BSD User's Review Of OS X 406
Lally Singh writes: "Getting bored with the latest distribution? Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible? Then listen to one BSD user's opinion of Mac OS X. And stop complaining about the hardware. Give a Powermac or one of the portables a chance before knocking on it."
Three Browsers? Feh! At LEAST 5. Maybe more... (Score:3, Informative)
Internet Explorer, OmniWeb, and Mozilla.
He neglects: Opera and iCab and Lynx. I'm posting this from iCab, which
I love (though it can't seem to handle hotmail and crashes on a few things, it's overall snappier than IE. I can almost quit and restart it
in the time it takes IE to come up with a new window after switching
back from another app). I don't know how any Unix geek could possibly
leave lynx out of the pantheon of browsers.
As for Mozilla: uch. I can't even get beyond the splash screen on my
machine. I almost think it doesn't count.
Re:Three Browsers? Feh! At LEAST 5. Maybe more... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Three Browsers? Feh! At LEAST 5. Maybe more... (Score:2, Informative)
This guy is a FreeBSD user?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, he did mention the most of the right files and all. Still, he managed to install FreeBSD without ever looking at "sysinstall"? Okay, maybe sysinstall doesn't have all the transparent glossiness there, but by gosh, all the basic network settings can be done right there. A user need not ever know that rc.conf exists!
With this router I can also run DHCP to auto-configure network systems on my private network. Within moments I had connectivity to the internet.
Again, DHCP is an option right in sysinstall. You do not have to go hunting through a 3 foot high stack of how-to's and man pages. This is right within the installer, which you can call back at any time.
With BSD systems you may not even have driver support and therefore have no sound at all.
I've successfuly got going 4 different sound cards with FreeBSD. One of which was built on to the motherboard, two were PCI, and the last was ISA. Each one needed the very same tweak to the kernel. Okay, kernel tweaking may not be for the newbie, but it did work each time.
I won't even get into the troubles this guy had with getting the compiler to work. Again, the real FreeBSD would have been WAY easier.
Re:This guy is a FreeBSD user?? (Score:2)
He wasn't talking about installing. Everyone knows that initial network configuration is made easy in the install. He was talking about migrating to and from different network environments. For that the only good way I know is to write scripts that modify /etc/rc.conf, etc. I'd be willing to bet that is how Apple implemented their "Locations" feature. This would be something for The BSD folks (and Linux distros, fot hat matter) to look at. Maybe more Linux than BSD because it's more oriented toward the desktop, and hence laptops.
Re:This guy is a FreeBSD user?? (Score:2)
you can change your network configuration from /stand/sysinstall too.
I don't get to use it because I'm a PPPoE user, though: you have to edit ppp.conf manually for DSL.
Why the heck did he COMPILE Apache??? (Score:5, Interesting)
And then there was Apache...why oh why did he feel the need to recompile Apache, when OSX comes with a Native Version [apple.com] of the damned thing that is far easier to use and confiugre than our standard *nix Apache.
*Sigh*
a bit of humor (Score:2, Insightful)
Distribution woes? (Score:2)
What?! Since when did your OS become a style choice? It's not something you should change just because you "get bored" with it! It's a tool that you select based on your needs. (That's not to say anything of the other "tools" which seem to frequently post stories to
-Chris
Hardware (Score:3, Funny)
Does this mean knocking on the iMacs without first giving them a chance is perfectly acceptible?
A good boost for Apple and *BSD. (Score:3, Interesting)
CC? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:CC? (Score:3, Informative)
At the time Apple did not have the Developer Tools available for download. I actually waited for a few weeks and finally resorted to Darwin, which is the same tools anyway, minus the Project Builder apps.
But after 10.0.4 came out they also made many of the tools available to ADC members. Regardless, the tools I got from Darwin already worked.
Re:CC? (Score:2)
Re:CC? (Score:2, Informative)
It's a 136Mb download, so if you're not on broadband then picking up a retail copy of Mac OS X is the easiest way to get them on CD - the tools CD isn't shipped with new systems, but it's in the box if you buy it at retail.
-dair
Consumer Unix (Score:3, Interesting)
OS X doesn't get everything right, but I think its probably the closest any Unix variant will come to the general consumer's desktop. OS X is a usable Unix distro, but has the niceties that most home users expect, and really require. Yes, translucent buttons on top of a port scanner are a requirement. Sure, its nice to grep for things, but my next-door soccer mom neighboor isn't going to. But I can use SSH to administer my website. This duality makes OS X the most usable OS - almost. Not enough native apps yet.
Later,
Goss
Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:5, Interesting)
After a series of problems with 4 Sony Vaio notebooks (two PCG-748s, a Picturebook, and a PCG-F630), my girlfriend and I decided to look for alternative mobile computing solutions. Both of us being Unix/Linux users, we were drawn to the Apple Powerbooks/iBooks (the new model, not the clamshell).
The notebooks feel solid. They have excellent battery life (I got 4.5 hours on a charge at the Ottawa Linux Symposium, while surfing wirelessly the whole time). The G3 and G4 processors feel fast. You don't have to have a 1 GHz Intel beast in your notebook - performance isn't measured solely by MHz, and especially not across different chip architectures!
Sure, I had some minor complaints - only one mouse button for instance. But both YellowDog and LinuxPPC allow you to easily remap keys to mouse buttons. Guess what? That Apple key, and the "enter" key, on either side of the spacebar, just above the mouse pad on a G4 Titanium make excellent mouse buttons! Not to mention full USB support for external keyboards/mice when "docked". Built in antennas for wireless networking reduce the cost of a wireless network card... here in Canada, an 802.11b wireless card typically runs around $220 Cdn, whereas the Apple Airport (OEMed Lucent 802.11b card) runs about $140. And the G4 Titanium's screen is simply the most georgeous thing out there IMHO.
Price-wise Apple hardware isn't all that bad these days. Sure, the G4 Titanium is expensive when compared to a Dell Latitude. But the G4 Ti is the top of the line Apple - it has more in common with the Dell 8100 series... and when you compare those two, the difference is $50-$100 Cdn.
Ultimately, it's up to the individual user to decide which notebook best suits them. But at least give an Apple notebook a chance before dismissing it. They are really quite nice (and quite popular with the Linux coder crowd at the Ottawa Linux Symposium - there were many, many, many Powerbook G4s, and a few iBooks).
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, the Ti is an awesome laptop, but let's allow it to stand on it's own merits. It STARTS at US $2599. I just configured a Dell 8100 for $2,148.00 through their 'small business' store.
$450 is nothing to sneeze at, and will buy you a shitload of memory, giant hard drive, case, docking station, whatever. The Dell also has the best laptop video card avaiable (GeForce2go) whereas the Mac has the older ATI graphics.
So Apple is not quite there yet on price, but they are getting closer with the portables. Unfortunately, the G4 tower and iMac are getting further away...
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Our Dell rep was more than happy to show me their product roadmaps for the next 12 months, so I could plan when I wanted to buy machines, and how long I could expect for each model to be around. It was even accurate, it predicted the mini-tower Optiplex GX150 would be released on March 23, and it was. I saw that on the roadmap back in January...
Try getting Apple to give you that kind of detail. I hate how Apple has to turn each minor revision of their product line into an "event". And, before you start calling me a PC bigot, know that I'm typing this from my shiny new iBook that I bought with my own money (running OS X) and reading slashdot over my AirPort base station connection while sitting in bed.
Apple needs to take a lesson from Dell, they're computers, not spy planes or nuclear missile codes, is that extreme level of secrecy really necessary? I feel really sorry for any chump who bought the $3500 G4 733mhz the day before the MacWorld NY keynote. 24 hours later, a machine witht he same CPU sold for $1699. That's just being cruel to your customers in my book...
Apple also needs to make 3 year warranties more affordable. It cost $237 to increase my warranty to three years on my iBook, but laptops take too much abuse to be without an extended warranty.
And, as long as I'm wishing, Apple needs some more enterprise-strength management features for their computers. Mac Manager and ASIP don't provide anywhere near the level of control that an ActiveDirectory domain does...
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
And no, no one ever buys a G3 500MHz the day before it is obsolete, Apple always puts price cuts, promotions, special deals, etc., into the works a month AT A MINIMUM, and usually 2 months, before that model is discontinued. This is why Apple's sales always fall off before every major event.
I agree with you on the warranty program.
To close, read Mac OS Rumors (mosr.com) and As The Apple Turns (appleturns.com), and you can get a 90% clue as to what is coming up in the next "big event". Over the past 2 years, they have had about a 90% success rate. This will give you a basic, if not official, idea of upcoming events for Apple.
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
(I'm typing this on my new TiBook because I really, really needed a notebook over the next few weeks, even though I know that new TiBooks will almost certainly come in September. But I also have a friend who wants to buy this one when I replace it, so I've covered myself already. He won't buy anything unless it's A Deal, so he's easy prey for that kind of tactic).
D
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
It was pretty clear that there would be no new iBook for a while, since it was just introduced and has been selling well.
I finally got my new Titanium G4, and I must say it's an awesome machine!
D
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
You disagree with what, exactly? The post you replied to is talking about how annoying it is that Apple keeps their product plans such a secret.
When you say you disagree, you're saying that you prefer it that way? I don't get it - how can that possibly be good for the consumer?
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
> aka The Fisher-Price computer (the latter
> nickname was bestowed by my hubby)
> still looks and feels like it came from the future,
> even though I've had it since 1999.
Just recently I had someone ooh and ahh at a Yosemite that I have, and their exact words were "it looks like it's from the future". She was talking about the look of the machine, but it is still quite current otherwise as well. Even though it's two years old, it has a 15" flat panel display, built-in Ethernet, built-in FireWire, built-in USB, no legacy ports, 16MB graphics card, can take 1.5GB of RAM, and runs Mac OS X quite happily. I got a new PowerMac recently, but I kept the Yosemite as well. I don't recall ever keeping a two year old PC around voluntarily. The Yosemite is compact and capable and really beautiful. It has over a hundred gigabytes of storage in it (4 internal hard drive bays) and over a hundred gigabytes more attached to it by FireWire (80GB FireWire Maxtors are $200 now) and is working now as a server. With 1.5GB of RAM and 60 or so spaces left on the FireWire bus, it still has room to grow. You can pop out the CPU and put a new one in, too, in about three minutes, because the mobo is on the drop-down door. It's paid for itself many times over, too.
For about the past 18 months, Apple's been shipping PowerMacs with gigabit Ethernet and wireless antennaes built-in (so they can act as base stations for wireless LAN's). Those are the kinds of features that make a machine long-lived, along with high RAM capacity, FireWire, etc.
some advise (Score:5, Funny)
Don't say that you have a girlfriend on slashdot. You lose a lot of credibility around here.
Re:some advise (Score:2)
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2, Informative)
My biggest problem is with the rubber feet that fall off. Without the feet, air doesn't pass under it as well, and it can get quite hot. Apple sent me two sets of replacement ones for free, just for the asking, though.
The first run of batteries were missing a rubber gasket, which lead to the falling out problem. Got a free swap-out on that.
Other than those three problems, it's been a great machine. And it's amazing how non-embittering it is to have minor problems like these when the company admits to the issues, apologizes, and overnights a fix.
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:2)
Fundamental? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I've just started reading and already I've hit:
I guess the author & I have a different idea of "fundamental". My idea of a fundamental is being able to dd to a raw device. I'll grant that compilers and network utilities can be fundamental depending on the application, but web & db servers? Besides, it's not like you couldn't get all four of those under MacOS. I think OS X is much more impressive under the hood as opposed to just the benefits of adding a CLI.
There, I've said my peace - flame away.
-"Zow"
huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible? Umm.. They exist, but why would I use an 8-bit SoundBlaster?
You'd think Linux and FreeBSD sucked or something. Why should one have any interest whatsoever in a proprietary operating system running on overpriced hardware? Sorry, but proprietary is going the way of the dinosaur. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or die.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that anyone's saying they suck. It's just that a lot of people have been waiting for someone to put together the power of UNIX beneath an easy-to-use GUI, coupled with application support that still only seems to exist in the commercial OS arena. Apple appears to be the first company to pull it off. Linux and *BSD still have their places, but I - for one - want to "have it all". If I have to pay a slight cash premium to get it, so be it.
Also, consider this: I get paid $100/hour for consulting. What does it cost me to muck around with my X configuration for a few hours to get it to work with my video card? (Not to mention my sound card configuration and the extra screwing around that you always have to do when installing any peripheral under Linux) A few hours of not having to screw with that stuff, and the Apple hardware suddenly isn't a premium investment after all. In my business, I really have to consider the Total Cost of Ownership.
Sorry, but proprietary is going the way of the dinosaur.
Says you. Personally, I love open standards and open software - but they haven't been the answer to everything. Despite the fact that the GNU project has been around for every bit as long as the Mac (since 1984), they still don't have an OS that my mom could install and use. Why is that? Will they ever put together a total user experience like Microsoft, Apple, and to some exten Be have? I hope they will, but who knows? Maybe the whole Free/free software model will never provide a viable alternative to the commercial software world.
I have computer needs now, though, and I'm not going to let software religion get in the way of meeting those needs.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Exactly. I keep trying to explain this here -- in fact, I've been trying to explain it to people for about ten years. Back in the early 1990's, people said Macs were sooo expensive and slow compared to PCs. I moved from a Mac to a Windows shop, and at the time, I noticed that everyone on PCs was spending literally hours a day doing nothing but tweaking their configurations to keep them running. Every time there was any software install, that person would lose at least a day of work; add a peripheral, and the impact was a week. It wasn't even controversial -- the PC architect took those as the stated costs of using Windows, and I'm just quoting his rules.
By contrast, in the Mac shops I was used to, the Macs just worked, and the Mac users could just do their work. Installing software and peripherals had costs measured in minutes instead of days. "Now how much would you pay?" What do you think the productivity cost per user is in that environment? Linux today seems to be barely above that early-90's Windows 3.x TCO level.
Despite the fact that the GNU project has been around for every bit as long as the Mac (since 1984), they still don't have an OS that my mom could install and use. Why is that?
We keep getting told that free software improves so rapidly, but somehow its user experience still hasn't reached the level of a commercial operating system from seventeen years ago, and its compiler hasn't reached the performance (compilation or runtime) of commercial compilers ten years ago. I think it's time to face up to the fact that projects people do in their spare time as tinkerers may never catch up to those that are funded, staffed and managed based on the potential for financial reward.
(This leaves open the question of free software that is funded in hopes it will provide commercial benefit, but looking at Mozilla as an exemplar would not result in a positive conclusion.)
Tim
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, although they certainly are improving. You might want to read the GNOME Usability Study Report [slashdot.org].
As long as your hardware is not total crap, Linux is not far from being a "insert CD, click install, come back in 15 minutes, start working" kinda OS. What do I mean by crap hardware? The kind of stuff that no self-respecting kernel hacker would buy, let alone write drivers for. (Like Winmodems, no-name Ethernet cards, old cheap SB-compatible sound cards, scanners with proprietary interfaces made by some company that died 5 years ago, etc.)
This is an internal myth of the Linux community. There is nothing wrong with reducing the cost of modem hardware by offloading some of its functions onto the main processor. In fact there's a major user benefit, which is lower cost. The reason people say Winmodems are crap is so they don't have to deal with the issue that Linux software support and availability isn't as good as on Windows. The tiny Linux market share doesn't lend itself to broad software or hardware support.
We have the same problem on the Mac side of the fence. It's a really unfair thing in a lot of ways, but it also is a concrete problem with using a minority platform, and the way to deal with it is not by saying that all the missing hardware and software is crap. (Although that was a good enough answer back when the war was between Mac and DOS!)
Mozilla, btw, is moving along nicely.
An ever-increasing number of bugs is not my idea of moving along nicely. I wouldn't ship commercial software that had Mozilla's defect curve [mozilla.org]. I'd link directly to the chart, but the bug chart feature is broken again today.
I think it's time to face up to the fact that projects people do in their spare time as tinkerers may never catch up to those that are funded, staffed and managed based on the potential for financial reward.
You need to read Eric Raymond's Cathedral and the Bazaar. http://tuxedo.org/~esr/ Enjoy.
I read it years ago. It bears no resemblance to reality and has even largely fallen out of favor in the open source community.
Tim
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Have you tried SuSE Linux 7.2, or Mandrake 8.0? Both install very nicely. SuSE will auto-detect your hardware for you, setting up X and so on. If you can install a Microsoft OS, you can install SuSE Linux 7.2. And if you can use a Microsoft OS, then you can use SuSE Linux 7.2 as well.
Check it out, if you get the chance.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
I agree. That's why it's unreasonable to expect Linux to be easy for the average person to install. If corporations with billions to spend on R&D and usability studies can't come up with such a design, then it's unreasonable to knock free software for failing to do it.
I should have made that clearer in my response to osgeek. I was trying to make the distinction by breaking "install" and "use" up into two sentences, but I should have made it clearer that I realize the two are different, and that not every computer user can install an OS.
Still, I think that most of the time what stops people from installing an OS simple inexperience. They've never had to do it before, so they don't know how. I think most people could figure out how to install a modern consumer/desktop OS from the simple documentation that comes with them. There really aren't any hard questions in a modern, graphical OS install.
But, again, since most people have never had to do it, they of course will fear doing an OS install. Given the chance, though, most people would do fine these days.
OSX=Mac+MSOffice+apache+bash... scary (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine this scenario:
Mom: I want to have a computer to use the internet, and have Office so I can work at home once in a while.
Son: No problem, I'll get you a nice Athlon and install Linux and StarOffice
Mom: But I need the *real* Office, because the export filters sometimes mess my documents
Son: OK then, I'll install VMWare! You know, Linux is really stable compared to Windows...
Mom: I wasn't talking about 'Doze... I read ./ too, you know ;-) I want OSX. You know it runs Apache and MySQL too? You can even compile bash if you want.
Son: Sorry Mom, but give me *one* good reason why OSX is better and I'll shut up (Buwha ha ha!)
Mom: It has the real QuickTime with the *Sorenson* codec, and you've spent 2 years trying to make it work under Linux.
Son: DOH!
Re:OSX=Mac+MSOffice+apache+bash... scary (Score:2)
c:/Python/python
malamac@trammel:~> find c:/Program\ Files/ -name Apache.exe -print
c:/Program Files/Apache Group/Apache/Apache.exe
malamac@trammel:~> net start mysql
The MySql service is starting.
The MySql service was started successfully.
malamac@trammel:~> echo $SHELL
d:\root\bin\zsh.exe
malamac@trammel:~> uname
Windows_NT
Re:OSX=Mac+MSOffice+apache+bash... scary (Score:2)
Admittedly, NT is not BSD, or OSX; you still have to think DOS (as for example, for drive letters), but overall it's very doable.
Don't get me wrong: I am excited about OSX, I used to be a NeXTStep zealot back in the day; however, win32 is viable as a development platform for Unix developers.
Re:OSX=Mac+MSOffice+apache+bash... scary (Score:2)
> "Classic" environment is running. It will be
> OS X native sometime this year.
It's shipping in October and has already been announced and demonstrated. Even the price has been announced.
If you upgraded to Mac OS X the very first day it came out, and then got Office 10 for Mac OS X the very first day it comes out, you will have run Office in the Classic Environment for a total of six months. Considering that Office 2001 runs better in the Classic Environment than it does native on Mac OS 9, that's pretty good. It's the only Classic app on the machine I'm using right now, so it has the Classic Environment to itself and it couldn't be happier.
One cool thing that many non-Mac users don't know is that Microsoft's Mac Business Unit is separate from the Windows division. Their Mac apps are head and shoulders above their Windows apps. Internet Explorer on Mac OS X is ONE FILE that you can move wherever you want to, or trash in a blink. It has the most standards-compliant rendering of any browser, according to the Web Standards Project. No VBScript and ActiveX. Office has Mac-style panels that speed up formatting and other tasks. Word and Excel started on the Mac, of course. Office 10 for Mac OS X is kind of a big deal historically or sentimentally, because we actually had all 10 releases on the Mac (on Windows the first three were 2, 6, 7).
Whats wrong with a mac (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think mac's sucked until i worked on them and supported them - they dont - the G4 is a mind blowing machine for what its intended for - trust me it can and does piss on any wintel or IBM compatible equipment in the fields of Graphics manipulation, Desktop Publishing, video editing and related functions(and dont start talking to me about SGI or such like - i dont call a pro machine priced at $15k US a general use machine and this therefore wipes out AAVID etc - i mean for general business and home use). The mac is exstensively used for web design and graphic work, in advertising it remains king and dont look now but they are still making major sales in the home user market.
Why ?
Think about it - they are user friendly - very much so in fact - need to reinstall the os, then just copy the files onto the hard drive and reboot (this i believe does not hold for OSx - i have a 9600 power mac at home with my pc's but it wont run the latest release), installing most software is also that easy, and configuration of internet and ISDN is so simple it will make most windows people cry (and dont get me started on linux config)
The mac is becoming every day a more attractive platform - the only thing against it is price - in aussie the G3 starts at $3895including a CD-RW drive which does not include a monitor - sure you can bung a standard VGA on it but if you do then you are missing out - the newer LCd monitors apple have are mindblowing.
If the price for these machines comes down to around $2000 with a monitor (or a top end of $3000) then they would become a serious market player (remember this is the entry level - the top end starts at $7699 less monitor (but with the apple superdrive DVD burner) and a monitor starts at $1399
I would buy one at that price - the 9600 i have is going on 4 years old and still shits on my PII 866 with 512k of ram for photoshop work - the OS is not as bad as you may believe and is worth a look
The only issue is that there is limited free software (and warez for all the l33t haxors)on the mac, thats due to the higher cost of developing for what really has been seen as a pro platform, but this is changing all the time as more and more people move into macs in the home market, thus driving things forward. Come on GPL people - money where the mouth is an start developing for the MAC OS under this license. (i think it can be done)
So the next time you dismiss an apple as a toy or dying go out and play with one for a while - you might be surprised and be carefull you may fall in love ! After all this is a company that has been declared dead more times than i can count and they are getting stronger by the day again.
PC User - MAC Lover - Microsoft by neccesity - Open Source by choice - free speach for all - thats my story whats yours ?
PS for all the mac and tech lovers out there you can contact Steve Wozniak (inventor of the Apple i and one of the true hardware pioneers of the PC industry) at www.woz.org or email him on laura@woz.org - a chance to talk to a legend if thats your cup of tea
Re:Whats wrong with a mac (Score:2)
I guess you missed the price cuts in the last couple of months. A 867MHz PowerPC G4 with the superdrive DVD burneris $2,499.00 and the 17" flat panel screen is $999.
Granted you can get a more powerful PC for $3,498, but not with a DVD burner and a screen like that.
-Erik
Re:Whats wrong with a mac (Score:2)
I guess you missed the price cuts in the last couple of months. A 867MHz PowerPC G4 with the superdrive DVD burner is $2,499.00 and the 17" flat panel screen is $999.
Cretin, he said he was in Australia. Check out the Australian Apple store [apple.com]: 867Mhz G4 with Superdrive is $5,495.00. 17" flat panel screen is $2,299.00. If you want to convert those into US dollars, that's roughly $US2830 for the G4, $US1185 for the screen. And that's with the Assie dollar in its current wretched state - the comparison used to be even more heinous for Apple.
If you think Apples are expensive in the USA.. boy, you should see the rest of the world.
Re:Whats wrong with a mac (Score:2)
> boy, you should see the rest of the world.
Isn't that also true of Compaq's, Dell's, IBM's, etc? You pay more because there are often huge import taxes that have to be paid to get a machine into the person's country. In some places, computers are taxed to pay for environmentally-conscious disposal of the components later. In other words, it costs to bring a CRT into the country because it's a mess that will need cleaning up later.
Re:Whats wrong with a mac (Score:2)
>If you think Apples are expensive in the USA..
>boy, you should see the rest of the world.
Isn't that also true of Compaq's, Dell's, IBM's, etc?
Probably. But where Apple's desktop machines always suffer is by comparison to the price of built-from-parts PC's. Yeah, I know, not exactly fair, but it happens. Anyway, in Australia, the difference is greatly magnified. We're talking easily triple the price of a kick-ass frankenstein PC for a kick-ass Mac, sadly.
That's why the only Mac I'd ever buy would be a laptop. They look so much nicer when they're only competing with name-brand PC's, not cloneboxes. :-)
Re:Mac's wrong with a mac. (Score:2)
They do only post against intel - but up till now thats been their major competition - and as they sell an all in one solution they are really competing against the big vendors like Compaq (who they could have bought cheap at the start) Dell (Who wanted to make mac's under license at one time) and IBM - these companies dont or are only now starting to issue AMD chipped machines, so this policy may change soon.
(Apple dont just post results for photoshop anymore BTW)
Umm the second one i sort of dont agree with but - Apple worked with IBM to design the PPC processor and this is an optimised chipset for them - it works on hardware that Apple themselves designed and the Nvidia Cards are not a set in stone alernative (the G3 and 4 use a AGP bus for graphics so apple could change) - People should never ever make the mistake of thinking Apple are a software only company - they designed many of their components from the ground up and until the Gil Amelio days still owned considerable manuf and assembly plants for motherboards, pc add in boards, cases etc. (and i think still own manuf plants for most of this) this of course is one of the reasons they cost more - market lifecycles and sales vs development costs are higher BUT you get control of quality and this counts - Most Macs are bullet proof (with some exceptions in the past)
But Apple is becoming a stable company - and dont forget this is the company that was unstable when it launched the Apple II, the Apple III, the Mac, The powerbook and the G3 - it could be argued that they are as stable if not more so than ever.
And finally (and i not going looking for trolls here) I dont understand the point on low level content - what other sort of content would the general user want to make (note i qualified this in my first post) SGI make great products for a development market in animation etc, yes they are getting cheaper second hand BUT they are not user friendly, many many third party products (Digital Cams, Organisers, printers etc) either dont work properly or require fiddling around - and thus the home user would never ever buy one - and i mean mom and dad and the small business NOT the hackers and enthusiasts. (advertising companies use macs BTW for the reasons that its the easiest platform, cheapest for their use, graphic artists are trained on it, its user friendly and finally easy to maintain) And home users dont want to make animated films or crunch massive 3d models (and neither do most ad agencies - they outsource that sort of thing (i worked in Advertising for 3 years as Network Admin and IT manager so i can speak on that one)which is what SGI machines excel at.
Apple shines because the average user doesnt need to know about makefiles, RPM's and all the other stuff to use it daily - they can choose OS9 or OSx depending on needs.
Oh and in final closing - Uptime means absolutely nothing to these users (and i should point out to me) Most people buy a machine for a reason and use it for that - the fact that it wont stay up for 500 days is neither relevant or important IMHO (and im not flaming just expressing an opinion here) I have NT servers (yuck but they are my job) that stay up for 6 months without issues - they might stay up longer, but i take them down every 60 days anyway for maintenance - like sucking dust out of filters etc (they are rackmounts) and as long as they are up during work hours the rest of the time they can whistle - note - if they were web servers i would want them up constantly (which is why we use Linux for those) but these machines dont need to be up all the time - only most of the time.
The average business and home user turns of the desktop at night / when they are done with it and they are the people Apple needs for market share and hence more software/lower price ( this point also holds for open source in IMO as well - the 'war' will be fought on Joe Bloggs desktop at home, not the server at work - the desktop market is the one Linux and open source needs to beat MS or anyone else and this means user friendly and idiot proof)
After all its not the size but how you use it
But a damn good post - thanks for reminding me how arrogant Apple can be
PS if you would like to know more about Apple and what the company has designed and the miracle that they still exist try these books
APPLE - by Jim Carlton
INFINITE LOOP - Michael S Malone
THE MACINTOSH WAY - Guy Kawasaki
FIRE IN THE VALLEY - Frieberger and Swaine (actually this is one anyone interested in computers should read - a history of silicon valley from the early days till now (new edition just out)
Re:Whats wrong with a mac (Score:2)
Re:OSX is great (Score:3, Informative)
I just sold my DUAL G4 533 because it was the worst OS I have ever used in reguards to:
Happly I got what I paid for it when I sold it, but I am very very unhappy with OS X. Its a great OS as far as something that has no specialized use, but A Mac is SPECIAL!
Apple really messed up going with a mix of BSD and NEXT!
Its got the sense of UNIX in some of the structure but then NEXT gets its foot in the door and it makes no sense. Its not logical in its structure other then the NetInfo database, but even that isnt that great. Apple is great in some respects and bad in others. I have thought of them as a cheapo linux server (old 7200) for a little kid. Other then that apple is not gonna do so well untill they get their shit together.
Re:OSX is great (Score:2)
Apple sort of screwed people by releasing OSX too early. I don't blame you for being angry with them, and I wouldn't disagree with the problems that you've experienced.
However, even before OSX hit the stores, all of the Mac sites were abuzz with OSX's deficiencies. Anyone with a web browser could have seen that OSX wasn't ready for prime time.
I decided to sit on the sidelines and wait until the reports improved. Sure enough, 10.1 looks like the "real thing", and I'll re-evaluate the situation in September.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a hell of a lot more stable than WinNT 4 or Win2000 too. And it's only 100 bucks more than the 733MHz IBM A21s that we bought at the same time.
The price/performance ratio is in line with X86.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The G4 PowerBook is one-inch thick and has a 15.1 inch wide-aspect display. It has 5-hour battery life and can take 1GB of RAM. You have to see one to appreciate that it is a brick of metal that you can then open up to see a huge, perfect LCD display. Running Mac OS X, it's the state-of-the-art in computing. You can get one for $2500 and they include a free FireWire CD-burner and printer for that price, too. It looks like a boutique computer, but it is not. Apple's price points are the same ones that everybody else uses, they just don't sell stuff with a bunch of things stripped out.
There are guys here on Slashdot that still drool over old Sun notebooks. Apple's stuff today is a thousand times more advanced than those old notebooks, and they are still Unix workstations if that's what you want.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I think almost all of us would agree that the new iBook is an industry leader in value. My complaints go mostly toward the G4 tower and iMac. If Apple can assemble and sell the iBook for $1299, with a portable form factor, with an LCD, they damn well could sell a tower with 4 slots for $999, but they refuse to. They are losing out on a LOT of sales.
At $999 I (and I bet a lot of other readers too) would buy one in a heartbeat, but at $1700, forget it.
A few notes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the other fact that Apple has to deal with (which in turn jacks up price) is the ability to produce the processors to meet demand. When the G4 debuted, Apple and Motorolla could not meet the demand. My buddy waited a few months extra for his dual G4. The inability to mass produce, something that Intel and AMD have the luxury of, will certainly jack up costs due to the obvious extra work required to produce the same output. This is probably, IMHO, one of the biggest contributors to Apple's price difference. But, (even being an Intel employee), I am thouroghly impressed with the G4's performace. I can't wait to see how the Intel Itanium aligns itself with the G4.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on what? The MHz? The G4 500 Mhz performs roughly the same as PIII 1 Ghz. I heard a rumor recently that may explain this MHz myth on why Apple's chips haven't hit the GHz barrier yet: Intel and their x86 competitors (AMD, etc) count both the rising edge and falling edge of the clock cycle, while Motorola (makers of the Apple CPUs) count only the rising edge.
Actually, although the G4 is clearly a superior chip then a PIII, or even an Athlon Thunderbird, the price performance ratio is what is in question.
You're right - mhz rating has NOTHING to do with it. It's completely irrelevant if processor A at nmhz outperforms processor B at nmhz. What does matter, is if processor A at $n outperforms processor B at the same price. Anyone can go out and build a super optimized chip that runs at 500mhz and outperforms another chip at 2ghz, but what's the point if it costs 10times as much?
To quantify my point with a relevant example, here's a rough comparison:
If I spend $77 [newegg.com] for an Athlon 1.0Ghz, I don't care if a $349 [maczone.com] G4 500mhz get's similar scores on benchmarks.
$349 vs. $77 [Lego vs. everything else] (Score:3, Interesting)
Oversimplified analogy:
Which would you rather have. Lego or the combination of building blocks, tinker toys, connectix, and structures.
Macs are like lego... they just fit together. PC's are like the combination of all the other toy building systems.
They are attractive for different reasons. I know lots of people who would rather try to put together a robot from 5 different toy sets, but I prefer the design work that Lego (and Mac) have to offer. I don't want to spend hours trying to get two different toys to work together.
On the outset, Lego costs more. That's because they stress quality and design. You can easily go out and buy building blocks from another company and they will cost much less, but they wont work as well. If money was all that mattered, I'd buy the cheapest toy and play.
But I want to play and have fun... so I buy Lego.
neo
Re:$349 vs. $77 [Lego vs. everything else] (Score:2)
You are 100% correct.
If you read carefully, the scope of my response is directly pointed to the replied discussion regarding the CPU's "mhz" rating, and how Apple may calculate thier numbers differently, and has a better CPU architecture. This was not a "system comparison" discussion, in which, as you state, the scope would have been way to narrow.
Re:Why does it Hertz so much. (Score:2)
Keep in mind all I discuss is a rumor. I do not know the truth of it, the guy I head it from said he recalls it from back in the early 90s. But maybe this is an explanation as to why a G4 500 MHz OS-X and a P3 1GHz RedHat 6.2 both wallclock the same result for the same program.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real.
What matters most is what YOU use the computer for. If its as a gaming machine, fine buy Intel. If you need to work with Photoshop all day buy a Mac, the price difference per MHz is irrelevant if you make your money doing this type of work. Need to compile stuff fast? How about a AMD or Alpha. Need to run Oracle with very high reliability, use SPARC/Solaris. Need to process as million records a second for a billing application, use an IBM Mainframe. Want to edit home movies, buy a Mac.
Get it right, its USEABILITY that matters not MHz.
Find the best machine for a task and then worry about MHz.
My personal opinion is that the best machine for a geek to play with linux, games, fool around with hardware etc has to be an x86 box because of the all round flexibility for a great price. In a business though? I don't care if costs $1K or $100K more if its more useable for the given task then the extra cost is almost irrelevant.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Macs are clearly faster for Photoshop (tested by multiple parties, including such Mac-unfriendly sites as PC Magazine and TechTV), but what a lot of people don't realize is that the Photoshop and Media Cleaner Pro shootouts that Apple does are run by scripts that are really the condensed workday of a user. It's not just a few specific tests in Photoshop, it's hundreds of tasks. Every step the user took as they created the movie poster, or transferred the video from tape to the Web. Common graphics tasks like resizing an image are the same in Photoshop or Final Cut Pro or Internet Explorer or Word or wherever
The whole industry is using the same process for their CPU's. There's no magic happening with the P4 except for marketing magic. I know you think you know better, but you're just looking ignorant here. There's a reason why people aren't rushing out to buy P4-based systems
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dell's $999 offering is a Pentium IV 1.3 ghz, 256 MB RAM. Is that what you would call "low-end"? Sorry, but if you want to make Apple look competitive, the iMac is not the way.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
If your $999 config is like the one I put together at the Dell web site (who do you have to do to get to the Dell online store, anyway? sheesh.) then it lacks an Ethernet card and FireWire.
Sure, an Ethernet card can be had for a few bucks, and FireWire cards aren't much more, but the point is, I have to buy them separately and add them. That takes an investment of time and money that I don't think I should have to spend.
I look at buying a home computer (as opposed to my loaded-out workstation at the office, which is an entirely different kettle of fish) the same way I look at buying a car, or a TV. I plunk down my money, and it's done. I don't want to spend the rest of my weekend adding stuff, or configuring it, or installing drivers, or whatever. I don't consider that to be fun.
I've bought two iMacs now, and each time it was the same experience.
1. Plug computer in.
2. Turn computer on.
3. There is no step 3.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Ethernet is available on the motherboard (built in). FireWire is $50 and Dell will be glad to install it for you.
1. Plug computer in.
2. Turn computer on.
3. There is no step 3.
Those steps would be the same with the Dell. Think you can figure out how to plug in a monitor?
Re:Drivers? (Score:2)
Uh, how many have you got? - I count ONE consumer level sound card available for mac - SoundBlaster. That's IT. There aren't any!
Re:Drivers? (Score:2)
> consumer level sound card available for mac -
> SoundBlaster. That's IT. There aren't any!
Every Mac made since about 1991 has had on-board sound equivalent to an add-on SoundBlaster card. In addition, every Mac made since about 1993 has had a wavetable software synth in it, so Mac users were spared the cheezy FM synth MIDI files that SoundBlaster users enjoyed through 1997.
There is only one consumer PCI audio solution for the Mac, but there are numerous USB audio solutions for $20-$40. I have a Griffin iMic that you can hide in your hand. To use it, you plug it into the Mac keyboard and either talk into it or plug a line-in into it. There are also semi-pro USB audio solutions for $200-$500 or so. What makes them better for the consumer is that instead of plugging a PCI card into the inside of the computer and then installing drivers and then plugging an analog mic into the PCI card, all the Mac user has to do is plug in the USB microphone and that's it. Mac OS already has support for USB audio built-in. No drivers to install.
For professionals, the main PCI audio solution is Digidesign's Pro Tools, which you can run on any PowerMac, or on one particular IBM workstation and that's it. The IBM version is sort of legendary
There are also pro PCI cards from Yamaha, eMagic, Event, and dozens of others. There are also professional FireWire solutions from Mark of the Unicorn now, and more coming. Yamaha's mLAN is the front-runner to replace MIDI, and it runs over FireWire and support for it is built into Mac OS X. The MIDI ports that are found on all digital musical instruments will gradually be replaced by FireWire over the next few years. FireWire is already on digital camcorders, VCR's and things like TiVo. It's where we're moving because most of the time, people prefer to hot-plug a single cable between two devices and having them just work over popping the box and handling bare cards and installing drivers.
> Hope you like it, DannyiMac, because it's soldered
> on, and there's no way to add another.
Thank-you, jchristopher, for another ignorant Mac-bashing troll (seek help, man). PCI solutions require a PowerMac, but you can use the USB or FireWire solutions with any Mac, including iMacs, iBooks, and PowerBooks. As I mentioned above, there are cheap USB ones, semi-pro USB ones, and pro-level FireWire ones. It is very common in the music industry to see PowerBooks being used as portable music studios. The iMac has the same expandability. Microsoft doesn't want you to know that, but hey. Get a Mac and a FireWire hard disk and plug them together and they just work, no installing anything (even if the disk is running FAT32). FireWire audio is the same and it's hot, especially with the PowerBook G4 running audio software so well.
> the G4 tower, the only Mac with any real
> expansion options, STARTS at $1699. That is
> too much to pay for a low end, expandable
> computer.
It's not a low-end computer. Apple doesn't make any low-end computers. The G4 tower you're picking on for $1699 has FireWire, GIGABIT ethernet, wireless antennaes that enable it to be a base station for Wi-Fi, an optical mouse, a graphics adapter with DVI and VGA, 1.5GB RAM capacity, and 4 EMPTY PCI slots (see how many you have empty over at Dell once you've added FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, and wireless networking to a box). It also has iMovie, iTunes, iDVD and Mac OS X. Out of the box, it is already a semi-pro video editing solution.
Have some humility, man. You're obviously not a music and audio person. Macs are the dominant computer platform in music and audio, graphics, and video. They simply can do things in those fields that can't be done with any other machine, and they've been doing those things for YEARS and YEARS. People have been running recording studio's with Macs since the 1980's. I know a guy who still uses a 1989 Mac for writing music.
I hope you aren't a Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails fan. Those guys don't just use Macs, they get out and prostelytize as well. Throw your CD's away if you can't stand the idea of people using anything but Dells.
> What if I want to add optical 5.1 sound out so I
> can play my DVDs on my stereo system?
That's an esoteric request considering that you can get 5.1 decoding built into just about any kind of home entertainment component you want
You are so far out of your league on this, it's just not even funny. Well, maybe it's funny.
Re:Drivers? (Score:2)
Hope you like it, DannyiMac, because it's soldered on, and there's no way to add another.
Re:Drivers? (Score:2)
What if I want to add optical 5.1 sound out so I can play my DVDs on my stereo system? Oops, I guess you can't. What if I want to add stereo RCA in? You can't. What about hot games that take advantage of special fx in new sound cards? You can't. Etc.
Re:Drivers? (Score:2)
USB and FireWire are not the answer for every expansion question.
P.S. Let me know when the USB version of the GeForce3 comes out, I'll be eagerly awaiting it.
Re:No 3rd party sound? Fine (Score:2)
Actually, it can't take a 3rd party ANYTHING.
Re:No 3rd party sound? Fine (Score:2)
I have no problem with the iMac not being expandable. The real problem is that the G4 tower, the only Mac with any real expansion options, STARTS at $1699. That is too much to pay for a low end, expandable computer.
Re:No 3rd party sound? Fine (Score:2)
The iMac has no PCI slots. If you want PCI slots, you must pay $1699, which is too much, which is the point.
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:2, Informative)
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:2)
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:3, Informative)
The iBook's LCD only supports 1024x768, but the card in it supports much higher... which you see if you hook it up to another monitor.
Do you own one? Sorry, but anyone here can go to Apple's support boards, Macintouch.com, MacNN, whatever, and confirm that:
The new iBook does NOT support dual displays (only mirroring)
You CANNOT drive an external display at any resolution greater than 1024 x 768.
Both of these apply to both MacOS 9 and X. If you've somehow hacked it to make it work, back it up with a URL or something. Believe me, there are lots of people pissed because it doesn't work, and we're all eagerly awaiting your reply telling us how to do it.
P.S., I suspect you will not reply, because you'll do the research and find that you're wrong. There's a guy further up in this thread, that claimed the same thing, then never came back to back it up. (I really do wish you weren't wrong - these issues are the only thing stopping me from buying this machine).
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:2)
100% BS, buddy. Maybe under Linux you are, but not OS 9 or X. On the iBook 2 that just came out?
Sorry, but no. If you are, a LOT of iBook users would like to know how you did it.
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:3, Insightful)
As a rabid Mac evangelist, I am saddened to agree with this statement. Not only is the iBook's ATI 128 card capable of higher resolutions, it is also capable of dual screen support (have the LCD and the video out showing separate windows).
Apple intentionally left those features out of their iBook drivers to push sales to the TiBook, which is a freaking awesome beast that does not need stupid protectionism. Just give it a 100M speed bump, an optional Radeon or Geforce, and a mild price cut. Hamstringing the iBook is not the right answer.
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:2)
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:2)
If you want a powerful machine, buy one.
That's exactly the point. I say Apple is overpriced, you say look at the iBook. I say the iBook is crippled and not powerful, you say buy a TiBook. The TiBook STARTS at $2600, which damn well is overpriced. You say "Apple isn't overpriced, we have the iBook!" See my point?
The TiBook is a great machine. There is no need for Apple to cripple the lowend to make it look good. If they do, maybe the TiBook is priced too high?
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:2)
You sure can, but you will only be able to go up to 1024x768.
Kwitcherbitchen (Score:5, Insightful)
You're displaying a common misunderstanding about marketing -- things are generally priced based on what people will pay for them, not based on what they cost. Don't like it? Tough. That's capitalism.
Apple is charging you a premium for the convenience of buying it from them. They're not the only company that charges for the convenience: ever bought popcorn at the movies? Do you pay a 1000% markup on Coke at a fast food place? Did you know that most liquor companies bottle the exact same stuff in a generic bottle and sell it for half the price as a "house brand"? My company charges about $10k for a bottom of the line PC if you insist that we sell you one to go with our multi-million dollar telephone switch. And customers pay it, because it's simpler that way.
Same thing.
Re:just as soon as.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bring back the clones! (Score:2)
What are you waiting for?
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:2)
Apple.com charges $400 to go from 128 to 384 megs.
What's wrong with this picture? Both chips probably come from crucial/micron, too, so the only logical conclusion is that Apple is fucking you. This especially hurts consumers like schools, who prefer to get it all in one box, rather than adding 3rd party memory to a system.
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:2)
My facts ARE straight, chief. Go to the Apple store and configure a G4. They come with 128 megs of RAM. Now look at the drop down for "384 megs of RAM" - it's a $400 increase. That's right, an additional 256 megs costs $400. Anyone can verify this by visiting the website.
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:2)
Something tells me that Dell, Gateway, etc. don't send your extra RAM in a static bag along with your system... guess what, they ALL install the memory for you. So why does Apple charge double for the same service?
Re:Too late to be good... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too late to be good... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too late to be good... (Score:2)
> of unprotected memory- since the 80's
First, you're talking about the previous version of the Mac OS. The current one has a Unix kernel. Most Windows users still use Windows 98 (Windows Magazine recommends against using Windows Me at all). Microsoft says Windows 95/98/Me have protected memory and preemptive multitasking, but apps routinely bring the system down, and you can't format a floppy in the background and keep working. It's all bullshit. Most Windows users are still running DOS, even today. There are all kinds of software and hardware products that won't work with Windows 2000.
> Apple will finally be upgrading to the quality of
> windows 95 with OS X. Wow what an
> accomplishment! *golf clap*
No, man
Re:Cost (Score:2)
Re:Cost (Score:2)
Also, Apple is pretty surruptious about its upgrade paths, as the original iMac barely had any documentation on upgrades past memory, including the hard drive, which clearly Apple did to enforce future whole-system sales. When I called Apple they actually said "it's physically impossible to upgrade the hard drive", which I knew was BS.
I like some of the prinicipals behind Apple machines, but not all, because at times they act like just another big name brand in the industry. Their legal confrontations haven't helped. And when you do argue against them, you get the diehards screaming you down (or, in this case, modding you down). I never actually determined which was worse: Linux zealotness or Mac zealotness. :)
Re:Cost (Score:2)
Re:fp (Score:2)
I have installed OSX on a G3 box. Most confusing damn thing I've ever done. Spent an hour or more futzing with it until I finally broke down and called Apple tech support. Turned out that I needed to boot up OS9 from CD to create an exactly 8gig partition. This tid bit wasn't mentioned in any of the docs that came with it. Then even the tech support guy didn't know if I needed to make that 8gig partition 8000Meg or 8192Meg to account for proper kilobyte size.
Well, I ended up just making it 8000Meg and it finally installed. Eye candy everywhere. Looked a LOT like KDE meets Win2k to me, with the added doo dad of having a task bar that warps. Yawn.
The user I was setting this up for does graphics work, oddly enough, and has a requirement for a plain gray background. After literally going through every single control panel on this OS several times I was totally unable to locate how in the heck you get rid of the blue swirlly background. Oh yeah, easy as pie.
I'm sure there's a way to get the background to change, but should it require this much effort? Heck, the real FreeBSD isn't anywhere near this difficult to get a GUI up and running. That, and it at least knows how to partition a hard drive all by itself. I know a lot of Apple die hards are screaming troll, but from my personal experience OS9, KDE, Gnome, Win9x, Win2k are all a LOT easier to figure out for a new user than what I saw in OSX.
About the only concept in use that I did like was the use of drop shadows instead of off color window borders. The shadows are a bit too large, but the concept is cool. Outside of that, I guess I'll have a look at 10.1 when it comes out to see if it's worth the time to muck with.
Re:fp (Score:2)
Re:What thinking "different" will get you (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you realize exactly how many of those who purchase G4s run Photoshop almost exclusively. What should they benchmark? Kernel compile times?
In the absence of actual innovation...
Interesting you say that. From my perspective, Apple and Sony seem to be the only personal computer makers on the planet left actually creating new products. iDVD? iMovie? Final Cut? Ti PowerBook? New iBook? Um... Mac OS X [apple.com]?
What type of innovation have other PC makers offered this year?
- Scott
Re:What thinking "different" will get you (Score:2)
> one fast MacOS app, that's life,
Ha ha ha ha. Mac users wish that we got such treatment from Adobe. They are seen as spending too much time on their consumer-level apps for Windows, while Mac-based pros pay the bills and get much less attention. Photoshop is not more highly optimized for the Mac. It is running full speed on Windows, too.
Apple also does encoding shootouts with Media Cleaner Pro. People are editing broadcast-quality video on PowerBooks with Final Cut Pro. Music systems are running more tracks and plug-ins than Intel systems. The things I do each day on a PowerMac simply can't be done on Intel. The same software is there but it doesn't perform.
> but anyone claiming PPC CPUs are faster than IA32
> CPUs while omitting "but only if you spend your
> life running Photoshop" is being awfully dishonest.
People who continue to insist that Photoshop is some kind of strange island of an app are the ones being dishonest. Today's software spends a lot of its time working with images. Most people are running Graphical User Interfaces, right? Video-editing is like graphics editing but with lots more images. Every graphics app runs Photoshop plug-ins. As I mentioned, the comparisons are not just done in Photoshop, but also in other apps. Altivec is not just one little add-on to the G4. The chip in my PowerMac has 11 Altivec units. Apple very definitely sat down some time in the past and decided to optimize their systems for modern desktop computing: graphics, video, audio. It shows in their systems. But the G4 also kicks ass on distributed.net, along with sub-1GHz Alphas and other processors that don't have too many pipelines like the P4.
> Final Cut Pro was cited as an industry "standard"
> (though I doubt any industry consortium or
> standards body specifies it
No, just more people use it. You have to know about video to know how good Final Cut Pro is. It is replacing $30,000 workstations for some people; for others, it's letting them work on a notebook for the first time. You have already watched hours of TV that was done exclusively in Final Cut Pro on Macs. CNN is all over it. Everybody is all over it. Imagine Linux and Apache rolled into one, but for video-editing people instead of server admins.
> Nor did they invent video encoding, though I don't
> know enough about a DVD filesystem to know
> whether anything there was tricky
First, you have to encode the video into MPEG-2. Apple's low-end PowerMac does this in very high quality, in software, at 2x (a first
Ad agencies do all their work digitally, but up till about six months ago, when they wanted to show a clip to a client, they put it on analog video tape. Now they put it on DVD using Apple's tools, and it's cheap! Very, very cheap.
Not to mention that video comes out of the camera over FireWire (Apple invention) and is easily handled in Mac OS through QuickTime (Apple invention), and is easy for consumers to edit with iMovie (also Apple's).
> PC owners have learned not to pay high markups
> for innovative
They have learned how to pay high costs for IT support. They have learned that you can get Outlook viruses through email and blame them on Unix hackers instead of Microsoft.
> (translation: proprietary, incompatible, and rapidly
> obsolescent) integrated hardware; you'll find plenty
> from IA32 software vendors.
Apple uses the same hardware. A PowerMac has PCI, ATA, DRAM, etc. What's different is that the old BIOS of the x86 is OpenFirmware on the Mac (includes a nice graphical boot loader); the P4 is replaced with a G4 that's better for media tasks, and instead of Windows, we use Mac OS X, which is better for media tasks. What is so hard to understand about the fact that the resulting system is better for media tasks? Most consumers these days are using their computers for media tasks
> making (someone else's) portable software
> environment viable might have been innovative
It's hard to call NeXT "someone else" when speaking of Apple. The NeXT project started at Apple, and left with Steve Jobs and a bunch of other people. Then it came back to Apple, along with Steve Jobs and a bunch of other people. NeXT systems used the same serial ports and connections as Macs, and the same CPU's. In a sense, you could say that Mac OS forked when Steve Jobs left, and it's being reunited right now after a few years of Mac OS / Mac OS X existing next to each other as entirely different products.
> , but they killed NEXTSTEP/Intel to protect their
> monopoly margins.
They killed Cocoa for Windows to protect Microsoft's monopoly margins and ensure that Microsoft wasn't going to stop making Office for Mac (even though Microsoft makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit off that product every year). Microsoft also wanted Apple to kill QuickTime, a technology that's used by content creators in audio, video, etc. Even if this hadn't come out at the MS trial, I don't think anybody really believed that Microsoft would tolerate Apple deploying their new API onto both Windows and Mac. No way.
Would you ask a musician to set up your Linux server? No. So don't act like you know more about Macs than the next guy. You look at the components that are typically in an x86 and compare them to Apple and find Apple lacking, but you're not looking at all the other stuff. Innovative and productive software that's enabling people to do things they never could, FireWire, gigabit Ethernet, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, wireless antennas, etc.
Re:Ill use it when it can play DVDs (Score:2, Informative)
You can swtich back next month [apple.com].
- Scott
Re:my girlfriend (Score:3, Funny)