Random Debates about OS X, Windows, and Ubuntu [Archive]

chem

October 17th, 2007, 10:31 PM

dmber

October 18th, 2007, 12:06 AM

here are my reasons why i will be deleting Tiger from my macbook as soon as i hand in this beast of a project i started in Pages:

1. $$$ -- you kinda brushed that one off. i'm a student teacher living off one teacher's salary (my wife's). why would i pay $129 when the features that leopard offers that i use are available for free in Ubuntu?

2. eye candy -- just because CF borrows the idea for a few of its plugins from OS X doesn't mean CF doesn't do them better. spaces are very much old school compared to CF. the number of "widgets" (screenlets) isn't even comparable, but as far as the widgets i actually use, screenlets has them.

3. i surf the net with firefox on both OSs

4. Pages is just a Word Processor, nothing more. Numbers actually hampered (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5220765&#5220765) me in this current project. This means that I'd be using Open Office.org through X11 on OS X or Open Office.org on Ubuntu

The single thing I'll miss about OS X: quicksilver. well, that and slingplayer...but that's just me figuring out how to get it installed in wine.

frup

October 18th, 2007, 12:19 AM

I for one dislike the look and feel of OSX.
I am a FSF supporter.

If Ubuntu doesn't meet your par yet think of what it will be like in 1,2,5 years... Think about how little windows and OSX have changed in those time periods, think about how much ubuntu has (well 5 isn't applicable... yet)

Apart from the philosophical Open Source also provides a fast development model that once a solid base is formed, the improvements are exponential.

I feel that Ubuntu is much more powerful than OSX... when using apples I tare my hair out trying to get it to do what for me are the most basic tasks in Ubuntu. That's just my opinion.

Amaranth

October 18th, 2007, 12:25 AM

Actually OS X has changed rather dramatically since it's original release in 2001. Credit where due and all.

jonny

October 18th, 2007, 12:29 AM

chem

October 18th, 2007, 12:40 AM

Myth TV? Openoffice? Decent multitasking? Ditch OSX's ridiculous dock? Windows that maximise? Multiple desktops?

OS X can run Myth TV and OpenOffice, has great multitasking and leopard has multiple desktops (called "spaces"). I like the dock, but you can 100% hide or remove that too... I'm not sure what maximization problem you're talking about. if you want full edge to edge, there are utilities to do that too. -.-

Greywhind

October 18th, 2007, 12:44 AM

I'm a huge fan of Mac's user-friendly-yet-still-powerful-ness. However, there are excellent reasons to use Ubuntu as well:

1. Free software - much of it is for Linux/Windows only, or just Linux, with no Mac version.

2. Games - some work on Mac and Linux, but many work only on Mac or only on Linux.

3. Programming - I need to be able to compile for Linux, which also allows me to compile for Windows with mingw.

4. Just in case Mac becomes as evil as Windows - probably not going to happen, but it's good to have an alternative just in case.

syxbit

October 18th, 2007, 12:51 AM

credit where credit is due
i hate quite a few things about OS X, but overall it's far more polished than Ubuntu
at least we're better than Windows :)

Hobbs

October 18th, 2007, 12:51 AM

Myth TV? Openoffice? Decent multitasking? Ditch OSX's ridiculous dock? Windows that maximise? Multiple desktops?

Given the choice, why would anyone with skills in both Ubuntu and Gutsy ever use the former?
MythTV: http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/Myth_on_Mac_x86

OpenOffice has an X11 version for OS X, and there is a more direct port of OpenOffice called NeoOffice (http://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/index.php). Mind you NeoOffice has the tragic flaw of being a java program, but thats a story for a different day.

I challenge you to find a system with better multitasking than Tiger (or perhaps now Leopard) Server

Ridiculous Dock and windows that maximize fall under "user preferences." IMO The only thing ridiculous about the OS X dock is the way it handles documents, and supposedly 10.5 (and stacks) will make this less gay. And tbh I don't want any app taking up the entirety of my screen unless its a something like photoshop. And even then having that background window like Photoshop has in Windows would totally suck. But to each is own.

As for multiple desktops, leopard has this. They're this much anticipated thing called Spaces.

Anyways I am a Mac user and I will continue to use OS X as my host OS until Apple goes out of business or something equally dire. Until you can provide me an OS that "just works" as it were, has a truly nice to use UI (GNOME 2.20 is getting there, and I have a good deal of faith in KDE4 granted), and has a nice set of Development tools (ObjC, Cocoa, DTrace, etc.) then I see no reason to switch.

Greywind: What on a mac prohibits you from writing gcc comliant code, seeing as OS X uses gcc as it's compiler? Nothing I can think of and I've collaborated on some SDL projects for most any platform you can think of without there being any problem between me and the other (windows and linux using) devs.

ripplez

October 18th, 2007, 01:06 AM

macs have no right mouse button.. im sorry its just wierd :P

Lord Illidan

October 18th, 2007, 01:13 AM

Mighty Mouse?

My opinion : I've never used a Mac before, and I do want to use one but..

1. Free software philosophy is important. I believe that given time and more resources, Linux can grow into an excellent Desktop OS. Right now, we've just scratched the surface.

2. Macs are nice, but DRM is not.

jonny

October 18th, 2007, 01:54 AM

OS X can run Myth TV and OpenOffice, has great multitasking and leopard has multiple desktops (called "spaces"). I like the dock, but you can 100% hide or remove that too... I'm not sure what maximization problem you're talking about. if you want full edge to edge, there are utilities to do that too. -.-
OSX can barely run MythTV, provided you have one of the few TV cards it supports, you don't mind hacking and you don't want the features that don't work on it. I gave up trying to install Openoffice on OSX because I wanted to actually get some work done and it was easier to install Ubuntu. OSX's multitasking is significantly inferior to Linux's - this is well documented in the server space and very apparent on the desktop when the wretched spinning ball stops all other applications from working. I don't want a plugin to get full edge to edge maximisation - I just want it to work. The dock doesn't easily tell me what documents I have open, unlike the taskbar. I'll admit that I didn't know about spaces, but I have to say that it really is about time...

And so to Round 2. How about hardware compatibility, community, windows that don't just resize in one corner, Rosegarden. But, more than anything else, Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic and Synaptic.

Hobbs

October 18th, 2007, 02:00 AM

linux users are the last group of people allowed to talk about community in regards to them having a better one. end of story

SunnyRabbiera

October 18th, 2007, 02:06 AM

well both have their advantages and dis advantages, I cannot really complain about either or but in some ways ubuntu can be better from a philosophical point of view.

erkker

October 18th, 2007, 03:59 AM

I can not speak to Gutsy vs Leopard as I have only seen Tiger vs Feisty on my MBP 2.33.

For me I like Ubuntus features and philosophy much more but for me I am running OS X alone because of hardware issues. I use My computer for a lot of recording and editing and the hardware support is (sadly) not there yet. I had battery issues and wifi issues but mainly I could not get the firewire driver to work with my Alesis firewire interface.

For what its worth I try to make OS X feel as much like linux as possible. Ardour 2 under X11 rocks, and Audacity is coming along nicely though. And I run Open Office for all my office suite needs. Truthfully I will probably upgrade to leopard to get spaces and other such things that seemed to be lacking in OS X after I used Ubuntu for the better part of a year on other machiness.

So I am stuck checking the forums every few weeks to check out the hardware progress and sit back and wait and hope

Depressed Man

October 18th, 2007, 04:45 AM

I'm wondering, has anyone done a comprehensive feature comparison of Gutsy vs Leopard?

A short list of Leopard features are here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html
(It will also have the Xcode 3.0 developer environment + GCC 4.2 compilers available)

Compiz fusion basically borrows most of its best features from OS X. Leopard is UNIX certified. I mean, for a notebook or desktop (not a server), why run Ubuntu on an Intel Mac for anything other than philosophical reasons (or $$$, if you don't get Leopard for free via developer channels).

This is a serious question; I have installed Ubuntu on my own MBP, and am typing from a Fedora workstation. I like open source, and I like Ubuntu I'm just not sure what benefits it offers. I really want to be able to point out its concrete advantages, since Gutsy and Leopard are coming out within a week of each other.

Thanks.

I'm currently helping a Macbook Pro owner with adding Gutsy Gibbon onto his system (he'll be dual booting). He wanted to try out Ubuntu soley after seeing the desktop effects on my Sony VAIO. Which go far far beyond what OSX does..even with what Apple added in Leopard. And I'd like to point out that the reverse is true about borrowing features. Spaces seems to be borrowed from desktop wall. And Time Machine has existed in various forms for operating systems for a while now. Heck even Windows has system restore.

Though there are interesting featuares in Leopard (I quickly browsed through a list of them on some tech site). One I really like was being able to run x32 and x64 apps in the same environment.

vishzilla

October 18th, 2007, 04:56 AM

Macs are not popular in my country and its more expensive compared to Windows. Windows dominates here. OSX has done well over the last few years according to news reports. I am not a person to compare OSes and I feel the entire power lies in the hand of the users. In my case, Ubuntu rules my PC.

FredB

October 18th, 2007, 05:03 AM

macs have no right mouse button.. im sorry its just wierd :P

What about mighty mouse ? I've use pc mouse on my mac mini, without problems.

Leopard will be good, but on some features, far beyond from Gutsy Gibbon.

Aktariel

October 18th, 2007, 07:58 AM

I was actually wrestling with this very question - I am a big fan of Macs, but I am a gamer and I also run some apps for my phone that I've only been able to get in Windows.

But I really really hate using a VM or dual booting - even with parallel's coherence it's a pain.

So I was considering just switching to Linux, Kubuntu especially, possibly with Fluxbox instead of KDE.

But I'm still torn, because there are really really nice shiny toys for Mac, like Time Machine, and third party programs like Photoshop CS3 and Toast 8 Titanium. And yes, I know, gimp and all that, but still...

I guess the main question is, do I feel like learning another operating system?

EDIT: No right mouse button? Since when? MBs and MBPs all have two fingered right click, and a third party mouse works just dandy. A regular Apple mouse does not, at least, not on the one's that I've seen, this is true...

jonny

October 18th, 2007, 10:01 AM

We have five computers in our house, most of which are configured to dual boot multiple operating systems. Consequently my kids have for most of their lives had a free choice of desktop environment - Windows, OSX and Gnome (I gave up on KDE because no-one used it).

So what happens when someone with no legacy of familiarity or prejudice is presented with this choice? The decision is unanimous: Gnome wins. Windows is used for games, but they always reboot into Gnome to do anything else - even simple stuff like surfing the web or reading emails. And OSX? It's never used. At all.

So why does Linux win? Gnome's simple to use, it looks good and it has some fabulous destop effects (destroying windows with fireballs appeals to children!). And it has masses of great software that's present on every PC because it's free and easy to install.

TheWizzard

October 18th, 2007, 11:46 PM

linux users are the last group of people allowed to talk about community in regards to them having a better one. end of story

:confused: i just don't understand what you're writing...

TheWizzard

October 19th, 2007, 12:42 AM

This is a serious question; I have installed Ubuntu on my own MBP, and am typing from a Fedora workstation. I like open source, and I like Ubuntu I'm just not sure what benefits it offers. I really want to be able to point out its concrete advantages, since Gutsy and Leopard are coming out within a week of each other.

why not try both osx and ubuntu? i switched from fedora to ubuntu whendapper was released and i think ubuntu is a lot better for me. especially because of the balance between having new software and stability. but it's a personal choice.

as for osx vs. gutsy i would say: gutsy. few reasons:
- the kernel. the multi-core processors are quite a good reason to use a linux kernel because the linux kernel is superior in handling multi-cores. that's one of the reasons most supercomputers use linux (http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam)
- development speed. ubuntu is developing much faster than windows or osx. a few years back the linux world was struggling to imitate windows & osx. now steve jobs is copying linux features. linux is gaining momentum. the question is not if you want to swich to linux, but when you have to switch to linux.
- freedom. in the linux world there is no drm and other nonsense. in the linux world you are free!

on the other hand, if you need a specific application you may want to stick to osx.

Alfa989

October 19th, 2007, 01:55 AM

- the kernel. the multi-core processors are quite a good reason to use a linux kernel because the linux kernel is superior in handling multi-cores. that's one of the reasons most supercomputers use linux (http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam)
What are you gonna use that SMP for? Those things work great on real pro apps, but...

- development speed. ubuntu is developing much faster than windows or osx. a few years back the linux world was struggling to imitate windows & osx. now steve jobs is copying linux features. linux is gaining momentum. the question is not if you want to swich to linux, but when you have to switch to linux.
The problem is that Linux has been the OS of the future for 15 years... :( I hope that changes! :)

- freedom. in the linux world there is no drm and other nonsense. in the linux world you are free!

DRM? The Mac OS X world is DRM-free too!

Alfa989

October 19th, 2007, 01:56 AM

I actually found this in FSJ's blog... Quite funny...

What is it with these people and Linux? They keep going on and on about consumers being ready to embrace "free, open source software" and how Linux is going to be the OS of the future. Freetards, I have some disappointing news for you. People have been subtly trying to tell you for a while, but you haven't gotten the message, so I'm going to spell it out with a sledgehammer:  CONSUMERS DON'T CARE ABOUT OPEN SOURCE. THEY. DON'T. CARE.  If people cared about open source, they would be ignoring the iPhone and craving this OpenMoko. They are not. If people cared about open source, they would be using OpenOffice instead of Word. They are not. If people cared about open source, they would not spend money on PCs or (overpriced) Macs and all go out and get Linux. They do not. (And don't go on and on about conspiracies and anticompetitive practices by Microsoft. Every Joe Shmoe knows Linux is free. Yet they CHOOSE to go out and BUY Windows or OS X. No conspiracy here, folks. They just know Linux is not the OS for the common man.)  Tell me: what is one open source product that has gained widespread acceptance among non-tech-savvy users?  Easy. Firefox.  Okay, name another.  Err...  Face it, open source is a wonderful concept, but the implementation does not work. You get thousands of people working with no organizational structure, and programs that have no direction and no point. This is the problem with Linux. As FSJ has pointed out: you have had FIFTEEN YEARS to develop a working operating system, and have failed. (Christ, even Microsoft got Vista out eventually). Any non-tech-guru will tell you Linux is a royal pain in the *** to use, and until it is otherwise, Linux will never appear on our desktops.

Depressed Man

October 19th, 2007, 04:47 AM

I agree it is funny. Funny how the blog is pretty much incorrect. Especially with this statement "Every Joe Shmoe knows Linux is free".

Every Joe Shmoe doesn't know what Linux is, or I'm willing to bet even what OSX is. Hell I know Mac owners on campus that didn't know the operating system they were running was called OSX and not Mac. *facepalms*

TheWizzard

October 19th, 2007, 07:25 AM

What are you gonna use that SMP for? Those things work great on real pro apps, but...

speed does matter.

The problem is that Linux has been the OS of the future for 15 years... :( I hope that changes! :)

it is changing. and it is changing fast. a few years ago i didn't know anyone who used linux, now several of my friends use it. even my father uses linux.
my local book store had less than half a shelf of linux books 3 years ago. now they have loads of books on linux.
and i haven't seen reviews like this before:
http://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2007/10/ubuntu_gutsy

DRM? The Mac OS X world is DRM-free too!

itunes? steve jobs cannot be trusted!

Alfa989

October 19th, 2007, 03:36 PM

speed does matter.
Yeah... But in what apps are you going to you that speed-SMP combo?

it is changing. and it is changing fast. a few years ago i didn't know anyone who used linux, now several of my friends use it. even my father uses linux.
my local book store had less than half a shelf of linux books 3 years ago. now they have loads of books on linux.
and i haven't seen reviews like this before:

I hope it changes fast then... :)

itunes? steve jobs cannot be trusted!
Since when is iTunes part of the OS?

Mac OS X has NOT got any kind of DRM...

jbdev

October 19th, 2007, 04:36 PM

I have to post on this one.

I have been using Linux for a long time (since 1997 ish) and I love Gutsy but...Mac is very Very! polished.

When I want to code I use my Nix box, what ever flav that may be at that time.

If I want to make a DVD, listen to music, do graphics, play games, watch TV, or anything entertaining I use my Mac.

Simple....

I spend allot of time on computers, if I want to just use one without having to configure something or download updates, Mac is the way to go. it just works all the time with what ever I need it to.

Almighty

October 19th, 2007, 04:48 PM

Chrisj303

October 21st, 2007, 02:20 PM

macs have no right mouse button.. im sorry its just wierd :P

What are you talking about? The official Apple mouse has 4 buttons and a scroll-wheel;

*Left / Right button.

*The top (if you push down where the scroll ball is - acts as a third button)

*You can squeeze the sides of the mouse to trigger a forth button.

*scroll ball on top - like a fancy scroll wheel.

:lolflag:

Drakx

October 21st, 2007, 08:23 PM

macs have no right mouse button.. im sorry its just wierd :P

Get your facts right!, apple's mice do have a right button http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/ take note too the right ;)

Seq

October 21st, 2007, 09:01 PM

To elaborate on the track-pad issues (mighty mouse has already been covered in this thread):

- In Mac OS, the trackpad can do two-finger tap for right click, and two-finger drag for two-dimensional scrolling.

- In Ubuntu, the trackad can do two- and three-finger tap for right and middle click, respectively (though I think it was switched by default). It can also do two-finger drag, as well as a radial drag that is very ipod-like.

I use Ubuntu on my macbook as it was a relatively inexpensive machine with decent specifications.

peestandingup

October 23rd, 2007, 08:12 AM

Since when is iTunes part of the OS?

Mac OS X has NOT got any kind of DRM...
Its been like that for a while now. iTunes isnt part of iLife anymore. Whenever you install a clean version of OS X, iTunes is right there looking at you when you're done.

I wouldnt say the OS has DRM embedded, but its def locked-down & proprietary.

thaumaturge

October 23rd, 2007, 09:40 AM

I do run Ubuntu on my MacBook in single boot configuration.

The main reason for me to choose Ubuntu over OS X is simply the amazing amount of applications which can be installed simply through a few mouse clicks.

It annoys me endlessly that an Open Source based system can not natively handle ext3.

I am also very disappointed with Apple's approach to open source and specially DRM. I don't like any big business controlling the software I like to use.

The reason I do buy a mac is because of the great hardware in looks and performance. I just installed Gutsy and everything - except Isight - works great.

Peter

the.dark.lord

October 23rd, 2007, 06:55 PM

DRM? The Mac OS X world is DRM-free too!

If you really believe that, you've played a sad hoax on yourself...

the.dark.lord

October 23rd, 2007, 06:56 PM

Leopard will be good, but on some features, far beyond from Gutsy Gibbon.

such as?

TheWizzard

October 23rd, 2007, 09:13 PM

Get your facts right!, apple's mice do have a right button http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/ take note too the right ;)

sorry, i just forgot apple introduced the two-button mouse. let's praise apple for their campaigns against single-button mice.

peestandingup

October 23rd, 2007, 09:13 PM

such as?
Ease of use?? I know we like to stroke each other here, but lets get real, OSX is ridiculously easy to learn but still powerful if you need it to be.

And dont get me wrong, I LOVE Ubuntu, but its not exactly intuitive for first timers & mainstream folks. Hello, terminal?? God help a first timer if all their hardware doesn't work right off the bat.

Its getting there though. And fast. Take that terminal outta the limelight, make things work better outta the box & it'll be a real contender. Again, this is for mainstream folks, not us nerds :-)

reiki

October 23rd, 2007, 09:18 PM

I will be buying a MacBook sometime in the future. I love the polished professional nature of it's working environment. The fact that OS X is more "accepted" than Linux at this current time makes me more willing to try it.

To be honest, I would just like to be 100% MS free. Between OS X and Ubuntu I can actually achieve that goal.

I agree that Apple makes some pretty computers. Don't think that trading Apple for MS will get you any freedom though. You're just trading one proprietary and controlling empire for another even MORE proprietary and controlling empire. I work in IT at a university and deal with both on a daily basis. It basically comes down to "choose your poison" between those 2.

It's nice that linux is free. And that it's getting better and better, but it still has its quirks and anyone trying to escape teh evil empire has to understand that going in.

To me it's worth it. Linux-only since August 2005.

TheWizzard

October 23rd, 2007, 09:19 PM

Depressed Man

October 23rd, 2007, 09:59 PM

Working in a Human-Computer interface lab where all the workstations are Macs (including the ones we use for research since the professor I work with..and apparently the grad students as well love Macs) I can tell you that Macs aren't as intuitive as people like to claim. This is from observing tons of psychology subjects coming in to do an experiment for credit. If the window is opened for them (Safari usually) then they don't have a lot of problems. Though there has been several occasions where they accidentally hit a button combination that winds up closing the window or minimizing it to a dock which result in the subject having to ask me “how do I get the window back”. The dock is showing by the way.

Whether the interface is easy to use or not really depends on
a) what a person has familiarized themselves with before
b) how much time they have to get acclimate (get use) to it. In these situations most people are not going be using it more then the hour they have for experimentation time. And that hour is spent usually in a single web browser window (the experiments we run are entirely web based usually)

I can tell which test subjects are familiar with the Mac interface compared to those that have never used one (like me before working in the lab, haven't used it since elementary school).

Though throw them in front of an Ubuntu machine and I bet a similar thing will happen. Well, maybe not as bad? I could see the interface resembling more of Windows (what most people are familiar with) rather then OSX's. At least with the buttons and what not.. It'd be interesting to compare them.. maybe another experiment though.

Edit: The mice used in the lab are the one click mouses (the one where you push down on them). Most people can seem to figure that out after a while.

the.dark.lord

October 24th, 2007, 11:34 AM

Chrisj303

October 24th, 2007, 12:44 PM

Leopard gold release has been leaked...

And for anyone wondering the final release was build 9a581.

peestandingup

October 24th, 2007, 04:04 PM

I suggest you try a comp with Ubuntu pre-installed with preferred hardware...
Which ones? The 2 Dell models or the overpriced system76 models??

Not trying to be a jerk, but pickins are slim right now for pre-loaded Ubuntu machines. I wish some better options would come along & I'd be all over it.

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 04:18 PM

I personally think that leopard is going to be a flaw in OS X because they are requiring you to buy the OS and then pay for every upgrade. WHO DOES THAT???? Not even windows makes you pay for the service packs. I wouldnt be surprised if they did though. This is why I stopped using macs because after 2 years my panther was pretty much unusable when they switched to INTEL. I would have had to buy Tiger to be compatable with the newer programs that I needed. Thats when I decided to use Ubuntu and run windows Apps in virtualbox. Works like a charm and I didnt have to spen a trillian dollars.

Depressed Man

October 24th, 2007, 04:19 PM

I agree, it's hard trying to find one that isn't sold by either vendor. A side effect of the Microsoft Monopoly. Hopefully it will change.

But what you can do is pick a laptop that is relatively popular or uniform on here. And follow what others have done to get things working. Ironically I plan on doing this myself in a few years (never getting another VAIO again at least) with a Macbook Pro. Since the hardware is uniform so it makes it easier to get things working.

Though like I said before, run OSX86 (allows you to run OSX on a non-Mac computer) and it's the same thing as Ubuntu pretty much. It's hit or miss with hardware components. For example my Sony VAIO FE's wifi isn't workingly stable and the ethernet required some patching to work.

aysiu

October 24th, 2007, 04:27 PM

I personally think that leopard is going to be a flaw in OS X because they are requiring you to buy the OS and then pay for every upgrade. WHO DOES THAT???? Not even windows makes you pay for the service packs. I wouldnt be surprised if they did though. That's a false comparison. Leopard isn't a service pack--it's a new release.

This is how you're comparing them:
Windows XP Service Pack 1 - Mac OS X Tiger
Windows XP Service Pack 2 - Mac OS X Leopard

This is a more accurate comparison:
Windows XP (any Service Pack) - Mac OS X Tiger
Windows Vista - Mac OS X Leopard

You have to pay for a Vista upgrade, just as you have to pay for a Leopard upgrade.

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 04:40 PM

That's a false comparison. Leopard isn't a service pack--it's a new release.

This is how you're comparing them:
Windows XP Service Pack 1 - Mac OS X Tiger
Windows XP Service Pack 2 - Mac OS X Leopard

This is a more accurate comparison:
Windows XP (any Service Pack) - Mac OS X Tiger
Windows Vista - Mac OS X Leopard

You have to pay for a Vista upgrade, just as you have to pay for a Leopard upgrade.

I appologize, I used the wrong word. I meant to say update not upgrade. My computer tech teacher was telling me that Leopard was going to charge for every MAJOR update but he may be wrong. I see on the apple page that they allow 7 free updates to leopard but im not sure if they have to pay for any others. I'm sorry but I may have been misinformed but i still dont know if my teacher was right or not. Ill talk to him and see what he says. Either way I still stand by my point about not being able to use my newer programs on Panther. You can run new windows programs on 2000. I understand the difference between power PC and Intel but I couldnt even run PPC apps on Panther any more.

aysiu

October 24th, 2007, 05:06 PM

I appologize, I used the wrong word. I meant to say update not upgrade. My computer tech teacher was telling me that Leopard was going to charge for every MAJOR update but he may be wrong. Wow. If that's true, then you're right--it is insane!

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 05:12 PM

Chrisj303

October 24th, 2007, 07:40 PM

Apple charging for 10.5.x updates has never been on the cards.

Completely untrue.

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 09:09 PM

I will have to give it to mac for providing the best possible product "OUT OF THE BOX" that can be. The OS can really use every tiny bit of the computers potential. This is why I wish more companies built computers for ubuntu. I think the only big name company doing it is dell. Yes I know there are others but most are not big name computer builders. I would love to be able to buy one of those new, sexy Sony Vaio's with ubuntu pre-installed.

Dave Crowhurst

October 24th, 2007, 09:10 PM

Well I did say MAJOR update. They may have ditched the idea due to pissed off customers but i do remember reading it on the apple forums now. Once again I do appologize bashing leopard so much but I can't help it, I LOVE UBUNTU. I am biased and proud of it. I love to customize my desktop, get free programs and customize the whole experience. All of these are hard to do in mac. Apple makes a great product (one that I used for many years) but I love my ubuntu.

The next 'MAJOR update' to the OS that Apple will be charging for is OS 10.6 :)

Why is it that Ubuntu/Linux users ignore all the free software that is available for other OS's? Ubuntu/Linux is only free if you place no value on your time. I do, and so I dumped Ubuntu in the trash and went back to OSX ;)

Chrisj303

October 24th, 2007, 09:34 PM

Well I did say MAJOR update. They may have ditched the idea due to pissed off customers but i do remember reading it on the apple forums now. Once again I do appologize bashing leopard so much but I can't help it, I LOVE UBUNTU. I am biased and proud of it. I love to customize my desktop, get free programs and customize the whole experience. All of these are hard to do in mac. Apple makes a great product (one that I used for many years) but I love my ubuntu.

Wrong.

I like to do all of those things myself.

But I prefer to do it on a platform that works.

First time.

I still have a 4GB Ubuntu partition. I use it to surf the net with the BERYL cube when I can be bothered.

TheWizzard

October 24th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Why is it that Ubuntu/Linux users ignore all the free software that is available for other OS's? Ubuntu/Linux is only free if you place no value on your time. I do, and so I dumped Ubuntu in the trash and went back to OSX ;)

what are you talking about? installation is a breeze you can have everything installed and running in no time.
if you have problems the forum is here to help you. much nicer than the people in apple forums!

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 10:07 PM

Wrong.

I like to do all of those things myself.

But I prefer to do it on a platform that works.

First time.

I still have a 4GB Ubuntu partition. I use it to surf the net with the BERYL cube when I can be bothered.

Do you mind posting a screenshot of your OS. Im just curious what all you can do. I really wanna know because there wasnt much that I was able to do as far as customization when I used it. Well I still use OS X alot but id prefer not to. I think as far as which one is better, I think we can all agree that both are better than Windows. Its all preference. I like ubuntu and many choose OS X.

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 10:09 PM

what are you talking about? installation is a breeze you can have everything installed and running in no time.
if you have problems the forum is here to help you. much nicer than the people in apple forums!

I agree with this statement. There may be some jerks in the ubuntu forums every now and then but there are few, Most people are ready to help and solve your problem within minutes. I dont like the apple forums. They all act like your stupid if your not some computer programmer or something. IDK i may have had some bad experiences and im sure they are not all like that but this is what I have seen personally.

peestandingup

October 24th, 2007, 11:32 PM

Well, what "apple forums" are you guys talking about?? There are tons of them. Apple Discussions, MacRumors, MacNN, this forum, etc???

jrharvey

October 24th, 2007, 11:47 PM

I used the official forum the most, I think it was apple discussion. I used some others that I dont remember anymore. Apple discussion seemed to be more freindly but dont think I am bashing all OS X users. I am one myself. That was just my opinion based on a whole.

Depressed Man

October 25th, 2007, 03:29 AM

Do you mind posting a screenshot of your OS. Im just curious what all you can do. I really wanna know because there wasnt much that I was able to do as far as customization when I used it. Well I still use OS X alot but id prefer not to. I think as far as which one is better, I think we can all agree that both are better than Windows. Its all preference. I like ubuntu and many choose OS X.

Dunno about modifying OSX myself (but seeing screenshots on deviantart) I'd say alot is possible. Kinda like Windows theming (without the use of theming software). Though that requires patching some things.. Maybe not as much as much free customizaiton as Linux though.

NoSmokingBandit

October 25th, 2007, 03:34 AM

Personally, im not impressed at all with leopard. Most of the new feature have been around in other os's for some time now.

jrharvey

October 25th, 2007, 05:33 AM

There is one thing that I really like about leopard. The new finder is really cool. Being able to search documents and seeing them really makes things alot easier. Ubuntu does this with image files and pdf's but i think leopard does it in a really cool way. On the other hand Compiz Fusion has really nice desktop effects that mac is just now catching up to with leopard. It looks nice but I like the compiz better. As far as stability, the brand new Imacs in my schools computer lab crash about every time you try to multitask anything. Even with 3G of ram and 2.0 core2 duo they still seem be farely unstable. I get so pissed off when I open safari and ichat somewhat close together it always crashes. The only problem I have had with ubuntu crashing was trying to get beryl working. Now that compiz fusion is the default I have not had ubuntu crash since I got Gutsy Gibbon. I multitask like a mofo on ubuntu , usually running Firefox, Gaim,Plaing music, and running windows in virtualbox that is running photoshop and illustrator. NEVER HAD IT CRASH. If I use photoshop and illustrator on the imacs at the same time, Instant Crash!!!

peestandingup

October 25th, 2007, 07:32 AM

Personally, im not impressed at all with leopard. Most of the new feature have been around in other os's for some time now.
I think this is one of the biggest misconception of Macs (and Apple products in general). Its not that Apple comes up with totally new products & ideas. What they do is take existing ideas & make them useable in an innovative way for mainstream folks. Then they keep building & polishing on them. Thats their WHOLE bag. Its not a secret.

Sure there have been backup solutions for a while now, but can you honestly tell me that one has been as easy to use & intuitive than Time Machine for casual folks?? No, because the data shows us that obviously people arent backing up like they should because its too much of a hassle. TimeMachine makes it ridiculously easy, so there no reason not to.

Same thing with iPods, iPhones, iTunes, iPhoto, you get the point. They dont do anything that hasnt been done before (usually), but they can make things so easy to use, while still being powerful. Thats EXTREMELY hard to do, but thats the whole basis of OS X.

NoSmokingBandit

October 25th, 2007, 01:08 PM

Exactly. Their whole marketing strategy is "ooooh shiny!"
I dont like that. I can have better functionality (albeit uglier functionality) on a different brands product and save a good bit of money.

Chrisj303

October 25th, 2007, 01:56 PM

Exactly. Their whole marketing strategy is "ooooh shiny!"
I dont like that.

What?

There marketing strategy is "it works". ( with no dicking about with a terminal and/or cryptic config files)

I like that.

TheWizzard

October 25th, 2007, 02:35 PM

There marketing strategy is "it works". ( with no dicking about with a terminal and/or cryptic config files)

and they fail big time.

the only device that caused me lots of trouble is the iPod.
the only difficult application iTunes. it took me two days to figure out how to change an album name...
and the only time i've seen a usb-stick wasn't recognised was on my friend's mac.

Chrisj303

October 25th, 2007, 02:45 PM

and they fail big time.

Mac fails "big time" in making reliable products.?

yeah, big time, mate.

Because, every body knows that Linux = easy to use, reliable, OS' for the masses.

Don't they?

the.dark.lord

October 25th, 2007, 02:59 PM

What?

There marketing strategy is "it works". ( with no dicking about with a terminal and/or cryptic config files)

I like that.

I've seen many things "work" in Ubuntu without "dicking around with the terminal or cryptology" which didn't in OS X.

boon4376

October 25th, 2007, 03:46 PM

Ease of use?? I know we like to stroke each other here, but lets get real, OSX is ridiculously easy to learn but still powerful if you need it to be.

And dont get me wrong, I LOVE Ubuntu, but its not exactly intuitive for first timers & mainstream folks. Hello, terminal?? God help a first timer if all their hardware doesn't work right off the bat.

Its getting there though. And fast. Take that terminal outta the limelight, make things work better outta the box & it'll be a real contender. Again, this is for mainstream folks, not us nerds :-)

... Ok i just want to say that with 7.10, i have not once had to touch the terminal, at all. With my compaq v3000, everything worked right out of the box, EVERYTHING.... except the intel HDA sounds only started working when i plugged in a usb headset, the unplugged it... which was weird... but hey,...

I hate terminal, and i said, if linux wants to compete, there has to be an elimination of the need to use the terminal, and voila, they've done it.!

jrharvey

October 25th, 2007, 05:59 PM

I dont consider using a terminal a bad thing. The only reason for having to use the terminal is to change something to the system (usually with sudo). lets say my girfriend was messing around on her computer and clicked on something and all it did was ask for her password, then she might just enter it id completely mess things up. I actually think using the terminal was a safeguard in fiesty but like the last guy said, I havnt had to use it once since gutsy. Yes, it is easier but is it really better?

Depressed Man

October 25th, 2007, 06:10 PM

Not much you can do unless you take out the ability to customize/change the insides of the OS. You can bork Windows systems in a similar way (which requires safe mode or command line to fix).

Not sure about OSX, haven't used it enough to bother messing with the insides to get it to do what I want. Plus it's not my computer so I don't want to screw the computer up without know how of how to fix it.

TheWizzard

October 25th, 2007, 08:22 PM

Mac fails "big time" in making reliable products.?

yeah, big time, mate.

Because, every body knows that Linux = easy to use, reliable, OS' for the masses.

Don't they?

When it comes to finding and installing applications, the Add/Remove Programs feature in Ubuntu surpasses both Windows and Mac OS X.

If you've been considering making the switch from Windows or Mac, Ubuntu makes the process painless.

http://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2007/10/ubuntu_gutsy

jrharvey

October 25th, 2007, 08:38 PM

If anyone here has used a mac then you know that it is a good all around OS. I dont think anybody here is trying to say that OS X is a bad OS. If they are then they obviosly havn't used it. I choose ubuntu because it is easy to use, customizable, works seamlessly with windows (via Vmware, virtualbox) and is free to the whole world. YES, OS X has free software available but it does not have a synaptic package manager full of free software just waiting to be tried out. OS X does have paralells but I havnt used a virtualization tool in mac that is nearly as fast and efficient as my virtualbox is. I think it is because ubuntu uses less memory (when desktop effects are off of course).

Just curious..... can you turn off the effects in OS X??

aysiu

October 25th, 2007, 08:43 PM

If anyone here has used a mac then you know that it is a good all around OS. I dont think anybody here is trying to say that OS X is a bad OS. If they are then they obviosly havn't used it. Well, frankly, having used Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Mac OS X extensively (the first at work, the latter two at home), I'd say they're all good all-around OSes. It's mainly a matter of preference.

pjkoczan

October 25th, 2007, 09:28 PM

http://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2007/10/ubuntu_gutsy

That was undoubtedly the most original and fair-minded review of a Linux distro I've ever seen. It points out the good, the bad, and somehow manages to account for Windows and Mac biases without having them overpower the review.

Anyway, back on topic. For me, Gutsy all the way, but that's mostly because I like Linux and most of the concepts, features, and philosophy behind it. That said, the new OS X is solid, and undoubtedly the best proprietary OS out there. I just don't want it.

khurrum1990

October 25th, 2007, 09:28 PM

Matakoo

October 25th, 2007, 09:37 PM

What?

There marketing strategy is "it works". ( with no dicking about with a terminal and/or cryptic config files)

I like that.

Sure, but it is a whole lot easier to make a slogan like that work out in practice if you control both the OS and the hardware. If Windows and Ubuntu, for example, enjoyed the same luxury they would have fewer hardware issues as well.

And as far as dicking about in a terminal and/or manipulating cryptic .conf files goes...well, I am the first to admit that I use the terminal a lot. But that's because I find it more powerful and easy to use than a GUI a lot of the time. I can't remember the last time when it was the only option I had for doing whatever it was I needed/wanted to do. Not on my desktop that is. It's another story on my server, but that's mainly because it doesn't even have X installed.

Can it happen that it's required on a desktop? Sure, but not at all as frequently as the horror stories may lead someone to believe. And I'm pretty sure the developers are doing their utmost to remove what is left of the need for a terminal.

And it's nothing short of amazing how well Ubuntu and other Linux distros can make the "It just works" mantra work out in practice given the handicap they have in getting it to work on far more diverse computers than the Apple developers have to take into account.

aysiu

October 25th, 2007, 09:51 PM

Sure, but it is a whole lot easier to make a slogan like that work out in practice if you control both the OS and the hardware. If Windows and Ubuntu, for example, enjoyed the same luxury they would have fewer hardware issues as well. Well, maybe that's what Ubuntu should do, then--create a laptop with open hardware requiring only open source drivers so that everytihng does "just work." Apple was smart to recognize that having an OS that's supposed to work on almost everything will lead to a lot of complication and unfulfilled promises. Control the hardware and make sure the software and hardware work together, and your users will have a better experience. It's not that Mac OS X is superior software to Ubuntu, but Apple did something right in understanding that it's easier to support a limited number of hardware models than any hardware combination on earth.

jrharvey

October 25th, 2007, 10:06 PM

Matakoo

October 25th, 2007, 10:33 PM

Well, maybe that's what Ubuntu should do, then--create a laptop with open hardware requiring only open source drivers so that everytihng does "just work." Apple was smart to recognize that having an OS that's supposed to work on almost everything will lead to a lot of complication and unfulfilled promises. Control the hardware and make sure the software and hardware work together, and your users will have a better experience. It's not that Mac OS X is superior software to Ubuntu, but Apple did something right in understanding that it's easier to support a limited number of hardware models than any hardware combination on earth.

I have my doubts over how feasible it would be for Ubuntu to create its own laptop, but otherwise I quite agree! And it wouldn't surprise me at all if the OS-hardware combo of Apple's is one reason why there is more commercially available software for the Mac than is the case for Linux - at least Macs are more visible in stores and so on than any pre-configured Linux machine I've ever heard of.

Not to mention that OSX is far more well, standardized than Linux is. Not surprising to be sure. Don't get me wrong, I love the choices you have in Linux-land (i.e. Gnome or KDE) but it's most likely not conductive to getting more mainstream support for the OS in question.

Chrisj303

October 26th, 2007, 01:59 AM

I dont consider using a terminal a bad thing.

But the majority of the general public does.

An OS that requires the use of command line by average-joe-bloggs, is no good, not for the masses anyway.

And with the hardware support at present a 'lucky dip' - there is every chance your average user WOULD need to use terminal.

peestandingup

October 26th, 2007, 02:09 AM

Linux is better than Mac OS X which is better than Microsoft Windows.
You can do some really awesome stuff on Linux, u can't really do anything on a Mac cause on my Mac Book I get really bored, all I can do is like they say edit a home movie.
Dude, no offense, but thats absurd. If all you found to do in OS X was "edit movies", then you either werent looking hard enough or you only used it for about 5 minutes.

and they fail big time.

the only device that caused me lots of trouble is the iPod.
the only difficult application iTunes. it took me two days to figure out how to change an album name...
and the only time i've seen a usb-stick wasn't recognised was on my friend's mac.
What was the trouble with the iPod?? And really now. It took you TWO WHOLE DAYS to figure out how to right-click on a song & edit its content??? I don't believe that.

Im not trying to sound like a butt hole & kiss the Apple butt, but some of the things you guys are pulling out are just ridiculous.

Chrisj303

October 26th, 2007, 02:26 AM

Linux is better than Mac OS X which is better than Microsoft Windows.
You can do some really awesome stuff on Linux, u can't really do anything on a Mac cause on my Mac Book I get really bored, all I can do is like they say edit a home movie. Windows, u can do a lot of stuff but if u do anything, it crashes.

I can't believe I managed to overlook this post!

Honestly, you aren't convincing me that you have even ever used a Mac, let alone own one.

Do you honestly think that Apple would get the attention that they do, if all you could do was edit a movie?

Come on man, I know Linux-only fanbois have to try harder to diss on the Mac than they do with windows - but come on. If your going to resort to utter nonsense then just keep it to yourself..

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 02:41 AM

But the majority of the general public does.

An OS that requires the use of command line by average-joe-bloggs, is no good, not for the masses anyway.

And with the hardware support at present a 'lucky dip' - there is every chance your average user WOULD need to use terminal.

I can understand your point. To some extent I would agree. I simply meant that in certain situations that terminal use is good such as altering a system file. Normal users should never have to do this so it shouldn't affect them. I would reply with the fact that I have not had to use the command line once in Gutsy. Yes, fiesty and previous versions REQUIRED the command line but I truly think that Gutsy has come along way. I think that if things keep getting better, Hardy will be a very strong contender for easy to use operating systems. Here is a little secret, I hate the command prompt. Gusty has satisfied me very well.

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 02:52 AM

I can't believe I managed to overlook this post!

Honestly, you aren't convincing me that you have even ever used a Mac, let alone own one.

Do you honestly think that Apple would get the attention that they do, if all you could do was edit a movie?

Come on man, I know Linux-only fanbois have to try harder to diss on the Mac than they do with windows - but come on. If your going to resort to utter nonsense then just keep it to yourself..

Macs are one of the most advanced graphics systems on the planet. The whole OS is designed for creative people and designers. Its a shame that AutoCad never ported over but for the most part OS X comes stock with some pretty good tools. I would still choose ubuntu studio over it but for the most part macs work seamlessly with music, video editing, adobe suite, and any graphics thing you can imagine. They hae good programs, but you pay for them. I spent over $5,000 just on my apple powerbook my freshman year of college. I have said this before but ill say it again. I went to ubuntu for 2 reasons. I was broke and I needed to use windows programs (via Virtual box) parallels doesn't work on Panther and all others suck. Mac is virtually virus free but so is Linux. I like them both but I would never pay for a mac ever again.

peestandingup

October 26th, 2007, 03:33 AM

Macs are one of the most advanced graphics systems on the planet. The whole OS is designed for creative people and designers. Its a shame that AutoCad never ported over but for the most part OS X comes stock with some pretty good tools. I would still choose ubuntu studio over it but for the most part macs work seamlessly with music, video editing, adobe suite, and any graphics thing you can imagine. They hae good programs, but you pay for them. I spent over $5,000 just on my apple powerbook my freshman year of college. I have said this before but ill say it again. I went to ubuntu for 2 reasons. I was broke and I needed to use windows programs (via Virtual box) parallels doesn't work on Panther and all others suck. Mac is virtually virus free but so is Linux. I like them both but I would never pay for a mac ever again.
Now thats a good post. Im not saying Macs are perfect (but what is) & there are a few reasons why people wouldnt want to own one. There is a price premium, simply because Apple is selling you more than just hardware. Some people like that, some dont. Also, OS X only runs on proprietary hardware. A lot of people dont like that either. I kinda do & kinda dont. It would be nice to get some chepo hardware & run OS X on (Yes, I know about OSX86, but its flakey), but then again, it wouldn't be as rock solid.

So, there are a few reasons to not like OS X, but people simply cannot say that its because the OS isn't rock solid, powerful & a breeze to use.

I think OS X & Ubuntu have a lot of the same goals in mind, and thats a GOOD thing. Its just that Ubuntu is still immature & has some quirks to work out. If you get it to OS X-like usability & improve the hardware detection, it will fly. You just cant beat a free OS that can work on any hardware out there.

NoSmokingBandit

October 26th, 2007, 03:44 AM

When ubuntu has been around as long as apple has now it will surpass it by far. Ubuntu is a relatively new linux distro and look at the progress being made since 6.06. A year and 4 months and ubuntu has progressed more than any other os on the market. I will not buy a mac not only because i dont like the os (i find it clumsy, but thats just my preference) but because i hate the vendor locking me out of my hardware. Upgrading a mac is not near the level of upgrading a pc. I've had the same pc for years and i just slowly upgrade it piece by piece which means i have a pretty decent computer (its no powerhouse) by buying parts that were on sale and slowly upgrading my pc. On a mac you can upgrade the ram and hdd. Once thats maxed out you are screwed and have to go buy another mac if you want more power. If i buy my hardware i dont want the vendor still controlling it. It surprises me that alot of linux uses praise mac when linux is all about maximum customizability (is that a word?) and personalization whereas a mac is a mac, nothing more nothing less, everyones is the same.

Kappity

October 26th, 2007, 04:03 AM

Another Mac fan weighing in. Yes, I love OS X. Really, really, easy to use. You can get into the Unix nuts and bolts if you want to, but there's no reason for most people to bother. It does "just work".

On the other hand, I won't be upgrading from Tiger to Leopard because there's really no need, and I'd be paying for the upgrade. I'm not criticizing Apple for charging for the latest version; of course they would.

I can always upgrade to the latest Ubuntu version just out of curiosity, at no cost. Just did that, in fact.

boast

October 26th, 2007, 04:27 AM

here are my reasons why i will be deleting Tiger from my macbook as soon as i hand in this beast of a project i started in Pages:

1. $$$ -- you kinda brushed that one off. i'm a student teacher living off one teacher's salary (my wife's). why would i pay $129 when the features that leopard offers that i use are available for free in Ubuntu?

2. eye candy -- just because CF borrows the idea for a few of its plugins from OS X doesn't mean CF doesn't do them better. spaces are very much old school compared to CF. the number of "widgets" (screenlets) isn't even comparable, but as far as the widgets i actually use, screenlets has them.

3. i surf the net with firefox on both OSs

4. Pages is just a Word Processor, nothing more. Numbers actually hampered (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5220765�) me in this current project. This means that I'd be using Open Office.org through X11 on OS X or Open Office.org on Ubuntu

The single thing I'll miss about OS X: quicksilver. well, that and slingplayer...but that's just me figuring out how to get it installed in wine.

With ubuntu, does all the hardware work out of the box? Video, sound, speakers? Does the computer hibernate when the screen closes? Does the screen dim? Does the camera work? Does the remote work?

thanks.

cprofitt

October 26th, 2007, 04:39 AM

4. Just in case Mac becomes as evil as Windows - probably not going to happen, but it's good to have an alternative just in case.

IMHO Apple is already more evil that Windows.

Apple refuses to allow people to run OSX on Intel Computers other than there own.
Apple ties iPhone users (without the hacks) to one provider
Apple makes you use iTunes to activate your iPhone.

Microsoft, for all its flaws, has never locked people down like that.

NoSmokingBandit

October 26th, 2007, 04:43 AM

sloggerkhan

October 26th, 2007, 04:46 AM

Macs are pretty nice, but they don't have package management by default. Finding and installing software is still a pain.

cprofitt

October 26th, 2007, 04:49 AM

I'm currently helping a Macbook Pro owner with adding Gutsy Gibbon onto his system (he'll be dual booting). He wanted to try out Ubuntu soley after seeing the desktop effects on my Sony VAIO. Which go far far beyond what OSX does..even with what Apple added in Leopard. And I'd like to point out that the reverse is true about borrowing features. Spaces seems to be borrowed from desktop wall. And Time Machine has existed in various forms for operating systems for a while now. Heck even Windows has system restore.

Though there are interesting featuares in Leopard (I quickly browsed through a list of them on some tech site). One I really like was being able to run x32 and x64 apps in the same environment.

Forgive me, but can't both Windows and Linux run both 32bit and 64bit apps (assuming you are running a 64bit OS)?

Also, Windows has volume shadow copy - server has been a long while - with Vista it has been added to the desktop.

cprofitt

October 26th, 2007, 04:59 AM

I spend allot of time on computers, if I want to just use one without having to configure something or download updates, Mac is the way to go. it just works all the time with what ever I need it to.

More like with whatever Apple allows you too.

You have far less choice with OSX.

cprofitt

October 26th, 2007, 05:00 AM

cprofitt

October 26th, 2007, 05:00 AM

Seq

October 26th, 2007, 05:03 AM

Remember when MS bundled Internet Explorer with the os? They got ***** for trying to create a "monopoly," but now apple includes everything like MS does and iLife, but thats an 'advancement' if apple does it. Im not a huge fan of windows, but id rather us it than osx any day.

The difference (and I'm not saying I agree with it) is that apple has basically a completely closed loop: apple software, apple hardware. Microsoft on the other hand was forcing the bundling of applications (basically saying you can't remove the following components) with third party hardware providers.

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 05:06 AM

IMHO Apple is already more evil that Windows.

Apple refuses to allow people to run OSX on Intel Computers other than there own.
Apple ties iPhone users (without the hacks) to one provider
Apple makes you use iTunes to activate your iPhone.

Microsoft, for all its flaws, has never locked people down like that.
This guy does have a good point when ethically speaking. I never thought about it like that.

peestandingup

October 26th, 2007, 05:17 AM

Its true that Apple lately have been locking people in more than I've ever seen them. This is the only reason why Im considering moving to Ubuntu full time.

I dont know if they are quite as proprietary as MS. Remember, MS wants to create & control every single format in the computer world. At least Apple does use mostly standards with all their stuff.

TheWizzard

October 26th, 2007, 06:12 AM

What was the trouble with the iPod?? And really now. It took you TWO WHOLE DAYS to figure out how to right-click on a song & edit its content??? I don't believe that.

i wanted to change the album name of an entire album. the logical way would be to right-click the album name in the browser window. this didn't work.
in itunes you have to select all the songs on the album and then right-click on the selected songs. this is completely ridiculous.
it really took me two days and asking questions on the forum before i could accept that the most logical easy to change an album name didn't work.

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 06:52 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVOnFdMf0RU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp5gNhBZgo

check this out :)

karellen

October 26th, 2007, 06:57 AM

if I had the money to afford a mac I'd probably buy one. but since it's not tha case, mac os x 10.5 is just a nice os for me

Chrisj303

October 26th, 2007, 07:24 AM

IMHO Apple is already more evil that Windows.
.

:lolflag:

here we go.

peestandingup

October 26th, 2007, 07:29 AM

i wanted to change the album name of an entire album. the logical way would be to right-click the album name in the browser window. this didn't work.
in itunes you have to select all the songs on the album and then right-click on the selected songs. this is completely ridiculous.
it really took me two days and asking questions on the forum before i could accept that the most logical easy to change an album name didn't work.
You wanted to change the album name of a list of songs by only choosing one single track? How is that logical??

Glenn Jones

October 26th, 2007, 08:49 AM

I've been following this debate for some time now. I must admit apple do produce very easy to use products. Take the macbook for instance it not only looks good but there are features there such as the magnetic power cord, back lighting on the keyboard etc all of these could have been easily implemented by other vendors Sony, HP etc etc but they decided not too because they sell enough machines. Also an inteseting this to note is that the equivalent speced PC is more expensive than the corresponding mac (in the UK at least). You may form what ever opinion the hardware front.

However OSX has taken a lot from the open source community, and in my opinion is giving back very little back. Worse than that they are not advancing computer technology like Sun or Microsoft. Leopard will implement Sun's new data format in read only (can't remember what it's called - sorry) but surely Apple should be researching these things? Whatever you say about Microsoft they are pushing the boundaries regarding the development of new programing languages and the open source community can benefit from that by trying to engineer that advance e.g. Mono. Its not ideal but you get what I mean.

One question I'd like to pose the Ubunty fanboys is many Linux zealots would argue that Ubuntu has 'sold out' and is now purely a desktop distro with little ability to customize the system. Is this true? If so they the argument of OSX is not customizable is built on sand foundations seeing that you are in the same boat.

Each OS has its advantages and disadvantages it's up to the user how he or she wants to use it. These is no better after all a computer is a tool

Glenn Jones

October 26th, 2007, 08:57 AM

Just a quick not there are many things that **** me off about osX. These do include locking iTunes and the iPod and I have tried for ages to try and get Amarok running to no avail. The whole DRM thing grates me and the locking of the iPhone. However, locking the os and hardware is a benefit.

Another quick not you can run X11 and there is a package manager for osX, these are MacPorts which uses the BSD port system (my preference) and fink which is similar to apt-get

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 09:09 AM

Since when has Ubuntu sold out? As far as I know, Ubuntu and other linux distros have endless customization possibilities. You can change everything from the sound, look, feel, themes, and programs. I cant think of anything that you can't change. Alot of that is mostly Gnome and its ability to be customized.

Glenn Jones

October 26th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Sorry sold out may not have been the correct term. What I mean is Ubuntu is a desktop distro and as such a number of the system configuration options is difficult to implement. It's something I've heard on numerous message boards thats all (gentoo I think)

All I'm saying there is no best os same as there is no best linux distro its just a matter of what you can afford and your ethics and what you want your machine to do. I for one use both ubuntu with fluxbox gui on an old desktop and os x on my laptop. I pay for some pieces of software but try and use as much open source stuff as I can.

Glenn Jones

October 26th, 2007, 09:55 AM

You can run Kde, gnome, fluxbox etc in windows and osX (I've done it) and you can customize osX and windows therefore the window manager is just as customizable as each other. What is not as easy (if possible at all) is osX windows in the kernel.

Matakoo

October 26th, 2007, 10:17 AM

One question I'd like to pose the Ubunty fanboys is many Linux zealots would argue that Ubuntu has 'sold out' and is now purely a desktop distro with little ability to customize the system. Is this true? If so they the argument of OSX is not customizable is built on sand foundations seeing that you are in the same boat.

Well, I would argue that those zealots have probably not even tried Ubuntu out. On top of my head, I can't think of a place in the system where Ubuntu prohibits me from making changes that, say, Fedora, allows me to do those changes.

You are quite free to customize your system in whatever way you see fit. Sometimes at your own peril though...but that goes for every system, Linux or otherwise.

And the reasoning that some system configuration would be difficult to implement in a primarily desktop distro may have some validity, although the examples I can think of are things that would be of use to relatively few end-users - and thus not surprising that the area in question doesn't get the same amount of attention. That, of course, doesn't mean you can not do it. You just have to get your hands dirty as it were.

Consider apache. Some people want to run a webserver on their desktop to be able to develop and test web-apps without needing a server somewhere. I don't think there are many of those users, but they exist. They need to figure out how to configure apache to their needs without help from Ubuntu in ways that end-users of Gnome does not. Okay, maybe a dumb example but I can't really think of a good example that would affect most, or even a majority, of the end-users.

the.dark.lord

October 26th, 2007, 10:37 AM

The difference (and I'm not saying I agree with it) is that apple has basically a completely closed loop: apple software, apple hardware. Microsoft on the other hand was forcing the bundling of applications (basically saying you can't remove the following components) with third party hardware providers.

Ever wondered what iPod owners use to put stuff on their iPods on Windows?

the.dark.lord

October 26th, 2007, 10:46 AM

Worse than that they are not advancing computer technology like Sun or Microsoft. Leopard will implement Sun's new data format in read only (can't remember what it's called - sorry) but surely Apple should be researching these things

It is called ZFS.

peestandingup

October 26th, 2007, 10:50 AM

Ever wondered what iPod owners use to put stuff on their iPods on Windows?
How about the Zune? At least iPod owners are free to use a PC or Mac. Cant say that about the brown wonder. And its fair to say that it'll never happen. Let me just fire up my Windows Media Player & Internet Explorer for Mac. Oh, thats right. I cant because MS killed them years ago.

Besides, almost every portable player is married to some proprietary software to manage it. Thats just the way it is.

Glenn Jones

October 26th, 2007, 11:51 AM

It is called ZFS.

Thanks

Quick question how feasible is an open source desktop/notebook if a certain number of vendors got together? The machine would not have a pre-installed os but will ship with your choice of linux os? This would also raise the stakes for hardware manufacturers to provide codecs etc and also make beautiful machines similar to the MacBooks

the.dark.lord

October 26th, 2007, 01:22 PM

7m 30s to go to Leopard... anybody else watchin' the countdown?

Matakoo

October 26th, 2007, 01:27 PM

Thanks

Quick question how feasible is an open source desktop/notebook if a certain number of vendors got together? The machine would not have a pre-installed os but will ship with your choice of linux os? This would also raise the stakes for hardware manufacturers to provide codecs etc and also make beautiful machines similar to the MacBooks

You know, I rather think it would be more feasible to do it the other way around. I mean, it might be easier to do some sort of study to see which laptops have the best chance of working properly and then someone with the intent of selling Linux-ready laptops could approach the manufacturer to see if it's possible to well, make customizations. Beutify or Linux-ify the looks of it if you will.

My old Acer Ferrarri is basically just that. Another laptop with a custom paint-job. Granted, both the Ferrarri and the one it is based on are sold by Acer but it's the same principle.

And, if deemed needed, customize one or several distros to make the out-of-the-box experience even better, such as fine tuning how the hardware is accessed.

Finding a laptop with Intel graphics and Intel wireless would probably be a good start...

the.dark.lord

October 26th, 2007, 01:31 PM

It's out!!!

dynamicv

October 26th, 2007, 01:58 PM

NoSmokingBandit

October 26th, 2007, 02:26 PM

Got to wait a few more days for my Leopard. £5.95 on the Up-To-Date program :)

I find it difficult to understand how some posters are saying Apple is more proprietary than Microsoft. Take a good hard look at OSX and it's built on so many pieces of open-source it's basically FreeBSD with a nicer GUI. It uses open formats wherever possible. Yeah, iTunes is still somewhat DRMd, but the entire catalogue is gradually moving towards DRM free, or would be if Universal weren't deliberately preventing it and favouring Amazon. Microsoft in the meantime get hold of a format and keep it proprietary forever.

And as for the other posters who think that a Mac can only do what Apple allow you to do :confused: Dig a bit deeper. It has full X11 and a UNIX kernel. A huge amount of the open source stuff you can get for Linux either has an OSX binary or compileable source available. It's not Linux and therefore not what you may be used to, but it's a nice UNIX and one that's success should be welcomed here.

OSX is built on open-source stuff, but then apple locks you (the user) out of it. They take, but they dont give. They used the existing BSD kernel to base it off of because the mac programmers dont know how to program anything secure (proof is safari for windows). Most linux programs also have an open source counterpart for windows as well, thats just what the open source community does, they port the program to whatever sytem they need to use it one, so that has nothing to do with osx. Apple only allows you to use their hardware. Winodws/Linux can run on anything at all. How long did it take for macs to have the "revolutionary" concept of dual-booting! Seriously, you must be a real mac fanboy if you cant realize how closed they are compared to everyone else.

dynamicv

October 26th, 2007, 02:51 PM

OSX is built on open-source stuff, but then apple locks you (the user) out of it. They take, but they dont give. They used the existing BSD kernel to base it off of because the mac programmers dont know how to program anything secure (proof is safari for windows). Most linux programs also have an open source counterpart for windows as well, thats just what the open source community does, they port the program to whatever sytem they need to use it one, so that has nothing to do with osx. Apple only allows you to use their hardware. Winodws/Linux can run on anything at all. How long did it take for macs to have the "revolutionary" concept of dual-booting! Seriously, you must be a real mac fanboy if you cant realize how closed they are compared to everyone else.
You lump the portability of Linux and Windows together? Microsoft's business model has never been about hardware, it's about locking the customer in with file formats so that whatever hardware they use they are still dependent on Microsoft software. You may choose your own handcuffs from amongst the x86/BIOS machines, but you're still not free.

That's a long long way from how Linux approaches things. When you can boot Windows on a PS3 you can lump them together, not before.

With regards to Apple, yeah they only allow OSX to run on their own hardware, but virtually any data created on that Mac uses open document formats. You can take that data to Windows, Linux, anywhere you choose. You aren't locked into which program you use that data with, nor the operating system those programs are hosted on. Can you say the same for Windows?

And BTW, I've been dual-booting Mac and Linux for a lot longer than Intel Macs have been available. Dual booting has been possible since the first NewWorld Macs came out in (I think) 1998.

Of course that's just going to sound fanboyish to you because your ideas about the Mac are cemented. But hopefully others here will see there's a balance to be had between my comments and yours.

PS. One last thing. The basis of OSX was NeXTStep, developed outside of Apple. That's where the BSD link came from. Nothing to do with Apple programmers.

3rdalbum

October 26th, 2007, 03:11 PM

How about the Zune? At least iPod owners are free to use a PC or Mac. Cant say that about the brown wonder. And its fair to say that it'll never happen. Let me just fire up my Windows Media Player & Internet Explorer for Mac. Oh, thats right. I cant because MS killed them years ago.

Besides, almost every portable player is married to some proprietary software to manage it. Thats just the way it is.

F*** that. Buy one of the new Sony MP3 Walkmans. Even on the 8 gig model, you just drag and drop songs onto it on any USB-capable operating system. Dude, I could load this MP3 player from Syllable if I wanted to, or from my father's Mac OS 9 computer.

Of course, Apple quickly killed support for new iPods in the old operating system, and killed support for the new operating system in the old computer. Explain to me why Tiger absolutely requires a Firewire port before it will run.

Whether it's Microsoft or Apple, it doesn't matter. Vendor lock-in is BAD.

dynamicv

October 26th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Apple removed support for the non-FireWire Macs with Tiger but it's still easy enough to get the OS to install and run on them using the open-source XPostFacto. I suspect XPF will soon be updated to get around the 867MHz limit on Leopard too, especially since owners with older G4s are reporting it runs fine on their machines.

the.dark.lord

October 26th, 2007, 03:55 PM

Apple removed support for the non-FireWire Macs with Tiger.....

Which points to deliberate lock-in by Apple, never mind however easy it is get it working with hacks...

dynamicv

October 26th, 2007, 04:25 PM

Which points to deliberate lock-in by Apple, never mind however easy it is get it working with hacks...
True, but to put it in context we are talking about them leaving out pretty old machines. For instance, my PowerBook, five years old in January, still meets the minimum specs for Leopard, and Apple will continue support for Tiger until the next major OSX release ships in a couple of years time or so.

So considering all Macs shipped with FireWire ports by late 1999 and it's only going to be 2009 when support for them gets dropped, it's not quite as demanding a lock-in as some would have you believe. Certainly they're providing support for those machines longer than Canonical are ;)

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 05:11 PM

TheWizzard

October 26th, 2007, 06:16 PM

You wanted to change the album name of a list of songs by only choosing one single track? How is that logical??

no, in the browser window. read!

boast

October 26th, 2007, 06:51 PM

NoSmokingBandit

October 26th, 2007, 07:44 PM

You lump the portability of Linux and Windows together? Microsoft's business model has never been about hardware, it's about locking the customer in with file formats so that whatever hardware they use they are still dependent on Microsoft software. You may choose your own handcuffs from amongst the x86/BIOS machines, but you're still not free.

That's a long long way from how Linux approaches things. When you can boot Windows on a PS3 you can lump them together, not before.

With regards to Apple, yeah they only allow OSX to run on their own hardware, but virtually any data created on that Mac uses open document formats. You can take that data to Windows, Linux, anywhere you choose. You aren't locked into which program you use that data with, nor the operating system those programs are hosted on. Can you say the same for Windows?

And BTW, I've been dual-booting Mac and Linux for a lot longer than Intel Macs have been available. Dual booting has been possible since the first NewWorld Macs came out in (I think) 1998.

Of course that's just going to sound fanboyish to you because your ideas about the Mac are cemented. But hopefully others here will see there's a balance to be had between my comments and yours.

PS. One last thing. The basis of OSX was NeXTStep, developed outside of Apple. That's where the BSD link came from. Nothing to do with Apple programmers.

I did not lump linux and windows together, im just saying that windows is way ahead of mac in terms of open hardware. Could you imagine what would happen if windows pulled an apple and only supported a handful of hardware and built their own computers? The economy would crumble. Thousands of people instantly without jobs because Dell/HP (their pc dept)/Acer/Gateway/Lenovo/Compaq stop existing. Are we going for a computer-dictatorship? Im not, thats why i use whatever hardware i want and run whatever os is open enough to let me install it. Linux will install on basically anything, Windows will install on any pc, osx will only install(legally) on a limited selection of apple-branded hardware. Thats not what drives capitalism. If you want to run osx you have to bu whatever hardware apple wants to give you, so why couldnt they cut corners? Alot of mac users want Microsoft to die. If that happens apple can screw computer quality because people have no choice. If apple stops existing hardware companies still compete against each other to make the best product.

jrharvey

October 26th, 2007, 07:58 PM

it's the: gentoo is for pro's ubuntu is for nubs. Lawlz guiz they g0tz evuryting w1th a GUI. evuh hurd 0f a t3rm1nal?

Haha, I have no idea what you just said here.

applehead

October 26th, 2007, 08:01 PM

They Do!

qamelian

October 26th, 2007, 08:16 PM

Why is it that Ubuntu/Linux users ignore all the free software that is available for other OS's? Ubuntu/Linux is only free if you place no value on your time. I do, and so I dumped Ubuntu in the trash and went back to OSX ;)

They don't. I use Ubuntu / Linux BECAUSE I value my time. Since I moved to Linux, I spend more of my time working and less of my time fixing than I have on any OS since I replace my old Atari Mega 2 ST. Personally, I find many of "usability" feature in OSX to be very clumsy. Linux works more the way I do. Mac OS doesn't. Your experience may be different, but don't make the mistake of believing it is true for everyone.

omns

October 26th, 2007, 10:04 PM

Oh my goodness, I just noticed this thread. Gutsy won't even gett a look in on my macbook now that leopard is here.

LavianoTS386

October 26th, 2007, 10:54 PM

The only thing ridiculous about the OS X dock is the way it handles documents, and supposedly 10.5 (and stacks) will make this less gay.

Does it play show tunes or something?

aysiu

October 26th, 2007, 10:59 PM

Does it play show tunes or something?
Maybe it plays stereotypes.

LavianoTS386

October 26th, 2007, 11:47 PM

Microsoft, for all its flaws, has never locked people down like that.

Product activation, How many PC's on my home network can I install Vista on?

peestandingup

October 27th, 2007, 12:20 AM

F*** that. Buy one of the new Sony MP3 Walkmans. Even on the 8 gig model, you just drag and drop songs onto it on any USB-capable operating system.
Yeah, cause everyone wants to manage thousands of songs by dragging & dropping. C' mon, man.

I love how my 4 year old power book that I paid over $3500 dollars just for the computer is basically obsolete. No more PPC apps (that I need). Still a good computer but what can I do with it. My school moved on to intel based macs and me, left in the dust. I thought the move to intel would be a good thing and it is to some people. I just never thought that the support for PPC apps would drop so drastically.
How is it obsolete? All the new apps are Universal Binarys.

no, in the browser window. read!
Well, thats a given, chief. Where else would you right-click on a song name? Are you talking about the iTunes browser window or the Finder??? Finder is Finder, not "browser window".

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 02:06 AM

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 02:12 AM

I love how my 4 year old power book that I paid over $3500 dollars just for the computer is basically obsolete. No more PPC apps (that I need). Still a good computer but what can I do with it. My school moved on to intel based macs and me, left in the dust. I thought the move to intel would be a good thing and it is to some people. I just never thought that the support for PPC apps would drop so drastically.

Macs don't have a large enough user base for manufacturers to justify supporting both platforms. To a certain extent that happend in Windows as well, but not as quick.

Unlike Apple you can still run DOS, Win 3.11, Win 95, Win 98, Win XP apps on Vista.

Can you still run OS 8 apps on OSX? Can you run Apple IIe apps on your Mac?

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 02:15 AM

Product activation, How many PC's on my home network can I install Vista on?

The same number as you can load OSX on legally.

Its called licensing. You may not like it, but that is how it works for both companies.

When you buy a SONY LCD 42" TV... how many rooms can you put it in?

NoSmokingBandit

October 27th, 2007, 02:25 AM

Macs don't have a large enough user base for manufacturers to justify supporting both platforms. To a certain extent that happend in Windows as well, but not as quick.

Unlike Apple you can still run DOS, Win 3.11, Win 95, Win 98, Win XP apps on Vista.

Can you still run OS 8 apps on OSX? Can you run Apple IIe apps on your Mac?

A few programs dont work in vista, but most of that can be fixed via compatibility mode, which a surprisingly low number of people utilize.

peestandingup

October 27th, 2007, 04:58 AM

MS Killed them?

No, Apple killed them by prohibiting MS from doing certain things.

Why can't a Zune work on OSX... because there is no driver for it? I thought everything just magically worked on a Mac... that's what their commercials say.
Care to elaborate on just how Apple managed to kill those MS applications?? Ms killed them because there wasn't any money in it for them.

And for your information, there is a reason why Zune wont work on a Mac. It has nothing to do with drivers. Its not a freakin' printer.

A. Because Zune doesnt have a disk mode.

B. The only way to move content on/off the Zune is by MS's Zune application. Obviously, if there isnt a Zune Mac application the Zune wont just magically work, especially with no disk support built into the Zune hardware itself.

Some of you Linux fanboys need to do some research before you post because you're coming off ignorant. Im not taking up for Apple by any means & wanna eventually switch to Linux fulltime, but really now. These "cons" some of you guys are spouting out are just nonsense. If you're gonna diss them, at least know what you're dissing, because this is just foolish.

You guys are hardcore man.

Depressed Man

October 27th, 2007, 06:38 AM

The same number as you can load OSX on legally.

Its called licensing. You may not like it, but that is how it works for both companies.

When you buy a SONY LCD 42" TV... how many rooms can you put it in?

Err two different things. It's like the piracy is like walking into a store and stealing an album. The example just doesn't work.

dynamicv

October 27th, 2007, 12:28 PM

I did not lump linux and windows together, im just saying that windows is way ahead of mac in terms of open hardware. Could you imagine what would happen if windows pulled an apple and only supported a handful of hardware and built their own computers? The economy would crumble. Thousands of people instantly without jobs because Dell/HP (their pc dept)/Acer/Gateway/Lenovo/Compaq stop existing. Are we going for a computer-dictatorship? Im not, thats why i use whatever hardware i want and run whatever os is open enough to let me install it. Linux will install on basically anything, Windows will install on any pc, osx will only install(legally) on a limited selection of apple-branded hardware. Thats not what drives capitalism. If you want to run osx you have to bu whatever hardware apple wants to give you, so why couldnt they cut corners? Alot of mac users want Microsoft to die. If that happens apple can screw computer quality because people have no choice. If apple stops existing hardware companies still compete against each other to make the best product.
Once again, you're under the illusion that using any hardware running Windows gives you a choice. In reality you're still locked into Windows. And before you come back at me with the "Apple chooses the graphics card etc." excuse, well over half the computers being purchased at the moment don't give you that option either, because they are laptops.

I also think you have your version of who wants who to die round the wrong way. The most fervent fanboyism comes from the Windows side, who DO frequently say they wish Apple would just die, whereas most Mac users have Microsoft software installed that they use on a daily basis, and only want Redmond's power to dictate curtailed. An aim the OSS community clearly shares. I can't understand why some Linux users get so uptight about Apple's current success. More *nix users of any flavour are a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The more people that embrace open standards OSes the greater the choice we all get in the future.

Matakoo

October 27th, 2007, 02:20 PM

And for your information, there is a reason why Zune wont work on a Mac. It has nothing to do with drivers. Its not a freakin' printer.

A. Because Zune doesnt have a disk mode.

B. The only way to move content on/off the Zune is by MS's Zune application. Obviously, if there isnt a Zune Mac application the Zune wont just magically work, especially with no disk support built into the Zune hardware itself.

And that has nothing to do with drivers exactly how?

To use your two arguments:

A. Even if it had a disk mode, it would still need a driver. It is just far more likely that a generic flashdisk driver would have been suitable instead of a more specific zune driver. That is, the driver would have been included in the kernel in question since as far as the kernel goes, it would just be another flashdisk just as any other. Now, since it obviously doesn't have a disk mode another driver needs to be used. One that doesn't exist, which is why the zune can't be used on MacOS or Linux. Not yet anyway.

B. The application used is irrelevant. There is no iTunes for Linux, but that doesn't stop me from moving files back and forth between my computer and my ipod. What is needed is a shared library (.dll in windows speak or .so in Linux-speak) that accomplishes the task at hand, and that any application that might need it could utilize. In other words, the .so works as the driver. For MacOS X in specific, the equivalent of that/those .so files is all that would be needed. Well, if the iTunes software isn't completely brain-dead that is. If it speaks directly to the hardware without utilizing drivers, it is brain-dead by definition. If it isn't brain-dead and a zune.so or equivalent were to be made, iTunes could easily fill the MS-zune app slot.

In short, the only reason MacOS can talk to ipods but not zunes is:

A. Apple provides drivers for the Ipods
B. They don't provide drivers for the zune. Most likely because they don't know how to talk to the zune. Only Microsoft does, and unless you want to do some serious reverse-engineering (such as what is done to get Linux being able to talk to the Ipods) Apple or some third-party developer would need to get Microsoft to cooperate and release the specs.

Matakoo

October 27th, 2007, 02:36 PM

Err two different things. It's like the piracy is like walking into a store and stealing an album. The example just doesn't work.

Both right and wrong. Stealing a physical object always means a loss to someone (the manufacturer if no one else). Downloading something is not necessarily a loss. If I download album X from the Internet does not mean that if I hadn't had that option, I by necessity would have bought it. In that way, you are right in stating that we are dealing with two different things.

It is still illegal in both cases, and is a symptom of the same thing: trying to get something for nothing.

The same thing goes for MacOS X. If you only buy one license, you are only entitled to use it on one computer. There just is no way around that, legally.

Which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I prefer Linux to both Windows and MacOS X. I can do whatever I want with it on as many computers as I see fit with no additional expense.

The most compelling reason though is that Linux makes me more productive.

peestandingup

October 27th, 2007, 03:06 PM

And that has nothing to do with drivers exactly how?

To use your two arguments:

A. Even if it had a disk mode, it would still need a driver.
Yes, but you see, IT DOESNT HAVE DISK MODE. Thats the whole point. You can have all the drivers in the world. If that function isnt built into the hardware, its not gonna work. So, yes. The driver argument is irrelevant. MS made it that way because they only want it to be used with the Zune software on a Windows machine. It aint gonna happen for Mac unless MS writes the app, or like you said, someone reverse engineers it.

We can spin this all day long, but thats the base argument. The poster earlier was acting like its Apple's fault they didn't write a damn driver for the Zune for it to "just work" on a Mac. Thats just dumb.

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 03:25 PM

Care to elaborate on just how Apple managed to kill those MS applications?? Ms killed them because there wasn't any money in it for them.

And for your information, there is a reason why Zune wont work on a Mac. It has nothing to do with drivers. Its not a freakin' printer.

A. Because Zune doesnt have a disk mode.

B. The only way to move content on/off the Zune is by MS's Zune application. Obviously, if there isnt a Zune Mac application the Zune wont just magically work, especially with no disk support built into the Zune hardware itself.

Some of you Linux fanboys need to do some research before you post because you're coming off ignorant. Im not taking up for Apple by any means & wanna eventually switch to Linux fulltime, but really now. These "cons" some of you guys are spouting out are just nonsense. If you're gonna diss them, at least know what you're dissing, because this is just foolish.

You guys are hardcore man.

As a result of the five-year agreement between Apple and Microsoft in 1997, it was the default browser on Mac OS before it was replaced by Apple's own Safari web browser in 2003.

The other issue that happened was the Sun was successful in having Microsoft barred from making their own Java VM and Apple was not updating, they still don't, their Java VM so browser functionality was impaired.

As for the "its not a driver" rant -- fine -- Macs don't apparently have the software needed to use the Zune; how is that Microsoft's fault. I thought everything just worked on a Mac? Oh, I see you want Microsoft to make the software for OSX.

Do you blame other manufacturers...

Creative ZEN (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16855102034)
SanDisk Sansa e270 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16855125013)

Those and more claim to only work on Microsoft Windows. I am sure some of them may work with other programs, but those programs are community based open source programs. Does Apple have iTunes for Linux? No?!? [sarcasm]Shame on them; they are evil bastards[/url]

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 03:31 PM

Err two different things. It's like the piracy is like walking into a store and stealing an album. The example just doesn't work.

Why is it different?

If a person purchased the "plans" to build something he would then need to buy the raw materials and would be able to build as many as he wants.

With Microsoft you buy a license to 'use' the OS on one computer. You do not buy the 'plans'. You do not have the right to 'use' it on more than on PC. Same as OSX.

Matakoo

October 27th, 2007, 03:38 PM

Yes, but you see, IT DOESNT HAVE DISK MODE. Thats the whole point. You can have all the drivers in the world. If that function isnt built into the hardware, its not gonna work. So, yes. The driver argument is irrelevant.

Actually, it is highly relevant. If it had a disk mode (which I am perfectly aware that it doesn't), it would for all intents and purposes already have a driver - at least in Linux and I suppose in MacOS X too although I'm not as familiar with Macs as I am with Linux.

Since that is not the case, someone needs to write a driver for it. When/if that happens, it will be useful for us *ix users regardless of what Microsoft thinks of that. And some people are working on it, but the driver is far from usable at this point. It can list what is stored on the zune in question but not transfer files in either direction.

So, how could it NOT be a driver issue? Something needs to know how to talk to it, and talking to hardware is the sole purpose of a driver.

We can spin this all day long, but thats the base argument. The poster earlier was acting like its Apple's fault they didn't write a damn driver for the Zune for it to "just work" on a Mac. Thats just dumb.

Well, I don't know Apple's reasoning but I am sure that they sell a competing product has something to do with it...and that Ipods are far more common than zunes as well. In short, it would probably cost more than it is worth to add native support for the zune.

qamelian

October 27th, 2007, 04:25 PM

Mac fails "big time" in making reliable products.?

yeah, big time, mate.

Because, every body knows that Linux = easy to use, reliable, OS' for the masses.

Don't they?

Linux has been a lot more reliable for me and at least as easy to use as any Mac I've ever worked on. And the iPod is the least reliable media player I have owned in the last 7 years. My 80gig is less than a year old and has already been sent back to Apple for battery issues three times. And it isn't as easy to use as the Zen Touch I owned previously.

peestandingup

October 27th, 2007, 04:27 PM

In short, it would probably cost more than it is worth to add native support for the zune.
Well, yeah. Seeing that it would basically be a hack to get it to work on a Mac (or any other OS) at this point, since MS isn't giving up the goods.

That was my whole point & why indigo196's continuing comments on the matter are so retarded.

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 04:44 PM

The poster earlier was acting like its Apple's fault they didn't write a damn driver for the Zune for it to "just work" on a Mac. Thats just dumb.

Its not really Apple's fault for not writing a driver... but their advertisements make the claim that new stuff just works with a Mac. In reality things never 'just work' with any OS. All OSes need to have 'instructions' on how to use 'device x'.

The fact is that you can't blame Microsoft for not writing a driver/software for Macs either.

I guess you just have to live with your choice of OS and the lack of 'stuff' for it.

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 04:45 PM

Well, yeah. Seeing that it would basically be a hack to get it to work on a Mac (or any other OS) at this point, since MS isn't giving up the goods.

That was my whole point & why indigo196's continuing comments on the matter are so retarded.

Thanks for the personal insult... I guess that is the 'mac spirit' for ya.

the.dark.lord

October 27th, 2007, 04:49 PM

That was my whole point & why indigo196's continuing comments on the matter are so retarded.

Exactly why I hate mac fanboys...

NoSmokingBandit

October 27th, 2007, 05:31 PM

Once again, you're under the illusion that using any hardware running Windows gives you a choice. In reality you're still locked into Windows. And before you come back at me with the "Apple chooses the graphics card etc." excuse, well over half the computers being purchased at the moment don't give you that option either, because they are laptops. .
Yes, alot of computers do give an option. I can choose a laptop that has the specs i decide on, not a pre-determined list apple thinks is acceptable. I can choose to buy a laptop with an ATI or NVidia card, i can choose Dell/HP/Acer to build it for me, i can choose amd/intel or 32/64 bit processors, i can choose a whole lot more than apple lest mac users choose. So yes, windows will allow you to run on more choices than osx does. Windows even runs on a mac so windows users get ll the mac choices as well as all non-mac choices. If you dont see that windows doesnt lock you down with hardware like apple does then theres no point of even talking about it any more.

I also think you have your version of who wants who to die round the wrong way. The most fervent fanboyism comes from the Windows side, who DO frequently say they wish Apple would just die, whereas most Mac users have Microsoft software installed that they use on a daily basis, and only want Redmond's power to dictate curtailed. An aim the OSS community clearly shares. I can't understand why some Linux users get so uptight about Apple's current success. More *nix users of any flavour are a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The more people that embrace open standards OSes the greater the choice we all get in the future.
All of the mac users i have met think windows is the spawn of satan, This may just be that the group of people i have met happen to think that way when the rest of the mac users are rational, but its hard not to stereotype when all the mac users i have met are like that. How is using osx embracing "open standards"? Big deal, they let you dual boot, ive been doing that for years on my computer, but now that apple does it i suppose its "embracing open source"? If apple wanted to move toward true OSS ideals they would allow osx to run on any pc, not just their proprietary hardware.

Chrisj303

October 27th, 2007, 08:11 PM

cprofitt

October 27th, 2007, 09:59 PM

All of this talk about mac using 'locked down' systems and using non-open source software makes me giggle.

Honestly, outside of Linux forums, in actual real life nobody cares. It dosen't matter. All people really care about is doing what they need to do, with their software of choice - as easily as possible.

As far as the mac being 'locked down' well. whatever. I am honestly struggling to think of a single occasion where I have missed out on something as a result of me being a Mac user. If this (my Mac experience) is "locked down" then great, so be it - being 'locked down' is brilliant.

If you define brilliant was paying as much as double for the same hardware and the 'right' to run OSX more power to you. I prefer to purchase the hardware of my choice and install the OS of my choice. If Apple were to allow me to install OSX I might consider it, but they do not unless I over-pay for their hardware.

NoSmokingBandit

October 27th, 2007, 11:00 PM

If you define brilliant was paying as much as double for the same hardware and the 'right' to run OSX more power to you. I prefer to purchase the hardware of my choice and install the OS of my choice. If Apple were to allow me to install OSX I might consider it, but they do not unless I over-pay for their hardware.

QFT.
I want MY hardware. I want MY choice. I sont want apples hardware and apples choice. When i buy/build a pc, i want to own it, not apple.

Matakoo

October 27th, 2007, 11:30 PM

Honestly, outside of Linux forums, in actual real life nobody cares. It dosen't matter. All people really care about is doing what they need to do, with their software of choice - as easily as possible.

Not quite true. Governments care, for example. At least some. Not necessarily in how locked down a specific OS is (even if that happens too) but when it comes to document formats. And if the governments care...well, sooner or later the citizens will have to care if they want to be able to download forms, brochures, and what not from government websites. What do you think the sometimes very heated debate of odf vs msooxml was all about? And have you never received an e-mail attachment from someone with a file you couldn't open because you lack the program to open it with? Maybe just me...but I tend to get MS-publisher files in my e-mail box on a somewhat regular basis. I have yet to find anything apart from Publisher that can read those, and even when I used windows I couldn't read them (never mind editing them) because my edition of Office didn't include Publisher.

And some ordinary people loath some of the lock-ins Microsoft and Apple employs or used to employ. For example, why do you think it is possible to buy DRM-free music from the iTunes store now? Just a hint: probably not because of some good-will out of Apple. If it was, they would never have implemented DRM in the first place.

And why do you see people who wonder if they can install MacOS X on a more generic PC? Apparently some people WANT to run MacOS X (or at least see what all the fuss is about) but can't justify buying a new computer for it. Especially when their current PC should be able to run it just fine, hadn't Apple prevented it. It makes sense from a compatibility point of view, but doesn't make as much sense from the point of view of an end user or his/her wallet.

As far as the mac being 'locked down' well. whatever. I am honestly struggling to think of a single occasion where I have missed out on something as a result of me being a Mac user. If this (my Mac experience) is "locked down" then great, so be it - being 'locked down' is brilliant.

To each his own.

daulex

October 28th, 2007, 01:08 AM

All of this talk about mac using 'locked down' systems and using non-open source software makes me giggle.

Honestly, outside of Linux forums, in actual real life nobody cares. It dosen't matter. All people really care about is doing what they need to do, with their software of choice - as easily as possible.

As far as the mac being 'locked down' well. whatever. I am honestly struggling to think of a single occasion where I have missed out on something as a result of me being a Mac user. If this (my Mac experience) is "locked down" then great, so be it - being 'locked down' is brilliant.

That's so true :)

however, if you are a dev with extensive skills in programming, being on ubuntu and running open source programs is like heaven compared to being on osx..

then again, for a "non-geeky" user, ease of use is really "where it's at" and even though osx is half a step ahead of ubuntu, give it time and observe it growing...

jrharvey

October 28th, 2007, 01:32 AM

In conclusion I think the point that everyone is trying to make is that Apple is for people who dont care about anything other than work or play and linux is for people who really love to get inside the computer. I think that Ubuntu is also making its way to do the play thing but that will catch on once people realize that there are other options. Most people still think linux is still a text based OS with no GUI.

Chrisj303

October 28th, 2007, 02:08 AM

If you define brilliant was paying as much as double for the same hardware and the 'right' to run OSX more power to you.

Not really true.

You can't pick up a laptop with the same spec as My Macbook (soon MBP!) for much cheaper at all - the difference is neglible.

You also can't compare the price of a self-built PC to an Apple Mac - thats an unfair comparison. Again if you compare a pre-built machine with the same specs as a desktop Mac, the difference will be next to nothing.

Apple will never officially allow OSX to run on a non-Apple machine. It is that 'lock-in' that makes the whole experience so tight and stable.

Also Apple are a BUISNESS - they make their money from selling machines. If I was Mr Jobs, I would do exactly the same thing. In fact I would try even harder to obliterate the OSx86 project.

And remember, when I switch on MY mac I get the choice of OSX, Vista or Ubuntu. If you want choice - get a Mac.

(unless you have a phobia of "Evil corporations™" - then get a DELL).

NoSmokingBandit

October 28th, 2007, 02:29 AM

And remember, when I switch on MY mac I get the choice of OSX, Vista or Ubuntu. If you want choice - get a Mac.

(unless you have a phobia of "Evil corporations™" - then get a DELL).

If you want a hardware choice, get anything but a mac. Macs win for working with every os on the market, but i cant stand the fact that i cant choose what hardware i want. I've only owned one intel pc my whole life since i like amd more (no real reason, i just like them) and if i want a pc with an amd processr, then dammit im going to get it. Im not going to let an OS tell me i cant use certain hardware.

peestandingup

October 28th, 2007, 03:12 AM

Exactly why I hate mac fanboys...
Its got nothing to do with being a fanboy. Its about ignorant posts.

And trust me. Im quite disgusted with Apple lately & AM NOT just some blind fanboy who loves everything they do. Why would I be hanging out in Ubuntu forums unless I was wanting to switch??

Hate me if you want, but a fanboy Im not.

Frak

October 28th, 2007, 03:15 AM

jrharvey

October 28th, 2007, 04:57 AM

OS X has to be my favourite OS to use, except for playing Tremulous, for which I run Ubuntu.

@ripplez
Macs have 5 mouse buttons. i.e. Mighty Mouse

EDIT
Surprised no one has talked about OSx86 yet...

Alot of people have talked about OSX_86. I know alot of people at my school that have tried it. It will work but its really buggy. I dont see the point.

Frak

October 28th, 2007, 05:12 AM

Alot of people have talked about OSX_86. I know alot of people at my school that have tried it. It will work but its really buggy. I dont see the point.
People talk that way about bleeding edge OS's, but I don't see them stop using it.

I have a bunch of Macs now (more than 5), but I still like to experiment with OSx86 on my customs.

I just happen to have Semthex's SSE3 emulator source for OS X kernels, and I may work with the OSx86 Turk team to help (they are the only ones getting things done, especially since 10.5 is out)

Depressed Man

October 28th, 2007, 05:54 AM

Alot of people have talked about OSX_86. I know alot of people at my school that have tried it. It will work but its really buggy. I dont see the point.

It's not that buggy, it just depends on your hardware. Sadly, my laptop is the one with the wireless that's buggy lol. Everything else (Graphics card, ethernet port [requires some patching]) works.

Of course it's the wireless that's necessary of course. So I didn't get very far.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 06:51 AM

Not really true.

You can't pick up a laptop with the same spec as My Macbook (soon MBP!) for much cheaper at all - the difference is neglible.

Heh? Really?

MacBook -- 13" display, 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB Memory, 80GB HD -- $1099
HP dv2500t -- 14.1" display (sorry couldn't get a small 13"), 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB Memory, 120GB HD (sorry they wouldn't let me reduce the price by getting a small HD) -- $899

Yeah that $200 is pocket change for you I know... but the difference is more than negligible.

You also can't compare the price of a self-built PC to an Apple Mac - thats an unfair comparison. Again if you compare a pre-built machine with the same specs as a desktop Mac, the difference will be next to nothing.

I can't? Says who? Why would it be unfair to compare a home-built rig? Oh, that's right because the mighty blue Apple says no! Since it was so easy to find a laptop that blew the doors off your negligible comment here is the desktop comparison.

iMac -- 20", 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB memory, 250GB HD, ATI Radeon 2400XT 128MB -- $1199
HP s3200t -- HP 20" LCD, 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB memory, 250GB HD, Nvidia 8500GT 512MB -- $839

$360 difference with the same config (other than the video card - which are roughly equivalent - though the Nvidia has 4x the memory).

Apple will never officially allow OSX to run on a non-Apple machine. It is that 'lock-in' that makes the whole experience so tight and stable.

Again, not really. If I can buy the same hardware and build it myself then the lock-in doesn't make any difference to quality or stability.

Also Apple are a BUISNESS - they make their money from selling machines. If I was Mr Jobs, I would do exactly the same thing. In fact I would try even harder to obliterate the OSx86 project.

It is sad that a company has to sell hardware based on locking their OS out to anyone else.

And remember, when I switch on MY mac I get the choice of OSX, Vista or Ubuntu. If you want choice - get a Mac.

When I switch on my PC I get a choice of Linux, Vista, XP and illegally OSX... but I never find a need to run OSX as there is no killer app that I must have on that platform. Tell me again why so many Apple users have to run Windows?

peestandingup

October 28th, 2007, 07:42 AM

Heh? Really?

MacBook -- 13" display, 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB Memory, 80GB HD -- $1099
HP dv2500t -- 14.1" display (sorry couldn't get a small 13"), 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB Memory, 120GB HD (sorry they wouldn't let me reduce the price by getting a small HD) -- $899

Yeah that $200 is pocket change for you I know... but the difference is more than negligible.
Its not that clear cut. With that HP setup you're getting a bulkier machine, no DVI port, no wireless N card & a castrated version of Vista with no decent included apps. Those things costs money & you have to include them to make it fair.

The HP would probably still be a wee bit cheaper, but not by much. DEF not $200 less. So the difference would indeed be negligible.

TheWizzard

October 28th, 2007, 08:53 AM

You can't pick up a laptop with the same spec as My Macbook (soon MBP!) for much cheaper at all - the difference is neglible.

You also can't compare the price of a self-built PC to an Apple Mac - thats an unfair comparison. Again if you compare a pre-built machine with the same specs as a desktop Mac, the difference will be next to nothing.

yes i can. i would prefer a mac if the prices were comparable. but unfortunately macs are heavily overpriced. apple just asks a lot more money for the same hardware.

Flavian

October 28th, 2007, 11:48 AM

Hi guys :)
May I leave a comment too?
I am currently writing that on my laptop running feisty. I have currently bought a new macbook with OSX Leopard and want to list my reasons why I did that.

First of all I have to say: I LOVE Ubuntu. I've set it up on my brother's laptop and he likes it a lot.
The fact that, (as some of you said earlier) it's free software is GREAT. And the fact that it is growing so fast and getting better and better is really great and in fact, I can say, it will always be an OS that I will recommend to EVERYONE that is currently using Vista.
Some of you might think now "so why does he switch do Leopard?"
Well, I've been using Ubuntu for like 2 years now, and I've learned its advantages and disadvantages. It's great in points like:
* open source - everyhting is free
* customizability - you can just have it the way you want, that's really great

But still it lacks some things I REALLY need:
* It was a pain getting the Mic to work. Now with Gutsy it works, but in feisty I couldn't get it to work, that just annoyed me
* Sync with my mobile phone: Did work, and then (windows like) all of a sudden it didn't anymore. No one seems to be programming multisync anymore, so I am stuck.
I totally WANT and NEED to sync my cell phone with my pc cause that makes things so much easier.

* Software does not work togehter very well.
* With Linux I have to spend HOURS getting it to where I want it to be. And then it is not really sure, if I would get everything to work (like multisync as said above)
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the time spent, customizing ubuntu and I learned a lot, I don't want to miss those times. But still, if I can't get EVERYTHING to work, it's not worth it in the end.

That's what brought me to Mac. I used to love and appreciate the UNIX core of Linux and I was thinking by myself, if I could have everything POSITIVE that Linux can offer me PLUS a system where everything works and also works together, like a charm, why shouldn't I buy a mac?

Don't get me wrong, I do LOVE Ubuntu, but I am also very looking forward to OS X Leopard. Which I think, for now, and especially, for the things I need is a bit better than Ubuntu.
Which doesn't mean that I won't switch back to Linux as soon as it gets better (and it does!)
Greetings
Flo

peestandingup

October 28th, 2007, 12:32 PM

yes i can. i would prefer a mac if the prices were comparable. but unfortunately macs are heavily overpriced. apple just asks a lot more money for the same hardware.
Again, Apple's not just selling you hardware with their machines. If you're only comparing hardware to hardware, then yes. Most times a PC is gonna be cheaper.

There is definitely a price premium you pay with Macs because of the hardware/software merger Apple's got going on (that development doesn't pay for itself). And besides the killer OS, the software pre-installed is VERY usable, some of it is downright awesome. Whereas most stuff that comes pre-loaded on a PC is throwaway crapware.

So, if you dont care what comes installed on a new computer & you are gonna just throw Linux on it anyways, then you dont need a Mac. Its stupid to pay the premium if all you want is the raw hardware. You guys act like this is some secret Mac users aren't aware of. We know. Thats the reason why most people buy them. Especially mainstream folks.

But, I dare any of you to price a MacBook against a comparable PC laptop with Vista Ultimate (compares more to Leopard than Vista Home) that has the same types of usable software titles that iLife includes.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 02:47 PM

Its not that clear cut. With that HP setup you're getting a bulkier machine, no DVI port, no wireless N card & a castrated version of Vista with no decent included apps. Those things costs money & you have to include them to make it fair.

The HP would probably still be a wee bit cheaper, but not by much. DEF not $200 less. So the difference would indeed be negligible.

Its not that clear cut?

bulkier machine? The Apple with a 13" screen weighs in at 5.1lbs. The HP, with a 14.1" screen, weighs in at 5.29lbs. The Apple is 1.08 inches thick. The HP is 1.02 inches thick. Yep, you're right that Apple is thicker, has a smaller screen, and weighs .19lbs less all for more money -- what a bargain.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 02:51 PM

But, I dare any of you to price a MacBook against a comparable PC laptop with Vista Ultimate (compares more to Leopard than Vista Home) that has the same types of usable software titles that iLife includes.

You missed the point. Enjoy your Mac. Miss your money.

Depressed Man

October 28th, 2007, 03:41 PM

Again, Apple's not just selling you hardware with their machines. If you're only comparing hardware to hardware, then yes. Most times a PC is gonna be cheaper.

There is definitely a price premium you pay with Macs because of the hardware/software merger Apple's got going on (that development doesn't pay for itself). And besides the killer OS, the software pre-installed is VERY usable, some of it is downright awesome. Whereas most stuff that comes pre-loaded on a PC is throwaway crapware.

So, if you dont care what comes installed on a new computer & you are gonna just throw Linux on it anyways, then you dont need a Mac. Its stupid to pay the premium if all you want is the raw hardware. You guys act like this is some secret Mac users aren't aware of. We know. Thats the reason why most people buy them. Especially mainstream folks.

But, I dare any of you to price a MacBook against a comparable PC laptop with Vista Ultimate (compares more to Leopard than Vista Home) that has the same types of usable software titles that iLife includes.

True, though I could always just buy a comparable laptop (with say XP on there) then throw Vista and Office 07 on there myself. *whistles*. Or just install Linux lol. But you are right, that's why people (including me) just can't see it as a worthwhile purchase. I myself like the Macbook Pro itself (hardware wise) with only the discovery of System 76 now being the competitor for which laptop I wanna get to replace my VAIO in 4-5 years. But I don't have a strong pull to buy one since I don't like OSX.

Though if I remember correctly, the main thing was a simple check running at the beginning of the installer to stop people from installing OSX on PCs. That's what the main OSX86 images do (disable the check). Other then that it's usually just installing whatever drivers you need (video, ethernet, wireless) and you have a up and running OSX system.

peestandingup

October 28th, 2007, 03:48 PM

NoSmokingBandit

October 28th, 2007, 06:05 PM

Alot of people have talked about OSX_86. I know alot of people at my school that have tried it. It will work but its really buggy. I dont see the point.

I have a hdd around my house somewhere with 10.4.6 on it. Sadly my cpu only supports sse2 so i cant run leopard on it. Im sure 10.5 will work better on most pc's seeing as apple decided intel was the right way to go.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 06:50 PM

Why dont you touch on any of my other points, smart ***.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong.

Sp4cedOut

October 28th, 2007, 07:28 PM

Its not that clear cut?

bulkier machine? The Apple with a 13" screen weighs in at 5.1lbs. The HP, with a 14.1" screen, weighs in at 5.29lbs. The Apple is 1.08 inches thick. The HP is 1.02 inches thick. Yep, you're right that Apple is thicker, has a smaller screen, and weighs .19lbs less all for more money -- what a bargain.

Plus, I don't care if it has a castrated version of Vista or crapware as I use Linux anyways.

Linux pre-installed apps + repository > Mac preinstalled apps

And even if you can show that the Mac exclusives are better, which I'm not convinced they are, especially for the average, non-professional user, I doubt they're $200 better.

Hibble

October 28th, 2007, 07:32 PM

trick question realy as you can run any linux app under mac's OS so any aplication or feature that would make ubuntu better than macs OS is void. gnome under osx is slightly confusing at first but with spaces i will esentualy be able to run both the mac os and ubuntu at the same time in difrent windows.

so for me upgrade it is worth it.

Finaly "macs just work" wich is worth far more than the difrence in price over a regula pc.

Matakoo

October 28th, 2007, 07:49 PM

trick question realy as you can run any linux app under mac's OS so any aplication or feature that would make ubuntu better than macs OS is void.

So how do you do apt-get install app-of-choice in MacOS X then?

Frak

October 28th, 2007, 07:49 PM

So how do you do apt-get install app-of-choice in MacOS X then?
Fink

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 08:21 PM

So how do you do apt-get install app-of-choice in MacOS X then?

That's gonna leave a mark.

Chrisj303

October 28th, 2007, 08:22 PM

TheWizzard

October 28th, 2007, 08:24 PM

Again, Apple's not just selling you hardware with their machines. If you're only comparing hardware to hardware, then yes. Most times a PC is gonna be cheaper.

There is definitely a price premium you pay with Macs because of the hardware/software merger Apple's got going on (that development doesn't pay for itself). And besides the killer OS, the software pre-installed is VERY usable, some of it is downright awesome. Whereas most stuff that comes pre-loaded on a PC is throwaway crapware.

So, if you dont care what comes installed on a new computer & you are gonna just throw Linux on it anyways, then you dont need a Mac. Its stupid to pay the premium if all you want is the raw hardware. You guys act like this is some secret Mac users aren't aware of. We know. Thats the reason why most people buy them. Especially mainstream folks.

But, I dare any of you to price a MacBook against a comparable PC laptop with Vista Ultimate (compares more to Leopard than Vista Home) that has the same types of usable software titles that iLife includes.

my pc comes with nothing pre-loaded.

and apparently, yes, mac users seem to be unaware of the fact that they pay about twice the price for the same stuff. if that' s the way you want to spend your money, fine!
if you want to believe apples are competitively priced, you can stay safely within steve job' s reality distortion field. but please stop trolling.

Matakoo

October 28th, 2007, 08:26 PM

Fink

Eh, no. That works for installing say the Gimp but is doing nothing to keep the entire system up-to-date. It is only a partial implementation of the system, but better than nothing I suppose.

Then again...unless Apple would open source all of its software (which doesn't sound all that likely...) it cannot be anything but a partial solution. Thanks, but I think I prefer the one-stop-solution to software installation and/or updates.

Frak

October 28th, 2007, 08:28 PM

Eh, no. That works for installing say the Gimp but is doing nothing to keep the entire system up-to-date. It is only a partial implementation of the system, but better than nothing I suppose.

Then again...unless Apple would open source all of its software (which doesn't sound all that likely...) it cannot be anything but a partial solution. Thanks, but I think I prefer the one-stop-solution to software installation and/or updates.
Still does what you wanted, apt-get whatever.

Chrisj303

October 28th, 2007, 08:29 PM

Chrisj303

October 28th, 2007, 08:31 PM

Then again...unless Apple would open source all of its software (which doesn't sound all that likely...)

If apple was to open source all its applications, then I would go back to Windows.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 08:46 PM

I've always found the animosity towards OSX from Ubuntu users very strange..

I mean, isn't Ubuntu being pushed as an OS for non-geeks, thats easy to use and has a high level of compatibility? - which is OSX, is it not?

I think Canonical should be looking at OSX Leopard as a future target/ level of standard to be reached.

There is no hostility from me towards OSX.
There is no hostility from me towards Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 98.
There is hostility from me towards Apple for the fact that they 'champion' open source and then sell it to the people at a premium because you can only get it on their hardware.
There is hostility from me towards Microsoft and Apple because they both lock users in to proprietary file formats (.wmv .mov etc.).

Of the two Microsoft plays a lot better in the community and doesn't hide its 'evilness' behind the Steve distortion field and misleading ads.

TheWizzard

October 28th, 2007, 08:47 PM

About 'twice the price'. - oh please.

actually i just bought a pc with
Intel Core2Quad Q6600 4x2.40 GHz
Asus P5K motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT
Iiyama 22" E2200WSV
it costed €1200.

in the mac store they asked almost €4000 for the same specs.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 08:48 PM

If apple was to open source all its applications, then I would go back to Windows.

Why do you dislike open-source?

Chrisj303

October 28th, 2007, 08:50 PM

...and doesn't hide its 'evilness' behind the Steve distortion field ....

:lolflag:

Classic.

Why do you dislike open-source?

I prefer "evil" Apple closed source software.

It generally means it works properly. First time.

Matakoo

October 28th, 2007, 08:51 PM

Still does what you wanted, apt-get whatever.

Let me rephrase it then: how do I give MacOS X the feature of the excellent debian-infrastructure? Inluding apt-get, version-upgrade, adding repos, system updates, and third-party updates from one single location?

It doesn't necessarily have to be based upon Debian, but the same functionality should be there. Honestly, the cost of upgrading to Leopard would have been well-invested money and then some for that feature alone!

Frak

October 28th, 2007, 08:51 PM

And the Stereotyping begins. I'll be gone. Thread Ignored.

EDIT
@Chrisj303

Matakoo

October 28th, 2007, 08:53 PM

If apple was to open source all its applications, then I would go back to Windows.

Funny, and here I thought the quality of the software is what should matter. Not whether it is closed or open source.

cprofitt

October 28th, 2007, 10:38 PM

:lolflag:

Classic.

I prefer "evil" Apple closed source software.

It generally means it works properly. First time.

generally... like the limited Samba support in OSX...
generally... like the worse browser I have ever used Safari...
generally... like the best phone-home-to-mamma app ever made iTunes...

Yep I will take the Linux programs over those any day; heck, even Microsoft programs.

Depressed Man

October 29th, 2007, 12:19 AM

Let me rephrase it then: how do I give MacOS X the feature of the excellent debian-infrastructure? Inluding apt-get, version-upgrade, adding repos, system updates, and third-party updates from one single location?

It doesn't necessarily have to be based upon Debian, but the same functionality should be there. Honestly, the cost of upgrading to Leopard would have been well-invested money and then some for that feature alone!

I think there's something like that in OSX. Don't hold me to it though (this is based on what I've learned of using Macs in the lab and watching my friends use theirs).

Might just be for Apple programs though..

aysiu

October 29th, 2007, 06:34 AM

I guess Ubuntu Gutsy isn't the only OS release giving users upgrade problems:
Apple acknowledges some Leopard installation problems (http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9806005-37.html)

No, it doesn't "just work." Apple makes wonderful computers, but computers are all human-made machines with flaws. I love Mac OS X, Windows, and Ubuntu, but they all have flaws, exploits, and unexpected errors occasionally. That's a part of computing life.

the.dark.lord

October 29th, 2007, 06:48 AM

Its got nothing to do with being a fanboy. Its about ignorant posts.

And trust me. Im quite disgusted with Apple lately & AM NOT just some blind fanboy who loves everything they do. Why would I be hanging out in Ubuntu forums unless I was wanting to switch??

Hate me if you want, but a fanboy Im not.

Good. But you're acting like a "typical" fanboy. Personal insults to other forum user won't get you much love...

Lightstar

October 29th, 2007, 07:12 AM

Ubuntu does everything I need, except a few games.. which would NOT work on mac osx. Macs have been uncomfy for me ever since I got this PPC G4. The only thing I ever liked about macs is the uninstallation of programs (just drag it or it's folder to the trash can) and man I hate the 1-button-mouse

I love/hate windows, it's really commercial.. it's only there for money = there's no love in it, but i love the compatibility with everything and the huge amount of games I can play (without spending alot of time playing with settings in linux).

I love linux, especially Ubuntu, can't live without it now.

peestandingup

October 29th, 2007, 09:39 AM

my pc comes with nothing pre-loaded.

and apparently, yes, mac users seem to be unaware of the fact that they pay about twice the price for the same stuff. if that' s the way you want to spend your money, fine!
if you want to believe apples are competitively priced, you can stay safely within steve job' s reality distortion field. but please stop trolling.
Twice as much?? Really now. No offense, but thats just over the top & you damn well know it. And people arent that stupid, guy. Switchers when they are in the market for a new computer see the price differences. Quit acting like Linux users are so smart & the general public is so stupid. Its not helping your case & isnt very inviting.

There is no hostility from me towards OSX.
Bull. I think you're full of crap, dude. No offense to you personally, but you're clearly here just to diss OS X & its users while waving your mighty Linux flag, even though you're obviously completely ignorant to the topic of OS X.

Thats another thing. Why are some of you guys even here commenting on OS X when you're not even users of it?? Which is what this forum & thread are all about. I dual boot both OS X & Ubuntu, how 'bout you guys?? If not, you clearly dont know what you're talking about & are only here to stir up trouble while being little fanboy trolls that are in fact totally ignorant to the subject at hand.

This topic is about how OS X compares to Ubuntu. If you're not users of both, why don't you do us all a favor & STFU already. Its not helping & you're coming off snobby jerks that really have no reason to be snobby.

Good. But you're acting like a "typical" fanboy. Personal insults to other forum user won't get you much love...
I called his POST retarded, not him as a person. Thats not a "personal insults".

And I love both Linux & OS X, but Linux fanboys take the cake & are quite delusional. Not saying every OS doesn't have its fare share of loonies. And not saying Ubuntu isnt great, but you're not gonna overthrow the "evil" MS or Apple anytime soon, OK. Keep working with what you have & stop dissing everyone else that might have something negative to say about your OS. You dont & never have had that kind of following, so dont be so damn brash.

If constructive criticism cant be taken without chopping people's heads off, you're never gonna get anywhere & get outta the basement & into the mainstream. Thats a HUGE problem that I've noticed within the Linux community.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 10:19 AM

I think a lot of it is jealously, I mean if when you installed Ubuntu - you were presented with an OS like leopard, I doubt many normal Linux users would be complaining.

cprofitt

October 29th, 2007, 11:40 AM

Bull. I think you're full of crap, dude. No offense to you personally, but you're clearly here just to diss OS X & its users while waving your mighty Linux flag, even though you're obviously completely ignorant to the topic of OS X.

Thats another thing. Why are some of you guys even here commenting on OS X when you're not even users of it?? Which is what this forum & thread are all about. I dual boot both OS X & Ubuntu, how 'bout you guys?? If not, you clearly dont know what you're talking about & are only here to stir up trouble while being little fanboy trolls that are in fact totally ignorant to the subject at hand.

This topic is about how OS X compares to Ubuntu. If you're not users of both, why don't you do us all a favor & STFU already. Its not helping & you're coming off snobby jerks that really have no reason to be snobby.

So I am full of crap now, heh? I really don't have an issue with OSX. I have an issue with Apple and their marketing lies.

There are certainly issues with OSX though. Sub-par implementations for SAMBA (for deep sharing of folders inside shares) is the one that bothers me the most. The things I dislike are likely to not bother the typical user, but in an enterprise they are deal breakers.

shijirou

October 29th, 2007, 11:55 AM

Woah, a few heated discussions in here. Chill guys, lets not get too personal. ^^

As for Leopard, I'd be using it for the cool factor but I can't afford a MAC right now. Maybe when I strike it rich or someone would be gracious enough to donate one to me (yeah in my dreams lol).

BrendanM

October 29th, 2007, 02:23 PM

I have to say, I haven't gotten a chance to really use Leopard yet, but I generally think OSX is a very nice, very polished OS. I wish Linux had a GUI half as nice. That said, I find Apple and their entire corporate philosophy to be pretty much intolerable. You think Microsoft is restrictive? Apple won't even let you run their OS on the hardware you want. Want to sync your iPod with more than one music library? Not with iTunes you can't. Want third-party software on your iPhone? Screw you.

Apple's entire computing model is built around restricting choice in the name of elegance and simplicity. There are times (and users) where that is appropriate. Most of the time, it's not. Apple's problem is they don't seem to recognize the difference.

Glenn Jones

October 29th, 2007, 02:49 PM

Apple's entire computing model is built around restricting choice in the name of elegance and simplicity. There are times (and users) where that is appropriate. Most of the time, it's not. Apple's problem is they don't seem to recognize the difference.

Here here

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 04:41 PM

So I am full of crap now, heh? I really don't have an issue with OSX. I have an issue with Apple and their marketing lies.

But the thread is about OSX (and Gutsy)..

There are certainly issues with OSX though. Sub-par implementations for SAMBA (for deep sharing of folders inside shares) is the one that bothers me the most. The things I dislike are likely to not bother the typical user, but in an enterprise they are deal breakers.

I don't think anybody is arguing that OSX is a perfect OS - that is an impossibility.

I, myself, have issues with OSX;

* I don't like the "iTunes" style side bars in finder.
* I annoyed that OSX still dosen't support the ext3 filesystem.
* I don't like a lot of the Icons, esp the folders
* Spotlight could be a lot better/faster
* Native support for .rar (and similar) still isn't here.
* Bootcamp could be better
* Disk utility could be better
* No specific application uninstaller - simply trashing the application still leaves you with residual files all over the place (messy)
* I would like the option of translucent windows in the finder - the amount defined by the user.

^just of the top of my head - I'm sure I could think of more if I gave it time.

But regardless, I still find OSX the better OS. It's stability and ease of use, are in my opinion unparalleled. Hardware compatibility (to me this is very important)has also been unparalleled - everything I have attempted to use, has worked straight away with no fuss.

The software I use on the Mac platform is of an outstanding quality - Logic and Final cut are brilliant.
I don't care if it costs money, I really don't - if I can't afford it straight away, I will download a copy via Bittorrent whilst I am saving..

Maybe I am just very lucky with Mac OSX , who knows? But my experience with both OS, has definitely convinced me that OSX is the superior OS - and will be for the majority of users.

peestandingup

October 29th, 2007, 05:06 PM

Even though I dont agree with many things Apple does, I think Leopard overall is superior too. But I also HATE some of the new stuff in Leopard also. Its mostly the looks, but some of it is functional as well.

*The new Dock - My GOD, Apple. Why WHY?? I had to do a terminal hack to get it back to some kind of normalcy. I just hate everything about it.

*Folder Icons - Are kinda hard to see now with that new minimal design. Its hard to tell what folder has what.

*The Menu Bar - Translucent?? WTF??? No reason for it. Again, I had to hack it up to return it back to its solid original form.

Some things are amazing.

*Love the new Finder, the quickview options, the cover flow view, etc. REALLY handy.

*The Shared Viewer - This is a really handy & completely idiot proof way of viewing/controlling other Macs on your network or from across the net. Shares are easier to mount too.

*Time Machine - Hands down THE best backup system ever. It doesnt require you do do anything besides turning it on. After that, you're totally set forever.

There's a lot more, but thats what came to mind so far after a few days of using it. There's a lot of under the hood stuff too.

dynamicv

October 29th, 2007, 05:40 PM

Want third-party software on your iPhone? Screw you.
They've climbed down on that one now. An SDK will be available for the iPhone from January.

You see? Sometimes Apple step out of their ivory campus and listen to their user base ;)

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 05:55 PM

The cosmetic changes that have been introduced in Leopard ha definitely caused some strong reactions!

I can't think of a previous OSX release that has been so different to it's predecessor ?

TBH, I don't think we are going to see many more 'killer apps' introduced in future OSX's.

I would love a 'Time Machine' style utility to be introduced as an integral part of Ubuntu - easy to use and flexible.

Matakoo

October 29th, 2007, 06:14 PM

* I annoyed that OSX still dosen't support the ext3 filesystem.

Did you really expect it to? They can't just grab the source for the linux-kernel and patch ext3 into their own kernel. Well, technically they could with a bit of effort but if my understanding of it is right they would be violating the GPL if they did. There's a reason why MacOS X is based on a bsd-kernel instead of a linux-kernel...maybe more than one, but the bsd-license doesn't require you to give other people access to your modified source. The GPL does. So, they would have to implement it on their own.

If there was a demand for it, they probably could. I'm willing to bet the need and/or demand for it is pretty damn low though...

But regardless, I still find OSX the better OS. It's stability and ease of use, are in my opinion unparalleled. Hardware compatibility (to me this is very important)has also been unparalleled - everything I have attempted to use, has worked straight away with no fuss.

Unparalleled is a bit strong IMO. That implies that MacOS X would be lightyears ahead of its competition, which I find very hard to believe. Linux is easily as stable as MacOS X, and it's close to as hardware compatible. I've personally come across no hardware that didn't work straight away. I know there are exceptions to that, but I also know that will happen in MacOS X every now and then - if you don't check a hardware compatibility list before you buy something. And no, I'm not referring to a Hackintosh. It can happen to a genuine one too if you add hardware to it (either internally or externally).

As far as easy of use goes...well, it IS easy to use. No argument there. I'd still say that KDE combines easy-of-use and power in a better way. But that's a personal preference.

The software I use on the Mac platform is of an outstanding quality - Logic and Final cut are brilliant.
I don't care if it costs money, I really don't - if I can't afford it straight away, I will download a copy via Bittorrent whilst I am saving..

At the risk of over-generalizing...why does Mac and Windows users always have to find a way of justifying that they're using pirated copies? If you can't afford it, then don't use it. It really is as simple as that.

That doesn't mean that there are things in MacOS X that I would like to see in Linux. They did get some things right...like the Time Machine. I'd love to have that one!

And I'd love to have the option of buying some of the commercial software, and THAT is the biggest advantage MacOS X has over Linux.

BrendanM

October 29th, 2007, 06:32 PM

Linux is easily as stable as MacOS X, and it's close to as hardware compatible.

OSX has terrible hardware compatibility. It only runs on Macs. As a matter of fact, OS X has the absolute worst hardware support of any modern OS. It's basically an embedded OS.

If you mean peripheral support, well, that's a different issue.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 06:56 PM

OSX has terrible hardware compatibility. It only runs on Macs. As a matter of fact, OS X has the absolute worst hardware support of any modern OS. It's basically an embedded OS.

If you mean peripheral support, well, that's a different issue.

Depends on how you look at it.

As you said, it is only intended to run on Mac's - and it does that pretty bloody well!

Matakoo

October 29th, 2007, 06:57 PM

OSX has terrible hardware compatibility. It only runs on Macs. As a matter of fact, OS X has the absolute worst hardware support of any modern OS. It's basically an embedded OS.

If you mean peripheral support, well, that's a different issue.

Well, I was thinking mostly of the out-of-the-box experience really. In that sense, OSX has excellent hardware support - but you are of course right in that it only supports a very limited subset of hardware. If one instead think of which OS has the most extended hardware support, then there is no competition really. Linux wins that competition without even breaking a sweat while the competition is panting out of exhaustion somewhere far behind.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 07:00 PM

At the risk of over-generalizing...why does Mac and Windows users always have to find a way of justifying that they're using pirated copies? If you can't afford it, then don't use it. It really is as simple as that.

No, I don't feel the need to justify myself.

If I can afford a piece of software I will buy it. If I can't then I will pirate it.

It is as simple as that.

I have absolutely no moral hang-ups regarding that.

I would rather have something I want, rather than not have something I want.

The Linux sections on bittorrent sites, though they obviously have less selection than the other OS' are very well used. The commercial Linux distro's, Parallels, VMware, Cedega etc are very commonly downloaded and used illegally.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 07:05 PM

Well, I was thinking mostly of the out-of-the-box experience really. In that sense, OSX has excellent hardware support - but you are of course right in that it only supports a very limited subset of hardware. If one instead think of which OS has the most extended hardware support, then there is no competition really. Linux wins that competition without even breaking a sweat while the competition is panting out of exhaustion somewhere far behind.

Thats just not true.

Windows has better hardware support than Linux. If something dosen't work out-of-the-box - you can be pretty sure that a windows driver will still be inside the box, or easily available on the net.

With Linux, it's a completely different story. If a piece of hardware dosen't work straight away, then there is a very real chance that a driver is not available.

goumples

October 29th, 2007, 07:08 PM

I'd never pay for Apple hardware to get Apple software.

peestandingup

October 29th, 2007, 07:31 PM

I'd never pay for Apple hardware to get Apple software.
Great. Now why are you here in the OSX forum, or better yet, in an OSX vs Ubuntu comparison thread??

NoSmokingBandit

October 29th, 2007, 07:44 PM

chill the hell out and let the guy state his opinion.
What if you went to an Exxon station and they wouldnt sell you gas because 'it only works on Toyotas." Im sure you wouldnt buy a toyota(Mac) just to be able to use any gas (OS) you want, including Exxon(osx). It just doesnt make sense.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 07:48 PM

Linux is easily as stable as MacOS X, and it's close to as hardware compatible.

Thats also not true.

That depends on what hardware you are using. For some, their Ubuntu install will be rock-solid without them doing a thing to it (out-of-the-box). For others it will be a nightmare trying to get even basic functionality out of their kit.

With OSX though, it's not like that. Unless someone is trying to run Leopard on a really old Mac, the experience (in terms of stability) will be very similar to the next persons. And OSX, again, IMO, is very, very stable. And this is the result of 'lock in' that so many Linux users are quick to demonize.

Matakoo

October 29th, 2007, 07:58 PM

Thats just not true.

Windows has better hardware support than Linux. If something dosen't work out-of-the-box - you can be pretty sure that a windows driver will still be inside the box, or easily available on the net.

Really? In order to get Vista to even install on the computer I'm typing this on, I had to do some reshuffling of the components. Apparently Vista did not like the IDE-controller I had my boot-drive attached to, and having a driver disk at the ready did not help either. Good thing I had a spare PCI-card lying around, or it wouldn't have been possible AT ALL.

And after the install was complete...I had to hunt down drivers for the TV-card, the SCSI-card, the soundcard, and a driver to make sure suspend, hibernate and stuff like that to work properly. The in-built ethernet card was somewhat flaky too. The IDE-controller mentioned above did work after the installation was completed...after having manually installed the driver.

It was pretty much the same story regarding XP earlier, except that XP recognized the IDE card but on the other hand I had to download a driver for the graphics card instead.

With Linux? Everything worked. No Linux-expertise, or general computer expertise needed. Everything just worked.

And that history repeated itself on my sister's laptop - including wireless, bluetooth, and the memory-card reader.

And aside from generic x86 hardware, then there's the hardware that Windows has absolutely no chance whatsoever to run on. PPC-based laptops for example, or the Alpha-based server (unless you want to run NT 4 on it then...) used where I work. Or a low-end 68030 based Amiga or Mac if you feel masochistic.

Windows is not particularly good at providing drivers. The manufacturers are usually good at delivering when Microsoft fails, though, but the latter comes with the territory when you're dealing with the dominant OS.

I stand by my assertion that Linux can utilize more hardware than Windows or MacOS X could possibly hope to make sense of, at least out of the box.

With Linux, it's a completely different story. If a piece of hardware dosen't work straight away, then there is a very real chance that a driver is not available.

Sometimes that's the case, yes. Then again, some manufacturer's provide drivers on their own. The CD that was shipped with my motherboard provided the source-code for at least the onboard audio (although not necessary anymore since it has since then been incorporated in the mainline kernel). IIRC, for the wireless adapter as well.

cprofitt

October 29th, 2007, 07:59 PM

I don't care if it costs money, I really don't - if I can't afford it straight away, I will download a copy via Bittorrent whilst I am saving..

So you will steal it?

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 08:00 PM

What if you went to an Exxon station and they wouldnt sell you gas because 'it only works on Toyotas." Im sure you wouldnt buy a toyota(Mac) just to be able to use any gas (OS) you want, including Exxon(osx). It just doesnt make sense.

It does make sense.

By controlling what hardware their OS is used on, Apple can (and have) created a very stable rock-solid OS. Not having to worry about compatibility with a gizzililion different pieces of hardware is very attractive when programming an OS.

And as I said Apple are a BUSINESS. By making their desirable OS only compatible with their (desirable) machines - they make money. Thats what businesses do.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 08:01 PM

So you will steal it?

Yes.

And don't get all high and mighty on me - you admitted to using a hacked version of OSX several pages back.

Matakoo

October 29th, 2007, 08:05 PM

With OSX though, it's not like that. Unless someone is trying to run Leopard on a really old Mac, the experience (in terms of stability) will be very similar to the next persons. And OSX, again, IMO, is very, very stable. And this is the result of 'lock in' that so many Linux users are quick to demonize.

I guess this is Apple-speak for stable then...and easy of use.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306857

cprofitt

October 29th, 2007, 08:05 PM

Thats also not true.

That depends on what hardware you are using. For some, their Ubuntu install will be rock-solid without them doing a thing to it (out-of-the-box). For others it will be a nightmare trying to get even basic functionality out of their kit.

With OSX though, it's not like that. Unless someone is trying to run Leopard on a really old Mac, the experience (in terms of stability) will be very similar to the next persons. And OSX, again, IMO, is very, very stable. And this is the result of 'lock in' that so many Linux users are quick to demonize.

Your experience is only that way because the hardware and the software is packaged together.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 08:16 PM

I guess this is Apple-speak for stable then...and easy of use.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306857

Like I said earlier;

I don't think anybody is arguing that OSX is a perfect OS - that is an impossibility.

But I would put money on it that a lot less people are having trouble upgrading to Leopard than Vista or Gutsy...

Your experience is only that way because the hardware and the software is packaged together.

I know.??

Thats why I like to buy Apple Macs and use OSX.

Erunno

October 29th, 2007, 08:21 PM

Your experience is only that way because the hardware and the software is packaged together.

Your point is? Is has been repeatedly pointed out what the advantages (and disadvantages) of using a fixed set of hardware has for an OS. That's part of Apples business model and it works rather well when it comes to compatibility, stability and performance optimizations (and is annoying when you don't like Apple's preselected hardware).

Frak

October 29th, 2007, 09:28 PM

omns

October 29th, 2007, 09:36 PM

I think Leopard is like any OS when it has a major upgrade. A clean install is always the best solution :)

cprofitt

October 29th, 2007, 09:42 PM

Yes.

And don't get all high and mighty on me - you admitted to using a hacked version of OSX several pages back.

Heh? I admitted to using a hacked version? Please do show me where... because I have never done so.

Frak

October 29th, 2007, 09:43 PM

Heh? I admitted to using a hacked version? Please do show me where... because I have never done so.
I think he's talking about me by mistake.

Depressed Man

October 29th, 2007, 09:44 PM

I did have a "Power Button of Death" when I installed Leopard. Just did a clean install and it worked fine.

Just goes to show, no OS is perfect. Not even the perfect ones.

Perfect is an advertising term. Or subjective. Technically anything is perfect until you throw humans into the mix. ;)

equal

October 29th, 2007, 09:44 PM

Yeah, cause everyone wants to manage thousands of songs by dragging & dropping. C' mon, man.

Drag and drop seems to work fine on my computer for every other filetype, why not for music?

I used to have an iRiver 20GB player that worked by drag-and-drop USB, it was amazing. I miss that player with a passion.

Biggest advantage to that player? Easy music backup, easy file sharing if desired, easy to remove songs. I STILL haven't figured out why when I delete songs from my iPod through Rhythmbox, the space doesn't free up on the player.

cprofitt

October 29th, 2007, 09:46 PM

Your point is? Is has been repeatedly pointed out what the advantages (and disadvantages) of using a fixed set of hardware has for an OS. That's part of Apples business model and it works rather well when it comes to compatibility, stability and performance optimizations (and is annoying when you don't like Apple's preselected hardware).

My point was that you can not comment on the quality of the OS by giving examples that involve hardware choice. That is not the OS. That is the package.

I can duplicate, in most cases better, Apple's 'system' when I build my own rig and all for much less money.

I agree that Apple usually picks top-notch hardware to pair their OS with; but you can't fault Microsoft that Dell and other 'cheap first' manufacturers make poor choices.

Frak

October 29th, 2007, 09:49 PM

Drag and drop seems to work fine on my computer for every other filetype, why not for music?

I used to have an iRiver 20GB player that worked by drag-and-drop USB, it was amazing. I miss that player with a passion.

Biggest advantage to that player? Easy music backup, easy file sharing if desired, easy to remove songs. I STILL haven't figured out why when I delete songs from my iPod through Rhythmbox, the space doesn't free up on the player.
I'm going to take a whack at saying this is a result of DRM.

For the iPod issue, its most likely the info file hasn't been updated.

TheWizzard

October 29th, 2007, 10:04 PM

Twice as much?? Really now. No offense, but thats just over the top & you damn well know it. And people arent that stupid, guy. Switchers when they are in the market for a new computer see the price differences. Quit acting like Linux users are so smart & the general public is so stupid. Its not helping your case & isnt very inviting.

€1200 vs €3.966 is actually more than 3 times as much. twice as much is indeed far off.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3639023&postcount=17

Depressed Man

October 29th, 2007, 10:05 PM

Drag and drop seems to work fine on my computer for every other filetype, why not for music?

I used to have an iRiver 20GB player that worked by drag-and-drop USB, it was amazing. I miss that player with a passion.

Biggest advantage to that player? Easy music backup, easy file sharing if desired, easy to remove songs. I STILL haven't figured out why when I delete songs from my iPod through Rhythmbox, the space doesn't free up on the player.

Most likely there is a hidden folder on there that is storing the files. It's like NTFS R/W in Linux. When you delete anything it gets sent to a .trashforusername

Haven't decided if that's a "just in case features" or a problem.

What I usually do is just delete that folder (since your deleting the songs in the first place off the mp3 player).

TheWizzard

October 29th, 2007, 10:18 PM

I think a lot of it is jealously, I mean if when you installed Ubuntu - you were presented with an OS like leopard, I doubt many normal Linux users would be complaining.

I'd rather cut off my ***** with a rusty bread knife.
sorry, i do like the design. a lot. but osx annoys the hell out of me.

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 11:56 PM

Heh? I admitted to using a hacked version? Please do show me where... because I have never done so.

When I switch on my PC I get a choice of Linux, Vista, XP and illegally OSX...

...

Chrisj303

October 29th, 2007, 11:58 PM

I think he's talking about me by mistake.

???

Chrisj303

October 30th, 2007, 12:05 AM

Really? In order to get Vista to even install on the computer I'm typing this on, I had to do some reshuffling of the components.<SNIP>

When Vista was first released, drivers where a nightmare - the situation is a LOT better now.

It was pretty much the same story regarding XP earlier, except that XP recognized the IDE card but on the other hand I had to download a driver for the graphics card instead.

Same situation as above.

You can't seriously be arguing that Linux has better hardware compatibility than Windows?!

Come on - you know thats just not true. If I buy ANY piece of hardware from pretty much ANYWHERE, I can be sure that it will ship with Windows drivers.
You just can't say the same about Linux.
With Windows, it will always be the case of when drivers are going to be released. With Linux it is often if drivers will even be released.

*sorry for the triple-post!
Is there no way to merge posts?

dasunst3r

October 30th, 2007, 12:12 AM

I have a presentation tomorrow in a class where lots of people buy Macs. I have Compiz Fusion configured to imiate the Spaces featured just to tick people off.

Chrisj303

October 30th, 2007, 12:20 AM

I have a presentation tomorrow in a class where lots of people buy Macs. I have Compiz Fusion configured to imiate the Spaces featured just to tick people off.

Why would that 'tick' people off?

Most people don't care what OS others use.

Matakoo

October 30th, 2007, 12:56 AM

When Vista was first released, drivers where a nightmare - the situation is a LOT better now.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm using the latest versions of both Vista and XP. It's true that the drivers you can download (from Windows Update and/or a third-party website) are of a higher quality now, but that doesn't change the fact that you still have to download them separately and hope they work well together. Neither does it change the fact that sometimes a driver vital for the installation is missing from the installation DVD, such as it was in my case.

So, the situation has improved while at the same time it hasn't.

You can't seriously be arguing that Linux has better hardware compatibility than Windows?!

Come on - you know thats just not true. If I buy ANY piece of hardware from pretty much ANYWHERE, I can be sure that it will ship with Windows drivers.
You just can't say the same about Linux.
With Windows, it will always be the case of when drivers are going to be released. With Linux it is often if drivers will even be released.

In my experience, having installed various incarnations of both Windows and Linux on more computers than I can count for many years, Linux is generally better than Windows at finding and utilizing the hardware present out-of-the-box. There are exceptions to that (usually involving multi-function printers or wireless), of course.

And the last point...well, what the hardware ships with is irrelevant as to whether Windows or Linux has the best hardware support. All that says is that Lexmark, Hauppage, or whatever company takes care to write drivers for Windows. If Windows was the underdog, it would have been the other way around.

Then again...I borrowed a USB bluetooth dongle from a friend recently (my desktop has no bluetooth capability) for a one-off thing I needed to do (well...wanted to try really). The manual and the CD had the Windows-logo and the Apple logo, and there were drivers provided for both of those systems. No mention of Linux anywhere. That didn't stop Ubuntu from letting me use it...don't really know if the Mac driver was needed, but the Windows one certainly was in order to get Windows to recognize the dongle.

The morale of the story is: don't be fooled by what the manufacturer officially support. A LOT of hardware works on Linux anyway and without user intervention to boot, and the hardware support on Linux is excellent and at least equal to Windows. In my opinion it is better, but someone that has one of those few things that doesn't work as one might expect would in all likelihood not agree with me.

And then there's that WGA thing...consider me strange, but I don't think it's acceptable that I have to re-validate my license if "just enough" of my hardware has changed. It's a total pain in the *** - at least if you're like me that like to tinker with my computers...or if you have the support the buggers.