'm under no illusions as to how far it stretches. Even if Buffet gave 1% of his wealth, it'd go much further than anything I could give. It might not hurt him at all, but the people on the other end get more benefit.
Great post.
Absolutely insane, but great nonetheless.
Perhaps they should charge her with a crime because she followed the law?
And yes, if you believe there's a sex offender 'scoping out' your child (I really hope that means 'looking at') then it's still better to do things the right way using the laws. You don't want that evil person to get off on a technicality (ie you failed to follow due process, the case is thrown out and the person sues you in a civil court for slander and harassment).
It cuts both ways as well. If someone doesn't like you they can use your methods to gather evidence about your behaviour. They may find nothing but I'd be willing to bet that anyone's life can be cast in a poor light if you're careful.
So much better to stick to the laws you have rather than throw them out when you deem it convenient.
The foundation is not Microsoft, and Microsoft doesn't fund the foundation.
The money comes from Gates' personal wealth.
Hey AC - why don't you actually find out what the foundation does before you scream about Microsoft?
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
Then consider this - if Microsoft were not doing what you claimed, would another company? Could it be that your system of government allows for corruption and lots of companies would leap into Microsoft's place if they could? I've heard of more than a few examples of Indian corruption (not that it's unique to India) and I don't see Microsoft as anything unusual in your allegations.
I don't like Microsoft's business tactics, and I won't be placed on their side. However, even after all that I still see that Gates using his *personal fortune* in the way he does is a net positive.
If you really disagree, outline to me exactly why funding research into HIV/AIDS and malaria cures is so bad or why immunising about 80 million children against diseases like hepatitis B and yellow fever. Malaria is resurging around the world but virtually no-one was tackling it until the foundation stepped in with their money. Tell me why that's morbid and twisted.
When you understand what the foundation does, maybe you'll view it differently. It's not part of Microsoft you know.
I'm not saying I like what Gates and Microsoft did to the software industry, but I believe that if a large sum of money hadn't been centralised in Gates' accounts, it would have stayed with a great number of other people and less would have gone to the third world. We don't *know* that and can only judge on how the non Gates-Foundation charities are doing (laudable but strapped for cash because people don't give enough).
I *really* have issues with the concept of "the ends justify the means" as well as with Microsoft generally (computer user since '81, Apple user since '91) but this is a case where I still say that if the net effect of the rapacious way Gates approached the software industry is that the Gates Foundation exists, then that's a positive.
I think Gates is doing something no-one else can do. He's redistributing wealth from the first world to the third world and doing what he can to make the world better.
To get his massive wealth he's done things that were dishonest and even illegal (Microsoft never could overturn the illegal monopoly decision).
But - and this is the crux - if he didn't have that wealth he couldn't do the things he can now. The wealth would be distributed throughout many people in North America, where it'd be likely to stay.
Sometimes the ends *do* justify the means.
I find it bizarre to praise Gates - as a computer enthusiast for 25 years now (I'm 35) I've come to see him as a net negative in the industry. We've got a monolithic company, a software monoculture, a history of massive security holes and illegal product tying. I believe the industry has suffered greatly because of Microsoft.
But I still see his charity outweighs any negatives.
Microsoft the "world's most successful company" ?
Must be news to GE.
Maybe the "world's most successful *computer-based* company" would be more accurate.
Well, the Apple PR teams will swing into action when they read that. An anonymous person on the Internet makes some random criticism that looks more like astroturfing for Creative than a real situation.
If you don't put your name to it, you don't really mean it.
I used to be a member of Guy Kawasaki's 'EvangeList' (albeit a distant member) and it was fun at the time, and good to counter a *lot* of misinformation about the platform.
I'd be surprised if anything like it existed today though. I've not heard a peep about it for ages.
Why on Earth would the music industry want Apple to licence FairPlay?
Maybe it would loosen Apple's control on the online industry, making it easier for the industry to force deals through.
Apple recently resisted industry efforts to allow variable pricing (looked a lot like min 99c, max ++$) and they could only do that because of their strength online. A billion songs sold is a good negotiating point, and Jobs is apparently an excellent negotiator.
If the online distribution industry fractures (as it inevitably will) the ability to resist price increases will weaken.
Maybe I'm way off, but as soon as I see the music industry wanting something, I get *very* suspicious of their motives.
You know what matters to me on any computer I use?
My files.
I don't *care* if the OS gets hosed so long as my files are salvagable. I can reinstall everything except my own files that were modified since the last backup.
Restricting damage to my files is worthless to me. Worse - it's being sold as something good! It's not good at all. It's just telling me that I'll be able to boot again but nothing of mine will survive. I'll have to re-image the drive from the backup, so I don't care if the system is good or not.
REAL security provides user-level protection as well, and limits any process' access by informing the user with a clear message (like "Application 'foobar processor' is attempting to modify files outside its own folder or preferences. This can be potentially harmful! Do you want to allow this? Yes/*No*"
I don't see any OS that does that though...
"Gates borg army"?
I remember seeing the army of lawyers put Gates on the stand. He was so utterly hopeless that I felt sorry for him. Go read the transcript. It's laughable.
Then the lawyers went on to lose the case.
And the appeals.
If there's a "borg army" it's not at Microsoft.
I replied to a lower post before stepping up the chain, but I have to reply to this:
But that's just the beginning, because the Xgl architecture makes it much easier to implement new visual GUI technologies.
So are there any new GUI methods, unique to Linux in development? Anything that hasn't appeared or been flagged in another OS?
I would love to see a unique and powerful Linux, but I've never seen any sign of GUI inventiveness in the devs. Hopefully XGL will finally enable them to break away and actually invent something new.
So Linux GUI development is being driven by OS X and Windows? Odd - I'd have thought the devs were trying to do something new and unique, not just copy stuff. I thought Linux was more than that. Do you want to tell the Linux world, or shall I?
... [makes] shitty user interfaces" and expect to be taken seriously. A weak point, with no substantiation other than bile and bias.
And then you trot out "Apple
1 - YouTube - great toy, especially if you love jerky cameras that shake so much you think you're having an epileptic fit. Maybe one day I'll see a video there that I can make out or watch.
2 - Google Earth is great. What's it good for though, other than a toy? Maybe a learning aid, but...?
3 - eBay - great site, lots of good stuff, deserves to be in the top 10 of 2000 though, not 2006.
4 - Why Sony? Overpriced hardware is nice and all, but it's nothing special.
5 - Someone who rebels against Apple! How original! Don't like video - don't use it! It's not something you're paying extra for.
7 - PSP? Nice idea, nice execution, don't see them being used on the street anymore. Looks like a flash in the pan.
8 - Haven't! Been! To! Yahoo! In! Years! I! Will! Check! This! Out! Tonight!
9 - Airbrush a hologram? Seriously? Why not make one using magic instead? You know, if we're going to drop all pretense of science.
10 - The new layout's nice enough. I'd like to play with the CSS sometime to tweak it a bit.
Great comment, well written.
Outsourcing is not a hose that funnels jobs to India - it points to the cheapest or best source of labour. Today, that means India. Tomorrow it'll mean Vietnam, Russia or China. The day after it might be Nigeria.
Anyone working in an outsourced role is living on borrowed time. The company has already shown at least once that it didn't mind dumping the old workers for new, cheaper workers. As soon as they find cheaper ones in a relatively stable country, they'll dump the current workers.
This is the IT workforce today - no security, no loyalty and no promises.
That's a pretty solid point. Mac gaming hardware costs comparitively more than PC gaming hardware, mainly because the consumer line has fixed hardware.
I'm a hobby game developer and working on lots of OpenGL stuff now. I've outgrown my iBook but the next model can't be the new MacBook, MacBook Pro or iMac - I need more powerful graphics and lots of GPU memory. I'm going to need a tower just to put an X1900 (or 7900) in for developing.
Ouch!
I just did a 'Get Info' on the System and Library folders and found the total to be 4.03GB.
This is 10.4.6, everything up to date.
You missed my point completely.
I don't use pirated software, but I believe that the lack of any real chance of being caught gives them the belief that it's not so bad really, a victimless crime. They feel empowered to pirate stuff.
Open source is a nice idea, and some good things are coming out of it. Doesn't mean anything for movies, music and games, but some good software's being written.
1 - Why should Apple try to implement a closed, proprietary system like DirectX when there are better solutions like OpenGL, OpenAL and their own HID manager? DirectX is subject to change, and implementing a work-alike could be lethal for future compatibility. Better to use a shim layer over OpenGL and push devs to OpenGL rather than become dependant on Microsoft.
2 - I can only think you're talking about the lower memory cards we get on the Mac side. Perhaps that's an issue for, you know - the card manufacturers? Like ATi and nVidia? You could make a better point about the integrated graphics in the consumer models (iBook, Mac Mini) but those 'cards' are the same on the PC side anyway.
3 - Small customer base - you hit the nail on the head there. That's the reason we don't see more Mac games - there's not enough people to buy them and fund development.
4 - Not a valid point. The OS is fine for any normal tasks, and the only valid criticism I've seen was from AnandTech about server-level performance. Completely different usage, completely irrelevant to gaming.
5 - Another nail hit on its head. OpenGL is not well optimised for OS X but that's fixable at least.
The bit about PC games becoming X-Box games is great, until you actually look at what an X-Box *is*. If you think it's just a PC in a little black box, you're way off. Try writing that great game, and then fitting it in the 64MB of system memory without massive changes. System requirements for Doom3? It's a miracle they got thta onto the X-Box, a testament to the programming powers at id. (I don't know so much about the 360, so I'll not comment on that.)
Yes, you can write portable games but that is a design decision that must be made up front. Once you've made your code easy to port, you can go to X-Box, PS2, OS X and Linux. Rewriting DirectX is largely taken care of for commercial software companies, as they've either got an existing shim layer or can make one. Or they'll just leave the DirectX-specific code in a module that's rewritten for each game platform.
You only made two valid points out of your five, and clearly you don't understand software development in general and game development in particular. Amazingly, you got your final point right - the Mac *does* suck for gaming, but you missed the next logical statement, which is "but some serious attention from Apple might turn it around." It may well look different in a year or two if Apple can get OpenGL and the card drivers more optimised, and get that marketshare up.
The volume popup and live preview in the Dock sound like things that might be solved over at MacOSXHints.com. I'm not sure that you'll find a solution, but it's a good place to look.