That's only somewhat true. Microsoft actually gave IE Mobile some nice little features in the 6.1 release of Windows Mobile. I'm not trying to say it comes close to the greatness of what MobileSafari or even Opera Mobile is doing, but they HAVE been doing some development lately.
It may give it a run for its money (which I don't truly agree with), but it took quite a bit of imitating from MobileSafari to get it where it's at. When I bought my iPhone, Opera Mobile still surfed the web horribly, and slowly. By horribly, I'm referring to the rendering job. The same goes for most other browsers out there for Windows Mobile.
In the meantime, Apple is developing new features for the iPhone and MobileSafari that will make it work better. It's all copy copy copy...
While I certainly favor the iPhone's OS, I have to disagree with you about how their approach to the iPhone was revolutionary.
You see, I was using Windows Mobile back when it was just "Pocket PC 2000", and that had nothing to really do with cell phones. It was meant to be a standalone, PDA OS.
The Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional of today is the newest version of this. Pocket PC phones (touch screen) rather than Windows Mobile Smartphones (non-touch screen) are mobile PCs first and foremost because that's what they originally were.
Those who claim that the Linux growth is more impressive because it is more than Mac OS X's growth, think of this:
Let's say I write an operating system and I'm the only user. After a few days, there are five people who use my OS. This is a 500% growth within days! Why wouldn't you admit defeat of every other OS out there?
Basically, what I'm saying is that the percentage of growth means nothing if the amount of users altogether isn't significant.
You're kidding me right? How long was Apple around after Steve Jobs? Sure they weren't doing well, but trust me Apple, Inc. is much more stable and established as a company than the nearly experimental Canonical Ltd. I mean geez, have you ever even heard of this thing called the iPod?
Don't get me wrong, I was using open-source variants of BSD before OS X was even out and I loved them, but honestly Mac OS X has become my platform of choice. Although it's just as powerful as any other UNIX based operating system, I don't have to constantly be tweaking things. Sometimes the need for too much customization can be counterproductive especially on a pure desktop OS. Mac OS X allows for a damn good amount of customization (yep, I said it), but it doesn't force a user to read up on man page, and tweak trivial things just to get something simple to work. Most other UNIX-like operating systems just can't cut it when it comes to needing stuff to "just work".
I can still compile the latest and greatest open source applications and run them with ease on OS X, while at the same time I can actually run things like Adobe Photoshop and Dreamweaver or Microsoft Office (Yeah, I like REAL compatibility) easily and in a proper environment.
So, political ideologies about software licenses aside, the bottom line is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to like OS X as a UNIX lover. Hell, even Bill Joy uses it as a primary desktop OS.
I thought every new release of OS X runs faster than the previous one?
:P Actually this was relatively true until Tiger came out. Back then Apple's focus was more about code optimization than add-on features. It's become quite a bit more bloated. I'd still rather upgrade though.
I agree. I think that's the fastest way for Apple to get the worst reputation. A lot of Mac OS X's stability depends on the fact that there is only a small set of hardware that is supported.
both Gnome and KDE decided to model their GUIs off of Windows 95
I whole heartedly agree! This is one of the reasons I loved switching from Open Source Unix-like operating systems to Mac OS X. It reminded me of something new and fresh, but still powerful and backwards compatible.
Your time isn't worth any money and you should reconsider what you're using it for
How about students who are actually expected to pay for what they're doing full-time instead of the other way around? What I'm doing is certainly worthwhile, but it doesn't mean it's affordable by any means.
That's usually because lone Macs like that in computer labs are typically neglected, running old software, and don't have anything useful installed on them.
Apple hardware is overrated in my opinion. You mention folks buying Apple Hardware for the sole purpose of installing Linux on it... amm... d0h! No serious Linux user would do -that-
That's odd that you say that considering Linus Torvalds himself has been using Apple hardware to run Linux for quite a few years now.
OSX does do some pretty non-standard things itself. For example, try inserting a CD or other removeable media into your mac and then copying the file to your computer. Most people who have ever used a linux box, windows box, or *even* an Amiga for chrissake will drag the file off the CD and onto their hard-drive or desktop. Then they toss the CD because the data is on their machine now. If you do that in OSX and you'll find the link you just made now leads nowhere because OSX *didn't* copy the bloody file, it only linked to it. No other OS I've used does this, and it's bloody counterintuitive.
Mac OS X has never done this. I hate myths like this that are propagated around the web.
ugh. You're kidding me. If you use a Mac, you'll know half of what this guy is saying makes no sense. He even mixes Classic Mac OS complaints with OS X. And what the hell is "clover-leaf, period"?? Oh yeah, not to mention, this is old news. OS X has changed considerably since this was made.
I'm Not trying to say Macs don't crash or anything, but honestly...Let's at least see something that's correct.
In a free market society, power is checked quite easily by consumer organization. If you disagree with their business practices, don't buy their products.
XNU is still available in source for the PowerPC platform, right? Why would Apple keep the PowerPC code right there, but not the Intel code? I mean what motivation would Apple have to close their source so far on the Intel side, besides stopping people hacking their full OS to steal it? Is your idea as a business to make it easier for your product to be stolen? It'd just make more sense to me to think that Apple is coming up with a plan that will help them, and allow them to keep their OS open. It's not just a ideological thing, for Apple, it's more of a marketing advantage.
You make comments such as "Apple: Put up or Shut up." and compare Apple to Microsoft in the amount of open source code they release or have released in the past. Apple is already "putting up" and have done so many times in the past. Apple and Microsoft at this point in time are just flat out not comparable as far as a business model and especially a technical model at this point in time. It's foolish to do so.
Basically, your arguments are just flat out fallacious.
I know this will be considered a Mac troll statement, but really I'm too sick of all that trendiness going on to care anymore. No, you're not cool because you hate OS X users and everything Apple stands for.
Yes, but a lot of users, especially the clueless ones are using a pre-installed version of Windows XP from a hardware vendor. Considering this, most users aren't even installing Windows on their own.
Ummm.. and NeXTstep isn't a Unix?
From your referenced Wikipedia article:
a Unix-like operating system based on the Mach kernel, plus source code from UC Berkeley's BSD Unix
You can even compare that with wikipedia's mention of FreeBSD development:
Initial development of FreeBSD was started in 1993, and took its sources from 386BSD.
I wish people would quit getting in a hissy fit every time someone mentions that there are plenty of people switching from other UNIX-like operating systems to Macs due to a "better" GUI.
I'm one of those people. I also know at least two more people like this.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only somewhat true. Microsoft actually gave IE Mobile some nice little features in the 6.1 release of Windows Mobile. I'm not trying to say it comes close to the greatness of what MobileSafari or even Opera Mobile is doing, but they HAVE been doing some development lately.
It may give it a run for its money (which I don't truly agree with), but it took quite a bit of imitating from MobileSafari to get it where it's at. When I bought my iPhone, Opera Mobile still surfed the web horribly, and slowly. By horribly, I'm referring to the rendering job. The same goes for most other browsers out there for Windows Mobile.
In the meantime, Apple is developing new features for the iPhone and MobileSafari that will make it work better. It's all copy copy copy...
While I certainly favor the iPhone's OS, I have to disagree with you about how their approach to the iPhone was revolutionary. You see, I was using Windows Mobile back when it was just "Pocket PC 2000", and that had nothing to really do with cell phones. It was meant to be a standalone, PDA OS. The Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional of today is the newest version of this. Pocket PC phones (touch screen) rather than Windows Mobile Smartphones (non-touch screen) are mobile PCs first and foremost because that's what they originally were.
Those who claim that the Linux growth is more impressive because it is more than Mac OS X's growth, think of this:
Let's say I write an operating system and I'm the only user. After a few days, there are five people who use my OS. This is a 500% growth within days! Why wouldn't you admit defeat of every other OS out there?
Basically, what I'm saying is that the percentage of growth means nothing if the amount of users altogether isn't significant.
You're kidding me right? How long was Apple around after Steve Jobs? Sure they weren't doing well, but trust me Apple, Inc. is much more stable and established as a company than the nearly experimental Canonical Ltd. I mean geez, have you ever even heard of this thing called the iPod?
Don't get me wrong, I was using open-source variants of BSD before OS X was even out and I loved them, but honestly Mac OS X has become my platform of choice. Although it's just as powerful as any other UNIX based operating system, I don't have to constantly be tweaking things. Sometimes the need for too much customization can be counterproductive especially on a pure desktop OS. Mac OS X allows for a damn good amount of customization (yep, I said it), but it doesn't force a user to read up on man page, and tweak trivial things just to get something simple to work. Most other UNIX-like operating systems just can't cut it when it comes to needing stuff to "just work".
I can still compile the latest and greatest open source applications and run them with ease on OS X, while at the same time I can actually run things like Adobe Photoshop and Dreamweaver or Microsoft Office (Yeah, I like REAL compatibility) easily and in a proper environment.
So, political ideologies about software licenses aside, the bottom line is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to like OS X as a UNIX lover. Hell, even Bill Joy uses it as a primary desktop OS.
I agree. I think that's the fastest way for Apple to get the worst reputation. A lot of Mac OS X's stability depends on the fact that there is only a small set of hardware that is supported.
That's usually because lone Macs like that in computer labs are typically neglected, running old software, and don't have anything useful installed on them.
Mac OS X has never done this. I hate myths like this that are propagated around the web.
ugh. You're kidding me. If you use a Mac, you'll know half of what this guy is saying makes no sense. He even mixes Classic Mac OS complaints with OS X. And what the hell is "clover-leaf, period"?? Oh yeah, not to mention, this is old news. OS X has changed considerably since this was made. I'm Not trying to say Macs don't crash or anything, but honestly...Let's at least see something that's correct.
Microsoft is considered a de-facto monopoly by most. Since when does everyone on earth own a Microsoft product?
In a free market society, power is checked quite easily by consumer organization. If you disagree with their business practices, don't buy their products.
XNU is still available in source for the PowerPC platform, right? Why would Apple keep the PowerPC code right there, but not the Intel code? I mean what motivation would Apple have to close their source so far on the Intel side, besides stopping people hacking their full OS to steal it? Is your idea as a business to make it easier for your product to be stolen? It'd just make more sense to me to think that Apple is coming up with a plan that will help them, and allow them to keep their OS open. It's not just a ideological thing, for Apple, it's more of a marketing advantage. You make comments such as "Apple: Put up or Shut up." and compare Apple to Microsoft in the amount of open source code they release or have released in the past. Apple is already "putting up" and have done so many times in the past. Apple and Microsoft at this point in time are just flat out not comparable as far as a business model and especially a technical model at this point in time. It's foolish to do so. Basically, your arguments are just flat out fallacious. I know this will be considered a Mac troll statement, but really I'm too sick of all that trendiness going on to care anymore. No, you're not cool because you hate OS X users and everything Apple stands for.
That source also is from 2003. Macs now have less viruses than other Unix clones, since Mac OS has become a Unix-like OS.
Yes, but a lot of users, especially the clueless ones are using a pre-installed version of Windows XP from a hardware vendor. Considering this, most users aren't even installing Windows on their own.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/
Ummm.. and NeXTstep isn't a Unix? From your referenced Wikipedia article:
a Unix-like operating system based on the Mach kernel, plus source code from UC Berkeley's BSD Unix
You can even compare that with wikipedia's mention of FreeBSD development:
Initial development of FreeBSD was started in 1993, and took its sources from 386BSD.
I wish people would quit getting in a hissy fit every time someone mentions that there are plenty of people switching from other UNIX-like operating systems to Macs due to a "better" GUI. I'm one of those people. I also know at least two more people like this.
You're obviously implying that by your first remark up there: "wait what does iTunes do that a web browser can't?"