my stance for macs.

[solrac]

From someone bagging on macs, my reply below his...

Haha, ok the cute thing was a cheap shot, but I will stand to my point and I'm sure you'll stand to yours. You say you use the Unix features of OS X because you're learning them, but that to me doesn't really constitute for actually having a use. Yes, you are technically running programs and learning command line functions, but you really are not doing anything else but learning. I can simply partition my HD so I dual boot any flavor of *nix I want, even FreeBSD. When I think of using FreeBSD or the like, I think of what it was normally intended for, webservers to be the main one and then servers/workstations in a LAN/WAN environment. You will rarely or never see OS X do these things because it is just not a good idea. In that department, *nix variants or even WinNT/2k will be the top choices.

Your only solid point is what you probably really use it for. Photoshop and Flash(though I don't think programming flash really makes a difference in either platform). As a person who does photo/video editing as a profession, I'm sure the Mac is the choice platform, but you have to understand, that is a very slim percentage of computer users.

The average user would probably rather have the PC for the performance/price ratio. No matter what, PCs will be the easiest choice because of that. I really don't think learning Windows is all that hard to do, and crashing is not the end of the world.

Also, before you jump to conclusions about me, I do use Macs at work and I know how they work and whatnot. I do like them, but I have to still say PCs are much better for normal use. Where I work, there is a PC lab and a Mac lab. In both labs, both platforms will crash, but the PCs seem to be a better workstation computer.

Well that's the beauty of mac: I got to learn unix stuff (FreeBSD technically) WITHOUT having to partition anything, it just is part of it, and at the same time, have this SUPER easy to use interface.

And I'm not JUST learning UNIX. I've actually learned some stuff and successfully used it. Especially FTP, File browsing, searching files with advanced tags and even regular expressions. All great stuff to learn. I actually think the greates thing is that I can do all this WITHOUT a dual boot system. (I can still make this a dual boot system, by the way, and put Linux on it if I wanted to learn that for example.)

And like you said, Photoshop and Flash is what I use it for. And more. Actually, it's Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, After Effects (soon), Word, Excel, all the main web browsers (for testing), Illustrator, and InDesign.

Now, all those programs are ONLY available on Mac and Windows. There is no other choice. Mac used to **** as an OS. Windows used to ****, too, in different ways. The only really good OS was a *nix. But none of the above software =(

Now... windows ****s a lot less as an OS, but Mac is AWESOME as an OS.

In fact, Mac is truly the best OS in the world. Because it is a true *nix, with the ease of use known of Macs (their only greatest asset), and all the software.

And one more thing macs have hands down, that M$ is trying to catch up with. Multimedia for the people. Apple has iPhoto (digital camera), iTunes (digital music), iMovie and iDVD (digital movies), these all link together to any device you plug into the mac, and makes the whole digital world really easy, simple, and awesome for n00b computer users. It's even good software for professionals! And anyway, that's what Apple needs, n00b users, to gain market share, but they keep the professionals happy too, ALL the time.

It's true that PC architecture is currently faster if you buy the best ****. Like think of a dual 2.53 GHZ P4 system. That will rock any mac right now because the fastest mac is a dual 1 GHZ G4. But the dual 1 GHZ will still be faster than a dual 2.53 GHZ in certain tasks. And even then, if we are talking average users here, they will NEVER EVER EVER NEVER tap all that power. Not even close.

One thing you PC people never understand, is that the chip speed and hardware make very little difference. It's the software that counts.

Look at flash player. On Macs, it ****s. Animation is SLOW. Very slow. It's simply bad software. Now, take a Pentium 2 266 mhz computer. OLD ****ING ****. Now, LOL, put flash player on it. It's WAYYYY Faster than the dual 1 GHZ mac!!! Now you can't say that's a faster computer. It's not. It's a Pentium 2 266 mhz. It's the flash software that just WORKS on PC, not on mac.

Mac has way better software. It's a true *nix OS with the Mac ease of use, it's got Apple's digital collection, it's got better pro tools for video and audio (don't forget audio, macs RULE in audio), AND it has M$ Office and all the Adobe **** you can get on PC like Photoshop, etc. Meaning equal or better software.

Yes PC has more software. A lot more, but quantity means nothing. Mac has like 5 audio converting utilities. PC has like 500. But they all do the same ****. So the 5 on mac are just as good as the 500 on PC. The only thing PC really has more of is games.

Now it's very easy for a PC to come out seeming like a better workstation at your work. Older macs ****, especially if they do NOT have OS X. But try this. Go to your work, and try using (if there is) a brand new fast top of the line mac, with OS X, lots of RAM, and the right software on it. You'll see it's just better to use than the PC if you're willing to learn the software.

And one more thing.... you talk about webservers and servers/workstations in a LAN/WAN environment to be rarely or never seen used on OS X because it is just not a good idea. You say that in that department, *nix variants or even WinNT/2k will be the top choices.

But that's just a false statement. First of all, Mac OS X is a fully POSIX compliant *nix variant. Second, why is it not a good idea? Since it is *nix it is actually a very good idea. And Apple sells Mac OS X Server OS. And it is better than windows. (Same reason, it's *nix, and has the mac ease of use.) Also, apple just released XServe, their rackmounted server solution. It's a GREAT start and a badass server. Within the next year or two, you will see Apple getting a lot of business in the server market and eventually you'll hear people say "Oh yeah, you know what. That Mac server is actually pretty damn good." Also, currently the ONLY server provider that sells a server AND hardware AND the OS ALL from the same company is Sun. Sun makes its own hardware, they make their hardware, and they make their own OS (IRIX, etc.). Now, Apple is the second. The only other company that makes the hardware, makes the OS, and provides the server.

You'll see Apple's image turn around totally. In 5 years, this whole "Oh mac ****s. It's overpriced, ****ty OS, no software...."

Oh my god that is so gonna be in the past. Very much so. Give it a chance, dude.

[Nummi_G4]

wow dude. congrats on the largest post ever You are too smart for me If you talk to a peecee lover like that... their head will explode.

[homer]

I agree with you.

There is one flaw, however:

You cite Flash as being bad software for Mac, and then you say that Mac has "way better" software. I know it's a little thing, but still. . . .

[uoba]

On the web server point, this alone makes me prey in the direction of Cupertino every morning. 3 macs... 3 webservers for testing, thank you Jobs.

This will swing web designers/companies back to OSX (if Apple market this fact a bit more)!!

Nice work, did he give a reply?

[solrac]

i didn't get a reply yet.
Here is my friend's reply. He is a network admin and programmer, and web developer.

You don't have to have a different partition to run Linux on a PC running
Windows either. There are distros that install right on top of Windows.

Learning UNIX to FTP, file browse, search files and regular expressions are
really nothing. That's not the power of UNIX and any OS can do that. I can
appreciate your efforts, and give you mad props, but that doesn't count as a
point to OS X.

Apple only pulled this new OS because: it got all the code from an already
good OS. All they had to do was to put an interface on it. Now you may ask:
If all they did was create an interface, how come other flavors of UNIX
don't have a nice GUI? Well, that's because Apple is the home of all things
cute. And it actually has some money to throw at interface designers. The
Open Source Community, however, depends on individuals that work on the
project as they can, and they often spend more time fixing or creating core
features than making it look cute. I'm sure that even Microsoft could make a
better OS if they used a *nix kernel and developed a new GUI. In fact, Mac
OS X IS a Microsoft OS. Don't forget that M$ OWNS YOOOOO.

How can Apple make multimedia easy for people? By manufacturing everything.
Come one now. Even Enola Technologies could do this if we could make
everything from the computer down to the MP3 player. They know all there is
to know about a particular device. That's their field. But they aren't a
good programming platform. Every platform has a strong point, and Apple's is
multimedia.

Now about architecture, just read above. You can't really compare a platform
that has thousands of manufacturers (PC) to one that only has one (Mac). I
know you can add off-the-shelf hardware to a Mac, but you can also buy very
stable PC computers, like Dell.

Now WTF are you talking about? Only software matters? Then you ALREADY lost
this argument. The best OS runs on PC, not Mac. You obviously don't know WTF
you're talking about. If what you say it's true, go grab a G3, I'll get a
quad Xeon and let's see who wins. I agree that Flash player IS the "de
facto" POS on Mac, but that's the exception, not the rule.

How does Mac have better software? Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft, etc ...
they're all the same on the PC. And Mac OS X is nothing but a cute interface
to a PC developed OS. So if 500 is the same as 5, why not just one? Because
they DO have different features, programming style, bugs and prices. Why not
have just ONE OS with ONE word processor, ONE programming language, ONE
video editing software, ONE and ONLY ONE of anything? Because that would
**** MAJOR BLUE WHALE'S BALLS!!! If that's what you want, run Microsoft
software. It's essentially the same thing. They want the same. They want
ONLY their software in the world, no other choices.

For a workstation, Macs just don't do the trick. Since Macs only have a
limited number of programs they can run, and that's the desired effect
apparently, it's very hard. You can always write custom software, as most
big companies do. But Mac lacks an easy programming language, so the TCO is
very high. Besides, you can buy a $500 PC and have the same performance as a
Xserver, based on your point of view. But even if hardware DID make a
difference, or does it, a regular office worker doesn't require anything
better than that $500 PC.

Mac is not a good idea for a server environment because, again, it lacks the
software. You think that because you can run Apache and PHP on a Mac, you
have a server sitting in your desk? NO! A server is not defined by the
computer's ability to run a web server. Even Windows 3.0 can do that. There
are various other things to consider on a server, security being on the top
of the list. As POSIX compliant, even Windows can do that. Ease of use does
NOT matter on a server. All it has to do is sit there and not crash. Windows
can do that too.

Being a newcomer is not a good thing in the NOS business. True it has UNIX
on it's veins, but it's not a proven platform. SysAdmins don't jump on new
technologies like that, at least not the good ones. ;-) And don't give me
that BS about manufacturing everything. The best database server is not made
by Apple, nor is the best web server, SMTP server or NOS.

Apple will not thrive just because of these new changes. Apple has been
innovating every day and they still have a marginal marketshare. Microsoft
has legions of programmers and they still ****! Open Source is the only way
to go. And Apple is just taking advantage of it. Wanna make Mac really good?
Open the source code and give programmers a decent license. Then you'll see
what happens.

- Marco Machado

[solrac]

my reply to marco (above) since this stupid UBB won't allow this many characters in one post

I didn't mean to say Windows couldn't install linux distros. Of course it can. Just that other dude in the first post seemed to say u could not install Linux on a mac, or something like that.

I used UNIX to learn more the ftp, file browse, etc. I know that's not the power of UNIX but I am learning these commands and CLI and the fact that OS X is *nix is what even made this possible. But the point to OS X is that it is protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing, dynamic memory handling, etc. etc.. Basically more crash proof than windows now. (If you want to get into the power of UNIX thing.)

You say that Apple only pulled this new OS because: it got all the code from an already good OS. All they had to do was to put an interface on it. EXACTLY!!! THAT WAS F'IN GENIUS!!!! They ****ed as an OS company anyway. Their best success was at the interface. (The so called legendary mac ease of use.)

And, since the core of OS X is open source, Apple constantly implements the newest updates and changes to the kernel and its BSD layer, all the time. You make it sound like Apple is not open source at all. It is. That's why they made that whole "come on in, it's open" logo. As updates are released in the community Apple will definetely include them in frequent software updates.

And I don't buy your whole OS X is a Microsoft OS BS. Just because M$ owns a bunch of Apple stock? Whatever... So if I buy a buttload of Apple shares it is now an enola technologies OS hehehe.

Now I must repeat again, YES ONLY SOFTWARE MATTERS. Yes, I'll grab a G3, and you get a quad Xeon, and give them to two equally stupid users, and tell them to set up their email. Guess who will have it up and running first. The Mac. So the G3 is better for that, because of the software on it. That's why Sega lost out to Nintendo after the video game wars of so long ago, because even though Nintendo's hardware was less powerful, the games were more fun. SOFTWARE!!! Flip it around. Give me a Dual 1 GHZ Mac and you get a Pentium 2 266 mhz. Let's both play a flash animation. You're gonna WIN BIG TIME. Because the software for that on the PC is much better. Ironically, you're right. The de facto POS software on the mac IS flash player, and it IS the exception, not the rule. That's what I'm saying. Every other software on the mac, just about, is damn good. (To homer, who posted above, that's what I meant, it was not a flaw in my post.) And the best OS no longer runs on PC, it now runs on mac. Unless you think that Windows OS is better than a *nix??

And yes, I do agree with you that Adobe, Macromedia, etc. software is the same on PC. That's why I said EQUAL or better software.

And yes, 500 different choices for the same kind of software on PC is just as good as 5 or 10 choices on the Mac. But not just one. PC is just overloaded with software. I like having 5 - 10 different choices. I get different features, programming style, etc. Having 500 choices on PC is just overkill. I'll NEVER go through 500 audio players, for example. I'll probably go through 5 or 10, lol. I don't agree with the "just one" thing, I hate M$ for trying to be the only one, no other choices, too!!! The only reason there's so many choices on PC is because there's so many developers that are just used to writing software on PC. Mac has to be getting out to more developers, and Cocoa is a very good platform. I disagree with you if you say it's not.

Now you say that based on my point of view, I can get a $500 PC and it's as good as XServe. Well not really. Now we're talking servers and servers need good hardware, because they have to serve to many many users. But yeah, the $500 PC is probably just as good as an XServe box if it's gonna be for a single user that needs word, excel, internet, and email.

So you say mac lacks the software to be a successful server. Well it has Mac OS X. So it can do more than run Apache and PHP as you say. It's a true *nix system, and all that. It has very good security. It's nothing new dude. It's the BSD kernel, pretty good security actually by what I've read about it. Ease of use DOES matter. Not for just sitting there and not crashing, but what about setting it up??? And is Windows POSIX compliant??? Or did you screw up when you said that???

True, being a newcomer is not good in that business, but at least it makes the business possible. That's what Apple needs, more business. That's why I said it'll take a couple years or more for Apple to get in there. But every journey starts with one step.

You say "Wanna make Mac really good? Open the source code and give programmers a decent license. Then you'll see what happens." How would this be done? Isn't it already like that? How could more so??

Well anyway the only point you have, that I can't argue with you, is when you say Mac is not a good development platform. I don't know why really. It's got its native Cocoa language (obj-C), and Project Builder from apple, or Metrowerks CodeWarrior. For web dev, you got PHP, Perl, etc. built in. Oracle is now working with Mac even to get its **** on there. Of course you can't do .NET stuff and M$ DB stuff but that's cuz it's M$, who cares. What makes mac a bad dev platform? Just wondering.

[klamps]

Before I start talking again, I just want to clarify that I'm not, BY NO MEANS, defending Windows! I hate Windows just as much as anyone that uses it. I just think that the whole "Mac is the best thing in the world" is bs. Mac users are know for that.

Windows XP does have better memory management and multitasking. But it has that stupid interface as default. At least you can change it back. What makes Windows crash so much is what's called "DLL Hell", where a new program updates a library file and old programs crash. They're solving this problem with the new .NET framework. With .NET, different assemblies can co-exist using different "environments".

The core of OS X is open source, but what about the interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Apple giving back to the community? I don't think so.

If Enola Technologies buys a truckload of shares from Apple and M$, it'll own BOTH!

On the software issue. You're referring to the interface, but that's not what makes the computer run. Even a stupid user can setup their email using Outlook Express, it's very easy. So if you take a Mac and a PC, running the same (relatively) hardware and software, they should perform the same. If not, then one of them is better than the other. But what caused it to be better? The hardware or software? Actually, I'm confused.

Mac runs one flavor on *nix, PCs run many. And each one of them has it's own cons and pros.

Cocoa is not a platform. It's just an interface. And there are many Windows and *nix programs out there because developers are encouraged to do so. That's not true with Apple. Everybody knows that.

I'm gonna repeat this. Mac OS X IS new software. Even though it runs BSD, it had to be modified somehow. If I take a Linux kernel and modify it, it's considered new software. What if I modified something that made some software crash? You can't assume it's exactly the same thing just because I used a Linux kernel. That's what I mean when I say that Mac OS X is an unproven platform. Besides it's cheaper to go with a free *nix variant. But on a environment where uptime is everything, responsible people will go with what's proven to be secure.

Ease of use does NOT matter on a server environment. We're talking about skilled people. Not end users. They're supposed to know the OS inside out. That's part of the problem with M$ server systems. You control the server using wizards and sometimes you just need complete control over it. That's why *nix uses text files. You can see and modify everything right there. Is it hard? Hell yeah! But that gives you the confidence to know that your system is setup to YOUR specifications, not what stupid M$ thinks is right.

Novell had a huge share of the NOS market. Not anymore! So what makes Apple a good candidate?

Windows is not POSIX compliant by default, but there are emulators. But that doesn't matter because it has it's own API.

I'm not familiar with Apple's licensing system, but does it allow you to take Aqua and modify it?

The reason why Mac doesn't have a good programmer's base is because Apple doesn't want it. They don't like outside developers and everybody knows that.

- Marco Machado

[solrac]

Originally posted by klamps
Before I start talking again, I just want to clarify that I'm not, BY NO MEANS, defending Windows! I hate Windows just as much as anyone that uses it. I just think that the whole "Mac is the best thing in the world" is bs. Mac users are know for that.

I'm not. I say that anything pre OS X is pure crap. Pure, liquid crap to be exact. But I say Mac OS X is the best OS because it is a true *nix, AND has an easy to use interface for the novices, AND has all the software. No other OS in the world has that combination.

Windows XP does have better memory management and multitasking. But it has that stupid interface as default. At least you can change it back. What makes Windows crash so much is what's called "DLL Hell", where a new program updates a library file and old programs crash. They're solving this problem with the new .NET framework. With .NET, different assemblies can co-exist using different "environments".

That sounds cool. But sounds complicated, too. I'm sure Windows will come up with some framework that works a LOT better than it used to but I don't think it will ever be as rock solid and proven as a true *nix core. And who cares, it's M$ stuff anyway.

The core of OS X is open source, but what about the interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Apple giving back to the community? I don't think so.

No the interface is not open source, but how does that make apple take away from the community? That makes no sense. Anyway, Mac OS 9 you could change the interface and make all these crazy colors and shapes using Kaleidescope. That's not a big deal. Anyway, most people don't want to change the interface, they want to get their work done quickly and predictably. Changing the interface is cool, but just a toy, and anyway, you can change the interface in OS X if you really want to. Later on, Apple will make it easier, but that's just a toy.

On the software issue. You're referring to the interface, but that's not what makes the computer run. Even a stupid user can setup their email using Outlook Express, it's very easy. So if you take a Mac and a PC, running the same (relatively) hardware and software, they should perform the same. If not, then one of them is better than the other. But what caused it to be better? The hardware or software? Actually, I'm confused.

I'm saying where there's 2 computers with both different software AND hardware. Where the hardware on one computer is 10000000 times better, but the software is worse, it renders the hardware USELESS. Just like a 2 billion dollar scanner is useless without a driver. All that matters is software. Hardware is secondary. People think that hardware is important because that's how you build a computer with hardware. But it's not. Without software, hardware is just plastic and sand. But how about two computers, with different hardware and equal software? Then one will be much better. But there's no such thing. The software is always different when comparing Mac to Windows. And usually mac software is better. But now you can compare OS X to other *nix boxes with EQUAL software. You see, this is a very good thing. Mac software used to be its own world. Windows its own world. And *nix its own world. Now there is no more mac OS. It's just *nix and Windows. That gives Windows a much harder beast to fight and it's time for Windows to die anyway. So back to the point. The only scenario here will be a computer with both different hardware and different software. The Mac (today) has slower hardware with better software. I'll take that any day over a Quad Xeon with bad software. And the mac hardware is not even that much slower if you buy the $$$$$ one.

Mac runs one flavor on *nix, PCs run many. And each one of them has it's own cons and pros.

False. I can install Yellowdog Linux and LinuxPPC on my mac if I want. I can run XWindows (X11) something like that on here too, side by side with OS X. I'm sure there's other *nix I can install on PPC too.

Cocoa is not a platform. It's just an interface. And there are many Windows and *nix programs out there because developers are encouraged to do so. That's not true with Apple. Everybody knows that.

I don't know that. What's the proof Apple hates developers? Why do they host the WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference). Cocoa is not just an interface. It means the whole development using Obj-C. To create your interface in Aqua you use another tool called Interface Builder.

I'm gonna repeat this. Mac OS X IS new software. Even though it runs BSD, it had to be modified somehow. If I take a Linux kernel and modify it, it's considered new software. What if I modified something that made some software crash? You can't assume it's exactly the same thing just because I used a Linux kernel. That's what I mean when I say that Mac OS X is an unproven platform. Besides it's cheaper to go with a free *nix variant. But on a environment where uptime is everything, responsible people will go with what's proven to be secure.

Yes but it's modified very very little. In fact, it's almost not modified at all. What if I quit the Finder and all applications and just run in single user (command line) mode? It's basically an untouched FreeBSD. The interface is just applications running. These applications modify the config files in the BSD layer, which you can modify by hand also if you'd like. Which leads to where you say...

Ease of use does NOT matter on a server environment. We're talking about skilled people. Not end users. They're supposed to know the OS inside out. That's part of the problem with M$ server systems. You control the server using wizards and sometimes you just need complete control over it. That's why *nix uses text files. You can see and modify everything right there. Is it hard? Hell yeah! But that gives you the confidence to know that your system is setup to YOUR specifications, not what stupid M$ thinks is right.

Same in OS X. It's not wizards. It's software Apple made to run the system more easily. But all the config files are there. You can open and edit using vi, or emacs, or TextEdit or whatever you want. This is not a "modified" or "unproven" "new" system. It's BSD, dude, with some changes to make it run on a G4, and some apps which create this interface, and the quartz layer for graphics. None of that stuff messes with the OS kernel in any major way.

Novell had a huge share of the NOS market. Not anymore! So what makes Apple a good candidate?

I don't know anything about Novell but Apple is a good candidate because the hardware is good, the software is the best (true *nix with great interface and even photoshop, yay!). And it's using STANDARDS. Standards in the OS. Standards in the hardware. Standards everywhere. And Apple is doing it open source, too, in the best way it can.

I'm not familiar with Apple's licensing system, but does it allow you to take Aqua and modify it?

Again, you don't want or need to modify Aqua. But if you really want to you can. It's your system so if you want to change all the buttons to green or something Apple doesn't care. For the new Xserve, you get an unlimited use license of Mac OS X Server. That's pretty cool.

The reason why Mac doesn't have a good programmer's base is because Apple doesn't want it. They don't like outside developers and everybody knows that.

You always say that but I don't know why. I don't see that image. It just sounds like you're mad about something in the past. Apple is changing its whole company around to fix all its problems and keep what it had good. So think of Apple and developers only as far back as 1 year at the MAX. Why would you think this of apple, I'm curious.