What do you think of Apple/Mac OS X? [Archive] - Page 2

belovedmonster

October 18th, 2006, 03:55 PM

What is interesting about reading this post is seeing just how subjective using an OS can be. If someone was to read this forum alone they would come away with the idea that Linux slays OSX, but for me thats simply not true.

I am experimenting with Ubuntu to breath new life into a fairly old PC which is currently running loads of anti spyware/virus protection just to get it online, but theres no way I could use any linux distro as my main OS, there just isnt the appropriate software available for my needs. You can tell me the advantages of Linux until you are blue in the face but if I wanna record music in my bedroom then until you have an open source alternative to Garageband then Linux just doesnt meet my needs.

I'd also say that you Linux guys sometimes forget what the level of most computer users are at. I am pretty up with my computers and Im struggling to get my head around all the issues attached to Linux. Theres no way in hell some of the people I know who can just about use MSN messanger and Minesweeper could use Linux as it stands today, and this is a painful reality which Linux people forgot.

So I guess I must be an idiot to want to use something which runs all the software I need, and does so in an easy to use way?

Of course not, it just means I have different needs to some of you guys.

...Which I find a really uplifting thought. ...The idea that we are all different and have different needs from our computers. Isnt that ultimately what is going to make Open Source win out in the long term? The idea that a larger and more varied selection of peoples needs can be met by software because people are free to change it to suit their needs as and when they need to?

sbentzen

October 18th, 2006, 07:47 PM

50 GIGABYTES, WHAT THE **** I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT, that sounds like an exagguration.

Lysander

October 21st, 2006, 03:52 AM

Linux is superior.

Why? Because it doesn't tie me down to a particular hardware platform. It actually INSTALLS on my machine.

3rdalbum

October 21st, 2006, 09:02 AM

What is interesting about reading this post is seeing just how subjective using an OS can be..

I'd also say that you Linux guys sometimes forget what the level of most computer users are at. I am pretty up with my computers and Im struggling to get my head around all the issues attached to Linux. Theres no way in hell some of the people I know who can just about use MSN messanger and Minesweeper could use Linux as it stands today

Yes. Using an operating system is subjective. It's subjective because you get used to doing things a certain way. When you switch to another operating system, things don't work the way you expect, and you struggle.

I took my switch from OS 9 to Ubuntu quite slowly, so I gradually got comfortable with it. Then I bought my first Windows PC. It's been 5 months and I'm still not comfortable with it. I'm quite good at Linux, yet I suck at Windows.

"I've been using computers since 1992 yet I can't figure out how to xyz in Windows. Windows sucks, I'm going back to Linux". My Mac and Ubuntu knowledge is working against me on Windows. Someone who can barely use MSN will probably be no worse on Ubuntu, as long as it's installed by someone who knows what they're doing.

My personal opinion is that Windows is difficult. My opinion is coloured by my lack of experience in Windows.

woodlandjustin

October 30th, 2006, 03:52 AM

What are people's opinions on macs? I don't like windows so I have been trying to use ubuntu for the past, maybe 3 months now? After spending probably now hundreds of hours trying to get things to work I am honestly fed up of not being able to burn CDs at least half the time, various online audio/video crashing the system or not being able to listen/view it. And hibernate doesn't work perhaps 30% of the time (and even when it does work it causes problems often anyway - apparently due to the programs being unstable some people said here?).

So I am trying to work out what is a good alternative? Macs? What do you think?
Thanks

land0

October 30th, 2006, 04:20 AM

Honestly I have never had good experiences with any of the 5 laptops I have owned over the years using any OS. My conclusion, laptops are just flaky technology. So my suggestion is go with a Desktop P.C. And see if your experience changes then. Honestly I have had none of the issues you mentioned on a desktop system running Ubuntu.

3rdalbum

October 30th, 2006, 05:33 AM

Not sure what your CD burning problems are, but try invoking your burning program with gksudo.

Hibernation/suspend is something that has differing implementations on different machines, so it's a known problem. I agree with the above poster; either live without it or try a desktop PC.

If you want a fairly cheap but good desktop PC, get a Compaq Presario. The only thing that doesn't work is either hibernate or suspend, I forget which because I have no need to use it. I've absolutely no complaints here.

ajifans

October 30th, 2006, 07:04 AM

Answering your actual question:

I have good experiences with Macs. Getting a Mac made me see an alternative to Windows, and from there I went on to Linux.

If you want a computer with hardly any hassle then I'd recommend a Mac, however it doesn't encourage you to tinker and almost no freedom compared to Linux.

Give a Mac to someone who doesn't 'get' computers. However if I were you I'd make enquiries regarding which are the most linux friendly laptops.

stimpack

October 30th, 2006, 07:10 AM

ProjectGod

October 30th, 2006, 07:26 AM

macs SUCK! :evil:
theyre expensive. theyre even more expensive if one hardware component fails and you wish to replace it.

it falsely claims that it is "good for artwork". it's not good for hardcore graphics design work such as 3d art generation. shrek 2 wasnt created using macs after all.

did i mention they weigh a ton? and that they have more security issues than windows?

anaconda

October 30th, 2006, 07:38 AM

So I am trying to work out what is a good alternative? Macs? What do you think?
Thanks

Mac: are good, expecially now that it is possible to install ubuntu to a mac-laptop.. the biggest problem I have with mac-laptops is the 1-button mouse...

zenwhen

October 30th, 2006, 08:20 AM

did i mention they weigh a ton? and that they have more security issues than windows?

Do you have any proof showing that Macs are heavier than their equivalent PC counterparts or documentation that shows the current number of unfixed vulnerabilities in OSX to exceed that of Windows?

I bet you don't.

fuscia

October 30th, 2006, 09:43 AM

Kateikyoushi

October 30th, 2006, 09:51 AM

I think I can ;)

iBook G4/800:
12" weight and size: 4.9 lbs, 11.2(width) by 9.1(depth) by 1.35(thickness) inches

Sony VAIO VGN-S170P
13" Weight 4.2 lb

The hardware difference makes it even more interesting ATI 9700 and Pentium M 1.7Ghz VS the mac..., and I could come up with several subnotebooks half the weight of the lightest mac at that time. :twisted:

prizrak

October 30th, 2006, 10:07 AM

I dislike Mac computers and the company that markets them (they don't even make the damn things, Foxconn and Asus do).

At least back when they used PPC CPU's there was some differentiation in the hardware. Sure PPC's were inferior in many ways to x86 (at least in the past 2-3 years) but they also had some advantages especially since Mac OS was optimized for that hardware and could basically be an embedded system. Now we are on to Intel Macs that are no more optimized for the hardware then either Windows or Linux is (probably less so than Gentoo can be).

There are things beyond just the specs that make Apple suck. All of the Intel Macs are more expensive than their PC counterparts with the same exact specifications. When I was in the Apple store (friend dragged me) last a top of the line 15.4 widescreen MacBook Pro (Core Duo) cost $2500US while a ThinkPad my friend has with the same exact specs (well actually with more RAM) was around $2000. Then you got the black Mac that costs $200 extra for nothing but the paint.

Then there is their marketing, "when you get a Mac you don't get a highly versatile and universal tool that can do real useful work you get a life style" (b*tch please).

As you can tell I really dislike Apple and not just for the reasons stated above but I also think they are a stupid company, if they were to take OS X out of Mac and start offering it with 3rd party PC's they would easily have a 20% market share.

Choad

October 30th, 2006, 10:11 AM

and that they have more security issues than windows?

you're having a giraffe

ProjectGod

October 31st, 2006, 06:23 AM

do i have proof that MACS weigh more than PCs?

uhhh actually you can ask anybody. try lifting a G3 or G4 Mac system box and get someone to lift a PC system box. Macs weigh about twice as much. not good if youre made to move them up and down and up the stairs again.

The primary reason why MS windows gets whacked by viruses is because theres a huge user base. if a fraction of that user base were to start using MACs... the same issues would start popping up for mac users.

3rdalbum

October 31st, 2006, 07:26 AM

Not quite. OS X uses the sudo mechanism that Ubuntu uses.

However, Apple has approximately 0 years experience with security design, so if crackers could get around the remaining bits of its BSD core, they could well write viruses for OS X.

Johnsie

October 31st, 2006, 07:31 AM

if a fraction of that user base were to start using MACs... the same issues would start popping up for mac users.

And why not for Linux users? No os is completely safe. I'm pretty sure Linux has it's flaws and probably quite a lot of them. I would never buy a mac for the same reason I would hesitate to buy a branded pc. It's not as easy to customise the hardware. You can only use apple hardware in a Mac and that means you have less choice of what you put in it. If something breaks or you want to upgrade have to buy the parts from an apple vendor. Apple use their monopoly in Macs to try and control how people use or upgrade thie computers even worse than Microsoft (hardware & software).My final reasons for not liking Apple are that they ripped of the Beatles and some of their components are made in sweatshops. But I guess if you want to become a slave to apple just like many people are a slave to Microsfot then that's up to you :-)

I think apple deliberately make up rumors that Macs are better at some things. They're advertising campaign is too "image based" so I wouldn't be surprised if they are just creating an image for themselves by saying stuff like "Apples are better for multimedia". What can an apple do that a pc can't?

steven8

October 31st, 2006, 07:45 AM

I've never used a MAC, but all I hear from people who have is that once you use one, you'll never want to use a PC again. Kind of like the worm guys in Men In Black. . .Once you go MAC, you'll never go back!! :-)

prizrak

October 31st, 2006, 10:13 AM

And why not for Linux users? No os is completely safe. I'm pretty sure Linux has it's flaws and probably quite a lot of them.
The biggest security hole of any computer is the user. Apple tends to be used by the least technical user who would not know much about security and since it doesn't get many viruses (there are actually a few in the wild for OS X and they do go around) the users feel safer and don't bother learning. Windows users are actually better in that respect as there is alot of publicity going on.
I've never used a MAC, but all I hear from people who have is that once you use one, you'll never want to use a PC again. Kind of like the worm guys in Men In Black. . .Once you go MAC, you'll never go back!
I don't think it's true, I used Macs from time to time and hated it everytime. They are the slowest of any other machine (even the Core Duo's are, haven't had a chance to destroy a Core 2 Duo yet). The laptops don't have tapping at all, not even just off by default it's plain not there. I also hung OS X on a Core Duo by opening all of the programs in the dock at once. I'm sorry but even Windows can handle that, it will be slow as hell trying to do it and might need a restart to clear the RAM after you are done with them but it will not die. Linux wouldn't even slow down (all from experience).

daynah

October 31st, 2006, 10:46 AM

I think the issue, honestly, is less which OS is "best" and more which OS is best -for you-.

The obvious case of Windows vs Linux... if you're a hard core gamer, you've gotta have serious balls to try a full switch to Linux right now.

Personally, I don't like Macs. The key word in there being "personally." One of the huge things that's important to me about an OS is "are the buttons in the places that make sense." To Windows and KDE, no, the buttons are never where they make sense. To Mac, the buttons on the screen make me feel like I'm wandering through a maze, and I spend all my time on a Mac FINDING the buttons and not getting anything done. And I say this spending a decent amount of time on my roommate's mac, having broken nearly every piece of hardware in my linux box.

Macs just don't make sense -to me-. But then again, neither does KDE, and KDE users stare at me like I've got some mental retardation when I fiddle around on their computer, and think I must be lying when I say I've used ubuntu for over a year.

That weird, undescribable feature is VERY important to me, and a Mac just doesn't have it.

Unfortunately for Macs, you can't try it out for free. I have a spoiled rich *** roommate with a Mac, so I get to use her's all the time I want (never). Do you attend a college with a Mac lab? Both of the colleges I've gone to had one. Do you live in a rich town that might have a Mac in the library? Do you have a friend who has a Mac? Most alternate OS users like to let people use their OS to get them to "switch"... whether it be mac or linux.

To try it out, don't just fiddle. Bring some work, photos, and music on a thumb drive. What would you do on the computer? Are you going to make a website? Make a website. Do you do homework? Research a random topic, take notes, and type up a mini paper to yourself, trying to format it. That's when you're going to see if the "buttons" are in the right place for YOU

And remember... EVERY Distro is different. Red Hat is different from Mac is different from Ubuntu. (they're all similarly based...) So if Ubuntu died, maybe another Distro, including mac, will do fine. Try it out on a live cd. :) But don't just pop in the cd and go "Hey it's on!" Do WORK on it! Some people just completely run their computers off of the cd when their harddrive is broken, so you can do a lot on it.

Oh... and good luck getting a loan for your designer electronic!

Mr. Picklesworth

October 31st, 2006, 11:40 AM

if they were to take OS X out of Mac and start offering it with 3rd party PC's they would easily have a 20% market share.This is a valid point.

I don't much like Apple because they do not give me choice, and they hate it when people try to change it by running their operating system on hardware that is not Apple hardware.

I have never understood why people complain at Windows' tiny amount of preloaded software harming competition when a mac is exponentially worse for it.
Lots of people like the 'easiness' of macs, because they come with a billion programs already installed (and polluting that dock thing with hundreds of quick launch buttons, thus rendering the thing unusable); there's an the unfairly DRM'd iTunes, iPhoto, another audio program, that web site program... the list goes on!
Effectively, if you are just looking for simple software, your wishes are accounted for; anyone looking for simple photo management software is immediately content with Apple's stuff before seeing any of the (superior or not!) competition.

Of course, if you're like me and you don't like Apple's stuff, you then have to hunt around through the menus and get rid of it.

There's other stuff that's a bit anti-competitive, too: Hardware.
Has anyone else noticed how Apple's Airport routers are given their own configuration, and that their configuration is clearly more prominent than the regular wireless configuration?
I was hunting for 30 minutes trying to find the configuration tool for wireless. I eventually found it buried somewhere (okay, I admit, it was in the menu bar!), somehow separate from the Airport configuration which had been taunting me with its presence for the whole time.
This happened with initial setup, as well. It hated my router. I forget the exact message now, but I am pretty sure now that the only router it wanted me to have in the setup phase was an Airport router. It found my SSID, then it asked for a single thing: "password". No Static/Dynamic IP checkbox, no DNS entry... just Password. Of course, I entered my WEP key (assuming that's what they mean by "password") and I got a rather simple error telling me that it couldn't connect. No explanation, no reasoning... just that It doesn't work!!
Okay, I can't expect everything to give me explanations (especially with wireless), but this could have been a bit better. That's one thing I've noted and been displeased by: Unhelpful error messages. Presumably they are supposed to make the system seem more user-friendly to those who are afraid of technical words.
Anyhow, configuring my wireless network in the setup program was impossible; it turned out later that the thing was undoubtedly supposed to be Airport setup and only Airport setup, because the real wireless setup (for every single other wireless router out there!), surprisingly, gives me all the options I need.

How is this user friendly? It's only user friendly if I give in and buy every piece of Apple hardware I can find!
What if I don't want Apple's router?

Locked down hardware is not friendly.

I also much dislike their ads, which have resulted in various imbeciles calling Windows boxes personal computers and Apple boxes Macs.
Macs are personal computers, are they not? (Even with my experience with anti-competition in there, I would expect that they at least try to make Macs personalizeable...)
Linux runs on both Apple boxes and everyone else's boxes ("PCs"), does it not?

Iandefor

October 31st, 2006, 11:49 AM

prizrak

October 31st, 2006, 01:51 PM

All I can say is: Macs are pretty fine computers in the "just works" department, since the hardware and software are so tightly integrated.

Just don't buy their cheaper computers- I've found that those tend to have a useful lifetime of a year or perhaps two, tops.

Mac is not a computer it is an embedded appliance. And yes it does just work same way my cell phone just works without any configuration on my part so long as I stick to Verizon and not try to use it on Sprint.

Choad

October 31st, 2006, 03:33 PM

The primary reason why MS windows gets whacked by viruses is because theres a huge user base. if a fraction of that user base were to start using MACs... the same issues would start popping up for mac users.

wrong, wrong, wrong.... absolutely brimming over with wrongability

if that was the case, explain why the majority of servers run apache, yet the majority of weaknesses are in IIS?

i dont know the specific stats but its pretty staggering

AlphaMack

October 31st, 2006, 06:29 PM

I'm a recent OS X -> Ubuntu switcher (well, several months ago).

I have been with Macs for nearly 10 years prior to the switch. What made me bail from the ship?

1. The Intel switch. PowerPCs were much more efficient than their Intel counterparts at the time. The PPC 970 was a promising processor but IBM dumped Apple in order to focus on the console gaming market. With the switch to x86, I would have to re-buy all of my software titles should I ever upgrade to a Macintel. Uhm, no thanks. Considering that I have been using FOSS alternatives in lieu of upgrading my commercial apps, it didn't make sense for me to continue using OS X. (I still do whenever I need to surf Flash-based sites via MOL).

Maccies like to look at their computers as 'BMWs;' I have a different stance. The proper car analogy to describe Apples to Wal-Mart PCs nowadays would be Jaguar to Ford. In both cases one is overpriced despite having similar internals. Heaven knows why Jaguar is still around today. I see them as an irrelevant company.

Jaguar used to sport V12s under their bonnets (e.g. PowerPC chips) until Ford came along and took over the company (Jobs). Although (A) the parts were expensive, (B) only experienced and well-qualified shops could touch them (e.g. dealers and specialty mom and pop shops - much like Apple retail and Mac-oriented shops), and (C) the packages as a whole were loose cannons despite having high price tags (e.g. Mac OS), Jaguar was a brand name for the elite (e.g. fanboys with too much money) and sales were minuscule (e.g. Apple's marketshare).

Once Ford came along and took over the company (e.g. Jobs), Jaguars no longer had the mighty V12s (e.g. PowerPC chips) but began to run on Ford-built V8s (e.g. Intel chips). With the new internals, there really merited no distinction between a mass-produced Ford (e.g. bargain basement PC) and a Jaguar (e.g. Apple) except for the price tag and form factor.

2. QA. Apple's QA has significantly gone down the crapper with the switch. The MacBooks and MacBook Pros have had all sorts of problems - whining, random shutdowns, excessive thermal paste, overheating - the list goes on. Apple have historically treated their paying customers like ****. They deny issues with (especially Revision A) products only to later come up with a fix or open a repair program under the threat of lawsuits from digruntled owners (e.g. iBook G3 logic board issues, PowerBook G4 "white spots," etc.).

3. Cost. As pointed out by others on this board, there is absolutely no difference in components anymore. With the other issues I discussed previously, there is no incentive or justification to upgrade from an older PowerPC Mac. I still have my Macs and I'll keep using them until the hardware fails or the need to repair them is no longer cost-effective (I already replaced a buckled case on my PowerBook G4 that recently saw $400 in upgrades to the HDD and optical drives).

Also consider this: If a common PC, such as a Dell, breaks, you take it to the corner shop and you can easily get replacement parts. On my girlfriend's laptop (Dell Inspiron 4100), we were able to easy obtain a replacement battery and new DVD-ROM/CD-R(W) combo drive. With a Mac? You'll have to find a specialty shop around town or even an Apple store. Replacement parts are expensive.

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 02:35 AM

What are people's opinions on macs?

So I am trying to work out what is a good alternative? Macs? What do you think?
Thanks
I think you would be quite surprised at how fast the new Intel-based Macs actually are. With Parallels software for Mac OS X, you can run Windows and Linux quite nicely. Soon, Parallels is also supposed to support 3D applications. :)

Soon, I am going to be purchasing a new Mac Pro - four core (two dual core Xeon processors @ 3.00 GHz). Also, there is supposed to be an update coming soon that will bring eight cores (two quad core Xeon processors @ 2.66 GHz) to the Mac Pro. I am trying to decide if I should wait or just get the 3.00 GHz (quad core) one.

Anyway, once I get it I can run Linux and Windows XP along with Mac OS X. Coupled with my new Viewsonic G225fb 21" monitor, I will have a kick a@@ system.

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 02:41 AM

Yup as the Mac zealots like to say 'it just works', which of course it should seeing as it run on their own hardware of limited configurations.

I have a Macbook and yes it does do things with minimum of hassle. It however is *very* much aimed at people without technical skills, it will drive you up the wall if you are even vaguely competent. OS X is also the slowest OS out of the big 3, and get ready for the worst and most basic filemanager in computing history.
How is the Mac Pro "hardware of limited configurations?" Please... I can put four 750 GB SATA HDs in the Mac Pro, 16 GB of RAM, and add an eSATA card for more SATA storage/backup outside of the Mac Pro tower. I would hardly call that limited... The Mac Pro will run circles around anything out there in PC land. Also, Mac OS X is not slow. Power on to Desktop in less than 20 seconds is not what I call slow.

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 02:45 AM

Mac: are good, expecially now that it is possible to install ubuntu to a mac-laptop.. the biggest problem I have with mac-laptops is the 1-button mouse...
Buy a two button mouse then. I use Microsoft mice with my Mac and Linux/Windows computer. Not hard to do... :rolleyes:

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 02:47 AM

Mac is not a computer it is an embedded appliance. And yes it does just work same way my cell phone just works without any configuration on my part so long as I stick to Verizon and not try to use it on Sprint.
Uhhh... Yeah OK. :rolleyes: I can make my Mac do way more in Mac OS X than I could ever do in Linux/Windows, and I am a Computer Analyst/Programmer.

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 03:03 AM

i considered getting a mac laptop, but whenever i'd go to their store to play with them, i was disappointed, especially with the speed. this, of course, was with the ppcs. (i hear now that the intel macs are one fourth as slow as the ppcs.) i got a system76, with ubuntu, that 'just works', especially when using automatix.
Well, you heard wrong. Do your research before making such a claim... Look at this comparison of the new 3.00 GHz dual Xeon Mac Pro with other Macs and then tell me that it is slow. :rolleyes:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firstlooks/macpro3ghzbench/index.php

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 03:10 AM

I think apple deliberately make up rumors that Macs are better at some things. They're advertising campaign is too "image based" so I wouldn't be surprised if they are just creating an image for themselves by saying stuff like "Apples are better for multimedia". What can an apple do that a pc can't?
Yeah OK... What a load of crap! :rolleyes:

Apple's Macintosh can run circles around a Windows PC for multimedia - please. I will put the iLife/iWork software packages against anything out there in Windows land. You will not find the same functionality and ease of use. Apple's pro apps are even better than the consumer-oriented iApps.

What can an Apple do that a PC can't? I will give you the answer since you asked - you can actually be on the Internet for a very long time without being infected with spyware and virii. In five years, there has not been one instance of a Mac OS X virus. :p

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 03:20 AM

An interesting stat here... 50% of Apple's Mac hardware sales are going to Windows users. That is incredible IMO...

PenguinMan

November 1st, 2006, 03:28 AM

All I can say is: Macs are pretty fine computers in the "just works" department, since the hardware and software are so tightly integrated.

Just don't buy their cheaper computers- I've found that those tend to have a useful lifetime of a year or perhaps two, tops.
You should tell that to my in-laws who have a flat panel G4 iMac that is mainly used for the Internet and iApps. Works fine for them, and they have had it for over three years now. BTW, it is running Mac OS X 10.3.9 Panther - fast.

Iandefor

November 1st, 2006, 03:30 AM

In five years, there has not been one instance of a Mac OS X virus. :p*Cough* (http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/osxleapa.html)!

You should tell that to my in-laws who have a flat panel G4 iMac that is mainly used for the Internet and iApps. Works fine for them, and they have had it for over three years now. BTW, it is running Mac OS X 10.3.9 Panther - fast. No thanks; I was speaking from personal experience and probably should have tossed in a YMMV.

RAV TUX

November 1st, 2006, 03:42 AM

Moving to the MAC OS X forum with a 2 hour redirect

Chayak

November 1st, 2006, 02:52 PM

I rather like OS X, it's easy to administer and X serves are just a pleasure to work with in my experience especially when coupled with remote desktop 3

PenguinMan

November 2nd, 2006, 03:29 AM

*Cough* (http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/osxleapa.html)!
Well... Holy crap! I am wrong. ROTFLMRO!

PenguinMan

November 2nd, 2006, 03:30 AM

I rather like OS X, it's easy to administer and X serves are just a pleasure to work with in my experience especially when coupled with remote desktop 3
I have never tried Remote Desktop 3 - how is it from your experience?

trash

November 2nd, 2006, 12:25 PM

I am switcher.

Except I gave up on OS X last year. I just didn't see the point anymore. With the transition to Intel, Apple has very few native applications.

I found many Mac users use OS X simply for the sake of not using Microsoft. Well, there is Linux for that.

With the transition to Intel, Apple can no longer clame hardware superiority. I mean there are just making the box. And now, they are making boxes that whine, overheat, and stain a yellowish tint.

Additionally, it is amazing that Apple claims their Intel machines are 2-5 times faster than the flagship G5s. This basically means their claims previously about the PPC superiority were nothing but lies. Now I get to see those annoying commercials all day.

If you wanna "Think Different", use Linux. And save yourself the time of getting a decent notebook that won't whine.

Add...and at least with Linux I don't get that spinning beach ball of death. Stable??? My Windows XP Pro partition is more stable than OS X.

'Think differenter' should be a linux slogan
I've been using osX again just for java and flash stuff but wow is flash crappy in osX, safari even crashed on me playing a flash vid, granted i'm using Tiger still but thats because I refuse to pay again for what amounts to an upgrade/bug fixes.
Ya the hardware is still nice but i can get a couple of pc's going for the same price.... ex apple fan.

Alfa989

November 9th, 2006, 03:29 PM

macs SUCK! :evil:
theyre expensive. theyre even more expensive if one hardware component fails and you wish to replace it.

Lol

A PC is expensive, all the time replacing components because they fail...:???:

Alfa989

November 9th, 2006, 03:31 PM

I think I can ;)

The hardware difference makes it even more interesting ATI 9700 and Pentium M 1.7Ghz VS the mac..., and I could come up with several subnotebooks half the weight of the lightest mac at that time. :twisted:

It is interesting how you compare a 3-year old iBook with a recent VAIO :twisted:

entangled

November 17th, 2006, 10:43 AM

I'm probably a bit late to chime in but I have a view on OSX.
I now run exclusive ubuntu 6.10 on an Apple Mac Mini Solo. It runs faster than OSX, uses less disk, is fully functional on my local network talking with a windows laptop, printer, scanner, camera, memory sticks. MacOSX was no better and it was 'strange' to look at and to operate. The advantage of Apple is the hardware: small, quiet, low power - 20W (and only plug in power-hungry peripherals when you need them). If you don't care about energy use then it won't appeal so much.

lyceum

November 20th, 2006, 05:30 PM

I don't think this is a question anyone here can really answer. My wife used a Mac in school and when we got married had to share my PC. She gripped all the time. I got her a Mac, and she was going to put Ubuntu on it, as she does like it. I asked her to jsut use OSX, as I wanted one of each OS (OSX, Linux, Windows) in the house. I have used her Mac and I don't like it. It is okay, but I really can't see why she is so in love with it. It does look really pretty though.

unlokia

December 2nd, 2006, 11:52 AM

Hi there people!. I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots!. Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!.

Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'.

I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please...

I'm *NOT* a celebrity, but PLEASE.... GET ME OUTA HERE!!!! :(

Out of ALL the new experiences I have had with 'New Wave' OS', I am going to have to show myself up, and say I 'enjoyed' Vista the most!!. I prefer diff OS' for diff reasons and tasks, but if I had to make a *new* OS purchase today, Vista would be it I think. Not that I would do, just if I *had* to!.

max.diems

December 2nd, 2006, 12:00 PM

Well, that is the point of OS X- UNIX underneath a bubbly UI.

holylucifer

December 2nd, 2006, 12:22 PM

Yes. Using an operating system is subjective. It's subjective because you get used to doing things a certain way. When you switch to another operating system, things don't work the way you expect, and you struggle.

I took my switch from OS 9 to Ubuntu quite slowly, so I gradually got comfortable with it. Then I bought my first Windows PC. It's been 5 months and I'm still not comfortable with it. I'm quite good at Linux, yet I suck at Windows.

"I've been using computers since 1992 yet I can't figure out how to xyz in Windows. Windows sucks, I'm going back to Linux". My Mac and Ubuntu knowledge is working against me on Windows. Someone who can barely use MSN will probably be no worse on Ubuntu, as long as it's installed by someone who knows what they're doing.

My personal opinion is that Windows is difficult. My opinion is coloured by my lack of experience in Windows.

I Find ubuntu to be more confuseing then windows, with windows its just double click and then it fires up,plus i am also used to getting seperate drivers for the graphics card, etc etc, but in ubuntu thats where i got confused.

unlokia

December 2nd, 2006, 12:34 PM

max - I am well aware of the 'point' of the OS - I was making a personal observation and stating my opinion of it!. I have to say, that when comparing the 'evils' of OS developers, can we step back for a second, and look at what is said of Mr Gates himself.

People moan and groan about windows, and yes it CAN be a pain in the back side, and there are numerous moral shortfalls within it, but let us look at it this way;

(A)M$ make an OS which works on 99% of IBM compatible PCs
(B)Apple make an OS which is designed to work *only* on their hardware, and charge an arm and a leg for this 'priveledge'(?)because their boxes are shiny and white and "elite".

Having deliberated on this subject and digested the facts, I find myself detesting Apple the most for their part in making an OS which *only* fits in a niche market, with ONE hardware manufacturer. I am not here as a fanboy of any ONE OS, but this is a simple and *individual* opinion, based upon MY experiences.

Mac OS just does not "feel right". It feels too shiny, too "let me do it for you" and if this is what people are paying for, then I shall keep my £££ safely in my pocket, for a custom PC build, thanks all the same. I am venting my spleen here - I am not ranting in order to annoy anyone in particular. I have been open minded and tried all the OS' I could think of, that are currently available on the market.

To summarise:

If Mac OS X is good for video editing, then that is all well and good. People go on and on about Apple's market share. I am NOT surprised it is so small, and it is small for DIFFERENT reasons than the ones Linux is small for - their hardware is TOO EXPENSIVE!!.

BarfBag

December 2nd, 2006, 12:40 PM

At first glance, I find Mac OS X stunning. Beautiful hardware, beautiful interface, tight OS. But like I said - that's only at first glance. Macs just aren't for me. I know people who desperately need big funky icons on a shiny white computer. That's their target audience.

If you think about it, they're big, loud DRM machines. EXTREMELY closed OS, closed hardware, and let's not even get into iTunes (which I like even though).

unlokia

December 2nd, 2006, 12:52 PM

Showoff machines with nothing inside them worth all those £££/$$$. DRM... baddd!!!!.

Linux can and DOES do the same job a whole heap better, and FREE!! :D :D

ComplexNumber

December 2nd, 2006, 01:42 PM

I Find ubuntu to be more confuseing then windows, with windows its just double click and then it fires up,plus i am also used to getting seperate drivers for the graphics card, etc etc, but in ubuntu thats where i got confused.
yeah, but that double click on microsoft windows can often fire up a trojan.

WalmartSniperLX

December 2nd, 2006, 01:50 PM

But remember mac os x is one of the most stable os' on the market today (being based on bsd) Simplicity does destroy a lot of the fun in an os, but It was aimed toward the general public.

It may not look nice but it sure beats the hell out of any DOS BASED windows os ;) and any NT based Windows today (even xp due to security leaks).

Dont get me wrong I dont like mac at all, and some of my reasons are the same as yours :D

Put it this way, Im happy with Ubuntu :D :D

Macintosh Sauce

December 2nd, 2006, 05:18 PM

If Mac OS X is good for video editing, then that is all well and good. People go on and on about Apple's market share. I am NOT surprised it is so small, and it is small for DIFFERENT reasons than the ones Linux is small for - their hardware is TOO EXPENSIVE!!.
If there is one thing I cannot stand, is someone spreading FUD about the Macintosh platform.

What do you mean if? Macs are excellent for graphics and video, and this has been proven many times over. I own a Mac for the graphical and programming capabilities that it has. Windows XP can do what Mac OS X is capable of, but it is more expensive and not as elegant. Linux? Yeah OK...

I hate to burst your bubble, but Mac OS X marketshare is much larger than desktop Linux marketshare and growing in huge leaps and bounds. Linux server marketshare may be larger than Mac OS X Server marketshare, but that will change soon enough.

Apple's hardware is expensive? I hardly think so... I just bought a new Mac Pro (3.00 GHz quad core Intel Xeon) for $3380 ($3677 with tax and delivery). A similar configuration from DELL would cost about $1000 more. Who is more expensive? The MacBook and MacBook Pro notebooks are priced well and they both have Core2Duo processors in them. A lot of Windows notebooks still have CoreDuo processors in them! In short, Apple is very competitively priced since they made the switch to Intel processors.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of FUD...

Macintosh Sauce

December 2nd, 2006, 05:36 PM

I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots!. Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!.

Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'.

I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please...

I'm *NOT* a celebrity, but PLEASE.... GET ME OUTA HERE!!!! :(

Out of ALL the new experiences I have had with 'New Wave' OS', I am going to have to show myself up, and say I 'enjoyed' Vista the most!!. I prefer diff OS' for diff reasons and tasks, but if I had to make a *new* OS purchase today, Vista would be it I think. Not that I would do, just if I *had* to!.
I would like to address a couple of things...

Mac OS X is meant for Apple's hardware, not for your Windows notebook. That is why it is not working as smoothly as it should.
Mac OS X is very configurable. May be you should actually try going to the System Preferences to do a lot of changing of system settings, etc. Also, one can make many system changes through the Terminal.
You insult me personally by saying that because of Mac OS X's ease-of-use I am an idiot. May be I just prefer a computer that actually works. What a concept!
Safari is just the name of the browser that Apple made. Get over it... Safari is a pretty darned good browser IMO. If you don't like Safari, you can use Firefox or Opera. There is choice on the Mac platform you know. :rolleyes: You can also use OmniWeb, which actually is a much better browser than Firefox, Opera, or Safari IMHO.
Mac OS X is not snobby, cut-down, etc. More and more developers are moving to Mac OS X, in case you did not know. Why? The reason is simple... Apple's Xcode software and the Cocoa development environment.

You really like to insult people, don't you? I am a longtime Mac user, and I also use PCLinuxOS/Ubuntu and Windows XP. Stuff like this from users like you, really turns me off from using Linux - specifically Ubuntu.

Macintosh Sauce

December 2nd, 2006, 05:43 PM

Showoff machines with nothing inside them worth all those £££/$$$. DRM... baddd!!!!.

Linux can and DOES do the same job a whole heap better, and FREE!! :D :D
Show off machines? Sure... I didn't spend almost $3700 to be a show off item to other people. I bought a Mac Pro because I need it to do all the work I need to accomplish on a daily basis. Linux nor Windows can do what the Mac can do - Apple's software is easy to use and works like it is supposed to.

Free doesn't always mean better. That is what I have discovered in the last two years.

stuh84

December 2nd, 2006, 05:47 PM

As an article I read said recently. Take Linux and take OS X. Because of the platforms they are on, Linux almost works perfectly, OS X DOES work perfectly.

Will I be spending 3 months getting one piece of hardware working on OS X? No.

I'm also a sound engineer. ProTools works on XP and OS X. Given that I want an OS that just works and doesn't get in the way of working, what am I gonna do? That's it, OS X.

The so called "alternatives" to the software I want just don't cut it, fair play to the developers they are pretty good programs, but I don't need a program to be open source, I need it to be what I want. Am I gonna feel better on my death bed for using a program that other people could see the source code for? I'll give you a clue, it means absolutely nothing to me if a program is open source.

So, I'll be going OS X, because it has what I need, and it JUST WORKS. Ubuntu won't be gone no way, but don't try and act like Linux is the answer to everyones problems, its far far far far from it.

munkyeetr

December 2nd, 2006, 05:55 PM

Ford, Chevy, Mazda?

I don't think it really matters what you drive as long as you're happy with it and it gets you where you want to get.
I drive Ubuntu, by the way (and if it matters).

nalmeth

December 2nd, 2006, 06:07 PM

I'm also a sound engineer. ProTools works on XP and OS X. Given that I want an OS that just works and doesn't get in the way of working, what am I gonna do? That's it, OS X.
I am not a sound engineer, and yet Edgy + JACK + Ardour all run quite well on the linux platform, and I don't have anything getting in the way of working beyond my limited experience.

You say you have tried these programs and they are nice, but are you perhaps just accustomed to what you're used to (:-k) ?

I don't have any comments about Mac OS X 'Tiger', I just thought I'd comment as I see a lot of the sentiment that Mac is so great because its easy, but if you're used to linux, you find it easy aswell. For me, learning Mac, and Protools etc (beyond the cost) would be a steep learning curve as I already have gained habits around my system.

I know linux audio has limitations, but I think they are trumpeted far more than deserved, just like the rest of this OS, it just needs more attention to get the wrinkles ironed out.

Mac gives people what they 'want' right now, but I don't think Mac is the right answer for the long run, and in a lot of ways, Linux will be the solution for a lot of peoples problems.

RAV TUX

December 2nd, 2006, 06:15 PM

anunn2001

December 2nd, 2006, 08:31 PM

I am writing this on a Mac Pro it has 4 2.66ghz Zenon Cores for CPUs. I happen to have 4gb of RAM as well. I am booted into OS X. I also have immediate access to the full Unix system via the terminal. I have X11 running. I also have Ubuntu 6.10 and XP Pro running under Parallels VM while booted into OS X. Try that with any version of Windows and or Linux available today. I would say Apple is doing something right.

At least it works for me!

Have a good day.

aysiu

December 2nd, 2006, 10:14 PM

Cheesy as this sounds, can't we all just get along?

I'm not really into bashing things. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I happen to think Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu Edgy are all great operating systems.

I also think you should use what's best for you. OS X is clearly not what's best for the OP, but it is what's best for my wife, and Ubuntu is what's best for me. I know a lot of people for whom XP is best.

Live and let live. The bashing isn't cool. Every OS has its pros and cons.

KiwiNZ

December 2nd, 2006, 10:37 PM

3rdalbum

December 2nd, 2006, 11:31 PM

Yes, Macs are good for video editing. Yep, they're good for audio and MIDI work. The desktop even looks good, if you're a fan of unthemable interfaces with no consistency.

But when the Mac marketshare rises, don't connect them to the Internet. OS X may be based on Unix, but in reality Apple is trying to live the charmed life it had with OS 9. As a result, the OS is full of bad security flaws that never get fixed.

And, when compared to Win XP Pro, OS X is very inefficient in its use of resources (i.e. it's slow, even on Intel processors). These two things are a tremendous shame, because I think OS X could have been a great alternative to Windows. At the pace that desktop Linux is moving, when there are more real-world exploits of the OS X problems we will reach the "tipping point".

unlokia

December 3rd, 2006, 02:15 AM

@Macintosh Sauce - sheesh you're VERY emotional dude... hey it's only a computer, after all. Are you related to Steve Jobs somehow??:-k

SO many posts, one after the other... calm down!.

Let me put it in plain English for you:

I was expressing my PERSONAL experience of Mac OS X 10.4.7. I am not stupid by any measure, thankyou very much, and I KNOW that running OS X on a PC is not the same as on GENUINE Apple kit, and that incompatibilities will arise!. My observations were that the OS is visually clunky, and functionally "hand-holding" to the Nth degree. The hard edged, rounded off shinyness and general visual style, I can see WHY it looks good to some people, but to me this whole concept is crazy, because whatever you like to promote about it, it is CLOSED source AND hardware, and you can only tweak up to a certain point.

The ridiculous price of Mac computers :rolleyes: coupled with the current issues that Apple company has with producing vast amounts of toxic chemicals and deadly pollutants, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-forced-out-of-apple and pretending to deal with the problems, while in fact probably NOT doing so at all, turn me RIGHT off the whole company.

I have as much right to my opinion as you, and as such I simply stated, possibly unacceptably to your good self, that I did NOT like Mac OS X 10.4.7. Please pay me some respect, and do not treat a stranger whom you have never once met, like a complete fool and imbecile - just because I am on a Linux forum, does not mean I favour Linux under EVERY circumstance. Seems as if your opinion of me as a person, has already formed, without having ever talked to me.

To anyone reading this - I am not personally attacking ANYONE for using Mac OS - I realise something that not a lot of people think about when posting... computers are NOT extensions of our personalities in this context, and just because you use X...Y...Z... OS, I still respect you and like you as a PERSON, the very same! :D

Mactintosh sauce - please try and be a bit more understanding... the very defensiveness of your three-in-a-row posts, is kinda offputting to me, and indicative to me(if I *were* so stupid and shallow as to be this way) of the general opinion and snobbishness of Mac users. Ok so you have 'seen the light' and you love your Mac - great! :). Now please, stop attacking people on forums.

aysiu

December 3rd, 2006, 02:24 AM

The ridiculous price of Mac computers :rolleyes: coupled with the current issues that Apple company has with producing vast amounts of toxic chemicals and deadly pollutants, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-forced-out-of-apple and pretending to deal with the problems, while in fact probably NOT doing so at all, turn me RIGHT off the whole company. I think then you should not buy anything from Apple if you feel that strongly about it.

Is there a point to continue bashing Mac and/or Apple?

You've expressed your opinion, and we've read it.

unlokia

December 3rd, 2006, 02:45 AM

I was not "bashing" apple, I was expressing my opinion. I cannot stand stuck up opinions from people such as Apple sauce, repeating in triple-posts, what could have been said in one.

This thread is futile - we all have OPINIONS, and I was expressing mine. The rudeness with which he replied was unacceptable. I have no time for know it alls like this guy, sorry.

Thread pointless....

aysiu

December 3rd, 2006, 02:49 AM

This thread is futile Thread pointless.... Agreed. Let's close it, then.

qazwsx

December 10th, 2006, 06:30 AM

I have used mac only once. First impression was not so great. First impression with KDE and later GNOME were the greatest. I Just got feeling that I want to use those superior desktops. I just adobted almost immediately those Linux desktops. I can't say the thing for OSX. This is just odd because everybody says that OSX is the easiest.
For me even Windows interface seemed easier. But let's face it I just love configurability.

By the way can you get your money back if you are not going to accept OSX licence and then how much is your refund. Just wondering :rolleyes:

iindigo

December 10th, 2006, 02:50 PM

My primary computer is an iMac G5 2Ghz w/2GB of RAM and Mac OS X 10.4, and my secondary is a PC with Ubuntu Edgy 6.10 on it. I honestly don't understand most of the complaints here...

Let me touch on a few complaints I've seen in this thread...

- Safari has everything Firefox does, minus addons, and is quite zippy, and most of the iLife apps aren't bad at all.

- The Finder, while I agree could be better, is designed for someone new to computers to be easy to understand - you can't tell me that your average inexperienced computer user wouldn't get confused over all the buttons and menu items available in KDE/Gnome filemanagers and Windows explorer.

- The Terminal is VERY capable, and has many options that most Linux terminals don't offer...

- The BSD filesystem very well may be bastardized, I don't know, but it was never meant to be seen by the user.

- Mac applications are designed in a way that apt-get and the like are unnecessary for the most part - they are self-contained .app packages that don't need libraries and such installed in 10,000 directories all over the system. It's as simple as going to http://macupdate.com/, downloading, and dropping in the Applications folder.

- The Dock has plenty of utility, considering that individual windows are handled by Expose. It's primary purpose is an application launcher and app switcher.

- Quicktime is a very robust media system when the proper codecs are installed. The fault lies in the Quicktime Player itself, which could use some improvements.

As for Linux, yes, it's very good, and better than Windows in almost every aspect; but I wouldn't go as far to say that it's better than OS X. Although I tend to like Macs a bit more, for general use, Ubuntu Linux and Mac OS X are about equal. The only thing that might scare the average person away from Ubuntu is the occasional required use of the command line...

BarfBag

December 11th, 2006, 12:58 PM

Hey guys! Got really bored at work, and decided to go across the street to the mall and look around. Found an Apple Store inside. Don't care what anybody says - this place is a geek's paradise. Forgot how beautiful these things are! Typing this on a 24" iMac. SEXY!!!

Not saying I'd ever get one of these things. Just saying they're beautiful computers. I've left the Ubuntu website up on a few of em. :rolleyes:

aysiu

December 11th, 2006, 01:00 PM

Moved this to OS X discussions.

unlokia

December 12th, 2006, 07:41 PM

Sorry to tell you, and I am very much a Linux fan, but Mac OS X blows the pants off Ubuntu, hands down EVERY time. It 'just works' and I am afraid to say that apart from us Geeks, people as a whole want the beauty and simplicity of OS X out of the box, without all the PITA fiddling and farting about that you have to do in Linux. Well done Woz and Jobs, come on Linux community, give them a break, and as much as we all find uses and places for Linux, please lets not shove it down peoples throats like a bitter pill. Let the masses decide.

Unfortunately, once those rose tinted idealistic spectacles are removed, the reality hits you smack BANG in the face... Linux is fiddly and inconsistent for the person wanting a pc to 'just work', and that is something that just is NOT acceptable. I think Richard Stallman is a wonderful and admirable chap, but all this heroic political sulking and demonstrating, is an awfully large waste of creative energies!.

Windows IMHO, should be FREEWARE or FOSS, but MAC OS is something not to be hacked away at and modded. The guys have worked long and hard at Apple, and if I had £1000's to spend on Apple gear, I would GLADLY do so, instead of wasting my precious hours and days, typing into KONSOLE, to just get my devices running... grrr :)

Just cannot see the logic or sense in ANYONE paying the price for a Mac, and then wiping it all off for FREE software... makes no sense to me!.

Love y'all!

unlokia

December 12th, 2006, 07:55 PM

I hardly expected this thread to be 'Mac-loving' but this is madness. If you took an OPEN minded and non-'linux fanboy' approach to Mac OS X, actually had to use it, day in day out for everyday apps and work, and not just for toying about, I am sure you'd find it whoops *** BIG time, and is hassle free.

However, I am well aware that life is all about individual choice... but to the person who said "Linux JUST INSTALLS!" I say.... What the???... Mac OS X does too, or had you not noticed they custom make their OS *perfectly* for Mac ONLY hardware. They ain't Bill Gates and they are not trying to please ALL the people ALL of the time!.

Apple make VERY high quality merchandise... if they didn't make mistakes as in the first generation of MacIntel MacBook Pro's, then they would be 'error free' and everyone would take ANOTHER offensive, and have something ELSE bad to say. In my opinion, MAC OS X is the perfect balance of UNIX based OS... I love it to bits, because it is fuss free, not 'up-all-night-to-setup' and it simply WORKS, as it should, day in day out, and it looks AMAZING!.

I have to say this... when you install ANY Linux distro, you get all these weird named apps (named by Linux obsessed geeks who know nothing about marketing, probs!) like "Kicker" and "Kate"... WTF?!. There are TOO many bits on the screwdriver, and finding the right one is a pain in the *ss.

I used to put Linux as my main OS, but I am afraid that until mainstream society deems that Linux is worthy enough a platform to port major apps to, then the likes of Mac are gonna win hands down, time after time. XGL copies ideas from MAC OS X using BERYL, so it cannot be THAT bad!.

NumberOne

December 12th, 2006, 08:51 PM

Apple and OS X works because it is basically a closed system as far as hardware goes. If linux had a hardware platform that was consistant it would be as good as OS X.

maxamillion

December 12th, 2006, 08:56 PM

OS X is the lesser of two evils, but I ditched it on my iBookG4 for Xubuntu as soon as i got the wifi working (some time around flight 4 or 5 of dapper testing releases) because while yes it is clean and has some interesting features it just doesn't feel as comfortable as (X)ubuntu.

/me

unlokia

December 12th, 2006, 11:06 PM

If linux had a hardware platform that was consistant it would be as good as OS X.

Vaguely possible.... lets not forget, however, HOW much $$$ Apple has and how long they been around for a LOT LOT LOT longer than any Linux distro. They have market experience that Linux can only DREAM of, and technical libraries and resources that Linux does not.

Sorry to say so, but MAC has been on the scene MANY years longer than Linux, and to be honest, Linux has not got the marketing thing right. As long as there are 500 or so distros around, people are gonna see inconsistency as a downfall, and what they want is stability of design model, and not constant twiddling and incompatibilities between versions. Steve Jobs is well known for playing his cards VERY close to his chest, and for good reason no doubt. society say this that and the other about closed source, but this is one company who have got it VERY right, from the outset. The innovation, the class and the hardware style and inventiveness.... it is SO much more than JUST software. Ipod? isn't that being copied by Microsoft with their "Zune" (lmao!!)... have they not copied ideas from Macintosh within Vista?. Didn't Beryl copy Expose from OS X??. I mean isn't virtually EVERY gui idea that MS ever "invented" derived from one or another original concept from Cupertino?. Call Apple whatever you like, but underneath EVERYONE knows they got what it takes, and I back them 150% they are FANTASTIC!.

I hate to sound like I am an advocate of ANY OS... but perhaps I am. I repeat to you, Apple have been around MANY years before Linux popped its head up, and they have a loyal and established following, a VERY strong brand name and reputation. Say "Apple Mac" and people 99% of the time, know that it is synonymous with style, class and reliability. Say "Linux" to the same people, and most people go :-k :???: "HUUUH??!!".

It is going to be a VERY long time indeed - years, before any decent percentage of that following/userbase is simply going to drop Apple, after having looked after their workflow and day to day tasks, for many a year.

Oh and for those NOT in the know... Mac is based upon a variant of BSD.... google it... they also use some GPL code in the OS. BSD... another interesting concept. One of writing code to work from the outset, and not just hacking and re-using code to 'get it working' as is often the case with Linux.

Sorry, but that is the cold truth!.:mrgreen:.
Apple and OS X works because it is basically a closed system as far as hardware goes.

Yes....? they have made a WONDERFUL decision!. Their is no inconsistency or doubt with the hardware/software combination, and it has earned its amazing reputation for utmost stability and dependance. MS create a 'one size fits all' product, and succeed time and again, in making a mockery of themselves. If I made a product, I am sure I wouldn't let anyone ELSE make parts to go inside it, without me dictating EXACT specifications, and testing all samples with my 'machine'. They have a reputation that has been hard earned - why should Apple let ANYONE ruin their reputation, just because people are unwilling to pay a good price for great hardware and great software upon that hardware?!. Inventiveness is what they do best. Well done!

If I have made any mistakes, or a complete *** of myself, please feel free to say so!! :)

Stormy Eyes

December 12th, 2006, 11:10 PM

By the way can you get your money back if you are not going to accept OSX licence and then how much is your refund. Just wondering :rolleyes:

You might get back the 39 cents you spent on postage mailing your refund request. On the other hand, if you're not going to use OS X, why bother buying computers from Apple? Doing so makes as much sense as buying from Sun Microsystems and then demanding a refund on Solaris 'cos you want to install Linux instead.

unlokia

December 12th, 2006, 11:28 PM

Biased madness ensues.... Hey I wonder if I could get a copy of Leopard for 39 cents??:mrgreen: :KS :confused: :KS

Stormy Eyes

December 12th, 2006, 11:29 PM

i keep on hearing/reading so many stories about all these people getting fed up with OS X and looking for an alternative (usually linux).
this (http://www.bryanobryan.com/?p=28) highlight some of the many problems that people are having.

I switched to OS X from Linux. I had my reasons for doing so, and no regrets.

unlokia

December 12th, 2006, 11:30 PM

Same here dude - tell me you don't fall in Lurrrrve with that boingy dock every time u click an alias?? WOOOOOOHHH!!:)

If MS copy the VERY IDEA of gui, they copied the windowing system... they now copy the shiny icons in Vista (recycle bin, anyone?!) they imitate BADLY with the "zune" ipod ripoff...

Linux copied the dock with eliveCD (http://www.elivecd.org) they imitate Mac OS menu with Gnome, Xpose with Beryl... heck, why don't you all just admit... Apple ARE *THE* pioneers of gui functionality, and all you can do is copy and dream!.

slimdog360

December 13th, 2006, 05:36 AM

I wouldnt mind a Mac myself, particularly after seeing the new Mac Pro with a 30" monitor at work.

steven8

December 13th, 2006, 06:38 AM

30" Monitor?!? OMG! When I got my 21" monitor at work, I rolled my chair back and asked for a box of popcorn. I felt like I was at the movies!!

sloggerkhan

December 13th, 2006, 10:39 PM

I don't hate apple. I started on a mac. But I get sick of apple users talking up mac features that have been in linux for ages as if they're novelties. My brother gave me an iPod (he's a total mac nut) and I also get sick of dealing with the whole DRM iPod/iTunes things sometimes. (I don't use iTunes, and sometimes that causes problems.)

But they're still a lot better than M$.

Polygon

December 13th, 2006, 11:47 PM

i dont hate apple, although i would prefer that they would make it so that you can run mac os x on any intel based processor, so that i can ditch windows and dual boot mac / linux instead.

aysiu

December 13th, 2006, 11:57 PM

Moved to the Mac OS X forum.

SunnyRabbiera

December 14th, 2006, 12:12 AM

I dont hate apple at all, if only thier puters were cheaper...
But I LOVE OSX!
Tiger is awesome, and panther was pretty great too.
The OSX line is the best apple has ever had since the ol apple II, I love it and i wish apple made it PC ready...

technodigifreak

December 14th, 2006, 01:25 AM

I chose "other." Now in the act of fairness. I've been seriously thinking about a mac mini.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to tell you a few reasons why I have not bought one.

<rant>

1. Steve Jobs had the audacity to think he could improve upon 'BSD by putting a closed source "pretty" front end on top of it.

2. The spinning wheel of death. (you know what I'm talking about)

3. The "Mac Guy". Come on, we all know at least one. The guy(or gal) that thinks Steve Jobs leaves stool samples made of gold.

4. Mac rumors. Yeah. <sarcasm>Ooooh, shiney! I can't wait to get a new iFart when it comes out!</sarcasm> Seriously, Apple has not invented everything. Everything they have invented is not automatically cool.

5. Apple's Open Sauce. The now defunct Open Darwin project was basically a joke. Darwin was not the only example of Apple completely misunderstanding Open Source.

6. DRM.

7. iTunes.

8. iEverything. It's even worse than Microsoft's My Everything. You can take your My and shove it in your i.

9. .Mac, hmmm, smells like .AOL

10. Have I mentioned DRM?

11. Oh yeah, DRM. (I almost forgot)

12. Finder. I mean...just Wow....what an annoying program.

13. Moving away from the Power architecture. And just as the Cell is coming out. Genius, sheer genius.

15. 14 had Digital Restrictions Management on it. So it turns out it was never my point anyway.

16. Another point about the move away from Power architecture. Apple moved to the Power architecture because it was "vastly faster" than the x86 offering at the same time. Now they move off of the Power chips because the current x86 offering is "vastly faster" and "Oh we never really cared about the Power chips, but we just wanted to hype them because they were our gravy train at the time." Make up your fscking minds and stop blowing My Smoke up our iButtocks!

17. iPods. Not every mp3 player is an iPod. Stop asking me what type of iPod I have.

</rant>

Sorry.

sloggerkhan

December 14th, 2006, 01:30 AM

I think the real reason they ditched PowerPC style chips is the heat output made them terrible for laptops. I hear the playstation 3 has power, but also has a very hot, very fast, blast of air blowing out the back.

That said, I'm sure the whole architecture thing would have been a pain if I were still a mac user, but most mac users are too into mac to care about it. The whole "now feature gossip machine" that apple users have is just sickening. I definitely agree with that.

DoctorMO

December 14th, 2006, 02:47 AM

I have an apple powerbook, it's dieing... slowly. it doesn't work as a laptop any more the screen is all foobar. I only use it to play WoW, and thats it. I'm going to stick with Ubutnu GNU/Linux and my programming. Mac OSX just isn't useful to me so I won't be buying a new one.

Their DRM and hardware vendor lock in is a problem.

The problems with compatabilties only crop up when you have de-facto standards where the standard was never properly defined, such as Microsoft Doc, Macromedia Flash, mp3 and nVidia Hardware. things that have de-jour standards we don't talk about, because they don't have a problem, http, html, cd-rom, x86, usb etc etc, as long as standards can be developed properly and not ad-hoc by a single company you will get good technolegy without vendor lock in.

coder_

December 14th, 2006, 02:50 AM

I don't agree with some of their stuff but I'm surely not against them. I don't like their DRM with iTunes songs and the closed source of Aqua etc, but other than that, they aren't really that bad. I also don't like their "Buy our hardware to run our software," which seems very monopolistic of them.

To sum it all up: I'd rather get Leopard than Vista...

3rdalbum

December 14th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Linux may be occasionally fiddly to set up, but it has much better hardware support, speed, and security than Mac OS X. (well, even Windows has better hardware support and speed than OS X... possibly better security as well.)

3rdalbum

December 14th, 2006, 07:49 AM

If MS copy the VERY IDEA of gui, they copied the windowing system... they now copy the shiny icons in Vista (recycle bin, anyone?!) they imitate BADLY with the "zune" ipod ripoff...

Umm... the iPod itself is a rip-off of the very first MP3 players. The Zune might be a rip-off of the iPod, but it surely doesn't have the unreliability of the iPod.

Linux copied the dock with eliveCD (http://www.elivecd.org) they imitate Mac OS menu with Gnome, Xpose with Beryl... heck, why don't you all just admit... Apple ARE *THE* pioneers of gui functionality, and all you can do is copy and dream!.

lol. Seen OS X's newest GUI feature? Spaces - imitating virtual desktops, which have been around on Linux since it gained the ability to run X.

Plus, of course, a dock is just a panel of launchers and a system tray. You could set up KDE to do that since before the OS X developer beta. There is no equivilant of Gnome's Applications menu in OS X. Windows had a system tray for years before OS X came about, and Apple introduced support for media keys years after such keyboards became available on Windows.

Of course, the Apple Lisa's interface is startlingly similar to the Xerox Star; Apple's OpenDoc technology came about as a response to Microsoft's OLE, Windows and X could have "minimised" applications since before OS X came about, and there are plenty of Linux GUI features that haven't been implemented in OS X (breadcrumb buttons, themable windows, two-click application killing, clock-turns-into-calendar, file manager scripts...)

And we're just talking about user-interface features here. If you want to go under the hood, Solaris had asynchronus boot processes first, Unix had a command-line and an X server first, Linux had an open-source kernel first, Linux will have a desktop presence framework first, Unix had a reliable system first (something OS X is yet to accomplish, actually)... the list goes on. Seriously, if you want to hype up Apple, innovation isn't the way to do it.

3rdalbum

December 14th, 2006, 08:00 AM

OS X is unix
The major part of the OS X kernel is open source
There's more commericial software available for OS X than for linux(for example games)
OS X has better hardware support than linux and windows (because they sell hardware and there's less configurability)

I hope Apple goes more open source though.

I realise this is an old post, but:

1. The OS X kernel is called XNU - presumably it stands for X is Not Unix. Mac OS X isn't Unix - it's not even POSIX compliant.

2. The OS X kernel is open-source for PowerPC only, and even then it's not the ACTUAL OS X kernel; it's just an altered version of it.

3. Granted.

4. It depends what hardware support means - does it mean that it runs perfectly on the hardware, or that it supports a lot of hardware? Linux really does win in the second instance, and it even works perfectly on many more PCs than there are Macs.

smdeep

December 14th, 2006, 10:47 AM

I totally agree with Hitchhiker427. OSX Aqua is positively ugly with horrendous font display. The original Mac OS is much better as far as look and feel is concerned.

Donnut

December 14th, 2006, 11:56 AM

I think that for the computer iliteret (like me), mac is a perfect choice to reccomend to people. I know a 90+ year old woman that was able to operate a mac perfectly. As for me, I will continue to run all on a mac! Linux, Windows, and OSX! It will always be thus...

luca.b

December 14th, 2006, 03:14 PM

After seeing an OSX server today, my dislike of Apple has grown. Why? Because like Microsoft, they like interoperability only when it seems fit for them. The remote management app only runs on OSX (you have to install VNC if you want remote management on their servers via non-OSX OSes), their group policy is proprietary like MS's AD, and in general everything they do is geared more to Mac users than anyone else. I can understand (not too much) for desktops, but we're talking about SERVERS here, that are often deployed in mixed environments.

Shame on Apple. If they'd be dominant, they would be no better than Microsoft.

unlokia

December 14th, 2006, 06:42 PM

Ok point taken. It is impossible to explain the truth, to ears that have NO wish to hear it. Forget it. Thread reported for staleness.

unlokia

December 14th, 2006, 08:54 PM

wgscott

December 14th, 2006, 11:50 PM

I like Mac OS X for the same reasons I like Ubuntu linux -- a combination of elegance, simplicity, and a very nice unix platform.

I have to say given the hell I have been through with respect to the recent ubuntu kernel problems, I vastly prefer Mac OS X.

The only valid reason to hate Apple is if you are a GNU or open-source purist. The unix underpinnings to OS X used to be open source, but Apple has backed out of the commitment. The iCandy GUI apps are almost all restricted.

3rdalbum

December 15th, 2006, 12:41 AM

The only valid reason to hate Apple is if you are a GNU or open-source purist.

You don't need to be a GNU purist to dislike Apple's DRM. My mother hates Apple and she doesn't even know what "open-source" means - her iPod decided to corrupt all its database last night before she was going to go for a walk, and I had to spend hours remembering what songs were on it, finding those songs spread out over 50 MP3 CDs, and loading them back on. I NEVER had to do that with any of our non-Apple MP3 players.

Having your computer obseleted rather quickly also wasn't a good experience for me.

BebC

December 15th, 2006, 01:01 AM

It is cell chips that is used in both Play station 3 and Xbox 360.

3rdalbum

December 15th, 2006, 01:10 AM

Probably doubtful. Plug a digital camera into Linux (and I mean almost ANY one) and it does not know what to do with it!. Plug the same into Mac, and it says 'Ahh, a camera... let me present you with the memory of this camera, as a removable flash device'. Linux CANNOT do that yet.[/QUOTE=unlokia;1888015]

If the camera works as a mass-storage device, it will mount on Windows, OS X, Ubuntu, Syllable... this is not an innovation of OS X. It's a standard driver available on all platforms.

[QUOTE=unlokia;1888015]Plug almost ANYTHING USB into Mac, and it knows what to do, and configures it appropriately, no hassle, no long-winded command line fuss and nonsense - it just WORKS! :D.

Let's put my PC's sound card into a Mac. Will it work? Nope, OS X doesn't have the drivers for it. Does it work on Linux? Hell yeah. Oh, OS X works brilliantly for things where drivers aren't needed, or where OS X drivers are available, but Linux has built-in support for most of that stuff anyway (and a lot more)

I cannot imagine WHERE you get these amazing statements from, but you need to do a *lot* more research!. Mac is designed for *Apple Only* hardware as far as the computer hardware is concerned. They don't aim for the 'one size fits all' model, instead VERY high quality hardware is produced, and the Apple team concentrate on fine tuning the software and hardware, to work together impeccably, for THE most stable machine experience ever.

Puh-leaze. I'm not even sure that you answered what you were replying to. OS X has serious speed issues. Look at the benchmarks - if you would like a link to some articles comparing OS X to Linux speed-wise, PM me and I'll dig out the links.

Stability... unfortunately, even though OS X only runs on Apple's own hardware, it still crashes and gets confused an awful lot. My own experiences, using Macs in real-world environments. My own Mac has been running Ubuntu for a year, and although it's operating at the limits of its capabilities has never crashed in this time; application crashes have been rare too, and they have never brought down the system.

Mac is based upon Unix... a variant of *BSD. So I take it from that quote, you are inferring that Unix is insecure? LOL!.

No, I've never said that Unix is insecure.

Unix is only Unix if it conforms to the POSIX specification. POSIX does not allow things like resource forks, file-type and creator codes, etc that are present in OS X. How did support for these things get into OS X then? Apple did a huge amount of hacking into FreeBSD to support these Mac-specific elements, introducing bugs and security problems as they went. Recently, some white-hat hackers held "The month of kernel bugs", which identified 30 bugs in the OS X kernel which are not present in FreeBSD.

The kernel is not the only thing that can be insecure. OS X's application installer has a serious security flaw which allows malicious scripts to be run without the user even having to provide their password or click a confirmation button. The application installer is specific to OS X - it's not present in any Unix. (as it is automatically spawned as root without the user having to give confirmation, it also goes against Unix and Linux design principles).

Apple is even aware of this flaw - a number of people have independently discovered it and notified Apple, but nothing ever gets done about it. It even takes Apple a while to package fixes for the security flaws in open-source applications. The Linux distributions package and distribute the fixes within days. Apple takes weeks.

If you have an Apple laptop, make sure you change your computer's name, otherwise your own name will be broadcast to any computer with a wireless card in range. Looks like Apple hasn't heard of "identity theft".

If you're happy with your Mac, that's great. But don't try to convince people that Mac OS X is the perfect operating system; it's got serious problems that hamper its usefulness in today's computing landscape.

aysiu

December 15th, 2006, 01:24 AM

Plug almost ANYTHING USB into Mac, and it knows what to do, and configures it appropriately, no hassle, no long-winded command line fuss and nonsense - it just WORKS! :D. What a load of BS.

My wife bought an iPod Nano a few weeks ago, plugged it into her Powerbook. Nothing. Nothing on the desktop. Nothing in iTunes. Nothing. I even went into the terminal to see if it was acknowledged in any way. Not at all. We did a bit of web research into the problem, and it turns out sometimes the Nanos are buggy that way, and you have to reset them in order for them to be acknowledged. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60950)

I'm sorry, but my wife has had way more problems with her Powerbook than I've had with my Ubuntu computer.

You can read about her terrible upgrade experience from Panther to Tiger in this thread:
My wife "dist-upgraded" to Tiger and it messed up her user profile... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=80341&highlight=dist-upgrade+tiger)

Mac OS X "just works" about as much as Ubuntu does, and that's sad, considering the hardware and software are designed for each other. Almost nothing is designed for Ubuntu, however, and Ubuntu is expected to work on just about anything.

aysiu

December 15th, 2006, 01:33 AM

OS X's application installer has a serious security flaw which allows malicious scripts to be run without the user even having to provide their password or click a confirmation button. The application installer is specific to OS X - it's not present in any Unix. (as it is automatically spawned as root without the user having to give confirmation, it also goes against Unix and Linux design principles). Does this have anything to do with how Mac has implemented sudo? I know it uses sudo, similarly to how Ubuntu does, but I also noticed that my wife is able to drag things in and out of the Applications folder without a password prompt. Sometimes software installation will require a password... sometimes it won't. Seems to be pretty arbitrary.

wgscott

December 15th, 2006, 02:36 AM

Having your computer obseleted rather quickly also wasn't a good experience for me.

I bought my wife a macbook and it was obsolete 4 days later.

:evil:

Rodneyck

December 15th, 2006, 02:51 AM

Oh man, that bites.

As a side, I am glad that I build my own computers and now use open source OS and software. In other words, a company never dictates when my system is obsolete.

aysiu

December 15th, 2006, 02:53 AM

When my sister-in-law bought her first iPod, it became obsolete two weeks later--$100 cheaper, with a longer lasting battery, and more included peripherals.

drphilngood

December 15th, 2006, 03:04 AM

...As a side, I am glad that I build my own computers and now use open source OS and software. In other words, a company never dictates when my system is obsolete.

That´s me; I don´t hate Apple, I just prefer to build my own.

sloggerkhan

December 15th, 2006, 05:26 AM

The thing with apple is that they usually have a predictable product release cycle. I think if you get screwed with market timing, with them it's usually predictable. That said, I doubt I'll ever buy an ipod. The one I own is more trouble than it's worth and I'm glad I didn't pay for it.

glotz

December 15th, 2006, 06:00 AM

This is why I hate apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/copy-of-how-the-companies-line

Kevin Funnell

December 15th, 2006, 06:05 AM

Well it's like this, back in the eighties my mate had an Apple computer and I had an Atari. I know which one I preferred to use and it was ot a fruit.

Old kevin:)

sloggerkhan

December 15th, 2006, 08:20 AM

This is why I hate apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/copy-of-how-the-companies-line

Umm.... I find that confusing, considering that most of those manufacturers, apple included, mostly use 3rd party components. They are all probably using seagate or maxtor or some other brand of hard drive... they all have mobos designed around the same chipsets.... The only thing I can think of is that apple uses more plastic than the other companies for the cases it contracts out for manufacture. Could you point out how the materials used in an intel based apple are different than those used in an intel based acer or hp or dell? There is not any information explaining this on the website. (Oh which I am somewhat sceptical.)

slimdog360

December 15th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Plug a digital camera into Linux (and I mean almost ANY one) and it does not know what to do with it!. Plug the same into Mac, and it says 'Ahh, a camera... let me present you with the memory of this camera, as a removable flash device'. Linux CANNOT do that yet. Sorry to say it, but these are dillusions of what MAY be to come in the Linux future, but Mac has had this for AGES!.

linux auomatically recognises all three of my digital cameras, mounts them appropriately and then lets me do what I want with the photos on the camera.

I hate how its starting to become trendy with some people to bash things which thy like.

On another note, how about that stupid air. I mean what is it?? Okay I can use it to breath and everything but what about when Im hungry or thirsty. I cant eat or drink it so its completely useless.

Rodneyck

December 15th, 2006, 11:22 AM

unlokia

December 15th, 2006, 12:03 PM

@ 3rdalbum

Let's put my PC's sound card into a Mac. Will it work? Nope, OS X doesn't have the drivers for it. Does it work on Linux? Hell yeah.

You evidently miss the point, either intentionally (probable) to make your point, or for some other bizarre reason. WHY would anyone use a PC sound card in a Mac??. Apple provide Mac hardware/soundcards etc, so your point is moot... unless of course you are using PIRATE copies of Mac OS X :confused:

To all the rest of the posters... making INDIVIDUAL points about INDIVIDUAL pieces of hardware is plain stupid and you very well KNOW so!. Your point is EQUALLY valid in the Linux respect, as I KNOW that it also, does not support anywhere NEAR 100% of hardware, seamlessly. Pointing out individual flaws in iPod NANO is also pointless... that is like me pointing out all the b*llsh*t I have to go through with distros JUST to install my soundcard drivers and/or graphics native resolution. Lets say that Apple are no SAINTS, and OS X is by no means 'magic', but it is THE best implementation of Unix around ANYWHERE!. The difference is that Apple will fix this, without asking the average user to download some tar.gz file and spend 3 hours in the command line. iPod is one of the top products they sell, but you can hardly expect it to remain bug free 100%. They are humans, just as we are!.

I ran EDGY EFT last night, in order to watch something in VLC MEDIA PLAYER, just because I needed to. CPU usage immediately ramped up to 100%, Gnome crashed and would not respond. Your OS needs some serious patching I would say - this was hardly and arduous task for Linux to just run VLC!.

I expect nothing more from Apple bashers, than to point out INDIVIDUAL cases of where things have not gone quite to plan, and magnify those cases out of all proportion, so as to make Mac OS X seem like the worst OS ever. If it is that bad, then WHY do they sell SO many products, have SO many fans, and WHY do Apple have the legendary reputation of their products 'just working'?!. I think you people are all great, and I respect you all as humans, but realise this - Apple do Unix with EASE OF USE... Linux does not, in most cases. Graphical installers and the like, are asking a user to know how to partition his/her drive with /ROOT /SWAP etc etc... how the **** do THEY know?? lol.

@aysiu - re: your wifes experience... again, this is ONE individual case. I suggest you visit a Mac forum or contact Apple. It is probably something VERY easy to resolve. Noone in Apple promised you EVERY eventuality and possible variable, could be guaranteed!!.

DarkN00b

December 15th, 2006, 12:18 PM

Ah yes. This is just what I've been looking for, an OS that locks me into buying only their hardware. Its so simple. I'll never have to worry about hardware incompatibility again.

Bullcrap. I've always said that if someone gave me a Mac, the first thing I'd do is sell it and buy a PC. I like choice. That's why I use Ubuntu; it can be made to work on almost anything.

aysiu

December 15th, 2006, 12:19 PM

OS X is by no means 'magic' iPod is one of the top products they sell, but you can hardly expect it to remain bug free 100%. They are humans, just as we are!. Now you're being reasonable. Before you made it sound as if it is magic.

unlokia

December 15th, 2006, 12:23 PM

My copy/paste in firefox has decided to stop working
------------------------------------------------------------

To the member who mentioned Mac OS X going against Unix principles with regards to not requiring root perms to install some software:

Maybe, but Mac OS X is Max OS X - it uses portions of BSD which it needs to use, it is not true and pure Unix, it is Mac OS X. It is NOT open source and not free, so you cannot fix this issue, but they can, and no doubt will, as Apple are GREAT for listening to their consumers, and sorting things out!. They have adapted Unix/*BSD to suit their machines, so do not flame them for going against Unix principles. It is not called 'Unix OS X' is it?!.
:)

unlokia

December 15th, 2006, 12:34 PM

Now you're being reasonable. Before you made it sound as if it is magic.

No, not 'magic' by any means, but very close, and the best and most compatible/supported implementation of Unix/*BSD and the most consistent and reliable OS *and* the most easy to use.

Sorry but Linux HAS got a long long path to tread, before it comes anywhere CLOSE to this. I speak as one whom has used ENDLESS 'distros over four years, and persisted for hours and days with setting them all up :rolleyes: .... THEN I found OS X!! :D

I have no desire to 'convert' anyone to MAC OS X. It will do that by itself!. I don't expect the majority vote to be Mac, on a LINUX forum, but I do expect a little realism from time to time. Keep your minds open, and try new things, is what I have found. There are SO many inconsistencies and constant changing and compiling and this and that within Linux, that yes, I *do* use it for occasional things (Gparted liveCD is FAB!!) but I just wanna get on with my life and create things, not spend half my creative energy and time, setting up my tools. Does an artist have to configure his paintbrush? :???: no, he just wants to get on with creating!.

Hendrixski

December 15th, 2006, 12:40 PM

Mac is good, sexy-time. Very niiiiiiiiiice, how much... oh... that much... uh... I use Linux to make sexy-time. Ye.

Borat jokes aside, I think the new Mac is awesome... they've actually submitted OSX to be recognized as a UNIX (to whichever board decides these things), after all it is based on BSD. As a former UNIX user myself I think that's cool.

unlokia

December 15th, 2006, 02:10 PM

Spot the difference.... OS X Icons compared to Vista Icons....

The Search Function of OS X. cloned by Vista

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/vista-spotlight-search.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/osx-spotlight.jpg

And then the Trash (Recycle bin lol)

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/VistaTrash.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/unlokia/MacOSXTrash.jpg

'Redmond, start your photocopiers!!'

Dancingwllamas

December 16th, 2006, 12:40 AM

Never mind that Microsoft announced the search capabilities in Vista over a year before Tiger was released.

And what is so original about making the recycle bin/trash icon have transparency?

unix.hamilton

December 16th, 2006, 02:04 AM

The reason Mac hardware is better is the EFI witch is layered on top of a BIOS for legacy OS support.

One thing people don't realize is boot-camp is only a tiny bit of code to activate the layered BIOS and MBR for legacy support.

Up sides of a Mac
+ Once we remove the MBR we will not be toped out to 4 primary partitions.
+ Vista will boot faster on a EFI (yes it is windows, you will need to boot it a lot)
+ You will have access to developing for the EFI and be a testing ground for others developments.
+ Once linux live cd's supports EFI they to will boot much faster.
+ All other EFI OS will boot faster. (note EFI "OS" not just that Grub or lilo were replace with elilo)
+ Easier to boot off USB.
+ Easer to boot off firewire.
+ You can run mac OS

Down sides of a mac
- Wen you boot legacy OS you have a maximum 3 OS's. Currently you are limited to mac and 2 others but this can be changed any OS can develop support for the bios layering.
- legacy OS boot with an added secant because it must boot the EFI so it can boot the BIOS.

That is my understanding of what is going on pleas reply if you know better.

Lastly I can understand discussing the hardware but I can't understand anyone discussing the Mac OS on a Ubuntu form.

unix.hamilton

December 16th, 2006, 02:52 AM

First of all this is a bogies pole as it is not a pole of if linux users dislike macs but why they dislike macs. This pole is a good example of how evil corporation blind the meaning of what you are looking at.

I do not think linux users dislike macs I believe linux users like macs as they are better then winPC's.

Short Story: Last year wen I helped host LinuxFestNorthWest'06 I was helping sum-one out I accidently placed my computer on someone else's booth wen he returned I was in his way I offered to move his response was no pleas don't. if it were any other computer I would insist but your on a mac.

JPMaximilian

December 16th, 2006, 04:20 AM

Macs are very easy to use, the stuff really does "just work." Having said that, you're locked into their hardware and to some extent their software. I remember for one of their OS releases, they came out with a new version of Safari. If you weren't running the latest OS, you couldn't run the latest version of Safari. Why can't Apple let you keep your software up to date without upgrading your whole OS? Especially something as basic as a web browser. You have to pay $130 whenever the OS is updated if you want to keep up with the latest stuff, with Linux that isn't an issue.

I felt like with Apple, that they could decide to phase out whatever at any time (which they've done), and I would be left in the dark. With Ubuntu and Linux I feel like I really own the software, and that my Music files are actually mine, with iTunes and m4p aac files, I felt like a convicted criminal, being told when and how I can play my music, although I do like the layout and selection of the iTunes Music store, the DRM is tacky.

I think that comparing MS to Apple is fair, Apple would have an even more tyrannical monopoly than MS if they could. The difference is, Apple doesn't suck at writing software and they come up with original ideas.

P.S.
I find it comical that anyone would think Windows ME is MS's best OS, or that Windows is more secure than OS X.

unix.hamilton

December 16th, 2006, 04:35 AM

3rdalbum

December 16th, 2006, 04:49 AM

Macs are very easy to use, the stuff really does "just work." Having said that, you're locked into their hardware and to some extent their software. I remember for one of their OS releases, they came out with a new version of Safari. If you weren't running the latest OS, you couldn't run the latest version of Safari. Why can't Apple let you keep your software up to date without upgrading your whole OS? Especially something as basic as a web browser. You have to pay $130 whenever the OS is updated if you want to keep up with the latest stuff, with Linux that isn't an issue.

I hear you; that's one of the worst things Apple does.

Another gripe: On Windows, I downloaded Quicktime 7 from Apple's website, and installed it. Then I downloaded iTunes 6 and installed it. (I bought some DRM'ed songs that I can't get anywhere else - don't worry, I re-ripped them :-)

Then, a couple of days later, iTunes 7 came along, and I lost the ability to use the iTunes Music Store. I had to download iTunes 7, which came with ANOTHER copy of Quicktime 7, to use the site.

Earlier, someone said that they'd had a lot of trouble with their iPod. My mother's iPod Shuffle decided to corrupt its database just before she went for a run two days ago. I had to "restore" it. The last time I "restored" it was the last time I put songs onto it. This is ridiculous. I always encourage customers not to buy iPods.

sloggerkhan

December 16th, 2006, 04:58 AM

My iPod pet peeve: So far as I know, if your ipod is smaller than your music library, there is no way to sync a new random selections of songs to the thing every time you sync UNLESS you use a shuffle. If anyone knows a way around this, I'd be interested in hearing.

3rdalbum

December 16th, 2006, 05:13 AM

Those two search functions look nothing like eachother. And exactly how different can you make a trash can/recycle bin look?

I'm not exactly sure what causes this security flaw. I assume it's something like a daemon that runs as root and checks to see if any installer programs are being launched, and spawns the installer program as root. Or, it's a setuid or something similar on the actual installer.

Why would anyone want to put a sound card from a PC into a Mac? Simple. If you had a 5.1 surround sound card, or one with a good MIDI synthesiser, and you wanted to use it instead of your Mac's 2-channel sound card (without MIDI synthesiser onboard). Lots of examples.

"Individual flaws in iPod Nano"? I had the same experience with my mother's Shuffle! It's also the only MP3 player we've had that has needed to be reset at any point in its life - my friend Joe has a 30 gig iPod, and has the same problem consistantly. Plus, replacement batteries cost freakin' $80 (where I live). Let's not forget the screen cracking problems with the Nanos. The iPods are a flawed product that survive on name and advertisements alone.

I once crashed OS X by trying to look at a help file. That's a much less intensive task than watching a video, wouldn't you say? If OS X is such a powerful, efficient operating system, surely it would have a greater presence on servers?

Apple don't sell "SO many products". The iPod sells well due to Apple's ability to create the brand. The Macbooks sell well because they're a good product; but let's not forget that Apple is a computer company, and none of their computer products sold well since the original iMac.

"They have adapted Unix/*BSD to suit their machines, so do not flame them for going against Unix principles. It is not called 'Unix OS X' is it?!" Well, you and Apple have both stated that OS X is built on Unix as a selling point, so I'd assume that its Unix-ness is something important.

I know you're enthusiastic (you seem to have a fondness for capitalising your words), but until Boot Camp came out Linux had a higher rate of migration (probably still does, I haven't checked). That suggests to me that many people only bought Macs to run Windows/Linux on.

When the viruses come, will you still capitalise so many words in your gushing posts?

RAV TUX

December 16th, 2006, 11:03 AM

aysiu

December 16th, 2006, 12:16 PM

Why can't Apple let you keep your software up to date without upgrading your whole OS? Especially something as basic as a web browser. Sounds as if you're talking about Ubuntu, actually...

JPMaximilian

December 16th, 2006, 12:35 PM

Sounds as if you're talking about Ubuntu, actually...

You can install firefox 2 even if you're running Dapper right? You can install the latest ALSA drivers if you're on Dapper. You must know more about Ubuntu since you're on staff, what is your reasoning behind that statement?

But, lets say you can't update individual programs without installing the latest version of Ubuntu, the latest version of Ubuntu is free.

aysiu

December 16th, 2006, 12:43 PM

You can install firefox 2 even if you're running Dapper right? You can install the latest ALSA drivers if you're on Dapper. You must know more about Ubuntu since you're on staff, what is your reasoning behind that statement?

But, lets say you can't update individual programs without installing the latest version of Ubuntu, the latest version of Ubuntu is free.
I was merely making the point that that's often a criticism leveled by new users at Ubuntu, since five months into the release, Ubuntu will still have "old" versions of applications, and you can't easily get the newer versions unless you upgrade to an alpha or beta release of Ubuntu.

nanotube has worked hard on creating a simple Firefox installation script, but even that isn't double-click easy. You still need to know how to make a script executable and then run it... or copy and paste many instructions to install Firefox, or not have it be fully integrated with your system and just run it out of your /home folder.

Yes, you can run any application on an older version of Ubuntu, but you'll either have to find some clever HowTo on how to do it, or compile the app from source. It's slightly one-up on OS X, but not by much.

Of course, the whole way Ubuntu is constructed means you're not supposed to upgrade individual applications, while OS X follows the static binaries method of Windows, so nothing should stop you from upgrading individual applications.

unlokia

December 16th, 2006, 04:08 PM

3rdalbum - you make no sense. Why would anyone buy a Mac, JUST to scrub off OS X and install Linux and/or Win??. That is insanity.

The iPods are a flawed product that survive on name and advertisements alone.

I once crashed OS X by trying to look at a help file. That's a much less intensive task than watching a video, wouldn't you say? If OS X is such a powerful, efficient operating system, surely it would have a greater presence on servers?

Ubuntu crashes regularly... MUCH more so than OS X does, simply watching a video or using flash web pages. Flawed?? HAH! give me a break!!

Learn to use the quote tags and not "" please, your posts are kinda hard to decypher!.

Okay so you are basically calling the majority of iPod consumers dummies, amongst which not ONE of those millions of people is technically knowledgeable enough to know the difference between buying a wonderful, simple to use and beautiful product, and buying something because they are *told* to by Apple?? :-?

Your reasoning defies *any* sort of logic dude, and is seriously flawed I am afraid. I hate to break it to you, but not all people are dumbass sheep who don't *know* what they are buying. Yeah I agree, nano ver 1 had MAJOR issues, but they have fixed that now with the anodised re-released version. If uou expect ALL hardware to be made impeccable and absolutely guaranteed to NEVER have ANY issues at all, or product recalls (may i remind you of the MASSIVE battery recall organised by Apple earlier this year - the batteries were made by SONY and Apple used the OEM SONY cells inside some of their batteries - there was a manufacturing flaw which causes overheating and in rare cases explosions - hardly APPLES fault!!) then you are unfortunately naive in the extreme.

I am very ashamed that the world does not meet your stringent expectations, but at least Apple have stomped out their issues and FIXED the products in question!. :)

As to the Mac OS on servers issue, I cannot comment on a section of their business of which I know nothing at all, but I have to say this: their products are targeted at artists, media moguls and generally creative types who want the very best solution that money can buy. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant... tell all the major film studios, print works, artists and publishing companies worldwide, that they have made the wrong decision - Mac is THE de-facto standard for stability and creative workflow, for a reason. I hardly think one persons opinion can in any way change pure facts, and reputation hard earned over their MANY years.

And exactly how different can you make a trash can/recycle bin look?

Hmmm... do you have eyes and ears my friend? - were this the ONLY example of MS copying ideas, then probably noone would notice... but it isn't!. I am unwilling to sit here for an hour giving you the examples of the cloning of ideas which you know already, but are unwilling to admit. I have said enough, and I really don't have any desire to give further proof of this, as you can use GOOGLE I am sure.

I was a Linux evangelist for a LONG time, and in some instances and with regards to certain applications of Linux, I still am. The point CANNOT be ignored however, no matter what reasons you give, that Linux is NOT desktop ready, is VERY much different across varying distros, and is generally 'rough round the edges'. The 'geek chic' is all very well for us geeks who know what to do about it (just!) but for the general population? Forget it!!.

Please do not take this post as my putting you down or not listening to your viewpoint - I am open minded and love a good debate, as long as it is BALANCED, but please... be realistic, Apple are a GREAT company who actually LISTEN to their customers. I would have to say that they have taken all the good parts of open source community spirit, such as helping one another and listening to their customers, and made it into a VERRRRY successful market brand and product line, without inheriting all the constant confusion and change (rough/bleeding edges) as experienced with Linux at times. Their products are rigorously tested, fine tuned and well appreciated by those that use them. Maybe you hate the price of your iPod battery replacements, but at least you know that you are buying a quality replacement. If you want cheap and cheerful, then buy an 'el-plastico' flash drive/mp3 player from <insert-store-name>-Mart.

If you want cheap/free go Linux, but if you want certain stability, use a Mac.... you conveniently forgot to include all the times Ubuntu crashes, to make your point about Apple products being 'inferior'. I'd much rather trust a corporate giant with very good ethics, than wait for a hacker to sort my problem out for free. No offence to Linux, but you do pay for what you get.

To quote Apple (pardon the irony) but please... "Think different"

unlokia

December 16th, 2006, 05:07 PM

@ RAV TUX

but I have to say OS X is over glorified

I have to say that the fact that Apple supply beautiful hardware with innovative, and basically 'why-didn't-I-think-of-that' type simplistic but *wow* design, AND a cool OS which is SO easy to use, would nullify your point that OS X is over rated. It is *everything* I searched for in Linux, but failed to find, time and again, but with the familiarity and intuitiveness that KDE/Gnome etc try to imitate.

I am sure that this imitation is, in some way, a compliment to Apple, but they actually do it right, without all the mess. Can noone innovate any more, instead of copying?!. :(

To summarise and lessen flame induction, I would have to say it is all a matter of choice. Just happens that I have made the right choice.

unlokia

December 16th, 2006, 06:25 PM

As to the bold claim regarding Vista vs Mac OS X search functions, I quote from this site http://www.andwest.com:16080/weblog/tatle/comments/?permalink=Bogus-Claims-on-Spotlight-Compared-to-Windows-Vista-Search.html&page=comments

and snippet out this portion:

Nah, the way Microsoft does system development kinda resembles this:

1. Give an announcement of some feature we want implemented

2. See if Apple or others thinks it is a good idea

3. Wait for Apple's successful implementation

4. Copy implementation design, logic and UI from Apple

5. Add some odd twist to claim own, unique feature (normally makes implementation inferior)

6. Announce feature as own to Microsoft customer base

Sounds a tad more accurate!

hanzomon4

December 17th, 2006, 01:28 AM

I like OSX, I only used it once in a Compusa but the experience was nice. Oddly thats the reason I tried linux, I basically heard that OSX was Unix based and thought that Linux was the next best thing. Bare in mind I knew nothing of OS's at the time, about a year ago. Anyway Linux turned out to not be OSX in anyway, but I kept at it and when I learned of compiz I was hooked. To cut a long story short after spending time using Ubuntu I came to realize that it's as usefully as OSX and I now prefer it.

Linux and OSX are really in a different universe from each other....
OSX - seamless, smooth, stable, little to config needed, limited hardware support, locked with one computer(hardware) company, and little to no choice
Ubuntu - stable, fast growing, free and FREE, massive hardware support(cpu, sound/video cards, etc...), needs quiet a bit of tweaking, not always seamless, massive amount of choices

So I look at it like this: OSX will give you a great system with no choices, this can be good or bad.
Ubuntu will give a system loaded(overloaded?) with choices and that can be expanded as you learn more, however your experience may be full of problems early on. So yes OSX is great and Linux :rolleyes: "is ready for the desktop"

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 01:41 PM

I've changed the title of this thread and removed the poll from it.

The original title of the thread was Why does the Linux community HATE apple? It was pretty clear from the beginning that the Linux community does not hate Apple, and the OP never explained why she or he thought the Linux community did.

Sure, there will always be individuals within the Linux community who dislike or hate Apple, but it doesn't seem to be the majority, not by a long shot.

The poll, for a similar reason, needed to be removed, as it asks why people hate Apple without allowing any room for not hating Apple. I've attached an image of the poll just for posterity.

23meg

December 17th, 2006, 01:45 PM

I've changed the title of this thread and removed the poll from it.Good call.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 01:49 PM

It had to be done. I wasn't a moderator when this thread started, and I thought it'd be too much work to ask someone else to do, but now this thread makes more sense...

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 02:53 PM

Linux = too MUCH choice, akin to being bombarded with so many sweets in a chocolate shop, that you end up buying none, due to confusion.

Linux "is ready for the desktop"

No it certainly is not!. Configuration, command line catastrophe that the buying public DO NOT want/will not suffer lightly, just to get things working that OS X would have done hours ago, seamlessly.

I see a lot of angry consumers, and a great deal of smashed screens. Sorry, but that is fact. Please get into the mindset of a maybe VERY stupid consumer who has NO pc skills at all.... point taken?.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 02:56 PM

Linux = too MUCH choice, akin to being bombarded with so many sweets in a chocolate shop, that you end up buying none, due to confusion.
What a great analogy, because I actually end up buying lots of sweets at the chocolate shop. Choice is a great thing.

I think you should read this (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ#head-9ac5234915e257a6b3d0d649735a3704f57adb8b).

I'm sorry you don't like choice, but then Apple must be perfect for you. They just say, "Use our products and nothing else," and you have no problem accommodating them. Me? I like choice in cars, food, snacks, operating systems, applications, TV channels, pets, magazines, books, movies... just about anything. To each her own, I guess.

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 03:02 PM

Sorry guys, but blinded by your very commendable and wonderful praise of Linux, you are forgetting the one thing people want: EASE OF USE.

You say it is, but what about when they come to install a graphics driver.... NOONE wants to do that!. Geeks do, consumers as a whole DO NOT.

You are Linux evangelists so I cannot expect you to see the point of view of the general public as a whole. Give away MAC OS X 10.5 Leopard in a store, and then give away a pile of Ubuntu CD's ...... see which pile disappears first!. I am not Linux bashing, just taking a realistic viewpoint on aspects of the business model which are not being absorbed here.

Do you think people want the frustration of lengthy boot times? The numerous sea of white on black commands that fly past as your average distro boots?. Do you think anyone in the public KNOWS what 'root' means?. Don't be daft!

hanzomon4

December 17th, 2006, 03:07 PM

What a great analogy, because I actually end up buying lots of sweets at the chocolate shop. Choice is a great thing.

I think you should read this (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ#head-9ac5234915e257a6b3d0d649735a3704f57adb8b).

I'm sorry you don't like choice, but then Apple must be perfect for you. They just say, "Use our products and nothing else," and you have no problem accommodating them. Me? I like choice in cars, food, snacks, operating systems, applications, TV channels, pets, magazines, books, movies... just about anything. To each her own, I guess.

Pro-Choice :mrgreen:

Do you think anyone in the public KNOWS what 'root' means?

Macs use sudo for root access

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 03:09 PM

Bios is old, clunky, volatile and unreliable. I speak from MANY frustrating experiences, not JUST from one singular case. Go Mac!!

Lord Illidan

December 17th, 2006, 03:11 PM

It seems you are an OSX fan. Fine, your choice.
But I don't see everyone owning a Mac, same as I don't see everyone owning Linux..

In fact, they only have 2% of the market...hmm, why? If they are indeed so good, then why don't they have 95% of the market? You will tell me, then if Linux is so good, why doesn't it have 95% of the market? The answer is :

1. Windows comes bundled with cheap pcs. With OS X, you have to buy a Mac to run it on.

2. Public reluctance to change.

Linux has its flaws, same as every other OS out there. The difference is that in Linux you can mend its flaws, and you can help to fix the bugs and you can help out with device support.

You can't do that with Windows or Mac, unless you are a developer. With Linux, you can get the source code and examine it.

And give Linux time. Over 2 years Linux has evolved a lot. I can hardly wait for the next 2 years to come.

Also, my digital camera worked with Linux out of the box. My Ipod Nano worked too. My soundcard works too. And it is stable, and I know how to fix it if everything goes wrong.

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 03:12 PM

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 03:14 PM

1. Windows comes bundled with cheap pcs. With OS X, you have to buy a Mac to run it on.

The very difference between generic beige box crapware, and unrivalled quality with support. Not EVERYTHING in life is better because it is 'el cheapo my friend. :rolleyes:

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:15 PM

Yeah I know Mac uses root, but in an intuitive way.

As for choice, too much is bewildering, and no, Apple do NOT say 'just use us'... have you SEEN the amount of hardware AND software available, NOT made by Apple??. Geez!!
Mac doesn't use root, actually. It uses the same thing Ubuntu does: sudo.

Apple does say "just use us." You don't have to, but they want you to, certainly.

I never think too much choice is bewildering. Uninformed choice is bewildering. My wife and I love trying out new restaurants, finding little gems. Do we just walk down the street and pick random ones? Sometimes. Most of the time, though, we like to read online reviews. If your choices are informed ones, choice is always a good thing.

Well... except for you.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:15 PM

The very difference between generic beige box crapware, and unrivalled quality with support. Not EVERYTHING in life is better because it is 'el cheapo my friend. :rolleyes:
No one said it was better. Lord Illidan was trying to explain why Windows is so popular, and that's one of the main reasons--it comes preinstalled on almost every cheapo PC out there.

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 03:17 PM

In fact, they only have 2% of the market...hmm, why? If they are indeed so good, then why don't they have 95% of the market?

People are dumb generally, and behave like sheep in a field. Force something, and they grasp it willingly. Windows anyone?. They make it so crap, and it's reputation is so shot, that if they asked £900 for a BASIC pc with Win, people would laugh. The difference is, I don't see many people laughing at Apple, because mainly the informed and intelligent minds, know the difference!.

As to those who wish to spend their entire life using Windows, fair play - you're stuck in the hole you been pushed into, not us. If someone shone a torch down that hole, and revealed the way out, then maybe it would be a better world.

Funny thing is this: everyone on Linux forums slates windows into the dust, but as soon as someone mentions Macs, then every possible reason under the sun why Linux is better than Mac, is pointed out. Spot the fanboys?. You cannot have it ALL Linux' way!. Maybe one day when the rough edges and bugs are ironed out, and Linux finally decided to make up it's mind WHICH distro to market PROPERLY, then all this ranting and fanboyism will end. In the meantime, you have the masses who are force fed MS products at every opportunity, the Linux heads who rant on about free this free that freedom etc etc, and finally the sensible ones, who buy a Mac, keep quiet and just get on with their computing, safe in the knowledge that THEY are the ones with a little sense to spare, and a platform that generally:

A/ doesn't crash every 5 mins

B/ doesn't have weird names for every app, OVERLOAD the user with bewildering choices of apps and solutions, and need configuring for at LEAST half an hour before you can even get creating.

C/ Ask the user to download source code from 1991-style html only sites with geeky names, and compile it as a hack to 'get you working'

Apple chose *BSD, not Linux. Linux is based on 'get it working', whereas *BSD is generally written from the ground up, to work in the first place, and if it doesn't, then that part is RE-written.

There is a reason for everything - you cannot sell Linux to happy Mac users, because you are making a political statement for freedom of speech. People want solutions, not another load of problems. How many people use "Cinelerra" as preferred to "Final Cut pro" for editing??. Codecs anyone??.

'If I wanted to cook myself, I wouldn't order takeaway!. I cannot cook, hence I use people that can!.'

My analogy is quite simple ^^

I don't come here to make enemies - I think you are all great people on the whole, but all I can say is this:

When you fix it properly, let us know.. I wouldn't get in a car which had the wrong size wheelnuts on it, would I?!!

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:18 PM

People are dumb generally, and behave like sheep in a field. Force something, and they grasp it willingly.
Exactly. Microsoft has forced itself on the general population, and that's why they dominate. It has nothing to do with quality.

But then again, it sounds as if you'll say just about anything to defend Apple/OS X--right or wrong.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:19 PM

Ok point taken. It is impossible to explain the truth, to ears that have NO wish to hear it. Forget it. Thread reported for staleness.
If a thread is stale, you don't report it. You just ignore it. Once a thread stops being posted to, it disappears into obscurity. Every time you post to a thread, it bumps the thread up and keeps it alive.

I've merged these three threads together, since they were all basically about the same thing: "What do we think about Apple/ Mac OS X?" Some people seem to think it's the cat's pajamas. Others seem to think it stinks. This is just the sharing of opinions...

Lord Illidan

December 17th, 2006, 03:20 PM

The very difference between generic beige box crapware, and unrivalled quality with support. Not EVERYTHING in life is better because it is 'el cheapo my friend. :rolleyes:

Crapware? I think not. So long as it can browse the web, play some games, edit some documents, etc, it is enough for me. I don't need to buy a Ferrari. I can do just as well with a Fiat to get me from A to B.

Also, beige box my ***...there a lot of cheap pcs who have quite good cases. And they are standardised.

And you might want to look at the way you are gushing...we don't gush about Linux the same way you do about the Mac...we acknowledge the fact that both have their advantages and disadvantages, but you see only the disadvantages of Linux and the advantages of the Mac.

In terms of user friendliness, Linux distros have made a great leap forward in a few years. KDE 4 is shaping up to be one of the best DEs out there. I think your comments are a disservice to all the hardworking devs out there.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:22 PM

Lord Illidan

December 17th, 2006, 03:27 PM

unlokia, can you point out some of what you consider to be OS X/Apple flaws? Being able to recognize flaws in one's OS of choice is a sure sign one is not a zealot.

After all, earlier in the thread, you were calling for balance...

And don't say that there are no flaws, because it will be a sure sign that you are just another brainless zealot. I can recognise flaws in Linux and Windows...and I have never used a Mac, but I am sure that it is not perfect.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:40 PM

I've used OS X, Windows XP, and Ubuntu. They all have flaws.

JayTee

December 17th, 2006, 03:47 PM

Um, according to the boys in Redmond, Windows does not have "flaws". Those are just "features" designed to educate the user about computer problems.

aysiu

December 17th, 2006, 03:48 PM

Um, according to the boys in Redmond, Windows does not have "flaws". Those are just "features" designed to educate the user about computer problems.
But they're paid to say that. unlokia, presumably, is an ordinary OS X user, not a paid employee of Apple.

unlokia

December 17th, 2006, 04:03 PM

unlokia, can you point out some of what you consider to be OS X/Apple flaws? Being able to recognize flaws in one's OS of choice is a sure sign one is not a zealot.

After all, earlier in the thread, you were calling for balance...

yes - that the hardware is slightly too expensive.

I have yet to experience any, but shall not remain silent about them if I do. All I am basically trying to say, is that you pay for what you get, ok?!.

Of course there are flaws!. I am not naive to such an extent as to deny them error margins, but they deal with them because it is in the interest of their products and sales to do so, and for the benefit of customers. Linux *IS* hard to configure for the average user, and the fact that Apple make a specific hardware platform upon which to support their OS, is a business model which many software companies could do with taking a pointer or two, from. I could sit here and argue this until I am blue in the face, but it it futile and inefficient for us all.

Linux is another 'one size fits all' model - Apple make closed source tailor made software, for closed source hardware - noone can say that the thinking behind that is stupid, and I am not even going into the 'Stallman' aspect of all this, as it is a tad obsessive and unrealistic. I am going to refrain from further comments to this thread, as it is obviously pointless and going nowhere fast, and the VERY facy I am on a Linux forum, dictates the bias with which you are being blinded.

Macs sell well for a reason. Period!.

<end>

PS: Yes I am biased too, but I have taken off the rose tinted specs - they made my eyes hurt! :)

3rdalbum

December 18th, 2006, 04:41 AM

3rdalbum - you make no sense. Why would anyone buy a Mac, JUST to scrub off OS X and install Linux and/or Win??. That is insanity.

I think you'll find that people do. Well, I've heard that OS X is necessary in order to boot another operating system, but there are lots of people who have new Macs but don't use OS X. Visit an open-source expo some time :-)

Ubuntu crashes regularly... MUCH more so than OS X does, simply watching a video or using flash web pages. Flawed?? HAH! give me a break!!

I've never had a full-system crash while watching a video or using a web page. I have had X crash on me when using Wine, and I have had full-system crashes due to the ATI proprietry driver, but apparantly this particular bug is fixed in the latest ATI driver.

On another machine, which only has open-source drivers, never had a full-system crash.

Okay so you are basically calling the majority of iPod consumers dummies, amongst which not ONE of those millions of people is technically knowledgeable enough to know the difference between buying a wonderful, simple to use and beautiful product, and buying something because they are *told* to by Apple?? :-?

No. What I'm saying is this: Apple advertise the iPod a lot. Stores advertise the iPod a lot. The name "iPod" has become synchronous with "MP3 player". People buy iPods because they have the iPod name on them, and also because less-knowlegable people haven't heard of Creative or Sandisk.

I've spoken to two friends who have iPods. My mother has a Shuffle. My mate has a Video. My other friend has a Nano. All three of these machines have corrupted their databases on a number of occasions. My Teac MP3 player is fine. My father's generic MP3 player is fine. My mother's old Lexar MP3 player is fine. No problems from these previous MP3 players. Only problems with the iPods.

Both my friends thought that it was completely normal for an MP3 player to lose its database and have to be reloaded from scratch. How many more of the millions think the same? The really knowlegable people stick with the iRivers and Samsungs and the other brands I mentioned. I was stupid myself - I bought an iPod for my mother because I thought it was a good brand. Only after getting it home and trying to put songs on the thing did I realise that I'd bought a lemon.

As to the Mac OS on servers issue, I cannot comment on a section of their business of which I know nothing at all, but I have to say this: their products are targeted at artists, media moguls and generally creative types who want the very best solution that money can buy. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant... tell all the major film studios, print works, artists and publishing companies worldwide, that they have made the wrong decision - Mac is THE de-facto standard for stability and creative workflow, for a reason. I hardly think one persons opinion can in any way change pure facts, and reputation hard earned over their MANY years.

Reputation earned during the classic Mac OS years, when ports to Windows were not good enough.

To my knowledge, major film studios, artists and publishers use Windows. My father is a typesetter, and he knows that the Mac is disappearing from printing shops. Yes, there are some parts of the Mac OS which are superior to Windows for these environments (for instance, installing networked printers - on OS 9 it was just "plug it into a socket", on NT there was a huge procedure necessary). But Macs are disappearing from these places, and part of it is due to the speed differences between Mac OS and Win XP Pro. Dude, there's a reason why Photoshop is a standard benchmark.

Maybe you hate the price of your iPod battery replacements, but at least you know that you are buying a quality replacement. If you want cheap and cheerful, then buy an 'el-plastico' flash drive/mp3 player from <insert-store-name>-Mart.

I wouldn't recommend that either - buy a genuine brand name. Creative, Sony, LG, Samsung, Teac (sadly they've left the MP3 player market, but you can still find the MP-20G at some places), Sandisk, Lexar. I notice you didn't explicitly say that you've never had to restore your iPod. I'll happily admit the areas where Linux needs some brushing-up, but I don't believe Mac OS X offers the answers. I'd rather fiddle around a little to set the machine up, and do a bit of searching to find .debs of new programs, than run OS X.

unlokia

December 18th, 2006, 01:39 PM

No. What I'm saying is this: Apple advertise the iPod a lot. Stores advertise the iPod a lot. The name "iPod" has become synchronous with "MP3 player". People buy iPods because they have the iPod name on them, and also because less-knowlegable people haven't heard of Creative or Sandisk

I think that you will find that the average iPod customer actually *knows* that there are better and cheaper (but not necessarily of a worse quality) MP3 players on the market, but choose iPod due to the sheer elegance, simplicity of use and the seamless way in which these devices operate, without taking a degree in Chinese to work out the menu structure!.

My ex girlfriend had a Creative 'ZEN' player... although it was white, it was also clunky and clumsily designed, and basically looked like a sardine tin. The point you are missing is that it is ALSO word of mouth that sells the iPod, and not mass marketing alone. The word 'iPod' is now synonymous with MP3, in the same respect that 'Hoover' means vacuum cleaner, and there is no thinking needed. I have just bought a NANO today, and every aspect of its design aesthetics, just blow me away.

You are right when you say people buy iPods when they see the name 'Apple' on them... but what you forget is, that if these products were really THAT bad, then Apple would lose sales, pretty logo or no!. Apple conceived the idea of simplicity of use, fused with complete beauty of design, and now a great deal of MP3 player mfrs, are taking various cues from the overall design, such as the colour white, and using them in their own devices.

People are stupid to some degree, but just because something is *white*, does not make that item the real iPod, does it?!. I would have to say that if people have a tight budget, and want MP3 playing immediately, then to save up and buy the real McCoy, and not some imitation item, which is going to disappoint, based on the *feedback from existing iPod users*.

I am sorry if you cannot see my point of view, but Apple really have a natural talent for taking a concept, and turning that concept into a successful and unique product. Look at XEROX gui idea and how Apple turned it into what is now OS X. A lot of companies implement and interpret what they THINK consumers need, very badly indeed - Sir Clive Sinclair is arguably one of these, as were Apple too, with earlier products.

I just urge you to open your mind a little - I am under no illusions that Apple have had and probably will have bad ideas, but then again their ratios of good to bad, are very small indeed, due to overall excellence with both physical build and aesthetics, ease of use and reputation. Marketing helps, and thats a fact, but it is not the only basis for success!!.

Lord Illidan

December 18th, 2006, 01:50 PM

I had 2 mp3 players.

1 Creative Zen Micro dressed in Black and 1 Ipod Nano. Both are the same price.

The Zen Micro was a bit clunky, and not as stylish at the Nano. Yet, it stood up to scratches far better than the Nano.

It also has 6 gb, as opposed to the Ipod Nano's 2 gigs.

So why did I choose the Ipod Nano...you may laugh...

to run Rockbox and Ipod Linux on it :)

raul_

December 18th, 2006, 02:01 PM

My iPod nano is black =\ anyway, i still think that iPod is more functional than most of mp3 players out there, and the price difference between a Zen and a Nano is not that much (at least it wasn't the last time i checked) I just can't get used to the Zen pad/menus, but of course this could be because i'm used to my iPod

Lord Illidan

December 18th, 2006, 02:10 PM

raul_

December 18th, 2006, 02:15 PM

In Fnac's site

Ipod nano 4gb - 209€

Creative Zen V Plus 4gb - 205€

=\

Lord Illidan

December 18th, 2006, 02:18 PM

In Fnac's site

Ipod nano 4gb - 209€

Creative Zen V Plus 4gb - 205€

=\

I am referring to the Zen Micro, not the Zen V.

hanzomon4

December 18th, 2006, 03:48 PM

The word 'iPod' is now synonymous with MP3, in the same respect that 'Hoover' means vacuum cleaner, and there is no thinking needed.

Jumping jellyfish Batman!! We've been brainwashed! :shock:

So why did I choose the Ipod Nano...you may laugh...

to run Rockbox and Ipod Linux on it

I put rockbox on my ipod 5g, It works great and looks nice with this theme I found(the default is hideous). The messed up part is that I bought a few songs from itunes(drm'ed) and encoded by cds in m4a format, which rockbox skips on every so often. However with Rockbox I can just drag and drop music, play ogg, wav, mp3, acc(needs polish), and I think some other formats. Hell, I even got gape-less playback with out having to by a new ipod.

unlokia

December 18th, 2006, 05:41 PM

Jumping jellyfish Batman!! We've been brainwashed!

On the flipside of that statement, I could argue that you have been Linux brainwashed!. Please do credit me with more than a mere modicum of intelligence... I am not one bit brainwashed, but I do admit that I love Apple products and their simplicity of design and use. I think the only way to resolve this sensibly, is to conclude that we all have our favourites, and I personally agree that Linux is wonderful, but rough round the edges and very inconsistent at times.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not as stupid as you seem to assume - I have used virtually every popular distro under the sun, over four years, and given a choice I'd say that Ubuntu & Suse 10.2 are my distros I would use if I used any, but to be honest, for the meantime I am putting everyday usage on hold, due to the aforementioned. I have given these distros every possible chance to do what I need, and for the majority they do satisy, but there is, without fail, always *something* that messes up that experience, and I just wash my hands of all this fuss and inconsistency, for now at least, until there is a uniform standard that is set out, for distros to follow.

Please forgive me if I have enraged or upset anyone on this forum - I sometimes get a little carried away I admit, but also please will you accept my viewpoint, and that I choose Mac and iPod *NOT* because I am 'sucked in' but because I choose them, and adore them, and they really DO, 'just work'.

Thanks!

hanzomon4

December 19th, 2006, 12:50 AM

On the flipside of that statement, I could argue that you have been Linux brainwashed!. Please do credit me with more than a mere modicum of intelligence... I am not one bit brainwashed, but I do admit that I love Apple products and their simplicity of design and use. I think the only way to resolve this sensibly, is to conclude that we all have our favourites, and I personally agree that Linux is wonderful, but rough round the edges and very inconsistent at times.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not as stupid as you seem to assume - I have used virtually every popular distro under the sun, over four years, and given a choice I'd say that Ubuntu & Suse 10.2 are my distros I would use if I used any, but to be honest, for the meantime I am putting everyday usage on hold, due to the aforementioned. I have given these distros every possible chance to do what I need, and for the majority they do satisy, but there is, without fail, always *something* that messes up that experience, and I just wash my hands of all this fuss and inconsistency, for now at least, until there is a uniform standard that is set out, for distros to follow.

Please forgive me if I have enraged or upset anyone on this forum - I sometimes get a little carried away I admit, but also please will you accept my viewpoint, and that I choose Mac and iPod *NOT* because I am 'sucked in' but because I choose them, and adore them, and they really DO, 'just work'.

Thanks!

No I was referring to how many(me include) view the iPod as synonymous with mp3. I don't think you're dumb, just very pleased with macs. I'm getting one for school and I really like OSX. I also like Ubuntu and I use it for everything, but I hear your points regarding the lack of polish in linux. It's true OSX is well put together, however with Ubuntu I feel like I can grow as far as my understanding will allow. Thats what I like about linux, with OSX I like the polish but hate the vender lock in.

3rdalbum

December 19th, 2006, 04:31 AM

I think that you will find that the average iPod customer actually *knows* that there are better and cheaper (but not necessarily of a worse quality) MP3 players on the market, but choose iPod due to the sheer elegance, simplicity of use and the seamless way in which these devices operate, without taking a degree in Chinese to work out the menu structure!.

I don't know what MP3 players were like to use before the iPod came about, but my Teac is not only easy to use, it's also easy to load songs onto. Drag and drop onto the application window - that's it. Apple can't seem to manage that with iTunes. With iTunes, you have to copy the file from the CD to the hard disk, then drag it into the library, then drag it from the library to the iPod. When you're finished, you can't just quit iTunes, you've got to find a particular menu item first and then "eject" it otherwise the database doesn't get written.

You are right when you say people buy iPods when they see the name 'Apple' on them... but what you forget is, that if these products were really THAT bad, then Apple would lose sales, pretty logo or no!. Apple conceived the idea of simplicity of use, fused with complete beauty of design, and now a great deal of MP3 player mfrs, are taking various cues from the overall design, such as the colour white, and using them in their own devices.

Apple *is* losing sales, but there are still people who are buying their first MP3 players who are offsetting that.

I've asked the following question a couple of times, but you've forgotten to answer it yet: Do you have any trouble with your iPods? I believe that the reason why people still think iPods are good is because they think it's normal for an MP3 player to corrupt its own database, and that it's normal for batteries to completely die within a year.

I asked some friends... when asked if they have any trouble with their iPods, they said no. When I said that my mother's kept corrupting its database, all but one of these friends said "Oh yeah, you've got to reset them all the time".

I just urge you to open your mind a little - I am under no illusions that Apple have had and probably will have bad ideas, but then again their ratios of good to bad, are very small indeed, due to overall excellence with both physical build and aesthetics, ease of use and reputation. Marketing helps, and thats a fact, but it is not the only basis for success!!.

Former Mac user here. Current Linux user. My mind is as open as it's going to get, I'm afraid.

unlokia

December 19th, 2006, 08:54 AM

I am having no probs with my NANO... mind you, had it less than 24 hours so maybe there is still time for error, but I can't see it happening!. iTunes is actually very easy to use, and the reason Apple use it I have read, is that it allows one-way transfer of tunes from PC--->iPod but not iPod--->PC, to prevent copyright theft (apparently!).

Oh, and yes - now I remember that last night I did have to reset my *iPod*, but seeing as this whole thread is related to *Macs* and not iPods, this is irrelevant in the context of this thread... were we not discussing Macs, and if the fact that *some* iPods have this one issue, then I think your argument is a little bit weak...

Apple will no doubt fix this issue in the ever present firmware updates, and we can all relax again. Since I reset it, the NANO has been fine, and I expected nothing else to be frank. What you are focusing on, is every fault you can possibly find, within Apple products.. this does not make Apple as a whole, a bad company because of this. I have seen problem within Suse 10.1 whereby 'YaST' took about minute to startup (the Suse control panel) - people moaned and groaned and it is all too easy to voice your opinion, should anything detract from the continued 'perfection' you expect and demand, but those whining about these issues, conveniently forget that the designers and programmers are only human, and have the same probability of error as we all do, from time to time.

Apple *is* losing sales, but there are still people who are buying their first MP3 players who are offsetting that.

This is called self-contradiction. Read that sentence again..:-k

The thing is, as my friend sitting next to me has just mentioned, Apple have a smaller market share than generic PCs, because of the fact that PCs are everywhere, and churned out by the million, by both high quality manufacturers and every man and his Uncle who can figure out PCB design, which is really not all that hard. These products are then shipped by the container load, to backstreet PC 'consultants' who then (quite literally sometimes) throw a pile of low quality parts together, install Windows and a pile of shovelware, and bang it out @ £199 to anyone who wants one.

All very well I am sure, but beige tin boxes used to last longer than 12 months, before this mass manufacturing boom took off in the last 5 years or so. IBM 'clone' PCs I think is the correct term.

This by *no* means assures that because the PC has a larger market share, it is a better platform and of higher 'quality' than Mac. This is a prime example of mass marketing, and having windows this windows that, shoved and forced down the preverbial throat, does not make it a better market, even though the share is higher because of it.

It is all about quality, not quantity - can you not see that?.

The thing is, NOONE is going to buy an 'Apple clone', because the people who buy Apple products, know that anything but the real deal, would be a farce.
You have pointed out all Apple's bad points, but you fail quite miserably to see, that if they were all that bad, and undesirable, then why are they still in business?. Yeah, maybe the iPod has something to do with it, but all the same, iPod or not, they are still here, and it seems as if you are *blaming* them for being around. Odd...

Lord Illidan

December 19th, 2006, 05:06 PM

Apple will no doubt fix this issue in the ever present firmware updates, and we can all relax again. Since I reset it, the NANO has been fine, and I expected nothing else to be frank. What you are focusing on, is every fault you can possibly find, within Apple products.. this does not make Apple as a whole, a bad company because of this. I have seen problem within Suse 10.1 whereby 'YaST' took about minute to startup (the Suse control panel) - people moaned and groaned and it is all too easy to voice your opinion, should anything detract from the continued 'perfection' you expect and demand, but those whining about these issues, conveniently forget that the designers and programmers are only human, and have the same probability of error as we all do, from time to time.

Yes, SUSE's package handling is atrocious. That's why I came to Ubuntu.

unlokia

December 19th, 2006, 05:58 PM

... and Unbuntu repositories drop offline like flies!. Oh dear what fun! :D
http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/AppleHaters.gif

How appropriate!

NyanNyanKoneko

December 20th, 2006, 01:46 AM

As a Mac user, I love Apple.

As a Linux user, I hate Apple because they benefit from open source so much and give back so little. (or they are at least minimally cooperative)

You bring up a really good point.

One thing that bothered me about OS X is that it's built on the back of Darwin. They took an open source BSD, forked it, expected others to build it for free, built a few crucial layers as closed source, and sold it as Apple's great OS.

Sure, Darwin is free to download, but it has a singular purpose - to run OS X. If you don't have OS X, it's practically useless compared to FreeBSD or Linux.

I'm not against people commercializing Open Source products by offering support or non-free elements; however maybe it's just me, but it seems like Apple got a lot of free labor and isn't contributing anything back to the open source community.

It would be one thing for apple to open source the key elements of OS X while restraining certain applications like the i-life suite to paying customers. But the key features of OS X such as its stability, lack of viruses, and maintainability are all a result of Darwin (AKA FreeBSD).

Most apple users don't even know they are running a BSD kernel. They think Apple is this great company that's responsible for this great operating system that never crashes. However, the reality remains that the meat and potatoes of OS X is a community-based product which isn't getting enough public recognition from apple nor any returns to the community at large from the release of OS X.

3rdalbum

December 20th, 2006, 06:26 AM

... and Unbuntu repositories drop offline like flies!. Oh dear what fun! :D

Which part of the world? I'm using my local mirror (20 kilometers away, can't get much more local than that!) and I haven't had a problem since the night it synched with the main repo in time for Dapper :-)

24 hours, and you already had to reset your Nano? Dude, that doesn't qualify as "some" iPods - my mate has an iPod Video and says "you have to reset them all the time", and my mother's Shuffle has the same problem. I don't even know too many people with iPods :-) As the discussion we are having is about Apple's hardware and so forth, the iPods are entirely relevent.

Not sure that Apple is likely to fix the problem - have people been telling Apple about it, or have they just assumed that "all MP3 players must need to do that"? According to my friend, he's always had to reset his iPod, and he's had it a year.

Preventing the transfer of songs from iPod to PC is very noble, until you realise that some songs are allowed to be shared between people. If it's licensed under certain Creative Commons licenses, or the GPL, or even if the artist just says "Share this as you want", then it's really annoying to not be able to use your iPod to share those songs.

It's like the Zune and GPL v 3: If GPL v 3 has a "no DRM" clause, then any audio works licensed under it will be illegal to transfer from Zune to Zune wirelessly. Apple and Microsoft are practically trampling over the rights of the little guy in order to suck up to the record companies.

hanzomon4

December 20th, 2006, 07:03 AM

The one thing I hate about my ipod is that it was designed to only work with itunes... Not bad but little stupid stuff, like how it converts the music files and folders to gibberish, takes away from what it could be. Drag and drop would have been so much easier... Copy the music folder to the ipod.. ipod scans the music folder... updates the database and BaM!! an ipod that could work on anything. If it wasn't for apps like gtkpod, exaile, or listen I'd be screwed.

Same with OSX, their setting on a goldmine of software yet they choose not to let others work on porting it. I mean people have already gotten it to work on pc's, free labor! Just imagine what the OSS community could do with it. If I could buy(correction rent) OSX I would, faster then I would(could $$$) buy a Mac.

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 08:11 AM

Apple and Microsoft are practically trampling over the rights of the little guy in order to suck up to the record companies.

'trampling'?? :-k

Ever hear of *choice*?... and what do the majority of the MP3 player-buying public choose, as their device of choice?? ;).

I am sorry to say this, but the the examples you have given of people having problems with iPods, seem entirely related to your nearer communty of your Mother and a few friends. As much as you would like to think so, that does not make them the *only* buyers of iPods, and I am sure that not everyone would agree with you on this subject of there being an inherent fault. However, if this *is* a widespread fault, then I am more than sure that Apple *do* (or will very soon, if the numbers reach epidemic proportions) know about it, and will fix it as they always have done with errors and bugs. You forget that Apple have an extremely good reputation as regards hardware and software is concerned, and no matter what is said, you alone cannot take away that reputation, unless it is some dastardly plan which they are hatching upon the public... but to fight that cause, I would direct you to Redmond, instead!.

As regards the whole issue of 'free music to whoever wants it, whenever they choose' - I would like to make these points, to all of those who are in the mindset that anyone and everyone can just grab whatever they want, completely free, and not have to think about it any further.

1/ I respect your undying loyalty to the noble cause of open-source - it is indeed a great thing and there can be no debate about that, but...

2/ You cannot possibly and reasonably *expect* by default, that everyone in the world thinks in the terms of 'give everything away, which is not hardware, for free'
as this is both a naive and ludricous assumption, for which you will receive no respect in the long run.

Ok, so let us say that one person buys a CD, and they copy that CD and distribute the MP3 file onto the 'net. Let us then assume that 100,000 people download that track, and load it into their iPod/....'Zune' (:confused: WTF?) etc etc, and listen to it, but never pay a penny for that track. I'm sure that this scenario is highly improbable, but let us just think for a minute, that if person "1" was the only paying consumer of that music, then the artist would make what, £5-15 MAXIMUM if they were fortunate enough??... and how many meals a day would that provide for their family?....

As regards the whole open-source debate with people saying Apple should open their doors and let people port their code and products to other platforms - just one question guys... what makes you think they *want* to do so, and more to the point, why should they, JUST to please those who ask?. I could ask Heinz for the sauce code (:rolleyes: ) for Heinz ketchup, but do you think they will simply roll over and say "oh ok then, whyever not, we don't make any profit from it anyhow!". I know it is said that it is all for the benefit of the greater community and all the reasons beyond that are far from lost on me, but in actual truthful reality, *why* should they?.

The vast majority of people who buy Mac OS make a choice to stick to that platform, because it is both easy to use and easy to get support for it. Imagine if you will, that the source code for OS X was given away, and then people modded it and ported it and installed it on X number of platforms. You would then have tens of thousands (possibly) of people calling Apple, moaning when there were issues or bugs with it, and before you know it, OS X has lost its reputation almost completely!.

I am by no means at all, saying that the open-source philosophy is a bad thing, in any way, but it is applicable to those who choose to adopt it. You cannot expect EVERYONE to just give their hard work away, because you say so. Unrealistic and naive. It is surely better for those companies to mayber *consider* releasing source code for products whose life cycle has expired, are no longer sold or supported, so that people in the community can learn about programming. Do not expect everything as regards software and music to be free... this mentality is a dangerous one, and easlity mis-construed... and then you get people pirating OS X / Windows etc, and then they copy any and every piece of software that they choose, just because they can, and they want to do so.

I think this whole attitude of slating Apple, and quietly hoping that they will change their rules to suit *your* ethics, or otherwise disappear or go broke, simply because they make the odd mistake in their products, or, like ANY other hardware manufacturer, they have to fix minor issues (or major ones), is both insanely unrealistic and selfish. They have worked extremely hard in order to build a company whom people respect and like, and they (Apple btw!) have fought against the cynics and the critics with their ever-sharpened tongues and pens, lashing out at them and condemning every move they make, no matter what it be. I respect that, a great deal more than I respect people who expect it to be their *right* to get everything software or music based, free.

Finally, maybe their software *IS* highly priced, but it is a well known fact that people see a high price and they expect impeccable quality - why shouldn't they?. Fortunately Apple don't seem to disappoint on this score, and to bring down the price to the equivalent PC price range, would be crazy, because then you would have "just another computer" and that is FAR from what Macs are!.

I am sure Apple are MORE than aware that not everyone likes them, but hey, the ones that do, and analyse the whole situation and conclude that they are a clever bunch with products that enhance computing, BUY Apple, and for the rest of the people unwilling to save and wait, they can have second best, for less.

:)

Lord Illidan

December 20th, 2006, 08:54 AM

... and Unbuntu repositories drop offline like flies!. Oh dear what fun! :grin:

Aw, shut up..

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 09:12 AM

That has happened to me a few times actually, but maybe I have used non-official repos for certain apps, and that could be why.

No need to be rude!! :mrgreen:

This thread is getting kinda boring... I have a lot better things to do than argue the same stale point, repeatedly. Any new input, from someone who has a better case to bring to the table?. :)

PS: To those of you unfamiliar with forum protocol - we are not discussing repositories with this thread... steer back on topic please!. :rolleyes:

Lord Illidan

December 20th, 2006, 09:12 AM

That has happened to me a few times actually, but maybe I have used non-official repos for certain apps, and that could be why.

No need to be rude!! :mrgreen:

Non-official repos...that's not Canonical's problem.
Yes, I am fed up of your behaviour...

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 09:29 AM

'behaviour' :D rofl!. Anyone care to comment *on topic!*, minus the predictable added sarcasm?

kazuya

December 20th, 2006, 11:47 AM

I am close to agreeing with Lord Illilan's position. Unlokia you seem to fit the elitist atitude that some of the linux fanboys are guilty of sometimes. It is about civil disagreement and argument. Some key points are ignored by you.

Suse and Ubuntu are the best distros you know in Linux. That shows a failing and a flaw already in your argument. Having said so I shall give you some hard truths:

Mac OSX is a wonderful OS that runs very well on an apple hardware. Would you expect a basic user to take OSX and install it on their own apple hardware easily, without help.

Can you install OSX on a mobile phone? On a PC? On a PSX 3? On an XBOX?
-The answer to this question is NO
-Oh and on all of these hardware peripherals, you can install and run Linux.

Affordability - I have a brother inlaw who bought a macbook with OSX due malware and frustrations with his Windows laptop. He now runs Windows XP on his Macbook in parallel for gaming as OSX sucks for gaming. Not their fault like Linux, game developers do not think of their users as much. - He is considering placing Ubuntu on his apple hardware because he is an informed PC user and this way he gets the best of all worlds.
- I personally do not think apple bundles are worth the money. PCs with no OS makes more sense to me. Why, because I can run whatever I choose to on them and be more productive. If all the OSes cost the same money, I would very easily switch to Linux as I already receive great support from the forums.

Beauty - Apple's OSX is very beautiful to work in. Alas, that beauty is great, the polish is nice, but it does not afford me the option of innovating my desktop computing experience. It teaches me nothing and tries to leave the user unaware of the system inner workings.
With Linux, I have many an option. I can install Ubuntu, Suse, Xandros, Linspire, Zenwalk, and many more if I want to just use my OS without having to tweak anything. And all just works. Or I can choose to tweak my system and end up with entirely different window managers, desktop feels, etc. Heck I can make my linux OS try to look like OSX or Windows Vista, etc. The beauty is in being able to use whatever I want at ease.
- I have used OSX, windows, and rpm-based, debian-based, source-based, and slack-based; And I prefer these any time to either OSX or Windows.

People use Windows because they are forced to use it. Do you think if the same games made on windows were made on Linux or if certain proprietary apps made on windows were also made in Linux, we would not all almost be on a Linux platform. Why would users want to pay money for something immensely inferior to an equivalent that is free.

OSX is great for its eye-candy, this eyecandy is what many of my still window fanboys hate about OSX. There are many who hate the OSX look and behavior; Not because they should, because they are used to doing things a certain way in windows, or that the lighting is too bright. Enter Linux {Ubuntu being a very good one.}, you can customize the OS to whatever the user prefers, heck the user could get Kde {Easier for Win users}, Gnome {easier for OSX users}, Icewm, Fluxbox, XFCE, Enlightenment..., etc}

You can choose to have all of these and create users with different desktop feels on the same PC. Choice is a great thing. I was a novice PC user before. Thanks to my advent into Linux, I am that more richer in PC knowledge. I can better troubleshoot PC issues on all different OSes.

Folks exist that prefer Mac OSX systems.
Folks exist that prefer Windows systems. - This is the preferred OS. I recall when we had Macintosh systems on our work place and employees would complain daily due to issues with incompatibilities to other things apps, etc. This was the fallacy of apple and still prevails today inspite of the fact that they have a wonderful system that I woul rank higher than windows, safer, but just too overpriced and leaves its users locked in.

Linux for me is simply the best of all world. Like you choice seemed bad at first. But the beauty here again is that if you want lack of changes and consistency you can with linux. Ever heard of Xandros or Linspire or SUSE. Those are great but not for me.

I like Ubuntu- It inconsistency for me is that it keeps looking more and more beautiful every release period; It keeps looking too polished for me. Well, I like that inconsistency.

Apple and Windows maybe in some years to come would give me that same beauty.

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 12:39 PM

Choice is good but too much choice is a bad thing, because it causes endless confusion. I am sorry to say but Apple is MUCH easier to use, for the *average* person, than either windows *or* Linux.

Can you install OSX on a mobile phone? On a PC? On a PSX 3? On an XBOX?
-The answer to this question is NO
-Oh and on all of these hardware peripherals, you can install and run Linux.

May I correct you - someone has hacked OS X so it *can* be run on a PC, because I have done it. Yes I *know* you mean "officially", but nevertheless your statement was partially incorrect. However, you argue that OS X cannot be installed on further platforms other than those made by Apple.... it was not created to do this - doesn't mean Linux is any better or worse for hardware support!.

Beauty - Apple's OSX is very beautiful to work in. Alas, that beauty is great, the polish is nice, but it does not afford me the option of innovating my desktop computing experience. It teaches me nothing and tries to leave the user unaware of the system inner workings. For the fear of sounding patronising, you are evidently oblivious to the wants and needs of the general computer user, as opposed to the inner geek who wants to tweak and fiddle. The absolute reality is, that the "average joe" wants to buy a computer, unpack it, plug it in and use it. You are missing this point, and I cannot say whether or not that is intentional, but regardless, you miss it entirely. Unfortunately for some of us geeks, this misunderstanding turns into frustration, as we cannot come to terms with WHY Linux is not the top of the OS ratings.... well it is simple, and the business model is that of ease of use, not tinker-ability and modification friendliness.

Like it or not, life is hard enough for most people, having to work a 9-5 kinda existence, and the last thing people want to do is fiddle and play with the innards of a computer!. They want to turn it on, do some work, turn it off and go to bed. THAT is the cold hard truth, and some geeks and Linux gurus, just seem unable to comprehend this, no matter how many times the point is made.

OSX is great for its eye-candy, this eyecandy is what many of my still window fanboys hate about OSX.

Tell that to the countless tens of thousands of Movie editors, artists, printhouses etc. Tell them Linux works better and to sell their Macs. I wish you the best in trying - you are talking nonsense re: that point!.

aysiu

December 20th, 2006, 12:57 PM

Hi there people!. I just installed Mac OS X 'Tiger' (10.4.7) on my INTEL laptop... what a CHUNKY os!. I mean it all seems very efficient, starting up and shutting down, indexing and all that, but it just feels like Linux, will all the fun and configurability sucked OUT of it!. In fact, it feels like Linux pumped full of bright flourescent sugar and jelly beans, hermetically sealed in a hard container of closed-source-dness... yuck!!. If this is their idea of making a computer "Easy to Use", then the users must be idiots! I'm sorry you feel that way. OS X is actually a great operating system, depending on the user. I happen to like Ubuntu better, but for my wife, it doesn't get any better than OS X. . Icons are great, but it is all too 'rounded corners' and chunky funky things... I don't know exactly *what* it is that makes me feel incredibly unsettled... perhaps it is the fact that I know inside, that this company INSIST you buy *their* hardware, and then *only* do you get to use their "elite" OS. Just feels like a snobby, cut down, hand-holding version of a UNIX OS - and its all pumped up with bright shiny things, that ain't too configurable at all!. But their hardware is top-notch, isn't it? Well, there are hacks, after all, where you can illegally install OS X on non-Apple computers. We wouldn't do that, though, of course.

Anyone care to comment?. I know Mac put a lot of stuff into FOSS but this OS can *STAY* on Macs, for all I care. I sit here feeling lonely, screaming inside; 'Come BACK Linux!!'. Yes, but we can't force that attitude on others. Each person should use the operating system that works best for her. For some people, that's a Linux-based operating system. For others, it's Mac OS X.

I have tried various OS' - Windows 3.1 - 95, 98SE, ME, 2000 XP (PRO/HOME) Vista, and now Mac. Possibly *the* most unsettling experiences were inside this Mac, where I write this from now in "Safari" (WTF is that name about?!?!). I used to think Gnome was unappealing... this is just not nice.... yuckkkkk sugary steroidal unix all shiny and gooey YUCK please... Wow. That's some pretty strong feelings there. I hope eventually you'll come to appreciate some of the beauties of OS X. It's not a perfect system, but it does appeal to many people for a reason.

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 01:01 PM

aysiu

December 20th, 2006, 01:02 PM

@ aysiu - the negative comments I made a number of weeks ago re: MAC OS X, were ones unfounded, before I had even gotten used to its beauty and ease of use. This makes me out to hate OS X, when in fact I have done a U-turn, it has grown on me immensely, and I now adore it even MORE than Linux itself. Please edit accordingly. Ty
Wow! That's quite a turnaround. In only two weeks, Apple has really won you over.

Congratulations, Steve Jobs and the rest of the Apple crew!

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 01:04 PM

Wow! That's quite a turnaround. In only two weeks, Apple has really won you over.

Congratulations, Steve Jobs and the rest of the Apple crew!

indeed!! :D

Took a year and a half to get me to appreciate Linux even HALF as much I am afraid.

I am not trying to make any kind of *radical* point, but simply alert you to the simple facts:

As much as FOSS is very admirable, when did:

(A) Photoshop CS last work on Linux?
(B) Final Cut Pro last work on Linux (used by most film companies including the BBC etc etc) to make their films?
(C) When did linux support firewire video capturing properly, seamlessly and without fuss, and PROPER pro level video editing?
(D) When is Linux going to face facts, and buy codec licences in order to play LEGALLY the media content used by 80% or so of the worlds computer users, and stop shoving OGG in our faces, in some crazy kinda "sanitisation" philosophy?

(E) When are you going to realise that the general population of computer users want it top work out-of-the-box, not after 24 hours of typing commands inside Konsole or the suchlike.

These are MAJOR reasons why Linux is where it is - very much adored and used (and yes I use it ALSO for some things!)
but not used by the majority, and hence the market share is indeed minute by comparison. Do you need to send your colleagues away for a week for a training course in order to use Mac?... hardly!

You see, I am not slating Linux by any means, but I am slating the ease of use for the *average* PC-WORLD type consumer - a dummy with no brains, and all they wanna do go on MSN and talk to their mates.

How about webcam support?? I plugged a webcam into MAC and guess what.... it just WORKED!!

Please - take in what I am saying here - Linux is *GREAT*, but it is NOT going to hit the big time anytime soon, because Mac (and then their copycat friends over at Redmond) got their first many years ago, and they have a reputation for "easy to use" and simplicty. You comments on aesthetics of OS X are a simple preference, analogous to your choosing the colour of your car, not to the inner workings of the engine!.

Frak

December 20th, 2006, 02:33 PM

I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Apple even worse than Microsoft. Is it because all of their hardware and software is not 100% free and Open Source and stealable, or is it because they have Microsoft support, or they own the most popular UNIX derivative and "are taking up our UNIX space"? :confused:
I don't see what your talking about, I happily use apple MacOSX, its just beautiful, compared to Ubuntu, (sorry), and way more beautiful than Windows (not sorry).

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 03:11 PM

Nice to see *someone* on a Mac thread, not ranting and raving that it is evil and ugly, just because it is closed source. I bet if Mac OS X was Linux, everyone would *rave* about it, and be all over it. Anyhow:

1/ Linux is ready for the general public consumption - fiction

2/ Mac OS X is ready for general public consumption - ](*,) Hellooooo?!!!! lol

kazuya

December 20th, 2006, 05:32 PM

If Mac OSX was truly ready for desktop use as you say, then it would be used more right? Unfortunately OSX is just not ready at all for that 98 % of users computing needs.

Sure it is beautiful. So is Dreamlinux to me. Doesn't mean that it is functional for my use. Sure it is great for multimedia artists. Go to these multimedia artists and ask them what they use for their daily activities. It is not OSX, it is going to be Windows. That should tell you something.

It is not that they are stupid. It is that they want something that just works for them. I hate to play devil's advocate. What does a typical user need for video? I'm I a photographer? No that rules out photo softwares, but if I just wanted it for the heck of it with hope to do something someday, I have gimp in linux. Not as user-friendly, but guess what it is free and it does the job.

Movies, DVDs, mp3s, whatever, I get amarok {better to me than itunes}, vlc, mplayer, audacious, xmms. And these are all free.

Ever heard of Picasa, alternatives to photo softwares. Oh, why with cedega, wine or crossover some of these apps become available in the linux users finger tips.

OSX is good, but there are some of us who feel more productive on a linux desktop or windows interface, that can't stand OSX. That does not give me a right to bash on OSX. It is well thought out and although takes sometime for certain users like myself to appreciate, but it just does not work for me, and definitly not for my parents.

I installed Xandros, Ubuntu Dapper, and Mepis for a few of my friends. Those machines still run like champs with little to no issues on them. No pop ups, malware, spams, etc. The apps they use are all setup for their use. This is what you get in OSX. What is beautiful in linux is that you have the option. OSX and windows do not give much options for customization.

Windows is the defacto OS for general PC users, not linux and definitly not OSX. Should this be the case no. But this is a reality. What does linux have over all the other distros? A lot of choices and ease of adaptation to varying types of users.

Some folks complain oh, pclinuxos looks to easyto work on, we hate it. It resembles windows too much in terms of guis. But ofcourse runs like a champ. It holds your hands totally so much so that you forget the CLI.

Others prefer gentoo or slack-based distros that either are very easy to work in or challenging, but rewards it users with great flexibility. And all of this innovation is done by the community and the great devs, some are people like you and I.

Also, something you may be missing unlokia is this: Linux is a multi-purpose OS. You know what that means. I can launch and work in many desktop windows all at the same time without the clutter. I can have my downloads going, firewall working, using gimp to texturize a new wallpaper, mp3 playing on audacious, two videos playing, firefox web browser working, chatting or audio conferencing through skype, burning DVD, writing a report, and totally updating my Operating system with almost no lagging.

Something I am unable to do in a Windows OS. I could not do this on OSX as easily could I?

Oh, and the OSX on PC install was done on a particular PC with very specific hardware components. Have you tried upgrading that OSX on that PC. What did they say, still impossible. That my friend is unproductive.

With Linux, I can run my OS totally from a livecd, I do not even have to install on my PC. I can run totally from a livecd on a PC with 128MB RAM and above. I can burn and backup all my datas on a MAC OSX or Windows PC gone blue and inaccessible from my linux livecd. That my friend is innovative.

Before you speak like you know anything about linux, try researching first. That is what smart computing is. Look up Knoppix, Sabayon, Kanotix, and Mepis livecds and then comeback and tell me what desktop ready is.

You would discover the sad truth that your choice in an OS is not quite what desktop ready is. As of date, I can argue totally and confidently on the greatness of the linux platform over any other OS.

OSX is good for a few people's needs, but definitly not for many.
Windows is still more the OS of choice for people who require Autocad, Intools, {Oil and gas Industry.} Some of these companies use linux now or support different OS. OSX just doesn't cut it for these guys right?
LINUX is my prefered choice and the easiest to setup for anybody than windows and definilty than a OSX in some regards. OSX is great in that it is already assembled as part of the Mac machine.

Linux is adapatable to more hardware peripherals. But windows tends to edge in the past with hardware with proprietary stuff. With as little help from hardware Vendors, linux distros still just work for the most part by default with more hardware. And when lacking, there are helpful guys to instruct on howe to properly get those components working.

So this is why I argue that Linux for about 3 years now has been over ready for the desktop and server.

Oh, UNIX is also very good. But crippled due to lack of hardware vendor supports.

I have spoken my case. Research more before comparing. It would greatly help our debate if we were at least on page on what desktop ready mean't. This would make our debate more meanoingful. As I see it, to me you are not aware of the meaning of that term. And maybe, I am not as well. We have to agree to disagree. But I have converted many a windows user. Some of these folks still prefer windows, but when they see the plaque of virus, and have to be responsible for your internet and downloading habits.
Whereas, I am even more irresponsible as my system lacks a registry and is much more secure by default. I feel more free and productive.

In summary OSX is ready for some select users for their desktop needs or wants.
Windows although the defacto for most users has earned its right more than any other OS for sometime, but is gradually failing at meeting all user needs.

Linux for me: Has been way overdue as what desktop readiness is all about. It is adapatable to all types of users. Confusion is as you say is possible with anything. It is like saying should I eat apple or orange or egg or biscuit. Linux is like why not any or all of them, while OSX is like egg for you but no biscuit, but maybe orange also; Windows is like all of them, but maybe with a bunch of preservatives added with little nutrients left.

This is my opinion ofcourse and that of many here.

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 06:00 PM

sh*t Kazuya I thought *I* ranted :eek: :eek:
If Mac OSX was truly ready for desktop use as you say, then it would be used more right?
I don't know what is used on your little island, but Macs are used a heck of a lot more than maybe you realise, and have been around a *great* many years before Linux itself was ever conceived my Linus Torvalds, let *alone* Ubuntu!.

How is the weather on your planet, this evening?.
Your posts crack me up - please do continue... I may submit them to BBC comedy. Please forgive me if I don't post for an hour or 5 - I was going to bed and enjoy a novel, but maybe I'll settle for your post instead.
Still confused as to the exact point that all your mixed messages are trying to make - I am sure by the time I have finished, I will have settled into a deep calm slumber, so all this won't even matter to me. Someone wake me up when this fine chap says something useful. Thanks chaps! :mrgreen:

PS: It would be wise not to pad out your rants with so many spaces and tabs - they are very badly formatted, making for a light snooze instead of light reading. Paragraphs are better than the odd sentence of two, separated by blank space. This is not a rant, just an observation ok. And the use of the space bar in all the right places, makes for a much better post.

kazuya

December 20th, 2006, 07:21 PM

Yes, my friend unlokia, I am ranting like you are. It solves nothing really. But most of what I say is fact. The weather is nice hear. I hope it is the same at your spot.

Unlokia said: I don't know what is used on your little island, but Macs are used a heck of a lot more than maybe you realise, and have been around a *great* many years before Linux itself was ever conceived my Linus Torvalds, let *alone* Ubuntu!.

Response: I think you may need to wake up from 1990. Macs are used where? So is amiga and DOS, but you don't see me raving about them. I would almost say MAC is used as much as one brand of Laptop. But we know that is not true. In your credit, finally the user base of mac has grown again. The amount is still very minimal. The OS and hardware combination is good. However, the OS by itself is not quite as robust as any of the other linux distros out there. It can only be installed on apple hardware. This is supposed to favor better interoperability for its users. However, the end result of this lock to apple hardware is why windows beat the crap out of the Mac OS. The closed nature of the product bundle is what made windows come out and prevail over the existent giant. I believe Mac may be making a good run again with the bad offerings of Windows. But when it is all said and done, 90% of people I encounter at corporate and domestic level would not even consider an apple over even XP.
Enter, Linux., It does everything. Not all about glitter per say, but functionality. I believe you need to wake up and grab a Bean in the morning to help juggle your mind back to the 21st century.

PS while on the subject of correcting my use of space and grammar. There is an old saying that says take the brick of your head before you point out the spec on someones eyes. This was a quote of yours below:
many years before Linux itself was ever conceived my Linus Torvalds, let *alone* Ubuntu!.

Just my 2 cents.

I must add again should it not be clear to you and this time in as simple English terms as I can. OSX is not a bad OS. It works well for some folks. And for multimedia, it is very good. It just does not appeal to many other users due their varying preferences.
Windows OS is the standard by which an OS is judged by the masses and corporations. This does not mean that Windows is the best OS. It appeals to those who are more comfortable with it. The sad truth is that more users prefer windows to any other OS. These users have their reasons. However, many of these users are not aware of alternatives. For PC gaming, Windows OS beats any system hands down. Why you may ask? It is because there are more games built for its users by game developers. Proprietary software apps have a better chance of being built for windows than for OSX and apple users. Macs fall short where linux falls short when it comes to the match up against windows. But linux and OSX beats windows on the same counts {security & better system resource management}.

However, linux comes out a winner in my book because, it gives the basic user almost all of their computing needs at a price tag of zero dollars. Moreover, the apps used are in some cases superior to the commercial equivalents in Macs, and windows interface, granted some of these apps are open sourced.

Should you detest something about the system, you complain about it and it either gets resolved or a workaround is offered for just you.

You speak of OSX as the only OS being used. You need to go to BBC as you have mentioned and do a search on the progress of alternative OS being used in certain European countries like France or other countries like Australia. In the oil and gas industry for their embedded systems, what do they use outside of XP or some proprietary OS? The answer is linux, not OSX.

Read more when you wake up and please get some "beans." This may better stimulate your reasoning and argument.

I agree with you that our rantings here would make a great joke or comedic relief.

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 08:00 PM

Hey ya know what, stuff this - tedious and futile waste of time. See ya, this is for fools.

kazuya

December 20th, 2006, 09:08 PM

yes, give up. lol.

unlokia

December 20th, 2006, 09:47 PM

"Give up" ?... hardly!! :D I'm back!!! :D

Please read this (not my writing) from http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOffice/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=50437

mighty mike, apple doesn't sell commodity PCs. Macs are more of a "complete" system, not a tinker toy set just for games and the odd application that isn't yet on the Mac. Apple now sells the lowest priced PCs for the feature set. Apple has the advantage over all PC Vendors since it doesn't have to pay, (nor the buyers) the Microsoft tax.

Apple makes the WHOLE system, that's why it is more valuable in the marketplace, holds its resell value much better than PCs, has a longer useful life of course, and I think most people would agree it now has the better software library. 18,000 apps and growing quite a bit quicker than Windows since OSX is so easy to program for, plus it runs all the Linux and Windows software as well.

It's the only true "Universal PC", built today. Great product design, great engineering and HUGE attention to the finest details and that's why the smart money buys Macs. Check the real time price trackers, you'll be surprised how cheap Macs have become over the last 5 years.

kinda blows your crazy sense of logic, out of the water, and then the water evaporates!

*NOW* I am ready to leave this thread. Goodbye!

kazuya

December 20th, 2006, 11:32 PM

lol. I rest my point. You say it for me. If these open source apps are so bad and linux is so bad why does mac use them. Dumb magazines like that or articles like that are written everyday by people who have no clue about PC.

Have a read at a link with real facts and tests: http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/

Here it says:

Linux versus Mac OS X on Intel Dual Core

In early May I posted benchmarks comparing Linux and OS X on a MacBookpro running my R packages (I later added Windows XP benchmarks). In one of the original benchmarks, both Linux and Windows XP were more than twice as fast as OS X. And in a second (more representative) benchmark, Linux was about 20% faster. The benchmarks were posted on Digg and a variety of other high traffic Internet websites such as OSnews. This attention generated a lot of comments and suggestions.

With the help of a variety of developers working at Apple and elsewhere, the large OS X performance gap previously reported here has been significantly reduced. The most important improvement is the use of a more efficient algorithm which relies on optimized BLAS to perform key matrix operations. This change increased the performance of the code on all platforms. The performance gap was further closed by compiling and linking R on OS X against Doug Lea's malloc (called dmalloc for short).

This is my comment:

Some articles proclaim linux much better than any other OS. Companies with interest in desktop security use linux and freebsd and unix, and then maybe windows. No mention of OSX there.

So give me true valid sources. Your article is for the birds. Go look at the benchmarks for linux 2.6 kernel versus kernel for OSX and performance. The answer is painfully obvious to you. Perhaps, you already know this.

On that link you sent me, here is what a real user had to say on it:

wake me when apple has 30% of the market and there is wide-industry support. otherwise, its impractical. even linux has more momentum than apple. you guys are too fanatically and not realistic. hey, its a nice toy and eye candy to impress people with. when i need to get something done, i'll just use windows and linux for now.

mighty mike -June 2, 2006

I don't want to enter a religious debate - but it looks like I'm about to ;-) I'm a developer who has worked on Windows (and before that, DOS) machines for about 13 years. I've also worked with Linux and Solaris. In previous lives I used Amigas and various 8-bit machines. Last year I took the plunge and bought an iMac (G5). The visuals are great and there are certainly some nice features - but overall I have been very disappointed. First, it runs very slowly - especially Eclipse, which I have been using for Java (but apparently that is notorious for running like a dog on OS X). Running too many apps at once really takes a hit too. Firefox, especially, locks up fairly frequently and I have to reboot. I hope the Intel Macs are much better in these departments. Compatibility is the next issue. I have tried a number of printers, including two HP's and a Canon. All come with OS X drivers, plus I downloaded the latest updates. In all cases, to this day, my success rate in printing anything reliably is less than 50% Often pages come out as, say, A6, when I wanted A4, or the orientation is not what it should be. Sometimes it just wouldn't print at all and I had to reboot both computer and printer. There just seems to be no sense to it. It just plain doesn't work! Configuration: Certain software that is a breeze to set-up for Windows or Linux (SQL Server and Subversion come to mind) I wasted many many weekends gettings set-up on my iMac - and my Subversion server still doesn't work properly! A big problem seems to be that base directory structures and locations, types and formats of system config files seems to change with every release of OS-X, so no matter how much searching you do on the web you only ever seem to find the wrong advice! Why can't they just leave them in one place? Admittedly I'm not a Unix shell guru, but I don't have the same degree of troubles with Linux (although I find that a battle too). UI: It looks pretty, but I just find it soooo awkward to work with! The Dock is very slick, but impractical. It is so difficult to see what windows you have open. It's very frustrating that only minimised windows are iconised in the dock - so to get the full picture you have to look there (usually hovering over each because you can't really tell which is which), and then go to Exposé to see the rest. Such a pain! I'm constantly switching between windows and this really gets in the way. Another huge pain (which seems pointlessly unfixed) is that you can only resize windows from the bottom right. Half the time it is just an annoyance - but other times that corner is either off-screen or under the Dock (actually I have my Dock on the right now to minimise this problem) - so resizing a window is often a combination of moving the window to some other position, resizing, then moving back - why oh why? Also I still don't see why there is no "full screen" mode for windows. Yes I have seen explainations. I just don't buy it. I miss it! And don't get me started on software! There is plenty of high quality software available for the Mac, yes. And some of it is better than the equivalent for Windows. But we're mostly talking small numbers of specialist software. There is still oodles of very good, high quality software available for Windows that are simply not available for the Mac - or lower quality and/ or much more expensive equivalents only exist. One example here (and I'd love to be corrected) is a tool for MindMapping. I use MindManager for Windows, but the best I have found for the Mac are a couple of low quality shareware apps. My list of grievances could go on and on, but I should stop there. I just want to demonstrate to those that go on about how perfect the Macs are that there are some serious drawbacks that can't be overlooked by a lot of people.

I will say that, as a glutton for punishment, I am considering a MacBook. I don't want to give up on the Macs. Spiritually I still love them. I just can't work with them seriously. It's such a shame. The MacBook should address many of my concerns in two ways: 1. They're faster and 2. I can still run Windows.

Wish me luck!

Phil -June 6, 2006

PS: These are from comments directed at that same article on the web link:http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOffice/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=50437

I think your case is a dead one. Seriously, please research more before making claims. You may want to look at the age of your articles as well.

idrinkwhisky

December 21st, 2006, 02:26 AM

I don't like apple because a lot of mac users are total fanatics. They have this false sense of superiority over windows/linux users. At least that's my experience with apple folks.

kazuya

December 21st, 2006, 10:14 AM

I apologize to folks on this forum for the conduct displayed by both unlokia and myself. All of the OSes have their use and user-base. I cannot subjectively tell everyone that my OS is better than theirs. However, I am allowed to have an opinion. Macs are great, but so is Unix, Linux, Freebsd, Solaris, and heck even Windows, DOS, Amiga, etc.

It really depends on the user's choice, wants and needs in computing. For mine, my parents, siblings, and friends, the Linux OS suits their needs more and for a very affordable price of zero {place your currency.}

I also have a brother inlaw who owns a macbook. He paid a bundle for it. The first thing he did was set it up to dualboot windows for his gaming needs. He came to me about how to put Ubuntu on his macbook. I told him to wait on that. Since, he had both mac OSX and windows XP, I felt he could deal with that until he came to the U.S to fully see the intricacies of my system.

I sent him a screenshot of my desktop and he was almost sold. He has always used Windows and decided this year to try out a mac. He loves it, but the system has some shortcomings for him by itself. Hence he now has windows XP on there {gaming perhaps}.

I sense that after January when he sees my system, he may make a full switch to Ubuntu. He has been attracted to that distro for a while now.

So I say use what works best for you. My mom barely ever surfed the web when we had windows as she was afraid of the redirecting of her yahoo mail to another web-page {pop ups}, etc.. The whole family settled for a 256 MB RAM old PC I built and installed Xandros 3.0.1 OCE on three years ago versus the 512 Dell PC with XP. Now they love Ubuntu. Heck my mom does not know what interface she is running on. She is just more comfortable with it for surfing the web for news, emailing, listening to some music, and voice chatting every once in a while. I already set the system up to their needs.

unlokia

December 21st, 2006, 10:21 AM

ok..........

AusIV4

December 21st, 2006, 11:05 AM

For a long time I said my next computer was going to be a Mac. Then I dumped Windows for Ubuntu, and I'm happy where I am. I don't hate Apple. Many complain of "vendor lock-in" because you have to use their hardware to use their software. I don't consider this vendor lockin, because if you chose to use different hardware, there are substitutes for most of the software you would need.

I also hate to hear people talk about how iPods are DRM infested. The iTunes Music Store may be DRM infested, but iPods are only capable of playing DRM, it's far from a requirement. I manage my iPod with Amarok quite easily, and when my iPod becomes too old to be usable, I'll replace it with a new one - mainly because I already have a number of accessories.

I'd rather see people using Macs than Windows, for it's Unix base if nothing else. While I'm not a fan of the closed nature of Windows (or OSX, though Apple isn't quite as bad), my primary reasons for wanting to switch away from Windows were security and stability, both of which are included on Macs.

Lord Illidan

December 21st, 2006, 11:17 AM

unlokia

December 21st, 2006, 01:57 PM

That is what he meant - just a typo I think. :)

Hey sorry for bitchin folks - just my way of getting my point across - may not be to everyones liking, but that is just me. :)

nmincone

December 21st, 2006, 03:58 PM

I prefer Mac OSX over XP every day of the week. X11 running on top of OSX's Aqua is very, very nice. Also having the ability to install all that OS software is a real treat. Stable, strong and built on BSD-Unix, very nice. Hardware is also always way above average in the quality department.

Circus-Killer

December 21st, 2006, 04:07 PM

other reason:

Apple is even more committed to proprietary solutions and vendor lock-in than Microsoft; this is one of the reasons, ironically, that my family went for IBM-Compatibles running MS-DOS over Apple computers back when we were buying our first computer back in '86 or '87.

Apple promises a universe where stylish people carry elegant, tightly-sealed Apple hardware, living in a kind of digital utopia where there are no hardware conflicts, driver issues or competing standards. There is only Apple, and Apple's elegant solutions. Anyone else wanting anything different, or, indeed, merely curious to find the workings of the hardware, never mind the software, will be brutally smacked down.

Of course, the iPod-wearing, dancing citizens of Apple's Alphaville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphaville%2C_une_%C3%A9trange_aventure_de_Lemmy_C aution) are blissfully unaware of their total lack of freedom (in the GNU sense), because they are held in thrall by the overarching power of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field).

The very nature of their business model is anti-GNU.

must say, you summed up my thoughts very well. least now i dont have to do the typing. ;)

IYY

December 21st, 2006, 04:15 PM

From a technical and aesthetic point of view, I love Apple. Their hardware and software works well, is beautifully and functionally designed, and is easy to use. As a company, they certainly have a lot more style than Microsoft. I love my iPod, and enjoyed playing with OS X on my friends' computers.

From an ethical point of view, they are not really better than Microsoft. Given the chance, Apple would make a monopoly even worse than the Microsoft monopoly (because they make both software and hardware). However, it is more ethical to buy Apple than MS, because they currently are less powerful, and it's always ethical to try and balance the scales.

JTux

December 21st, 2006, 04:30 PM

I hate Apple.

They are worse than Microsoft.

They don't want to sell their OS on other computers than the ones THEY make. They want to promote THEIR filetypes and standards WITHOUT leaving space for other formats (i.e. Ipod and .ogg files for exemple).

For now everything is acceptable in the eyes of most users because Apple is not #1 but they are using business practices that I do not endorse.

The linux market is much better and open to competition. All competitors (distributions) can fight each other without much compatibility problems. Same things with the other softwares.

Apple is too self centered and they are trying to get users addicted to their formats in the same way Microsoft did 10 years ago.

So I hate Apple, I hate Microsoft, and I hate any company that can't compete fairly.

Getting the users addicted to your software so they get stuck with it 10 years from now is just plain wrong.

[-(
Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source. (http://www.vorbis.com/) (http://www.vorbis.com/)

I agree with the rest though.

hanzomon4

December 21st, 2006, 09:46 PM

That is what he meant - just a typo I think. :)

Hey sorry for bitchin folks - just my way of getting my point across - may not be to everyones liking, but that is just me. :)

No need to apologize....... You're just giving your opinion.... with passion!

But anyway, macs can run linux apps?! or do they mean linux apps ported to OSX ?

unlokia

December 21st, 2006, 10:59 PM

Macs run 'Parallels Workstation' - by far the *easiest* way to install Linux *nix inside your shiney new Mac, without Fubar-ing the HDD.

google FUBAR all you n00blets :D define: fubar haha :D

To all in the know, please read past this.

Parallels Workstation is software that is installed on Mac OS X, much like VMware, inside which you can install a 'virtual guest' operating system - in effect you are creating another PC *inside* a little window, inside MAC OS X!. This is fantastic for running OS's that you wanna try, without messing up your Mac partitions, and also Macs now use *EFI* - extensible firmware interface, and Linux is setup to look for BIOS, so it it far safer to use Parallels than run it natively.

ALSO - The latest Parallels Workstation is optimised to utilise every last bit of performance, out of C2D (Core 2 Duo) Processors, as are found on the latest Mac computers. So in effect, one core of the two is dedicated to running MAC OS X, and the other is dedicated to running the 'virtual PC' inside Parallels. I have tried it out on a MacBook, and it FLIES!!!! :D

PS: If you want to then get rid of the virtual computer you have created, you just delete it, and it costs nothing at all, whereas with PC hardware, you smash it to smithereens with a sledgehammer, and take it down to the recycling depot. This is, incidentally, the best way to get rid of Dell mass marketed trashware, Tiny....Time..... etc.... remove everything except the motherboard, sell them, then smash the rest up (in case of GIGABYTE mobos, burn em till they are ashes!!) and weigh in the resulting lump of steel, for scrap, and put the proceeds into your Mac savings tin!. :)

There! - now you feel better for ridding the world of a few more PC's, dont ya!

*{PS}* Don't smash up any PC unless you own it, and if you are already initiated in Mac geekology, this evidently is irrelevant to ya.

hanzomon4

December 22nd, 2006, 12:18 AM

Does parallels let you to play sound, I ask because I tried vmware-server and, while I could add a sound device, it would say that sound was not enabled over a remote connection....or something like that.

d3v1ant_0n3

December 22nd, 2006, 12:38 AM

Ok, I only read the first 16 pages of this thread, sorry. It all seemed a bit cyclic.

I don't hate Apple. I don't hate Microsoft either. I just don't use either of them to any degree.

When I've used Macs, they seem nice. They look pretty, and seem snappy and well put together, quite logical to use. But they are expensive- much more than I would be willing to pay for a computer. If someone gave me a Mac, I'd use it. I'd be happy. I'd no doubt dual-boot with Ubuntu tho'.

I do hate those "I'm a mac" commercials tho. Because we all know that Macs are the only computers that let you organise photos and music:-k

unlokia

December 22nd, 2006, 08:38 AM

@hanzomon4 - yes, sound works perfectly my friend, but remember that parallels is for *Intel* macs!

Because we all know that Macs are the only computers that let you organise photos and music

What kind of ignorance is that? lol!!. Maybe if you explored a little, you'd see the Mac world in a different light altogether! :rolleyes:

But they are expensive- much more than I would be willing to pay for a computer.

You pay your money and take your choice, my friend. Use that old PC, and pretend to yourself that you don't care that ya missing out ;). All depends how willing you are to put up with Windows throwing a fit every ten mins, or having to go into BASH every other day, to configure something. Apple does it all for you, and yeah maybe you don't learn much about what is going on... but then again, I been there and done all the Linux commands and compiling, and yeah it's all very well, but I want my computer to - and I quote - "just work" :)

The difference between a Mac and a PC is more than you think - I can run Mac OS X *and* have a PC *inside* my Mac, but you cannot have a Mac running at full speed, inside *any* PC! ;)

d3v1ant_0n3

December 22nd, 2006, 09:39 AM

@hanzomon4 - yes, sound works perfectly my friend, but remember that parallels is for *Intel* macs!

What kind of ignorance is that? lol!!. Maybe if you explored a little, you'd see the Mac world in a different light altogether! :rolleyes:

You pay your money and take your choice, my friend. Use that old PC, and pretend to yourself that you don't care that ya missing out ;). All depends how willing you are to put up with Windows throwing a fit every ten mins, or having to go into BASH every other day, to configure something. Apple does it all for you, and yeah maybe you don't learn much about what is going on... but then again, I been there and done all the Linux commands and compiling, and yeah it's all very well, but I want my computer to - and I quote - "just work" :)

The difference between a Mac and a PC is more than you think - I can run Mac OS X *and* have a PC *inside* my Mac, but you cannot have a Mac running at full speed, inside *any* PC! ;)

I am well aware of the joy of Macs, they just don't do anything for me. I, personally, don't see the point in spending $2000 on a computer that allows me to do what I do now, only with eye candy, when I can do that on an old, battered laptop. And still have eyecandy. My computing needs are simple- I browse the web, I play old games, I listen to music, I watch movies, I type stuff. I don't need a mac for that when my pc will do that for me perfectly happily.

By using Ubuntu, I also have the joy of learning a little more about my computer- more than using Windows ever taught me. I don't mind getting my hands dirty under the hood now and again. That's why I'm using Fiesty. If I wanted my computer to 'just work', I'd use Dapper. Because it did just work for me. Not a single problem that wasn't caused by PEBKAC.

And yes, I do know that you can use Macs for much more than music and photos, but that's the general impression those annoying commercials give. If anything, they made me want a mac less.

unlokia

December 22nd, 2006, 10:41 AM

Ok cool!. :D

hanzomon4

December 22nd, 2006, 01:23 PM

unlokia

December 22nd, 2006, 02:24 PM

This guy has got a clue - a *BIG* clue!. Gimp is all very well, and I actually happen to use it quite a bit and would do on Mac also, but Photoshop is *the* industry de-facto standard photo and art software - try running CS on Linux is -------------------->](*,)

As regards the command line in Mac - I have done a couple of 'ls' strokes and other things, but not too sure. Cannot see myself using it tbh in Mac - that's just me though.

doublesix

December 24th, 2006, 04:41 PM

Wow. I don't even know if anyone will see this considering it's on page 8,047...

I am always entertained by threads like this one. Platform choice is just that - a choice. I don't like many of Microsoft's business practices, and I equally dislike some of Apple's. I don't hate either, though. That being said, for some people, Macs and OSX provide a viable alternative to Windows, while for most, Windows is more than sufficient for their needs.

Personally, I love linux. It is a testament to what can be accomplished when like-minded people come together. However it is not for everyone. I know that my clients do not want to edit text files to change settings. And yes, while distributions like Ubuntu have made great strides in that area, there are still times when one needs to do that.

Some see Apple as restrictive because they will not allow OSX to be installed on anything but a Mac. My question to these people is, do you honestly think that if Apple makes OSX available for any PC that all the hardware manufacturers out there would immediately write drivers for the millions of different devices out there? It would be a major disaster. Apple controls the hardware and software so that the out of box experience is consistent from user to user. You buy a mac, you use it immediately. When you buy Mac software, you rarely (if ever) have to worry about if your video card will be sufficient. It is not unlike the console gaming market. You buy a game marked "Playstation 2" and you know when you get it home it will work on your Playstation 2. Macs cost no more than comparable PCs when you consider the software you get in the box. Another consideration is piracy. Apple does not force activation of its OS, so piracy would be rampant, unless they tried a method similar to Microsoft, which would make people hate them just as much.

If an average person asks me what kind of system they should use, my first response is usually NOT linux. Why? Because the average person wants to web surf and read and write e-mail. Linux is great for that. But what happens when they walk into a store and want to get a personal finance program? What if they want to use a Webcam? The average person cannot be expected to figure out how to download a gnucash package or open source webcam drivers that may not work for the particular chipset in their camera.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing linux at all. What I am saying is that the average person just wants the computer to do what they want with as little effort as possible. Unfortunately, Linux has not arrived there yet. An example - I installed Ubuntu on a new notebook, and everything was detected perfectly, except sound. When I found out that I needed to download and compile the driver, I was disappointed, but I know how to do it, so it wasn't a deal breaker for me. The average person however would see that as something just not working, and think it was linux's fault. Another problem was wireless. The internal wireless card was detected and worked great, until I tried to connect to my router. Apparently WPA wasn't supported without a download and some tweaks.

So, you can hate Microsoft, you can hate Apple, you can love Linux, but understand and accept that for most, a mainstream OS is their best choice. As for iPods and DRM, to me it's not restrictive at all, because I have never attempted to do anything with my iTunes purchases that was restricted. If I decide to use an MP3 player other than an iPod, I'll simply burn audio CDs and re-rip to DRM free MP3s or whatever format I choose.

I don't think I can say much more without this becoming a long rant on the pros and cons of proprietary versus open source software. The thing that is clear however is that both have their place. Hate, no matter where directed, does nothing to further the cause of the things you advocate. The same flames directed at people under the guise of "Mac advocacy" can be found throughout these forums, just in a pro-linux manner.

I hope that my comments are taken in the spirit they are intended - to get people to think and discuss, nothing more. I use Windows and OS X and Linux all the time, and all have their strengths and weaknesses. Let's look at what they get right as well as wrong and continue working to make Linux even more of a viable alternative.

Frak

December 24th, 2006, 04:45 PM

...That being said, for some people, Macs and OSX provide a viable alternative to Windows,...

Sorry, but doesn't OSX run on Macs, so wouldn't that be the same thing:confused:

doublesix

December 24th, 2006, 05:42 PM

I said it that way because some people run Linux on Macs. In many ways, Linux is better on a Mac than a PC because of the highly controlled hardware.

Frak

December 24th, 2006, 05:46 PM

I said it that way because some people run Linux on Macs. In many ways, Linux is better on a Mac than a PC because of the highly controlled hardware.
Oh, Yeah.... Forgot that you can run Linux on Mac with Bootcamp...
And yes I do prefer my Mac to a PC because of its hardware.
But I'm not going to run Linux on it unfortunately, don't want to mess with the Hardware issues.

macmatt

December 26th, 2006, 07:55 PM

Wise comment!. Complete pita, is Linux at times! :D

wgscott

December 26th, 2006, 11:30 PM

The terminal.app uses bash right? I'm just curious do any of you linux/OSX users find bash as powerful on OSX as it is on a linux? Also do you have the tty on ctrl+alt+F1 or F(whatever).

And yes I would/will pay 2000 for a mac.... Because their just neat and it's a requirement for art school.... go figure :mrgreen:

bash is now the default shell (used to be tcsh in 10.0 and 10.1) and is the same bash as you are used to. Apple OS X comes with bash, tcsh, ksh and zsh. I am a big zsh fan (both on linux and apple) and have written a lot of functions to enhance interaction of the shell with the higher-level gui stuff. If you are interested, google "zsh on os x"

3rdalbum

December 27th, 2006, 06:07 AM

Oh, Yeah.... Forgot that you can run Linux on Mac with Bootcamp...

I believe he was talking about REAL Macs, not generic Wintel boxes with the Apple logo stuck on the front :-P

macmatt

December 27th, 2006, 10:05 AM

I believe he was talking about REAL Macs, not generic Wintel boxes with the Apple logo stuck on the front

Macs are never "generic"!. Have you even _tried_ buying a Mac clone?

Thought not - impossible (thank goodness!!)

So - what do you class as a "REAL Mac" then?. Considering the only "REAL Mac" you can buy, is an Intel one, I think you are talking nonsense.

Oh, and if you are referring to a Mac as a wintel 'box' then I presume you are referring to the Mac Pro... the logo is etched on the SIDES, not the front! ;)

:mrgreen:

3rdalbum

December 30th, 2006, 04:25 AM

Macs are never "generic"!. Have you even _tried_ buying a Mac clone?

Thought not - impossible (thank goodness!!)

So - what do you class as a "REAL Mac" then?. Considering the only "REAL Mac" you can buy, is an Intel one, I think you are talking nonsense.

Have you ever typed a colon, then a hyphen, then a P before? :-P

I was joking about how one of the earlier posters implied that Linux on Macs has only been around as long as Bootcamp :-)

Frak

December 30th, 2006, 04:36 AM

Have you ever typed a colon, then a hyphen, then a P before? :-P

I was joking about how one of the earlier posters implied that Linux on Macs has only been around as long as Bootcamp :-)
I only recently got my new Mac, wired all applations that could be used on Intel Macs, (done by a Mac Proffesional, because I'm lazy, appearantly only apps that had a universal logo on it could be transfered, didn't know that) and sold my old PPC one off, and saved alot of money that way, but just now encountered bootcamp, which I know as a "safer" way to install ubuntu, as the whole installation is controlled by the Mac, so all of it is protected, really love my Mac, pretty cool.

neowolf

December 30th, 2006, 01:39 PM

glaucon

December 30th, 2006, 07:02 PM

HI, i've been reading some of this thread, (not all of it) and I see that I am in the minority. Im sorry to say that I hate apple. why you ask? because of their stance on open source crud and all that? oh no, I could care less. thats why I hate Microsoft. I reserve my special hate for apple. I hate them because they are lame, overpriced, eye candy hipster machines. they are annoying, the commercials, the "cool" looks. not to mention their users. almost every mac user I have encountered is completely apple brainwashed. I use Linux because I like it and it works great for me. if it didn't I would use something else and i'm the first to admit it has flaws. the apple people blind worship of the hip image puts me off. but the number one reason is their rigidity.

My Hideous Frankenstein Ubuntu box is housed in a noisy ugly case i stole from an industrial dumpster, and is a collection of replacement and upgrade parts or parts ripped out of various other old machines, some that aren't even hooked up to anything inside. Each of the cd drives is a different color, the side is falling off and its got pictures of Audry Hepburn hot glued all over it. oh and my surround sound speakers are from two different sets, stolen from two different ex boyfriends. there is no way in hell I could do this with a mac, my computer has probably cost me less than half of what I would have paid though apple for an equivalent, plus all the upgrades I have done over the years. I have purchased ONE desktop computer in my life, and about a million parts. but hey! i could have bought one of those cool looking Imacs, the "grape" one was pretty cool right? im sure it would be extremely useful to me now. I think not. however my old box that started out running windows 95 is still the fastest most flexible machine I have ever worked with. not to mention interesting to simply interact with now that i'm running xubuntu. I have used many a mac and they are always the same shallow sterile prettyness covering up a ridged, limited system.

the one thing I will say is that Linux lacks photo shop. that is the ONE thing that i use regularly that it lacks. and thats why there is a little 60g hard drive sitting around in my box with windows on it, and CS2 (that of course cost more than the whole thing combined) its there and I can use it whenever, then I can use Xubuntu. then in two weeks I can change my mind and run Solaris for while. I just couldn't deal without that kind of flexibility.

*disclaimer* this is an unjustified, unprovoked rant. I don't want to shove it down anyones throat. just putting in my input.