For some reason, Steven read as Steve Jobs to me, and I didn't quite get what you were saying. Now I do.

In reply to:

---

First, let me draw a very clear line. Mac OS 9 and below sucked.

---

nuff said

Hehe, okay, fair enough

I have seen those switch commercials. I find them to be a little biased(understandably because they are Apple).

I don't have a problem with the ease of use of MAC and such but I find it difficult to switch to a platform that supports very few games.

Here is a movie done by a gaming group that makes fun of the Apple Switch commercials. It is located at:
http://www.pibmug.com/files/gamerswitch.mov

I find it amusing that it's a Quicktime movie. (Assuming, that is, that it's bashing Apple somewhat. I can't view it since I'm in front of a Solaris machine right now.)

I like the fact that I tried sending a link to the apple commercial with the girl who looks high to a friend, who owns a brand new ibook. It's a quicktime movie, about a mac commercial, hosted on the apple web site. I also sent it to a bunch of other friends with windows pc's.

Guess who was the only person who couldn't get the movie to play?

But Windows becomes less usable even if you do nothing but run the same single program over and over.

I guessing you meant "stable" rather than "usable" (cos it's kind of hard to see how a system couple become less usable by running an app multiple times).

If you are taking about Win95/Win98/WinME then I absolutely agree with you, they are all festering heaps of old junk. We started of with a poor base and just kept adding layers of crap.

However, exactly the same can be said of MacOS < 10. I used to manage 200+ Macs and their installs degraded in exactly the same way Windows did before it became a "real" OS. Just using them hard day in, day out would leave you after a year or so with a subtly broken OS install that needed reinstalling (as did the Win9x boxes and to a lesser extent the NT4 ones).

Win2k and WinXP are good, solid, stable operating systems. As I am sure MacOS X is also, it looks like an excellent bit of kit.

When it comes down to it I choose my OSes for the task they are suited to and for the software that is available for them. I use Linux for my DNS/mail/static web servers; because it just works and if something is broken I know 99% of the time that the breakage is sitting in a plain text file, wating for me to fix it.

I use Win2k for my webserver that runs my dynamic web pages; because I want to write them in ASP and ASP.NET, as that is what I do for a living.

I use Win2k for my desktop machines because they are stable and they run the software I need; VID, VS.NET, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Project etc

I use WinXP on my laptop because it does everything Win2k does for my on my desktop, but also suspends and resumes at a break neck speed.

If MacOS X had the software available that I use everyday then I would probably take a serious look at it, but it doesn't. Unless there has been a dramatic change over the last three years the version of Office for the Mac is not as good as the Windows version, because it is slower and less stable. And the chances of the development tools I use becoming available on the Mac are very slim.

For the same reasons, although I love it so, I would never dream of running Linux on the desktop. It does not have, and is never likely to have, the software I require in a desktop enviroment.

I salute all you MacOS X users, keep up the good work...

Baseline for my comments. MAC OS less than or equal to 9 all suck (except for the pop and click sounds in 9, which rock). Windows less than or equal to ME (with the exception of 95b, which RULES!!) sucks.

I administer PC's and one Mac. When there is a problem with a Mac, I work on it as if I've never used a computer before. I don't know how to do anything and I have to rediscover everything for the first time. Sure, it takes longer, but it doesn't suck. It's just different.

Unfortunately, the UI is sevearly deficient. I'm a keyboard shortcut guy. I never touch the mouse because it's simply too slow. Yet on a Mac, I am forced to use a mouse for everything.

There still remains the fact that Mac is crippled. Mac users are happy with what they have because they don't realize the functionality that's been taken from them. How does iMovie compare to Premiere? Ok, I can make a home DVD in a few minutes on iMovie, but can I tweak all the whack video options that Premiere lets me? Options I can't even think of are in Premiere. Maybe I'll want to use them some day. They are there. Mac? They are gone.

Unfortunately, the UI is sevearly deficient. I'm a keyboard shortcut guy. I never touch the mouse because it's simply too slow. Yet on a Mac, I am forced to use a mouse for everything.

Somewhere in system preferences (sorry, not at my Mac right now), is the ability to turn on a feature that gives about everything the ability to be activated via the keyboard. Command-Tab switches between programs just as Alt-Tab does in Windows, etc...

There still remains the fact that Mac is crippled. Mac users are happy with what they have because they don't realize the functionality that's been taken from them. How does iMovie compare to Premiere? Ok, I can make a home DVD in a few minutes on iMovie, but can I tweak all the whack video options that Premiere lets me? Options I can't even think of are in Premiere. Maybe I'll want to use them some day. They are there. Mac? They are gone.

iMovie is free. It comes with every copy of the OS sold. Premiere on the other hand is an expensive software package. And most new computer users will not spend $500 on a program, then who knows how much more for proper training to take advantage of all those wiz bang features Premiere has over iMovie, when all they want is some basic transitions, titles, and easy editing. If they do, they can buy Premiere on the Mac, or buy Final Cut Pro.

Windows offers Windows Movie Maker out of the box. It sucks. Checking my version here, I don't even have an Undo option, or the ability to save as a standard file type. Nor any transitions, or titling abilities.

>is the ability to turn on a feature that gives about everything the ability to be activated via the keyboard

Holy crap, are you serious?! That makes that G4 cube SO much more attractive. Unix, amazing native graphics, a cool discontinued box, AND keyboard commands would actually sell my hardcore PC a$$ on a Mac.

But then there's the issue that they are DISGUSTINGLY overpriced. Thousands for one of those things. Sure, the G4 Powerbook is a sweet piece of hardware, but it costs SO much. Heck, all of it does.

The one other nice thing I can say about Mac is their tech support really supports. I totally jacked my PowerBook at work and they stayed on the phone for probably an hour and a half to fix the problem. What happened? I set some network setting checkbox that completly locked me out of the network settings. Why? I disabled authentication and it wanted to authenticate before it would let me get to the settings screen to re-enable authentication. Support had me trash some system files and have them rebuild from scratch. It was actually an easy fix that I like to know, as an admin. Now I'll just trash system files and let them rebuild when my Mac craps on me.

Holy crap, are you serious?! That makes that G4 cube SO much more attractive. Unix, amazing native graphics, a cool discontinued box, AND keyboard commands would actually sell my hardcore PC a$$ on a Mac.

Heh, if all it took was that, cool. I'll look up how to enable it tomorrow. One warning though if you get the cube. Don't put it in a high traffic area. I've had mine put to sleep 10 times, and turned off once thanks to people walking by my desk, and feeling the need to touch the top, including the power button.

The Cube is what sold me overall on Small Form Factor boxes. I wish Shuttle engineering could come close to what the Cube had. I'm still debating what processor upgrade I want for the Cube to keep it a viable computer for a few more years.

I think I remember coming across a thread here a few weeks ago about building your own mac... some parts were not easy to find but it could be done for a relatively low amount of money - comparatively speaking to buying a new system.

Drakino - you made the point about the nice small form factor of the cube. I used to make fun of the cube but when I found out how small it was, I changed my viewpoint. If it has been one advantage the Mac has had is its control over the engineering that goes into the box (this can also be a disadvantage when it comes to serviceability and upgradeability for us geeks & gearheads). I have had my eye on the Shuttle boxes for a while, and someone showed up at our lan party with one, they are very nice and sleek and still offer a high degree of upgradeability - but will never be as small as a cube.

I speak mainly as a PC guy - but I had my start with Macs, and although I've periodically been known to poke fun at them after I built my first PCs - I had a fondness for hacking system 6.5, and system 7 when it came out. Before Regedit, there was Resedit. My teachers at school (I was in high school at the time) did not particularly appreciate me replacing certain files and the mouse pooping on the screen in the middle of class.

All I can say is this, and it was summed up a few posts ago... you use the platform and OS that suits your purposes. I've been warming up to the idea of building a box to run OS X possibly... but I may never replace my PC. Macs don't play current games, and aren't terribly lan party friendly, but I like the thought of running my email on a Mac. Besides, I am immersed and happy with my current, stable w2k setup. Sure, some of the Mac commercials are dumb, and although, IMO, the Imac is an eyesore - it was an excellent piece of marketing and changed the way computers were and are sold and marketed.

I still like this one Gateway commercial I saw, "Dude, you still getting a Dell?" "Mooo"

I have had my eye on the Shuttle boxes for a while, and someone showed up at our lan party with one, they are very nice and sleek and still offer a high degree of upgradeability - but will never be as small as a cube.

While I like the size of both the Shuttle and Cube, the biggest advantage to me was the noise. The Cubes only source of noise is the hard drive. (this is the same for the last gen CRT iMacs) The Shuttle on the other hand sounds noiser to me then my old tower if I run CPU intensive apps, since it sits on my desktop, and does not have the worlds best fans inside it.

Forget the cube, i want a cobalt qube. I'm not sure what I'd do with it exactly, but I've always been a fan of strange linux hardware. Someday I'll have a netwinder and a mark 1 to fill out the collection.

Matthew

if you want to play, just play.
i don´t think using a Mac for games is a good idea.
if you want to play use a pc, you´re 100% right.
thats what threre for!!!

by the way, if you look at the quality of the QuickTime movie - well welcome to the pc world

this would have been a cool case to have. Too bad the guy isn't making them.

Here ya go, keyboard access in OS X.

I've had a PC since '97, before then I was using real computers, that's Acorns for the uninitiated . I've only ever had my PC to fail to the point where I had to reset it once, and that was because of my WaveFinder. I will admit I've never used a mickey mouse, OS it's always been NT4 and in the last couple of years, 2K.

We were forced to use Mac's at school and I've f**king hated them ever since, they where expensive (initally black and white then later colour), slow and crash happy. Aldus pagemaker sucked ass, Computer Concepts Impression Publisher Plus for Acorn was miles better and much cheaper too. Once my Dad finally got round to buying a decent printer (ie. not a 9 pin dot-matrix) I could finally turn my back on the computers at school. Except for the occaisional, nothing better to do at lunchtime hack into their crap At Ease frontend. Sorry, but I would never buy a Mac, expensive pieces of 'fashionable' furniture. I like my computer to serve a useful purpose instead of looking 'cool'.

Aldus pagemaker sucked ass

Aldus ownz Quark!

Tell us how you really feel...don't hold back now.


-Zeke

well being a network admin for a network with NT, 2K, and XP... I gotta say XP has a few issues of it's own.... along with 2K. I do still prefer Microsoft from a different standpoint however... See when I was at art school (before I became a tech) we had MAC's shoved down our throats with arguments like "Macs are simply better at graphics" and "better at mixing sound"... I'm sorry adobe for MS works just like adobe for Mac throw in a 200 dollar video card and that argument simply holds no water... Now we have a few macs at work.. I gotta say I'm impressed they look cool and they serve their purpose. It's just like anything, you have to choose whats best for you, nothings outright better, like the people that argue that Linux is better then MS, at what? Hardcore geek value? maybe, they both have strong points, but I tried to get into that and got tired of having to compile everthing I installed after downloading the libraries and searching for hours for instructions on how to do it (although I have to admit I just put familiar and opie on my Ipaq), Linux isn't for me... Hat's off to people that can use it effectively... Basically it's all about what you want

got tired of having to compile everthing I installed after downloading the libraries and searching for hours for instructions on how to do it

It has to be rather obscure stuff if apt-get install [package name] doesn't do it.
Once in a blue moon I'll have to do ./configure; make; make install, but it isn't very often. I'll gladly take that before dll-hell...

But then again I have both a Linux machine and an XP machine...

/Michael

Yeah, sorry about that, you can only stand a Mac hosing your essays so many times.

I hear that!

-Z

Actually... sound and video drivers... I went back last week and tried redhat again... pretty cool til I tried getting to a webpage that I needed a plugin for... wasted another 2 hours just trying to get plugins that I had no clue where to get or how.... then again I have very limited knowledge of Linux maybe I was totally missing where and how to install the stuff. But that was kinda my point I've never had too many problems on windows that I couldn't fix, but throw me into linux land and I'm lost... It's just not for me.

I'll gladly take that before dll-hell...

Remember back before Gnome, when Linux didn't have its own version of DLL hell (SO_PURGATORY?)?

You'll want one of the earlier ones then, before they were bought and f**ked over. Now they seem to be flaky, unstable boxes which just happen to look cool.

Remember back before Gnome, when Linux didn't have its own version of DLL hell (SO_PURGATORY?)?

Okay, for the uninitiated, would you mind explaining how Gnome created DLL Hell?

DLL Hell is, to me, the following situation:

Program1: Graphics viewer. Requires common graphics library vA.B.C
Program2: Graphics editor. Requires common graphics library vD.E.F

In Windows, there is the potential for DLL hell here, because there is only one version of "CommonGraphicsLibrary.dll" (more likely CMGFXLIB.DLL or something) in %SYSTEMROOT%\SYSTEM32. If that version is vD.E.F, it should theoretically be backwards compatible with vA.B.C, but if it's not, you've got a problem. Worse, if you installed Program1 after you installed Program2, and the installer doesn't behave right and "downgrades" the library, Program2 is broken. This is my understanding of DLL Hell.

In this example, Gnome or no Gnome, there is no DLL hell. /usr/lib/libpng.so.A will be used by Program1, and /usr/lib/libpng.so.D will be used by Program2.

How exactly did Gnome create DLL hell in Linux? It seems to me there's always potential for "Dependency Hell" anytime you do dynamic loading of libraries, just beacuse there's always a chance you've got a stray version of the library somewhere. Is there something GNOME is doing with regards to shared objects that I'm not familiar with?

Hey -- purgatory is less severe than hell. It's not insurmountable, but it's there, nonetheless. The problem has mostly to do with the fact that Gnome has created a huge base of shared object dependencies and many library developers change APIs or their functions in incompatibile ways.

This crops up a lot more under non-Linux Unices than under Linux itself, because, as I feared years ago, people are now developing for Linux and not for Unix. And it seems the quality of the average Unix open source software developer has gone way downhill in the last 10 years.

The problem has mostly to do with the fact that Gnome has created a huge base of shared object dependencies and many library developers change APIs or their functions in incompatibile ways.

Ah ok. So if a moron developer decides to change an API and not make it backwards compatible and not deprecate it and not warn anybody, that's going to break apps that use those API's in strange, unpredictable ways. That's just the price of dynamic linking. I think the benefits of dynamic linking far outweigh the times this happens, don't they?

As for developing for Linux and not for UNIX... I'm assuming this means that developers are taking shortcuts when they write apps such that they run on Linux, but don't run on other flavors of UNIX. Isn't that just a fact of life when your average open source developer has a Linux box at home rather than a Solaris or AIX box?