Ya know ya just can't kill a man when he's dead

[shooraijin]

> Anyways, Mac OS X is like the best GUI for Unix ever.

Seconded. Down with KDE, etc. But to our brothers in the *BSD community, and our cousins in the Linux community, you have all made the first, best step.

[LorentzForce]

i use both Linux and Windows. Linux for server activities, and Windows for gaming. no other OS can defeat the power of Windows when it comes to gaming. speaking of, my computer hasn't crashed for a long, long time well, it does have 768MB of RAM... so it should crash at all because of memory problems...

[Mithrandir]

I'm with all you guys (on this page at least). I use Mac OSX at work (and sometimes at home), linux for the servers, and PCs for the gaming boxes. I refuse to even do that, if paladium comes about. I wen't out and bought a PS2 to keep from upgrading my computers so often. I've saved a little bit of cash at least.

[Mithrandir]

> Aren't they such clever boys?
We *are* clever, now that you mention it!

And humble. Don't forget humble!

[MasterDias]

Eh...There seems to be quite a lot of Microsoft bashing here.

Poor Microsoft..Is it really Bill Gates' fault that he created the worlds most popular viru...er...uh...

[Rashiir]

Good man.

[uc pseudonym]

There is a lot of Microsoft bashing here. To be honest, I wonder why. There are a great many poor quality things that recieve far, far less derivative attention than Microsoft. Have you ever ran into anyone who is extremely pro-Windows, anti-Mac?

[andyroo]

Can't say I have. I've only met pro-UNIX flavour or pro-Mac or those who are sheltered windows users who go "What's a Mac?" or "Linux? Is that some kind of camera?" Something like that. I have nice little list as to why I don't like Windows.

[Rashiir]

Have you ever ran into anyone who is extremely pro-Windows, anti-Mac?

Yes, but nobody that actually knew anything about computers.

[Link Antilles]

Have you ever ran into anyone who is extremely pro-Windows, anti-Mac?

Surprisingly, yes, his father is a computer programmer and worked on guided missile code for the military. M$ is his favorite company and he's behind them 100%. Now, I'm not sure about his father on that. Hey, I can't say anything bad about him, cause his father and him have solved most of my computer problems and he's a very good friend of mine. Even though, we do have our little debates about M$.

[Michael]

<Do we have another Mac-backer!?! Awesome.>

I just wanna kill something.

[LillyAngel]

Windows? sounds familure... I think my dad's computer just got over that. I love having my own computer! But that means fixing it when it crashed... but that's no big! BTW, WB Shatterheart!

Liana

[Stephen]

"I just wanna kill something."

You sound cool....wanna go on a rampage sometime?

[Mithrandir]

I get the feeling I should be scared, or something...

[Bobtheduck]

Hmm... a strong mac hater and a strong windows supporter? I hate macs with a passion... I hated it when I had to use them for illustration... **shivers**

My windows system ran Illustrator much faster, and photoshop as well.

But as for strong windows supporter? No, I just don't have any good alternatives yet... I personally dont' like microsoft as a company... But I can't stand macs at all... And many of the companies in Media arts are moving back to windows, including ADOBE! Yeah, that's right. You mac fan's are losing your big ace in the hole. The industry leaders in editing, After Effects and Premiere are soon to be windows only because Apple is taking over that arena on the Mac with proprietary stuff... It's the proprietary crap that makes me hate Mac to begin with... I hate it's setup and stuff like Sicktime and the fact it doesnt' come with a good media player, and you can't use my favorite Media player on it and it's hard to set up a jukebox and... When it crashes it doesn't even give you any options... At least windows comforts you with the false security that someday it will be fixed... you could go for a few minutes and not know that the mac has crashed... It is pathetic... Oh, and apple's best product is now compatible with windows! It's the iPod and it's compatible with windows now, so that's the best feature on mac... Oh and the best 3d modeling and animation programs are WINDOWS... hmm... A lot of newer illustrators and graphic designers are starting to use windows and, frankly Mac is having a hard time keeping up with Intel and AMD which are faster and sell for less... anyhow, I dont' like defending microspawn either, but I just can't stand the elitist nature of Apple... I prefer useability to pretty looks when it comes to my computer any day...

[freeze]

you got another mac-backer...... i program on os x

[freeze]

and, frankly Mac is having a hard time keeping up with Intel and AMD which are faster

lol....... first off my 800 mhz g4 could smoke a 2ghz pc
second, check out the new g5s... apple says they are faster than any pc, and although they may not be faster, they are definitely equal to any pc

[freeze]

1) macs (running os x) cannot crash
2) the iTunes media player has a much slicker interface than any pc app i have ever seen, and if you are talking about video as well, check out mplayer
3) what the heck? adobe software moving off of mac? i havent heard about that, and i highly doubt it..... prove it. the fact that the 2d graphics layer on mac IS pdf makes me think otherwise

[freeze]

[quote="Link Antilles"]Surprisingly, yes, his father is a computer programmer and worked on guided missile code for the military. M$ is his favorite company and he's behind them 100%. Now, I'm not sure about his father on that. ]
yeah.. and i have programmed for the gov't too (quick job, for my bro, and on *nix), just because you are a programmer doesnt mean your choice of operating systems is the best, in fact, nuts to this debate:
To Each His Own
i dont think Christ would like us arguing over something so stupid, and im sorry i ever got into it

[Rashiir]

Hmm... a strong mac hater and a strong windows supporter? I hate macs with a passion... I hated it when I had to use them for illustration...

You make me sad, Sir Duck.

[Mithrandir]

The great monty python quotes strike again.

Having dealt with this issue from every side imaginable, I have to say that Mac are simply better for certain things than windows. That being said, Linux is better than macs for certain things too. I hear a song coming on...

For every issue (turn, turn, turn)
Don't get a tissue (turn, turn, turn)
Just find the best computer... For the job!

Ok. That was really lame. Never mind...

[Bobtheduck]

I find my computer fine for all my jobs... no, I take that back... A good 3.2 megahertz hyperthreaded processor with 2 gigs of ram and a 500 gig HD and the big adobe products (Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere) and an ATI All in wonder and a DVD +/- RW drive with Adobe DVD creation software and, um, while this isn't technically part of the computer, while I'm lusting after things, I may as well add a nice Full Size DV cam with 3 CCD's... And a nice 3 button mouse (oh the Joy of three buttons...) I know that you CAN buy USB mice, but I'm perfectly comfortable with windows... Although I have to admit it took me a while to get used to XP... They tried to copy mac too much... I mean, they were fine being windows and not trying to copy mac (even if the first windows was a rip off of the Mac OS to begin with)

There is no such thing as an unhackable system. Mac isn't more secure than windows, it's just less common. That means less people attack it. They go for the one that more people use. There are more viruses on Windows for that reason, and more hackers go for windows for that reason. There is no such thing as an uncrashable system either. What causes crashes is when unplanned-for things happen. Mac may have fewer (I say may because I haven't tried os x yet, I definately know 9.2 crashed worse than Windows XP or 95... oh and XP crashes much less frequently than 95, too... So they are getting better) because they are almost entirely proprietary, but the sheer number of options is hard to go without for a windows user too. Plus there are the cosmetic things that I can't stand... Why the heck do you drag your CD to the trash to eject it... And the Zip disks too... If you dragged a zip disk to the recycle bin on windows it would probably delete all the files... That makes much more sense anyhow, because that's what the recycle bin/trash can is made for. I admit those are cosmetic (though the fact there is no eject button on the Zip drives I used was a major headache especially if there were time constraints and I left the disc in the computer, or in one case if the computer refused to eject the disc...) , but I like the way windows looks, the way it feels... i just can't get that from a mac. Oh well, to each his own... Hehe, this novel is to tell you don't insult a windows user... We're not as flaky as you may think. Um... Yeah... Anyhow... I think this is the last I'll venture into here... (this thread, I mean)

[Bobtheduck]

1) macs (running os x) cannot crash
2) the iTunes media player has a much slicker interface than any pc app i have ever seen, and if you are talking about video as well, check out mplayer
3) what the heck? adobe software moving off of mac? i havent heard about that, and i highly doubt it..... prove it. the fact that the 2d graphics layer on mac IS pdf makes me think otherwise

I'll answer 3 first. Only one proggie is becoming windows specific: Premiere. It's because Apple is backing, what's that? Their own proprietary software? And what? Driving their loyal developers away, if only in a small degree?

Mplayer? Do you mean windows media player?

I used iTunes... I didn't like it. Yeah, that's right. I like my windows media player, but I disagree even with windows loyalists on that one, since I'm like one of the few people who prefer it to the other myriad of players out there... I don't think iTunes can play wma's anyhow, not that they are all that great but it's like I have to get quicktime if I want to watch some videos people insist on using quicktime for, even if DivX is an infinately better system, I have to have windows media player for wma files... Thankfully, I've found it to be the best out of all the files (though I am starting to take quite a liking to the DivX player, despite it not being a jukebox) Since the Mac Version of Media player doesn't act as a jukebox, I had to use iTunes... But it wasn't by choice.

However, as for the Mplayer thing, unless you mean Windows Media player in which the mac version is incredibly dumbed down from the windows version, I asked even hardcore mac freaks and no one I talked to knew there was another movie player besides Quicktime (which can't set up playlists, doesn't go full screen, can't accept outisde codecs like DivX (I tried, it required the file to be copied and converted before each use...)) so obviously this media player isn't all that well known.

I don't know why Apple Can't look at DivX... Study it, see what makes it look so good yet be so incredibly small in file size (equal quality is like 3 or 4 times smaller filesize than QT, and usually the clips people put up with QT are crap, not counting the BMW movies, those were great...) Even realplayer (I tried to come up with a nice insulting name... Just dry today, I s'pose.) is looking better than quicktime, and that's pretty sad. Since visuals and looks are what apple's all about, I would figure they'd fix this gaping problem... Of course, they don't... They deny it exists. But if anyone were to tell me that quicktime was a better format than DivX they'd be lying through their teeth. For that, it's a pretty 1 dimensional scale. It's good or it's bad. And Quicktime's bad. They can make it look like DVD too if they make it really really large files, but the DivX stuff looks even better with smaller files.

Why do I do this all the time... i guess I'm really weak in this area of arguing... At least my heart isn't pounding like it was with some other issues... I'm not really mad about this one, I just have very good reasons why I prefer what I prefer.

[shooraijin]

There is no such thing as an unhackable system. Mac isn't more secure than windows, it's just less common. That means less people attack it. They go for the one that more people use. There are more viruses on Windows for that reason, and more hackers go for windows for that reason. There is no such thing as an uncrashable system either. What causes crashes is when unplanned-for things happen. Mac may have fewer (I say may because I haven't tried os x yet, I definately know 9.2 crashed worse than Windows XP or 95... oh and XP crashes much less frequently than 95, too... So they are getting better)

Sigh. "9.2 crashed worse than Windows XP or 95" is not exactly an "apples to apples or apples" comparison, nee?

Anyway, Time magazine recently hit this issue on the head. Mac OS X is no longer a totally closed system -- the kernel is open source and has been widely available for ages. You can even run Darwin on x86 if you're that strange. While there is certainly less incentive to hack Mac OS X because the target is smaller, that does *not* mean that it is not inherently more secure. The same could be said of Linux, or any other Un*xy thing, which is also a smaller target. The open source aspect means more of the bugs have been beaten out ahead of time.

If you don't believe this is true, there are now reports circulating that Microsoft is starting to show NDA-covered portions of the Windows kernel to special customers that require higher levels of security, presumably so that the customers can do Microsoft's security QA for them, so Microsoft is starting to believe in this also.

Incidentally, you said in another post that the Mac is slower. I'll agree that (until the advent of the G5) the *bus* of the Macs were definitely slower -- my dual 1.25GHz G4 has an FSB of only 167MHz, which is comparatively glacial -- but this is made up for somewhat by 1) multiple sophisticated types of processor cache, including 2MB of L3 per processor 2) the efficiency of the POWER architecture in general, which is the same as IBM's POWER pSeries line. Clock speed is only one aspect of performance; the P4, compared to the G4e (of this series, since we're talking about the Macs with the slower FSB), is crippled by its 20 stage pipeline, which was designed to be highly clockable but is vulnerable to pipeline bubbles from any source, including branch misprediction, and performs very small numbers of operations per pipeline stage. The G4e only has a 7 stage pipeline, so a pipeline bubble will filter out much quicker even with a slower overall clock, and each pipeline stage is doing much more work.

As for the G5, this no longer applies anymore, as the G5 can go up to a 1GHz frontside bus, and the clock speeds, while preserving many of the advantages of the G4e, are now up to the 2GHz+ range. 3GHz+ is probably on the horizon.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about QT video looking bad. Using crummy compression settings equals crummy video, no matter whose codec you're using. It's not really an objective comparison.

[Mithrandir]

The real irony here is that some people get more irritated by people bashing their favorite system then the whole religious debates.

As for MacOS X 'not being able to crash' I have to disagree. I've crashed it plenty of times. Granted not as many times as I've crashed my M$ boxes, but it CAN happen. ANY OS can crash. I crashed a linux box many times (usually because of X or thwf) too.

As for the unhackable machine, mac's/unix boxes ARE less hackable. The UN*X boxes have been around longer, and they are usually monitored more carefully. They have been patched more carefully. Since Apple is going with a BSD system under the hood, they get more stability, flexability and security. There are a lot of X apps being written for the linux market that work on MacOS X now, thanks to this fact as well. They are also more expensive, that's why less people have them. They are the lincoln town car of desktop computers. If palladium becomes main stream, you will see a lot of consumers irritated with M$. With any luck they will revolt and move to the mac. You never know.

[Bobtheduck]

Sigh...

I second that motion... hehehe. (gotta fight the naive and ignorant computer user who still uses Mi¢ro$pft. right?)

"9.2 crashed worse than Windows XP or 95" is not exactly an "apples to apples or apples" comparison, nee?

What exactly does that mean?

Anyway, Time magazine recently hit this issue on the head. Mac OS X is no longer a totally closed system -- the kernel is open source and has been widely available for ages. You can even run Darwin on x86 if you're that strange. While there is certainly less incentive to hack Mac OS X because the target is smaller, that does *not* mean that it is not inherently more secure.

But It isn't inherently more secure... And I was unaware that OS X was open source. That is a great improvement on Apple's part. I only with Microsoft would go that direction.

The same could be said of Linux, or any other Un*xy thing, which is also a smaller target. The open source aspect means more of the bugs have been beaten out ahead of time.

If you don't believe this is true, there are now reports circulating that Microsoft is starting to show NDA-covered portions of the Windows kernel to special customers that require higher levels of security, presumably so that the customers can do Microsoft's security QA for them, so Microsoft is starting to believe in this also.

Hmm... You're switching back and forth between stability and security. Which one are you talking about? Windows XP Professional, Windows 2000, and their software made for security purposes, are on par with every other super secure Business OS.

Incidentally, you said in another post that the Mac is slower. I'll agree that (until the advent of the G5) the *bus* of the Macs were definitely slower -- my dual 1.25GHz G4 has an FSB of only 167MHz, which is comparatively glacial -- but this is made up for somewhat by 1) multiple sophisticated types of processor cache, including 2MB of L3 per processor 2) the efficiency of the POWER architecture in general, which is the same as IBM's POWER pSeries line. Clock speed is only one aspect of performance

Actually I wasn't talking numbers at all. I was talking pure performance in the big software company who's users were usually loyal to macs: Adobe. Photoshop and Illustrator ran incredibly slow on the G4's with OS 9.2, whereas on my windows based computer the same programs ran very smoothly. Most people compare numbers. I compare what I see and feel when I actually use the programs.

the P4, compared to the G4e (of this series, since we're talking about the Macs with the slower FSB), is crippled by its 20 stage pipeline, which was designed to be highly clockable but is vulnerable to pipeline bubbles from any source, including branch misprediction, and performs very small numbers of operations per pipeline stage. The G4e only has a 7 stage pipeline, so a pipeline bubble will filter out much quicker even with a slower overall clock, and each pipeline stage is doing much more work.

Well, since you didn't know my response to my earlier statement, I'll just refer you back to that now. You're talking numbers, I'm talking actual performance in use with 2 very important programs for someone with my aspirations.

As for the G5, this no longer applies anymore, as the G5 can go up to a 1GHz frontside bus, and the clock speeds, while preserving many of the advantages of the G4e, are now up to the 2GHz+ range. 3GHz+ is probably on the horizon.

That's pretty sweet... A 1 ghz bus. I think you can probably get those for windows based servers, but no home models yet. It only goes up to, I think, 733 or something to that effect.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about QT video looking bad. Using crummy compression settings equals crummy video, no matter whose codec you're using. It's not really an objective comparison.

I didnt' say it looked bad, I said at similar visual quality, QT takes up much more space than even MPEG-1. Did I say anywhere that it looked bad? I said that most of the QT people put up (such as on the "to end all wars" website) on their websites looks bad because it's not a good codec and they can't afford the higher quality video, since it would take up too much space. I said that the BMW movies are very good quality, but DivX goes that quality with much less space.

[TheMelodyMaker]

Uh... good to have you back, Shatterheart. (Sorry this thread got so off topic. ^_^; )

[majanthehun]

no kidding, melody....

welcome back shatterheart. long time no see.

*walks off, muttering* bunch of geeks, discussing computers.... completely destroyed the whole thread.... need a geek dictionary to get through one post....

[Spencer]

*walks off, muttering* bunch of geeks, discussing computers.... completely destroyed the whole thread.... need a geek dictionary to get through one post....

So true

[Rashiir]

QT will play DivX if you install the codec, which I believe you have to do on Windows too. At least my friends had to. Secondly, when he said mplayer, he meant mplayer, the movie player for linux.

Anyway, how do you eject a cd or zip in Windows? Dragging it to the trash is not the only way, it's just one way in Mac OS X (BTW when you are dragging a CD or Zip Disk, the trash can turns into the eject symbol). You can also right-click (or control-click on a one button mouse) on it and choose eject, go to File: Eject, or you can push the eject button on your keyboard or the cd tray. I don't understand how having more than one way to do something is not a good thing.

Finally, which version of Photoshop were you using that ran slowly on the G4?