# In 1996.



## dalo (Feb 14, 2006)

In 1996, when the really cool things tech in my life was the ability to run Heretic at a blazingly new speed at a Pentium 75, I never thought I'd switch to a Macintosh. Ever. The reason, back then, was "the lack of software" often talked about. Meaning, when young gamers like me back then ever mentioned Macintosh computers, someone just had to mention the "lack of software".

Looking at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Spyware_infestation.png on a nice winter evening like this, I am somewhat glad I'd made the choice.

To people thinking about switching to mac but hesitating due to the lack-of-software issue: Just how tragic is this lack-of-software issue, and does the undisputable fact that you "cannot run Winamp" really mean that you can't play your music anymore?

The opposition to the argument that "there is no cool software to macs" should not be a desperate "there is!" but rather "Why do I need that festering spyware anyway?". Looking at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Spyware_infestation.png , don't deny the fact that there is much more software for Windows based PC's, instead be proud about it ;-).


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 14, 2006)

This....is....CLASSIC!


----------



## fryke (Feb 14, 2006)

Wow. I guess real people reinstall Windows XP before it goes _that_ far, though.  But yeah: It's classic. Apple should use it for an ad, even. Or maybe not.


----------



## eric2006 (Feb 14, 2006)

What? Bonzo buddy is.. bad? But he seems so friendly..


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 14, 2006)

I don't know what the heck I'm looking at with that pic, and I don't want to. *shudder*


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 15, 2006)

that, mikuro, is a typical Internet Expolorer window, if you aren't vigilant toward spyware.  most people have at least 3 of those toolbars.  notice how some of them have a 'hide' option on them? it's not even like it's being honest and giving you a close option, only 'hide'


----------



## fryke (Feb 15, 2006)

No it *IS* honest, since if they had a close button and it'd come back after you open a new window, that wouldn't be honest.  ...


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

At any rate, this is a pure and from-the-real-world example just why I got myself a Mac Mini. With the current price on the Mini, getting out of the drooling lobotomized look of the install-this-to-avoid-spyware mediocrity has never been easier. I'd urge everyone to Switch. Now. Because something's wrong, buddy, if your computer needs 2Ghz to launch it's e-mail application.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 15, 2006)

i was good at removing spyware.  i was good at keeping the PC running like butter.  i knew where it lay, i knew where to look.  i had all the best removers.

but it was never completely clean.


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

Well, yes, it is possible to having a smooth Widnows based PC. Key is, I think it requires to much work to maintain a Windows PC, rather than /just start using it/.


----------



## powermac (Feb 15, 2006)

I have never seen anything like it. What is that ? I know it is IE, but all the other stuff?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 15, 2006)

toolbars that install themselves if you let them.  most people have 2 or three at least at some point.  that's what it could look like.


----------



## fryke (Feb 15, 2006)

I hope you're not being sarcastic, because then I wouldn't explain.  ... -> It's what's called spyware. You go to websites, and scripts automatically download and install little software. Or they get installed together with software you think is valid. They install these bars that "help" you find to _their_ site more easily. By installing themselves as the home, search and inbetween page. They look at what you're doing and sometimes send data to their servers about you. They try to control your computer. They _do_ control your computer. They're sometimes _very_ hard to find on your harddrive and not so easily removed. Others change your dial-up setup so you're dialing a very expensive number instead of your ISP. Most people don't notice that until the phone bill arrives (think THOUSANDS of dollars...). Of course: All of this is only possible thanks to Microsoft Windows.


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 15, 2006)

Did you all actually find the window with the web page displaying on it?  It was a tiny rectangle at the bottom right which was displaying MSN.com.  Incredible! ::ha::


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

Well, it all boils down to the fact of market share. It's market share that makes viruses worth coding. Even if I ended up with OS X mainly because I've beviously been a Linux fan, I am not tehnically skilled enough to judge the different kinds of vulnerabilities towards viruses and worms --among UNiX systems compared to others. OS / 2 warp was, in the mid 90's, promoted by the fact that there were no viruses towards it. Technically, it had the potential of being just as vulernable to viruses as Microsoft Windows. But as of this writing it's pretty pleasant to be a Mac OS X users. I still feel that the really cool programs that are being developed, including games, will sooner or later also be ported to Mac OS X, and that I just have to wait. While the endless numer of adware-bloated-blink-and-click raving alone on the Windows platform.

Personally, I don't "hate Microsoft" for the sake of being "an" "anti-Microsoft", and I really don't hate multi-million-dollar-companies just because they are multi-million-dollar companies. There's simply no way I can do that and still love Apple and Sun the way I do. What makes me sick and tired is acutally not Windows as a miserable software failure, because they have always existed. It is rather the way alternative software and operating systems are hidden and prevented to use for the general public, simply because... because "maket share controls the market share".


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

Personally, I think that the most critical failure of Microsoft was not to build up their Windows software product line around Windows NT, but instead using MS-DOS based Windowses, all the way to the late 90's with Windows Me. Sure, Windows NT based system wouldn't save the world from the heat-death of the universe, but the development of viruses and spyware/adware would have come much more lateler if they simply did what they could do with the security on home computers.

The ultimate failure was to make Windows 98 MS-DOS based in the first place, knowing that Windows NT4 was far more stable and more secure than Windows 95 at the time. Of course, online bug reporting wasn't the same back then as it is now, but who said that had to be done online?

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I really don't have to care ;-). Cheers mates!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 15, 2006)

both the DOS-based windows and Windows >NT share the same fault that lets virii and other malware breed: the registry, and all the problems associated with it.  as soon as everyone twigged that Vista had a registry, everybody stopped caring.

the registry manages the different files that different programs share.  if you bugger the registry, you bugger the computer, simple as.

most other OS's make sure an application is pretty much self contained, only using it's own files and folders.


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> both the DOS-based windows and Windows >NT share the same fault that lets virii and other malware breed: the registry, and all the problems associated with it.  as soon as everyone twigged that Vista had a registry, everybody stopped caring.
> 
> the registry manages the different files that different programs share.  if you bugger the registry, you bugger the computer, simple as.
> 
> most other OS's make sure an application is pretty much self contained, only using it's own files and folders.



Yes. Keeping a program, and things equalivent to .dll in a .app folder automatically springs to mind, and obviously it works better.

I am interested in your remark about Windows Vista, and people stopped caring? Can you explain that further? Please do.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 15, 2006)

well, some people had pinned hopes on it being what MS were saying it was going to be, the biggest update since windows 95.  ie, new from the ground up.  when in actual fact, it's windows xp with graphical bloat.  the registry exists, so it's still fundamentally flawed.  it still uses the 30 year old paradigm of sharing common files to keep application smaller, when it's such an insignificant difference now, but is inherent in how windows works now.


----------



## dalo (Feb 15, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> well, some people had pinned hopes on it being what MS were saying it was going to be, the biggest update since windows 95.  ie, new from the ground up.  when in actual fact, it's windows xp with graphical bloat.  the registry exists, so it's still fundamentally flawed.  it still uses the 30 year old paradigm of sharing common files to keep application smaller, when it's such an insignificant difference now, but is inherent in how windows works now.



Well, I can't do anything but agree with that. And thinking about it, I am amazed how NEW Mac OS X 1.4 is compared to 10.0. Or let's face it, different from 10.3. Most Windows using folks won't notice that, because to them, Aqua is still Aqua, and there's no change in the operating system as long as the same user interface is being used ;-). Looking at http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/13 , I am somewhat proud to be using an operating system that acutally progress as time goes by.


----------



## fryke (Feb 15, 2006)

however: the user model has changed. that's an important first step. maybe in 10-15 years, windows will become a real operating system.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 15, 2006)

i was thinking today that OSX is getting dated.  they are resorting to tacking on the latest gimmicks instead of thinking them through properly.  spotlight is the best example.

it's supposedly completly buried in the system, and instant, but i disagree, i don't see it being that much faster than the search on Panther.  the overall implentation seems half arsed too, there are at least 3 main ways to access spotlight, all varying in the way you have to use them, and all of them are clunky in some way. it's just not finished, it's not thought through enough. using spotlight has never seemed natural to me.

and don't even get me started on Dashboard.  most people try to justify this gimmick, but it is, at the end of the day, Bloat, like a lot of apple software recently.

i think that may be the point of this post.  apple software appears to be just bloat updates in the last couple of years.  (definitive example being the iTunes Mini Store)


[/rant]


----------



## fryke (Feb 15, 2006)

"not that much faster than search on Panther"... You kidding? It's like walking through jelly compared to how fast I could find a file by its name in Panther!! But we're straying off-topic... 

I guess Leopard will take care of some concerns. I hear the Finder's gonna be good.


----------



## dalo (Feb 16, 2006)

Folk's, for the sake of argument and to maintain the quality of this board: We have different views of some tuff. Mainly because we're not sharing each others machines. That no criminal act, and there are parts of OS X that I too think is bloat, and there are things that I think are as far off to bloat as anything.


----------



## powermac (Feb 16, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> i was thinking today that OSX is getting dated.  they are resorting to tacking on the latest gimmicks instead of thinking them through properly.  spotlight is the best example.
> 
> I can somewhat agree with this. As much as I love Tiger, it could be argued that many of the updates from Jag were gimmicks. In my view, spotlight is wonderful, and one of the brightest ideas in awhile, from any computer company.
> I truly hope that Apple comes out with Leopard, and it has less gimmicks and more beef. As fryke stated, the Finder needs work, I hope Apple focuses on a refined Finder for future releases.
> In case of Microsoft, I think in some ways they have buried themselves a deep hole with their technology for Windows. I was under the impression early on that Longhorn(vista) was going to be a totally new OS, with a fresh look & feel. As stated, and even from die-hard PC people, that Vista is just XP with some gimmicks. Hope this is not a trend for the computer industry!!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 16, 2006)

we are actually forgetting of course, that apple added all these gimmicks to tiger to sell it.  the real differences are underneath the hood, most of the gubbins underneath tiger are new, and very powerful.  but that alone does not sell a product. Dashboard is a cool looking gimmick.

the biggest advance in OS's in the last 5 years has to be Exposé.  it's just so innovative and completely useful.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 16, 2006)

and the Finder doesn't need refining, it needs ripping out, and completely started afresh.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 17, 2006)

To contribute ... and no, this screen shot isn't mine.  Its pretty good that when browsing in Safari on a Mac, you can still get your registry scanned, eh?


----------



## symphonix (Feb 17, 2006)

And this one, more in keeping with the theme, is pretty cool. Yes, it is genuine.


----------



## dalo (Jun 14, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> the real differences are underneath the hood, most of the gubbins underneath tiger are new, and very powerful.  but that alone does not sell a product.



This is interesting. Why do you think this? Can you explain it further? The thought that came to my mind was actually that the Mac community pays more attention to beneath-hood changes than the "other" (eh) world.

Doesn't it sell? To whom does it not sell? To scrip kiddies emulating Tiger x86 in Vmware, or for servers running the server version of Tiger? There are differences there.


----------



## davebz (Jun 14, 2006)

Looks like that user couldn't tell the difference between convolution and evolution.  

"Macintosh because you're too creative for Windows."


----------



## dalo (Jun 15, 2006)

davebz said:
			
		

> Looks like that user couldn't tell the difference between convolution and evolution.
> 
> "Macintosh because you're too creative for Windows."



But seriously, I think it's all true. Have a glance at http://news.com.com/2100-1040-943519.html .

I think Mac people buy more software and are violating less copyright laws, too.


----------

