wow, apple fanboys amaze me. normally we could care less and would like to avoid commercials. here, this ad is considered news and people are excited to watch steve's presentation when it too is just a big ad. is it brilliant marketing or moron consumers?
I see alot of posts within the past few weeks saying that you don't need an amazing video card unless you play games. OSX heavily utilizes the 3D graphic cards in the actual interface, correct? I see all the new macs, for the most part, coming out with weak 3D cards. When a system is taxed, (or in general) doesn't the card affect OSX's performance? Or is OSX at a point where it's optimized enough that, for example, the integrated Intel chip in the mini will be just as fluid and responsive (graphics-wise only) as a mac pro with an ATI radeon x1900 (or a better example being an X1600 w/ 128MB RAM)? Recently I played with both side by side and the difference was not noticeable (however, I did not tax the system). But this puzzles me. Does a more powerful video card matter anymore with macs? It defies common sense (faster video cards in the past always gave better performance in day-to-day tasks in windows, for example).
P.S. I do not own a Mac so I cannot test this myself.
Underpeform is an understatement. I bought a brand new Linksys router with that fancy MIMO technology and the exactly the same corresponding PC Card. Yea it's fast, when it works. It only connects 75% percent of the time. And the funniest part is that 100% of the time it is unable to connect right next to the router (but can connect when i have 25% signal). Go figure.
very good points. good post. good stuff. to add some things:
"I disagree. Why do I need a firewall? With a Linux distribution, I don't need a firewall. I can just stop any insecure servers using the control panel. The full X"
firewalls can be very useful for also blocking outgoing traffic, many times more important than blocking incoming traffic. don't forget this slashdotters.
"It's even more secure if you run your links to the outside world in an extremely limited account or sandbox; that way, whatever you do can't touch your data. The new version of Internet Explorer seems to be good that way. Too bad that dumb Web designers still code for IE6. Sensitive data, of course, should be"
A good way around this is to create a user only used for running firefox or opera. this way u could run as user x and run firefox as user z within x's window. accomplish this using the "run as" option (right-click an app). definately a good way to sandbox things. check it out.
i agree with u actually. that's what many ppl miss with oss. it is special because you have the freedom to do with it as you please. no one can say do not modify it or distribute it over thousands of computers, etc. one can never be locked in.
again, something else to think about though... i used linux exclusively for years. I recently switched to XP because the hours of fruitless installs, tinkering to get simple things to work... i felt $300 was a small price to pay for months of my time. a different way of thinking about it.
I want slashdot users to think about something for a second: Windows is not that bad. Here's why.
I would argue that Windows is insecure because of PC manufacturers. If you setup a firewall prior to connecing to the internet, then install updates, then make a limited user account and run programs within it and think before u install some random program or click on a file, u won't get trojans or spyware. But the default setup of all PC manufactures is for the user to run as an admin account and not instruct the user to setup the firewall prior to connecting to the net and when done install updates. PC manufacturers are to blame as well as uneducated or lazy users. XYZ trojan can't install itself in the registry or in Windows/system if NTFS doesn't give it permissions.
Windows also offers one, stable platform. You can make a product and actually test it before releasing it and be almost sure it works on someone else's computer. And it offers ease of adding things. Yes, for example, SuSe (which I like btw) offers everything out of the box. But that one thing that is missing, u'll spend days or months figuring out how to get to work, if u can get it to work at all. I remember from day 1 of using linux back in 95, and the problem exists today, everything will work but 1 thing that is imperative or very annoying to not have. u switch to another distro because u just can't seem to get it to work, and the next distro fixes that, but misses something else. Windows may not come with the kitchen sink, but u can at least add anything u want and know it will work. Also, windows has better ease of installation. double-click and a few next click's later, ANYTHING is installed (software or hardware drivers). Back in the day I didn't mind, but now I don't care: I dont wanna have to figure out for days how to install hardware (not everything in linux is autodetected) and for software, yea apt-get it great, but what occurs when the program isn't in the repository. half the time./configure && make && make install doesn't work and dependencies forget it. I like the way PC-BSD is shifting towards (PBI's) but that is not unfortunately the way the rest of Linux or BSD world works. A note on respositories, no not everything works within them either (unlike many like to think). Ever run debian-stable because it actually installs, then need something that is only available in unstable? Even the dev's tell u it's not wise, and it's true. It can break ur system, sometimes very badly (I remember one time I lost the ability to use USB devices).
You know, the more and more i think about it, i have to agree with this. I currently use Windows. I want everything to work and work easily. I was thinking of buying a Mac because I want the same, but a change of pace (OSX). But the more and more I think about it, Linux (and the BSD's) just offers so much. There are so many useful, amazing apps available (for free no less), and the apps just keep on getting better. And not only that, they making computing fun again. It brings back the old school mystery with computers (remember how cool and mysterious it was when you were at the DOS prompt; exploring all the commands and programs was half the fun). These two things, the former especially, make it so hard to ignore. Computing really is about the apps, not the OS, and open source OS's have so many great ones. And yes, the Mac, for example, you can get many open source apps, but they're not all available for it. There are just some things it doesn't have which free OS's do. Do I really want to hunt around and then pay $40 for a download manager when a Linux distro has 10 great one for free, built-in or a simply apt-get away (this is just one hypothetical situation which illustrates the concept. Don't nitpick over the minute details, I'm aware of them). And you pay more for the same hardware on a Mac, sometimes starting at $1000 more and up. So u lose on the great apps and have to pay for apps equivalents, *and* you pay more for hardware.
It's something to think about...
P.S. Don't give me the "yea but you should expect to pay more for a mercedes," line. Go drive a Mercedes E500 and then the new Camry V-6 premium one with all the fixings. Then tell me, is it worth the $30,000 price difference? Let me save it for you, the answer is, except for a somewhat nicer interior, the camry is a better luxury machine.
Let me just precede saying this is not a personal knock against you. This post addresses what unfortunately so many Slashdot readers think today.
Let's analyze some Mac "truths".
- Macs are NOT more expensive than Pcs
They *ARE* more expensive as you purchase more expensive models. It's a waste of my time to give specs and do calculations for you. Do it yourself. Go to dell and configure a comparable 17" and 15.4" laptop to the MBPs. I just did one as of 7/22 and it was ~1100 cheaper. And here is the more important point: Dell's can be even cheaper--**** you can remove components you DON'T want to make it even cheaper ****. You cannot get, for example, a MBP for $1999 with a video card with 256MB RAM. You *must* get the $2499 version. Yes, you get an added 20GB HD space and an extra 160Hz processor. I don't want that. Doesn't matter. Is a 256MB ATI X1600 vs. a 128MB card worth $500? No. And since people here like to nitpick, remember this: the better card for OS X makes more of a difference performance-wise than that measly extra Hz and no difference at all with an extra 20GB HD space. Getting what you need with a Dell (buy a slower Dual Core but get more RAM, a better video card, and a 7200 HD vs. a 5400 HD for example) will make the price difference even more. I saw almost $1500 in savings.
- Macs don't get viruses
Bull. When it becomes profitable to make spyware for a Mac, it will come. And it doesn't matter that Soccer-Mom has a Mac. When she runs a program from any old website that will give her pretty screen-savers, that trojan will wipe out her home directory (no admin privs needed) and there goes Little Timmy's Birthday photos.
Btw, don't give me anything knocks back saying "but at least it's not as bad as that spyware-ridden Windows". As i wrote in a former post:
"Run ZoneAlarm. All you need is the free one. Even if you manage to get a piece of spyware (I've managed to only get 1 in my entire life) you can block the outgoing connection which sends your personal info so this issue is moot. And use common sense. Before you install something, think: is this from a reputable source, does this look shady, turn off extension hiding and does the "picture" have an ".exe" on the end? I have never had a virus and *1* piece of spyware (which I blocked, effectively negating its maliciousness) since... maybe ever (since DOS). If you simply learn the few easy above techniques, your experiece will be spyware and viruses free."
Too bad the Mac can't run ZoneAlarm (I love that it can block on a per-app basis).
- Mac comes with pre-loaded software that you can do stuff with, and makes the price diff justifiable.
Let me ask you something. How many Joe-Sixpacks actually use Garageband or Video editing software? Honestly. And honestly, even if they did, did they use it more than once?
In addition, many of the items (iphoto or whatever) have platform independent web equivalents, many times even better.
__ You buy a Mac for OS X and how pretty the hardware design is. That's the real issue __
FUD. The problem is that most people now on Slashdot believe it. And now it's bothering me.
Great software for windows that is free, NOT crappy, free of viruses, and covers what your "Mom" would need:
OpenOffice Opera/Firefox DeepBurner (burns isos, etc.) Irfanview (great image viewer, with thumbnail management) NVU (great simple web page creator) GIMP (can resize images) PLATFORM INDEPENDENT web services (like photo red-eye reduction, webmail, posting photos, etc.) Making DVDs - please. How many soccer-mom's do this. And if they did, how many do this more than *once* (after their passing interest has waned). Is this really necessary? Besides, it's in WinXP if this is such a killer feature quibbled about.
And who deals with interrupt channels anymore? Forget people who make things up--I can't remember the last time I dealt with this since Windows 98. Today, with WinXP, it "just works" too. Anyone who says different is wrong or is "Joe Sixpack" acting like he knows something. And forget viruses. Viruses are not popular today. Shady people have found there is more profit in spyware (spyware are NOT viruses; they're a form of trojans really) and have moved to that. Run ZoneAlarm. All you need is the free one. Even if you manage to get a piece of spyware (I've managed to only get 1 in my entire life) you can block the outgoing connection which sends your personal info so this issue is moot. And use common sense. Before you install something, think: is this from a reputable source, does this look shady, turn off extension hiding and does the "picture" have an ".exe" on the end? I have never had a virus and *1* piece of spyware (for Windows, yes windows) since... maybe ever (since DOS). If you simply learn the few easy above techniques, your experiece will be spyware and viruses free.
Also, Take this into consideration. When it becomes profitable to install spyware and viruses on a Mac, your "Mom" will now have the same problem if she doesn't follow a few simple rules. Just because the Mac prevents you from messing with your entire system or another user, doesn't mean that when she clicks on a random program she downloaded doesn't mean it'll wipe out her home directory (no need for admin privelages or a password) with photos of (I love this phrase) Little Johnny's First Birthday.
With Macs, you pay a premium for OS X and the look of the hardware. That's the real issue.
Wow, you really are a true asshole. I've been posting only recently and forgot what I learned 6 years earlier: many readers of slashdot lack the social graces that most people who interact in the REAL world have.
And to entertain your terribly mean comment: 1) From Alien the website: "To convert packages to or from rpms, you need the Red Hat Package Manager; get it from its web site." It is not included. 2) I was referring to distributions without mainstream package managers. Slackware, for example, does not have dpkg.
I would love for you to say that last line, IN PERSON, to my face.
I've noticed alot of comments generated from this story that Linux is still not ready for the desktop. Put on SuSe or Mandriva and one will find that it is*.
For a "desktop" user, one of the difficulties is getting upgrades of software and such. Here is the answer: simply obtain and install the new SuSe (used for example). You now have all new, upgraded programs. Everything is included in these "desktop" distributions. Next, have a seperate partition created so when you reformat, your data is readily available to use: no setup required. One can even simlink files to this partition that must be in certain places (e.g./etc/profile). Magically, an out-of-the-box Linux which can do everything you need; in addition, one can have updated software all the time with a simple install (done every 6 months or a year when many distributions are released).
The one thing I would love Linux to have that would enhance the user experience a hundredfold is a self contained directory for an application AND a large repository of such applications. For example, simply drag the directory to your hard drive and it is installed. Simply delete the directory and the application is uninstalled. No more dependences and headaches. I believe it exists already (IIRC Rox), but there are almost no applications available. Debian packaging system works because it has 15,000 (maybe 20,000 now?) packages, including the most popular ones. A package manager is nothing without a great repository. An easy-to-use system such as this would be the next Linux "killer app."
* To new users, steer clear of Ubuntu 5.10 and Redhat FC4. Ubuntu's Gnome 2.12 has many bugs annoying bugs and is not stable. As for FC4, multimedia is not handled out-of-the-box. Users such as yourself want it to simply work; this is not the case. One must address the issue of repositories, package installation, and dependencies. In addition, FC4 is not stable as well.
1) Alien requires having DPKG or RPM installed. This is not a simple process. 2) Alien may not work (even the website admits this) 3) Debian does not have a package at all for 2.0. They do not even have a package for 1.1.5
I saw another comment posted that was exactly on-target. If something is a clone of something else, you expect it to act the same. I used KDE, which pretty much is the cloned windows interface. I'd get pissed off when particular things didn't work. Without me even realizing it, I was getting frustrated because I expect it to be windows because it looks and acts like windows. I've been using Linux for a decade now. However, because of this simple fact, I got pissed doing things in Linux. Then, I moved to WindowMaker: I simply like its look. Funny thing--is it's nothing at all like windows. I now notice I don't have any usability problems and find it simpler and easier to do things than I have in a long time.
Ultimately, a completely different interface will be a boon to users. Users will catch on quicker and find things easier because they will not expect anything and learn what is given to them.
I do hope that the creators have plans to develop a nice install binary for OO 2.0 as was done with 1.x.x. Recently, I went to download and install OO RC2 and found only RPMs inside. That leaves many users of particular distributions (like mine) unable to use it. IIRC, Debian or Debian-based users do not have a package as well (within the download or in the repositories); thus, they are stuck as well.
And to answer the question I know I shall hear: have YOU compiled OO 2.0 from source? It isn't worth the time and effort.
In addition, I do not mind paying for software alternatives such as the new StarOffice or buying MS Office for a seperate computer. But I *like* OO 2.0: plain and simple.
What's wrong with OpenOffice? It's great, does everything you need, works on multiple platforms, and *already exists*. Both 1.1.5 and 2.0RC 1 have good enough MS compatibility.
My only qualm regarding OpenOffice is that the newest (2.0 RC 1) version doesn't have a nice binary install like the 1.x.x series. It appears only RPMs are available. I don't have an RPM-based system, so I'm out of luck. And to answer the question I already know I will hear (I've been on Slashdot too long to not know this), have YOU ever built OpenOffice from the source?
speaking of windows, what is this i hear that one cannot reinstall it without it giving one headaches (only get to install it twice or some BS)? how it is possible that windows can detect a prior installion if one formats and fdisk/mbr the drive? Can't one just continuously manually type in the registration number?
the subject says it all. ive been using it for a long time and never felt the need ms office. the only area where one may have problems is in business. but if one is a home user, save urself the $400 and use it.
The only beautiful woman on any of the CSI's is the latin one on Miami. The rest are barely cute. The only hot ones are some of the extras who get killed, play hookers, etc.
Then again, this is slashdot and standards for nerds are a bit different (sorry had to say it);-)
Correct, I said I would want X to run as an unprivileged user. Thank you for a recommendation. You have any good references as where to find out quality info on it?
I thought the same thing at first (great point). However, the one exception I have found is Mandrake 9.1 in which I was using prior for a very long time. No crashes, X or otherwise--ever.
There are discussions here regarding Linux's instability. However, there is a bigger problem that exists which I have pointed out earlier.
The issue is that it is not Linux that is unstable, but X (XOrg or XFree). I recently installed a multitude of distributions recently*. X crashed on all of them, many times frequently. All occurred within the first few days of installing. Bear in mind that not everyone has another computer hooked up to the Internet where one can SSH into the machine and kill X. For some, the crash of X is the crash of the computer. CTRL + ALT + BACKSPACE doesn't always work. This is my biggest issue with Linux or UNIX variants.
I do propose a solution: a patch or replacement to X in where it does not run as root at all (to the uninformed, running X as a user still has parts run as root). If this is not possible, then revise it as such:
1) Include only the minimal, absolute necessary code required to run as root 2) A small, and as a result less complex, code will make it easier to reduce bugs and increase stability 3) Make this root code standard across platforms (Linux and other UNIX variants) so no modifications which add to code size are required, again reducing code and enlarging the audience that can review the code
Strip the code that runs as root the *barest* essentials and let all functionality run as a user. Long story short, whatever can't run as root can't crash your computer. Therefore, eliminate or make it as small as possible (significantly less than what X runs as root today).
Are there working projects available that I am not aware of? Recently, I have heard that OpenBSD has something akin to what I am talking about. Is this accurate? What of GNU Hurd? If I remember correctly it implements some of this (at least to my limited micro kernel understanding); however, is it even usable yet?
* I was let down by the new Debian Stable (stock install 3.1ra) (1 of 5 distributions I evaluated). It's wonderfully easy now and set up everything out of the box (mp3 and video support included which many users have been clamoring for from other distributions), but X crashes very frequently when switching to a VC and randomly crashes a lot in general.
The above author has a very valid point. I believe he comes across a bit unclear, however. The issue is that it is not Linux that is unstable, but X (XOrg or XFree). I recently installed a multitude of distributions recently*. X crashed on all of them, many times frequently. All occurred within the first few days of installing. Bear in mind that not everyone has another computer hooked up to the Internet where one can SSH into the machine and kill X. For some, the crash of X is the crash of the computer. CTRL + ALT + BACKSPACE doesn't always work. This is my biggest issue with Linux or UNIX variants.
I do propose a solution: a patch or replacement to X in where it does not run as root at all (to the uninformed, running X as a user still has parts run as root). If this is not possible, then revise it as such:
1) Include only the minimal, absolute necessary code required to run as root 2) A small, and as a result less complex, code will make it easier to reduce bugs and increase stability 3) Make this root code standard across platforms (Linux and other UNIX variants) so no modifications which add to code size are required, again reducing code and enlarging the audience that can review the code
Strip the code that runs as root the *barest* essentials and let all functionality run as a user. Long story short, whatever can't run as root can't crash your computer. Therefore, eliminate or make it as small as possible (significantly less than what X runs as root today).
Are there working projects available that I am not aware of? Recently, I have heard that OpenBSD has something akin to what I am talking about. Is this accurate? What of GNU Hurd? If I remember correctly it implements some of this (at least to my limited micro kernel understanding); however, is it even usable yet?
To sidetrack, I also long for the days when I didn't even run X. My computer was so slow at the time I couldn't do it. Long live virtual consoles and and SVGALib:-) (does this run as root now?)!
* I was let down by the new Debian Stable (1 of 5 distributions I evaluated). It's wonderfully easy now and set up everything out of the box, but X crashes very frequently when switching to a VC and randomly crashes a lot in general.
Slashdot Mirror
wow, apple fanboys amaze me. normally we could care less and would like to avoid commercials. here, this ad is considered news and people are excited to watch steve's presentation when it too is just a big ad. is it brilliant marketing or moron consumers?
I know this is offtopic, but I'm curious:
I see alot of posts within the past few weeks saying that you don't need an amazing video card unless you play games. OSX heavily utilizes the 3D graphic cards in the actual interface, correct? I see all the new macs, for the most part, coming out with weak 3D cards. When a system is taxed, (or in general) doesn't the card affect OSX's performance? Or is OSX at a point where it's optimized enough that, for example, the integrated Intel chip in the mini will be just as fluid and responsive (graphics-wise only) as a mac pro with an ATI radeon x1900 (or a better example being an X1600 w/ 128MB RAM)? Recently I played with both side by side and the difference was not noticeable (however, I did not tax the system). But this puzzles me. Does a more powerful video card matter anymore with macs? It defies common sense (faster video cards in the past always gave better performance in day-to-day tasks in windows, for example).
P.S. I do not own a Mac so I cannot test this myself.
Underpeform is an understatement. I bought a brand new Linksys router with that fancy MIMO technology and the exactly the same corresponding PC Card. Yea it's fast, when it works. It only connects 75% percent of the time. And the funniest part is that 100% of the time it is unable to connect right next to the router (but can connect when i have 25% signal). Go figure.
very good points. good post. good stuff. to add some things:
"I disagree. Why do I need a firewall? With a Linux distribution, I don't need a firewall. I can just stop any insecure servers using the control panel. The full X"
firewalls can be very useful for also blocking outgoing traffic, many times more important than blocking incoming traffic. don't forget this slashdotters.
"It's even more secure if you run your links to the outside world in an extremely limited account or sandbox; that way, whatever you do can't touch your data. The new version of Internet Explorer seems to be good that way. Too bad that dumb Web designers still code for IE6. Sensitive data, of course, should be"
A good way around this is to create a user only used for running firefox or opera. this way u could run as user x and run firefox as user z within x's window. accomplish this using the "run as" option (right-click an app). definately a good way to sandbox things. check it out.
i agree with u actually. that's what many ppl miss with oss. it is special because you have the freedom to do with it as you please. no one can say do not modify it or distribute it over thousands of computers, etc. one can never be locked in.
again, something else to think about though... i used linux exclusively for years. I recently switched to XP because the hours of fruitless installs, tinkering to get simple things to work... i felt $300 was a small price to pay for months of my time. a different way of thinking about it.
I want slashdot users to think about something for a second: Windows is not that bad. Here's why.
./configure && make && make install doesn't work and dependencies forget it. I like the way PC-BSD is shifting towards (PBI's) but that is not unfortunately the way the rest of Linux or BSD world works. A note on respositories, no not everything works within them either (unlike many like to think). Ever run debian-stable because it actually installs, then need something that is only available in unstable? Even the dev's tell u it's not wise, and it's true. It can break ur system, sometimes very badly (I remember one time I lost the ability to use USB devices).
I would argue that Windows is insecure because of PC manufacturers. If you setup a firewall prior to connecing to the internet, then install updates, then make a limited user account and run programs within it and think before u install some random program or click on a file, u won't get trojans or spyware. But the default setup of all PC manufactures is for the user to run as an admin account and not instruct the user to setup the firewall prior to connecting to the net and when done install updates. PC manufacturers are to blame as well as uneducated or lazy users. XYZ trojan can't install itself in the registry or in Windows/system if NTFS doesn't give it permissions.
Windows also offers one, stable platform. You can make a product and actually test it before releasing it and be almost sure it works on someone else's computer. And it offers ease of adding things. Yes, for example, SuSe (which I like btw) offers everything out of the box. But that one thing that is missing, u'll spend days or months figuring out how to get to work, if u can get it to work at all. I remember from day 1 of using linux back in 95, and the problem exists today, everything will work but 1 thing that is imperative or very annoying to not have. u switch to another distro because u just can't seem to get it to work, and the next distro fixes that, but misses something else. Windows may not come with the kitchen sink, but u can at least add anything u want and know it will work. Also, windows has better ease of installation. double-click and a few next click's later, ANYTHING is installed (software or hardware drivers). Back in the day I didn't mind, but now I don't care: I dont wanna have to figure out for days how to install hardware (not everything in linux is autodetected) and for software, yea apt-get it great, but what occurs when the program isn't in the repository. half the time
lol i just went to view them in xp, and even Apple's own Quicktime viewer when it popped up couldn't view them. Played sound but no video. Go figure.
o and to answer the obvious replies, yea, i've owned both cars, btw.
You know, the more and more i think about it, i have to agree with this. I currently use Windows. I want everything to work and work easily. I was thinking of buying a Mac because I want the same, but a change of pace (OSX). But the more and more I think about it, Linux (and the BSD's) just offers so much. There are so many useful, amazing apps available (for free no less), and the apps just keep on getting better. And not only that, they making computing fun again. It brings back the old school mystery with computers (remember how cool and mysterious it was when you were at the DOS prompt; exploring all the commands and programs was half the fun). These two things, the former especially, make it so hard to ignore. Computing really is about the apps, not the OS, and open source OS's have so many great ones. And yes, the Mac, for example, you can get many open source apps, but they're not all available for it. There are just some things it doesn't have which free OS's do. Do I really want to hunt around and then pay $40 for a download manager when a Linux distro has 10 great one for free, built-in or a simply apt-get away (this is just one hypothetical situation which illustrates the concept. Don't nitpick over the minute details, I'm aware of them). And you pay more for the same hardware on a Mac, sometimes starting at $1000 more and up. So u lose on the great apps and have to pay for apps equivalents, *and* you pay more for hardware.
It's something to think about...
P.S. Don't give me the "yea but you should expect to pay more for a mercedes," line. Go drive a Mercedes E500 and then the new Camry V-6 premium one with all the fixings. Then tell me, is it worth the $30,000 price difference? Let me save it for you, the answer is, except for a somewhat nicer interior, the camry is a better luxury machine.
Just gotta know where to look...
Let me just precede saying this is not a personal knock against you. This post addresses what unfortunately so many Slashdot readers think today.
Let's analyze some Mac "truths".
- Macs are NOT more expensive than Pcs
They *ARE* more expensive as you purchase more expensive models. It's a waste of my time to give specs and do calculations for you. Do it yourself. Go to dell and configure a comparable 17" and 15.4" laptop to the MBPs. I just did one as of 7/22 and it was ~1100 cheaper. And here is the more important point: Dell's can be even cheaper--**** you can remove components you DON'T want to make it even cheaper ****. You cannot get, for example, a MBP for $1999 with a video card with 256MB RAM. You *must* get the $2499 version. Yes, you get an added 20GB HD space and an extra 160Hz processor. I don't want that. Doesn't matter. Is a 256MB ATI X1600 vs. a 128MB card worth $500? No. And since people here like to nitpick, remember this: the better card for OS X makes more of a difference performance-wise than that measly extra Hz and no difference at all with an extra 20GB HD space. Getting what you need with a Dell (buy a slower Dual Core but get more RAM, a better video card, and a 7200 HD vs. a 5400 HD for example) will make the price difference even more. I saw almost $1500 in savings.
- Macs don't get viruses
Bull. When it becomes profitable to make spyware for a Mac, it will come. And it doesn't matter that Soccer-Mom has a Mac. When she runs a program from any old website that will give her pretty screen-savers, that trojan will wipe out her home directory (no admin privs needed) and there goes Little Timmy's Birthday photos.
Btw, don't give me anything knocks back saying "but at least it's not as bad as that spyware-ridden Windows". As i wrote in a former post:
"Run ZoneAlarm. All you need is the free one. Even if you manage to get a piece of spyware (I've managed to only get 1 in my entire life) you can block the outgoing connection which sends your personal info so this issue is moot. And use common sense. Before you install something, think: is this from a reputable source, does this look shady, turn off extension hiding and does the "picture" have an ".exe" on the end? I have never had a virus and *1* piece of spyware (which I blocked, effectively negating its maliciousness) since... maybe ever (since DOS). If you simply learn the few easy above techniques, your experiece will be spyware and viruses free."
Too bad the Mac can't run ZoneAlarm (I love that it can block on a per-app basis).
- Mac comes with pre-loaded software that you can do stuff with, and makes the price diff justifiable.
Let me ask you something. How many Joe-Sixpacks actually use Garageband or Video editing software? Honestly. And honestly, even if they did, did they use it more than once?
In addition, many of the items (iphoto or whatever) have platform independent web equivalents, many times even better.
__ You buy a Mac for OS X and how pretty the hardware design is. That's the real issue __
FUD. The problem is that most people now on Slashdot believe it. And now it's bothering me.
Great software for windows that is free, NOT crappy, free of viruses, and covers what your "Mom" would need:
OpenOffice
Opera/Firefox
DeepBurner (burns isos, etc.)
Irfanview (great image viewer, with thumbnail management)
NVU (great simple web page creator)
GIMP (can resize images)
PLATFORM INDEPENDENT web services (like photo red-eye reduction, webmail, posting photos, etc.)
Making DVDs - please. How many soccer-mom's do this. And if they did, how many do this more than *once* (after their passing interest has waned). Is this really necessary? Besides, it's in WinXP if this is such a killer feature quibbled about.
And who deals with interrupt channels anymore? Forget people who make things up--I can't remember the last time I dealt with this since Windows 98. Today, with WinXP, it "just works" too. Anyone who says different is wrong or is "Joe Sixpack" acting like he knows something. And forget viruses. Viruses are not popular today. Shady people have found there is more profit in spyware (spyware are NOT viruses; they're a form of trojans really) and have moved to that. Run ZoneAlarm. All you need is the free one. Even if you manage to get a piece of spyware (I've managed to only get 1 in my entire life) you can block the outgoing connection which sends your personal info so this issue is moot. And use common sense. Before you install something, think: is this from a reputable source, does this look shady, turn off extension hiding and does the "picture" have an ".exe" on the end? I have never had a virus and *1* piece of spyware (for Windows, yes windows) since... maybe ever (since DOS). If you simply learn the few easy above techniques, your experiece will be spyware and viruses free.
Also, Take this into consideration. When it becomes profitable to install spyware and viruses on a Mac, your "Mom" will now have the same problem if she doesn't follow a few simple rules. Just because the Mac prevents you from messing with your entire system or another user, doesn't mean that when she clicks on a random program she downloaded doesn't mean it'll wipe out her home directory (no need for admin privelages or a password) with photos of (I love this phrase) Little Johnny's First Birthday.
With Macs, you pay a premium for OS X and the look of the hardware. That's the real issue.
Wow, you really are a true asshole. I've been posting only recently and forgot what I learned 6 years earlier: many readers of slashdot lack the social graces that most people who interact in the REAL world have.
And to entertain your terribly mean comment:
1) From Alien the website: "To convert packages to or from rpms, you need the Red Hat Package Manager; get it from its web site." It is not included.
2) I was referring to distributions without mainstream package managers. Slackware, for example, does not have dpkg.
I would love for you to say that last line, IN PERSON, to my face.
I've noticed alot of comments generated from this story that Linux is still not ready for the desktop. Put on SuSe or Mandriva and one will find that it is*.
/etc/profile). Magically, an out-of-the-box Linux which can do everything you need; in addition, one can have updated software all the time with a simple install (done every 6 months or a year when many distributions are released).
For a "desktop" user, one of the difficulties is getting upgrades of software and such. Here is the answer: simply obtain and install the new SuSe (used for example). You now have all new, upgraded programs. Everything is included in these "desktop" distributions. Next, have a seperate partition created so when you reformat, your data is readily available to use: no setup required. One can even simlink files to this partition that must be in certain places (e.g.
The one thing I would love Linux to have that would enhance the user experience a hundredfold is a self contained directory for an application AND a large repository of such applications. For example, simply drag the directory to your hard drive and it is installed. Simply delete the directory and the application is uninstalled. No more dependences and headaches. I believe it exists already (IIRC Rox), but there are almost no applications available. Debian packaging system works because it has 15,000 (maybe 20,000 now?) packages, including the most popular ones. A package manager is nothing without a great repository. An easy-to-use system such as this would be the next Linux "killer app."
* To new users, steer clear of Ubuntu 5.10 and Redhat FC4. Ubuntu's Gnome 2.12 has many bugs annoying bugs and is not stable. As for FC4, multimedia is not handled out-of-the-box. Users such as yourself want it to simply work; this is not the case. One must address the issue of repositories, package installation, and dependencies. In addition, FC4 is not stable as well.
1) Alien requires having DPKG or RPM installed. This is not a simple process.
2) Alien may not work (even the website admits this)
3) Debian does not have a package at all for 2.0. They do not even have a package for 1.1.5
I saw another comment posted that was exactly on-target. If something is a clone of something else, you expect it to act the same. I used KDE, which pretty much is the cloned windows interface. I'd get pissed off when particular things didn't work. Without me even realizing it, I was getting frustrated because I expect it to be windows because it looks and acts like windows. I've been using Linux for a decade now. However, because of this simple fact, I got pissed doing things in Linux. Then, I moved to WindowMaker: I simply like its look. Funny thing--is it's nothing at all like windows. I now notice I don't have any usability problems and find it simpler and easier to do things than I have in a long time.
Ultimately, a completely different interface will be a boon to users. Users will catch on quicker and find things easier because they will not expect anything and learn what is given to them.
I do hope that the creators have plans to develop a nice install binary for OO 2.0 as was done with 1.x.x. Recently, I went to download and install OO RC2 and found only RPMs inside. That leaves many users of particular distributions (like mine) unable to use it. IIRC, Debian or Debian-based users do not have a package as well (within the download or in the repositories); thus, they are stuck as well.
And to answer the question I know I shall hear: have YOU compiled OO 2.0 from source? It isn't worth the time and effort.
In addition, I do not mind paying for software alternatives such as the new StarOffice or buying MS Office for a seperate computer. But I *like* OO 2.0: plain and simple.
What's wrong with OpenOffice? It's great, does everything you need, works on multiple platforms, and *already exists*. Both 1.1.5 and 2.0RC 1 have good enough MS compatibility.
My only qualm regarding OpenOffice is that the newest (2.0 RC 1) version doesn't have a nice binary install like the 1.x.x series. It appears only RPMs are available. I don't have an RPM-based system, so I'm out of luck. And to answer the question I already know I will hear (I've been on Slashdot too long to not know this), have YOU ever built OpenOffice from the source?
speaking of windows, what is this i hear that one cannot reinstall it without it giving one headaches (only get to install it twice or some BS)? how it is possible that windows can detect a prior installion if one formats and fdisk/mbr the drive? Can't one just continuously manually type in the registration number?
the subject says it all. ive been using it for a long time and never felt the need ms office. the only area where one may have problems is in business. but if one is a home user, save urself the $400 and use it.
The only beautiful woman on any of the CSI's is the latin one on Miami. The rest are barely cute. The only hot ones are some of the extras who get killed, play hookers, etc.
;-)
Then again, this is slashdot and standards for nerds are a bit different (sorry had to say it)
Correct, I said I would want X to run as an unprivileged user. Thank you for a recommendation. You have any good references as where to find out quality info on it?
Another great point that readers should be aware of. Unfortunately, neither method worked.
I thought the same thing at first (great point). However, the one exception I have found is Mandrake 9.1 in which I was using prior for a very long time. No crashes, X or otherwise--ever.
There are discussions here regarding Linux's instability. However, there is a bigger problem that exists which I have pointed out earlier.
The issue is that it is not Linux that is unstable, but X (XOrg or XFree). I recently installed a multitude of distributions recently*. X crashed on all of them, many times frequently. All occurred within the first few days of installing. Bear in mind that not everyone has another computer hooked up to the Internet where one can SSH into the machine and kill X. For some, the crash of X is the crash of the computer. CTRL + ALT + BACKSPACE doesn't always work. This is my biggest issue with Linux or UNIX variants.
I do propose a solution: a patch or replacement to X in where it does not run as root at all (to the uninformed, running X as a user still has parts run as root). If this is not possible, then revise it as such:
1) Include only the minimal, absolute necessary code required to run as root
2) A small, and as a result less complex, code will make it easier to reduce bugs and increase stability
3) Make this root code standard across platforms (Linux and other UNIX variants) so no modifications which add to code size are required, again reducing code and enlarging the audience that can review the code
Strip the code that runs as root the *barest* essentials and let all functionality run as a user. Long story short, whatever can't run as root can't crash your computer. Therefore, eliminate or make it as small as possible (significantly less than what X runs as root today).
Are there working projects available that I am not aware of? Recently, I have heard that OpenBSD has something akin to what I am talking about. Is this accurate? What of GNU Hurd? If I remember correctly it implements some of this (at least to my limited micro kernel understanding); however, is it even usable yet?
* I was let down by the new Debian Stable (stock install 3.1ra) (1 of 5 distributions I evaluated). It's wonderfully easy now and set up everything out of the box (mp3 and video support included which many users have been clamoring for from other distributions), but X crashes very frequently when switching to a VC and randomly crashes a lot in general.
The above author has a very valid point. I believe he comes across a bit unclear, however. The issue is that it is not Linux that is unstable, but X (XOrg or XFree). I recently installed a multitude of distributions recently*. X crashed on all of them, many times frequently. All occurred within the first few days of installing. Bear in mind that not everyone has another computer hooked up to the Internet where one can SSH into the machine and kill X. For some, the crash of X is the crash of the computer. CTRL + ALT + BACKSPACE doesn't always work. This is my biggest issue with Linux or UNIX variants.
:-) (does this run as root now?)!
I do propose a solution: a patch or replacement to X in where it does not run as root at all (to the uninformed, running X as a user still has parts run as root). If this is not possible, then revise it as such:
1) Include only the minimal, absolute necessary code required to run as root
2) A small, and as a result less complex, code will make it easier to reduce bugs and increase stability
3) Make this root code standard across platforms (Linux and other UNIX variants) so no modifications which add to code size are required, again reducing code and enlarging the audience that can review the code
Strip the code that runs as root the *barest* essentials and let all functionality run as a user. Long story short, whatever can't run as root can't crash your computer. Therefore, eliminate or make it as small as possible (significantly less than what X runs as root today).
Are there working projects available that I am not aware of? Recently, I have heard that OpenBSD has something akin to what I am talking about. Is this accurate? What of GNU Hurd? If I remember correctly it implements some of this (at least to my limited micro kernel understanding); however, is it even usable yet?
To sidetrack, I also long for the days when I didn't even run X. My computer was so slow at the time I couldn't do it. Long live virtual consoles and and SVGALib
* I was let down by the new Debian Stable (1 of 5 distributions I evaluated). It's wonderfully easy now and set up everything out of the box, but X crashes very frequently when switching to a VC and randomly crashes a lot in general.