# don't "switch"



## habilis (Nov 24, 2002)

About a month ago I bought a new Power Mac G4 Dual 1ghz, and ever since that fateful purchase I have been INCREDIBLY dissatisfied with every aspect of this machine. First I should say that I use a G4 450MHz at work for 8+ hours a day and am quite familiar with the Macintosh system, have been using for the last 5 years along with windows. What Apple doen't tell you is that Jaguar is actually a Turtle. At first I was dismayed with how slow folder navigation was and the fact that the finder crashed about once every hour. The other thing that bugged me was the disgustingly long page times and general lock-ups that plagued the simplest of tasks and navigation. In particular was my folders full of digital photography images - about 2-300 jpegs per folder ranging in file size from about .5 to 1.3MB, opening that folder in the finder window would bring the OS to a TOTAL halt for about 30-40 seconds. In Windows ME with FULL PREVIEWS on that same folder took less than 5 seconds and didn't lock up the system while it paged. I thought that it must be a lack of RAM, so I upgraded to a full Gig of Apple-spec RAM only to be disappointed again when it hardly made a hair of difference- now it took 28 seconds insted of 30. I called Apple and they said they you CAN'T turn off Virtual Memory!?!?! I looked at the Process viewer and found that "Jaguar" was using 90% Virtual and only 10% Physical RAM for almost all apps - That's Pathetic. What we have here is a dumbing down of the OS as well as a slowing down of all that's associated with it. Sure the thing runs like a speed demon when I run in Classic but that's not why I bought the machine. I think we need to be asking ourselves more fundemental questions about OS's - for example, shouldn't a newer "More Improved" OS, and especially one named for the FASTEST LAND MAMMAL ON EARTH be Faster??? and maybe a little more stable??? The truth is my G4 450MHz at work is easily more stable and gets the job done just as well as this waste of money I'm stuck with now. It has nothing to do with a Hardware Failure. I ran all the memory and hardware tests and then went to Compucenter just to try out the same one there to make sure - same B.S. So my hat's off to Apple for pulling the wool over so many people's eyes. And it's a crying shame that all these poor devout Mac people out there(that used to be me) are in a total state of denial about how much Apple now sucks. Apple took every that was good about Macs out of OSX and put in everything that was bad about Windows - THANKS. We need to face this problem head on, accept that Apple's Glory Days are over, and go get yourself a copy of XP.  By the way, If anyone knows how to turn off Virtual Memory without the aid of a Haxie, I'd like to know how to do that before I put this thing up on eBay.


----------



## symphonix (Nov 24, 2002)

I suspect you might actually have something wrong with your system. I'd suggest running the standard batch of checks and balances, including the hardware diagnostic CD, and verifying the hard disk and permissions. Even on my iBook 500 with only 128mb RAM, I can scroll through a folder of 320 JPEGs - with previews at full size - with no real delay under 10.2.2. At worst it will take five seconds to open the folder, but then scroll nicely.

It could possibly be a bad RAM chip. That would explain the virtual memory figures - which are far from right - as well as the crashing.

If you do find anything wrong with your system, you should be able to get it corrected under warranty.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 24, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 25, 2002)

How did you determin Jaguar "was using 90% Virtual and only 10% Physical RAM for almost all apps" through Processor Viewer?  I'm dying to know!


----------



## theed (Nov 25, 2002)

Your keyboard is broken too.  The return key isn't making new paragraphs like it's supposed to.  

The Finder has some suck issues, I agree there.  And if you can't feel the difference between Mac OS X and XP, by all means go with XP.  It runs on cheaper hardware.  Me, I'd give up computers before I lived on Windows.  It's really that bad in my opinion.  And don't think I have my eyes closed, I just get bothered to a different degree by different things.  But the Finder, yeah, it's not very multitasking.  I have fishing line with more threads than the Finder.

As for the VM thing ... you really need to come up to speed on how VM works in a modern OS before you criticize the lack of a turn it off switch.  It's pretty much essential in a protected memory environment.  Also, what's allocated is not necessarily swapped out, it's known to be empty and will likely never be used, so it doesn't occupy expensive RAM.  In fact it's not really in VM either, it's just preallocated in case it's needed.

And I could be off here, but isn't the Cheetah the fastest land animal / land mammal?  Cheetah was 10.0, right?  If you want your code names to reflect reality, then it should make you happy that Copland is dead in more ways than one.  ... oh I'm gonna do some time in Hell for that one.

Anyway, let us know when your Mac goes up on eBay.  If I can convince myself that my dual 450 isn't keeping up with me any more I may be in the market for a faster machine that runs something that's not Windows.

running top in the terminal gives some lovin' that process viewer does not, btw.  ... he he he, top says I have ~8G of VM allocated right now.


----------



## Sogni (Nov 25, 2002)

Hmmm... this sounds eerily familiar...

You wouldn't, by any chance, be using Unix File System (UFS) instead of Mac OS Extended (HFS+)?

UFS causes problems (unless you know EXACTLY why you want UFS) - one of the biggest problems with UFS is GUI speed.

Switch to HFS+ and be happy.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 25, 2002)




----------



## habilis (Nov 25, 2002)

Looks like I'm not so smart when it comes to mammals _or_ punctuation after all... Anyway, Tormente, how do I find what file system I'm using? I did a search in mac help and came up dry(as usual). 

P.S. Does anybody know if I can legally advertise what apps I have installed on this machine when(and if) I put it up on ebay? I intend to say "All software installed and working on machine, however, I keep all software installation discs and manuals" This would infer probable tomfoolery, and that I'm going to install them on another machine... or is that gonna be illegal?


----------



## TommyWillB (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *P.S. Does anybody know if I can legally advertise what apps I have installed on this machine when(and if) I put it up on ebay? ... or is that gonna be illegal? *


Most software is not "transferrable"... Nor is it okay to install the same software on multiple machines for anything other than personal use...

So keeping the disc's and not wiping the software from the machine is clearly not legit.

http://www.spa.org/piracy/faq/


----------



## ex2bot (Nov 25, 2002)

Habilis:

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble. Jaguar on my 500 mHz iBook works very well. I've had only three kernel panics since I began using OS X over a year ago. It's been very stable.

There were a few exceptions: Forgetting to unmount a firewire floppy before unplugging it crashed OS 10.1.5 (or was it .3 or .4?).  Samba seemed to slow the machine down to a crawl. And when I first installed Jaguar, I had lots of weird things happen. After a couple restarts, everything was operating fine.

OS X 10.2.1 and .2 seemed to improve stability even more.

BTW, if you are selling your Mac and leaving the Mac world for the promised land of Windows, why are you keeping your Mac disks?


Fun story: No One Lives Forever crashes Windows XP (the whole system) if I leave it on for too long. That's happened four days in a row. It's a driver issue I'm sure. Windblows. . . gotta love it. Not to mention that something keeps dialing my ISP without asking, over and over again. AAAaaaargh!


----------



## habilis (Nov 25, 2002)

Well, Windblows must be doin somthing right. I have no prejudices either way, I just know that OS 9 was amazing in it's elegant simplicity and rock solid work flow , and OSX must have been made for 70 year olds and pre-schoolers. I mean, soon enough I'll need to download haxies just to change my desktop. With XP, all the "haxies" are already built in and part of the OS. At least they give you the respect that you might be smart enough to adjust memory settings or the color of your windows... Apple is insulting my intelligence with this "built for the swith" OS. All I want is a freekin computer that works, and thats all I think, that any concious entity can ever hope for...


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Looks like I'm not so smart when it comes to mammals or punctuation after all... Anyway, Tormente, how do I find what file system I'm using? I did a search in mac help and came up dry(as usual).
> 
> P.S. Does anybody know if I can legally advertise what apps I have installed on this machine when(and if) I put it up on ebay? I intend to say "All software installed and working on machine, however, I keep all software installation discs and manuals" This would infer probable tomfoolery, and that I'm going to install them on another machine... or is that gonna be illegal? *



I have not read ahead of the posts... but if you dare sell a machine without it's orginal software manuels or discs... Good luck to you in getting a sale... also I think from reading your posts so far that you aren't a Mac fan... So that leads me to ask you this?  WHY DID YOU BOTHER TO POST HERE?  on a DIE HARD MACOS X board?


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 1, 2002)

Habilis,

I am was a die hard Wintel user for 12 years or since Windows 3.11 and DOS profiecent... Also not to mention A+ Certified in computer repair on all Windows or as Mac fans call them Wintel machines.

I know a Windows Machine inside out... From the workings of memroy from the workings of the idotic kernel file system that screws everything up half the time on Windows ME for example...

Before I ramble further... I made the switch to MAC OS-X on 11-25-02... and I made the switch after researching the pros and cons of going with MAC VS another Wintel upgrade.

The pros outweigh the cons... to me...

Those Pros are:

1. Complete stability... (No more ctrl-alt-del to pull up the task manager to force quit a program on 2k or XP...)
2. Simplicity... in GUI design... It's a no brainer to install programs on a MAC... (sure it may hurt a bit to uninstall some OS-X programs but that's what learning Unix is all about plus not to mention finding 3rd party programs like PrefOverload 5.1.2)
3. It took me no less than 15 mins out of the box with my Mac to set it up and get it running on the net... (Can Windows do this in 15 mins... No... try 30-45 mins... )
4. Mac OS-X is still a baby operating system in terms of how new it is... Sure there are bugs... but at least Mac doesn't pretend like MicroSoft, to deny bugs exist...
5. Mac OS is 128-bit... Windows is still at a pathetic 32-bit cross platform system... (Meaning it still wants to read 16 & 8 bit programs...) Mac doesn't need to rely on Ghz power because the pathway is already fast and large enough... Plus Bill Gates, is the one holding up development for a 64-bit processor which intel has been wanting to do for the past 2 years.  

Now the Cons of Mac-Os X

1. I wish there was a way to make multiple docks... 
2. wish there was a built in defragmenter but it's ok because the way Mac works it doesn't really depend on fragmentation vs finding the file... it just quote "Works" 
3. I really can't complain because Mac OS-X took a step away technically speaking of it's usual code OS 9... and has integrated Unix successfully in a GUI format.

My Personal thoughts

The best is yet to come... and by the way... I am running a Dual 867 Mhz with 1,256 ram ... and this thing flies... It's not slow... The boot time is about right...  (They should bring back the Mac Smiley though...)

Sorry you have had a bad "Switching" experience but mine was "Awesome"  I took the time to pay $200 for an 8 hour "Everything you want to know about OS-10.2.2" at the Mac Center here in Florida... and the gentleman had no problems discussing memory mangement and how things differ from OS 9 and how to be backward compatible.

If I were you I'd take the advice of some of the die hard Mac users and use your warrenty and take it to a Mac Authorized center... (Not a CompUSA... who claims they can fix macs...) but a real Mac Center... that specializes in them... I would bet that if it is bad memory they will help you fix it... If you accidentally had put the system in UFS format they will fix it for you since you seem hell bent on saying Mac's are the worst and don't Switch.

I am glad I made the switch because it works for me.

Sorry if this offends you or anyone else... More views are welcome.


----------



## habilis (Dec 2, 2002)

There's no doubt that the GUI in OSX blows away windows, it always has, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE OS9. In fact I want a bumper sticker with that says "I'D RATHER BE ON OS9". As for 128 bit vs. 32, it really doesn't matter to me because all I see is the end product; that is, realativly slow navigation through the hard drive and only a slight increase in application launch time. 
See, every day I crank up Photoshop 7 (50% max system RAM[512MB] - G4 dual 1GHz), Illustrator 10, Dreamweaver, and Explorer. Of course filters work faster, but not THAT much faster, and in Illustrator 10 I noticed hardly any improvement, even in launch time then in my G4-450MHz.  I'm really trying to keep an open mind about osx, as for taking this thing in to have somebody check it out, well, I'm literally broke after buying the thing in the first place. I tried out the same machine at this place called Microcenter, and speedwise, it was exactly the same, Photoshop and everything. If you don't believe it, please do this test: (WITH NO OTHER APPS RUNNING)Launch Illustrator (ANY VERSION) and create a simple box. Now, hold down the space bar and move around on screen. Simple enough, now, do the same thing in OS9. Look at that difference!!
 This is what I'm talking about. the difference between Win XP and Win ME or 2000 is that things still run just as fast on the newer OS. What a great idea. I know that that OSX is still young, but I don't 2 years to wait for an improvement.

P.S. - WHY, in all HELL, did they take away labels??!!?! Who was the GENIUS behind that brainstorm. I mean were they all sitting in a board meeting, and just decided amongst themselves they were a bad idea??? HAHA, no guys hang in there. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be back in the newest OS upgrade that we'll get the pleasure of having to pay another 150.00 for. Apple's laughing all the way to bank fella's. We've been had.


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *There's no doubt that the GUI in OSX blows away windows, it always has, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE OS9. In fact I want a bumper sticker with that says "I'D RATHER BE ON OS9". As for 128 bit vs. 32, it really doesn't matter to me because all I see is the end product; that is, realativly slow navigation through the hard drive and only a slight increase in application launch time.
> See, every day I crank up Photoshop 7 (50% max system RAM[512MB] - G4 dual 1GHz), Illustrator 10, Dreamweaver, and Explorer. Of course filters work faster, but not THAT much faster, and in Illustrator 10 I noticed hardly any improvement, even in launch time then in my G4-450MHz.  I'm really trying to keep an open mind about osx, as for taking this thing in to have somebody check it out, well, I'm literally broke after buying the thing in the first place. I tried out the same machine at this place called Microcenter, and speedwise, it was exactly the same, Photoshop and everything. If you don't believe it, please do this test: (WITH NO OTHER APPS RUNNING)Launch Illustrator (ANY VERSION) and create a simple box. Now, hold down the space bar and move around on screen. Simple enough, now, do the same thing in OS9. Look at that difference!!
> This is what I'm talking about. the difference between Win XP and Win ME or 2000 is that things still run just as fast on the newer OS. What a great idea. I know that that OSX is still young, but I don't 2 years to wait for an improvement.
> ...



YOU SAID: I'm literally broke after buying the thing in the first place.

I orginally said... Hmmm you should be under Warrenty for 1 year... You basically than replied I went to another store etc... Did it on the same machine etc...

I say... Right..... Since you don't want to bring it back to the place you brought it from it could only mean 2 things... 1... You brought it through a mail order and refuse to ship it back for testing...

2. You're exagerating your system speed and there isn't much wrong with it.

3. (I know I said 2... but I can't resist) Your lazy and just looking for excuses to inadvertenly bash OS X.


----------



## habilis (Dec 2, 2002)

Ya know that hurts. But, here's the real deal man, I've had to take a computer in for repars before and it took like 2 weeks. In my line of work, and especially right now, I can't afford the luxury of living life without it for that long, and besides, there's nothing physically wrong with it anyway - unless, there's somthing wrong with all of them.  

P.S. here's what i really like about osx: 
 sherlock rules
 drag n drop pictures from explorer right into folders rocks
 customizable view / folder options rock
 as far as killing locked up programs without killing the OS itself, ...rocks
 the sharp aqua look
 the way my camera mounts on the desktop with that cool custom icon


----------



## kalantna (Dec 2, 2002)

"Anyway, Tormente, how do I find what file system I'm using? I did a search in mac help and came up dry(as usual)."

Since no one has answered this for you, I will. Go to /Applications/Utilities/ and open "Disk Utility." When it launches you will see 5 tabs. The program automatically defaults to the "Information" tab. Select the appropriate Hard Drive from the menu on the left (usually a Maxtor HD). VERY IMPORTANT: Make sure the arrow next to the icon is pointing down otherwise you can't select your named HD. Select your hard drive name and it will tell you the format of said HD.

I hope that helps. Have you tried launching from single user mode and running check disk? 

Kalantna


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Ya know that hurts. But, here's the real deal man, I've had to take a computer in for repars before and it took like 2 weeks. In my line of work, and especially right now, I can't afford the luxury of living life without it for that long, and besides, there's nothing physically wrong with it anyway - unless, there's somthing wrong with all of them.
> 
> P.S. here's what i really like about osx:
> ...



It's not that I was trying to bash you... but the place I brought my computer is strictly based to sell and repair Macs.  Thus the name Mac Center... (Also they give clases to those who want to learn Mac fee based of course because nothing is for free.)

I know for a fact that since I've brought my Mac they have taken the time to ask me if there are any problems and if so they would gladly bend over backwards to solve it ASAP.

2 weeks still sounds excissive for wherever you brought your mac from for a waiting period...


----------



## Shardie (Dec 2, 2002)

My Story..
I also made the Switch from XP (1.6gig AMD, 64mg Geforce, SB Live etc). I had all the custom apps running on XP that would convince you that i was running a MAC. I do web developmentg (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, fireworks 3DSMAX) and i must say that in terms of speed....XP wins hands down.

Who cares...
1. about AQUA when OS9 runs faster

I have a PowerBook G4, 667mhz with 1gig ram. Even my old 1gig AMD bests this thing hands down. Im sorry i bought this PB...Should have bought a IBM laptop. 

Lets face it .... OSX IS SLOWER THAN XP. Looks better .... but Slower. Hell i even had a better "DOCK" in XP than OSX.

Also putting PB up for sale...


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Shardie _
> *My Story..
> I also made the Switch from XP (1.6gig AMD, 64mg Geforce, SB Live etc). I had all the custom apps running on XP that would convince you that i was running a MAC. I do web developmentg (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, fireworks 3DSMAX) and i must say that in terms of speed....XP wins hands down.
> 
> ...



It's amazing... the Wintel Basher's are out tonight...


----------



## theed (Dec 2, 2002)

The Finder is slow in its responsive to the user, especially when access to the volume is bandwidth restricted.  This is a legitimate gripe.  Apple should continue to work extensively on this problem.

If Illustrator is slow, I'd blame Adobe.  Yeah it runs fast in 9 and Windows, it's been tweaked for those OSes for about a decade.  I think it's just not tuned for OS X.  If Adobe says that OS X is at fault, then let us know, and we'll help you yell at Apple for not keeping their flagship OS up to par.

I just think you're being terribly shortsighted if you are tossing an entire platform because of two unoptimized applications.  The OS is wonderful, with Classic apps that run unchanged, carbon apps that allow us to have Illustrator, Office, et al.  The cocoa environment and java with so much prebuilt stuff that there's little advantage to higher level languages like RealBasic and their ilk.  Admittedly it depends on your workflow, and if you need Illustrator for 9 and the OS 9 Finder right now, and can't wait for equivalent products to mature into OS X, and won't run OS 9 ... well, you've pretty much made your choice already.

Even if I did like a M$ product on technical merit, I'd never use it on moral grounds. It's not their presence that I loathe so much as their ability to take away all choice and competition in  whatever market segment they choose.  I think M$ is the worst thing about the computer industry today.  The RIAA/MPAA are working on a close second though.  Switch if you want, it's your soul.  ;-)  I'll concede that Acrobat is unnecessarily slow, and the Finder needs work though.


----------



## fryke (Dec 2, 2002)

I have found the Adobe people very willing to talk about where they can/will and can't/won't speed up things for their Mac OS X applications. A good address for information about InDesign is the blueworld mailinglist. You'll find it at http://www.blueworld.com ... Some Adobe reps are active on that list, and I've found it much more pleasing to work among professionals. There's too many warez-kids on Adobe's own forums, which I don't really understand, but hey: It's their decision.

There's a good article about "switching back" at O'Reilly: http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/newsletters/20021108.html


----------



## habilis (Dec 2, 2002)

I just got done testing Photoshop 7 on the following 2 G4's: 

G4 450MHz with 768MB RAM / OS 9.2 
VS.
G4 Dual 1GHz with 1 Gig RAM / OS 10.2.2

(ALL TESTS RUN WITH THE SAME RGB IMAGE 22" X 18" 72 dpi [1584 X 1296px])

Filter: Radial Blur - Zoom 10%
450: 30 seconds
Dual: 2 seconds

Filter: Radial Blur - Zoom 30%
450: 89 seconds
Dual: 7 seconds

Filter: Unsharp Mask - 200% - 2.0 - 10 Levels
450: 10 seconds
Dual: under 1 1/2 seconds

 There's no denying the raw processing power of the new G4's is impressive. Even though there's a given big difference in these 2 G4's the results were nonetheless amazing. Over ten times faster!
 The problem is, when I switch between apps on the slower older G4(running OS 9.2) it's just faster, way faster. I mean, in OSX on the new G4, when I've been working in Dreamweaver for 30 minutes or so, then I suddenly switch over to photoshop, I end up starring at that beachball for 5-8 seconds. That lag is never more then 1-2 seconds on the old G4, and that multitasking and app switching is where I really like to see speed along with HD navigation. Theed, yeah, I will concede that we need time for apps to be optimized for X, but this is a painful and unusual wait. Is it even possible for Apple to write a better version of finder if they haven't already? What could be so hard about it and why would they even release it if it was clearly almost 3 times slower then OS9's and has a higher tendency to crash?


----------



## TommyWillB (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *...P.S. - WHY, in all HELL, did they take away labels??!!?!...*


 I was soooo unhappy about that too... until I found Labels X... 

These are the same folks who make that cool fruit Menu's Apple menu haxie...


----------



## TommyWillB (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kalantna _
> *"Anyway, Tormente, how do I find what file system I'm using? I did a search in mac help and came up dry(as usual)."
> 
> Since no one has answered this for you, I will. Go to /Applications/Utilities/ and open "Disk Utility."...*


 That's just stupid... Didn't this info used to be clearly available under Get Info? I even looked in Apple System Profiler, but it was not there either.

I just sent feedback to Apple requesting that they make this info easier to find. (I dread the day I have to send my Mom to Disk Utility for this...)


----------



## TommyWillB (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I just got done testing Photoshop 7 on the following 2 G4's:
> 
> G4 450MHz with 768MB RAM / OS 9.2
> ...


Doesn't Photoshop leverage both CPU's when running under OS 9?

Why not make this fair by simply booting your dual into OS 9 and re-doing the tests on the same box?


----------



## theed (Dec 2, 2002)

yes, hard drive format is still easily accessible within get info.  Please don't write Apple to fix that, there's enough stuff that really is broken.  

As for P-shop leveraging both CPU's in 9, well, kinda.  Figure it used 1.5 CPU's.  Still better than most 9 apps.

As for habilis's app switching time, I'm not sure what to say.  maybe you have too much RAM allocated to P-shop?  Perhaps a faster HD is a solution?  It does seem odd the way you describe it.  I don't know.  ... And why the Finder isn't better ... ummm, I figured it was a proving ground for Carbon.  It sure proved a lot of things to me about Carbon.  ;-)


----------



## symphonix (Dec 4, 2002)

I think you can find out what file system you are using by opening the Disk Utility application (under /Applications/Utilities). Then, select your disc and it should give you info about what file system it is using.

And, yes, I have tried the Unix file system once, when I first upgraded to 10.1, and the GUI speed really did suffer. I'm sure it would be handy for a headless server, but for us desktop users there is really no point.


----------



## fryke (Dec 5, 2002)

Also, you can use the Terminal command diskutil. Enter it without parameters to get some help on it.


----------



## cellfish (Dec 5, 2002)

I'm just going to say this as a user of both the PC and the Mac.

There's no denying that Macs are slow as hell. I think we've determined this already. The most common response to someone saying Macs are slow here is 'get more ram' which doesn't really improve the speed anyway. The way people respond on this board, you'd think you need 64 GB of ram to get Mac OS X to be as quick as XP.

However, as much as I like the PC's speed, the reason I prefer my Mac is because everything FEELS like it's supposed to be there. There's no denying Photoshop is essentially faster on the PC or that games are made for the PC first or that browsing is faster, but XP never feels like it smoothly integrates onto the PC, no matter what PC you buy.

When you get a Mac, and it is advertised as being able to sleep, you can be sure it'll sleep and wake up. If it is advertised as being able to recognize most digital cameras and load pictures from one, you can be sure it'll be able to do it. With XP, you're never sure whether what's advertised will actually work.

I've been a PC user for a very long time (over 10 years) and when using Windows, I can never be sure if anything will crash or not when I'm shutting down. I never know if the speed of my programs will be as good as it was before the computer went to sleep. I can never be sure that a program won't crash a few seconds before I plan on saving the work I'm doing. With a Mac, I can.

So what it all boils down to is what your priorities are. As excrutiatingly slow as the Mac might be, it does exactly what it advertises and it is reliable and stable as I would want a computer to be. The PC isn't, and I don't think it ever will be. You get far superior performance for a lower price, but you do not get the stability and reliability the vendor and Microsoft promise you. You don't get a guarantee of anything.

If 600 mhz macs sold at the same price as 600 mhz PC's, all Apple hardware right now would cost in the hundreds and not the thousands. As a result, many more PC users would make the switch and never look back. The only thing stopping PC users, regardless of what Apple and Apple users might think, is that it costs a ridiculous amount for what you get. Some don't care about the money so long as they get what they are promised but most people, especially in this cost-conscious era, will rather suffer through a Microsoft operating system than pay the premium.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sirtovin _
> *
> 5. Mac OS is 128-bit... Windows is still at a pathetic 32-bit cross platform system... (Meaning it still wants to read 16 & 8 bit programs...) *


* 
Mac OS is NOT an 128-bit OS. No.
It is also "pathetic" 32-bit as Windows. The G4 is a 32-bit Processor just like the P4. Only Altivec is 128-bit.

There is a 64-bit version of Windows for the Itanium processor (Since August 2001), and Apple will have Mac OS X with 64-bit as soon as they go 64-bit processorwise.*


----------



## theed (Dec 6, 2002)

I'm not going to argue on a lot of cases about the mac being as fast or faster than the PC.  But it's usually fast enough, and I find that I am faster on it.  In the end, that's what matters to me.

It boils down to "the right tool for the job."  When interfacing with me is one of the primary concerns of the computer, the Mac is usually more efficient overall at the task.  If you are different, then think differently. ;-)

I am very interested in the $200 Lindows computers I read about.  I am also interested in a $1400 iBook.  I am ecstatic about my old Dual 450 G4.  If all you need to do is surf the web and send e-mail, it's hard to justify a $1000 markup for ease of use.  Digital video and creative work; it becomes real easy to justify.

And yeah, they're all 32 bit OSes and architectures that we're talking about here.  If you have a 4G RAM minimum requirement in your application, you're not talking about MacOS and Windows in this forum.  You're probably hiring consulting from Sun or IBM.


----------



## habilis (Dec 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *when using Windows, I can never be sure if anything will crash or not when I'm shutting down. I never know if the speed of my programs will be as good as it was before the computer went to sleep. I can never be sure that a program won't crash a few seconds before I plan on saving the work I'm doing. With a Mac, I can.
> 
> So what it all boils down to is what your priorities are. As excrutiatingly slow as the Mac might be, it does exactly what it advertises and it is reliable and stable as I would want a computer to be. The PC isn't, and I don't think it ever will be. You get far superior performance for a lower price, but you do not get the stability and reliability the vendor and Microsoft promise you. You don't get a guarantee of anything.
> ...



I beg to respectfully differ:
It's true, in the past, windows was buggy, glitchy, crashy, clunky and all around a pain in the ass. Just navigating around windows, doing normal stuff was fearful, literally, I remember those days. You never knew what to expect. Macintosh was a breathof fresh air, simple(not TOO simple), elegant, and yes, everything was guaranteed to work. 

But as of today, the tables have clearly turned. In OS9, navigating around folders, having explorer open and a few other programs up at once was not at all a problem, no fear whatsoever. In OSX however, I once again know fear. And it's the terrible kind of fear that travels up your spine and into your soul because you know you just spent over 4 grand on this tower and a few programs (Illustrator 10, Photoshop 7, Office X, and Macromedia MX studio. and 512MB Apple RAM) and your stuck with it.

So I've thought it was everything including my chair or the way I was seated that made osx so bad, I've run the gambit on this dog. Come full circle. I've been heavy in to OSX for the last 2 months now and the following is sadly, depressingly, undeniably true: It's buggy, glitchy, crashy, clunky and all around a pain in the ass. Just navigating around folders, doing normal stuff is fearful, literally. And Apples Dumbing Down campaign has reached an all time low that they think were not even smart enough to use spring loaded folders, labels, memory allocation, changing appearances, create a folder heirarchy of our own, or system view fonts without the aid of third party hacking software that costs more money. Yeah I know all about Labels X and Tinker Tools and it's ilk. I don't want more crap on my system to glitch it up, nor SHOULD i want it...

People can easily make fun of me for not researching my products well enough, cuz I didn't, and yeah i was gullible to trust Apple, I never will again. But people need to hear the real truth, and take a stand against this corporate political nightmare machine that Apple has become. We don't have to take this. If every person that views this would send as many emails to Apple as I have, things would be changing for the better. We could have our Mac back. Todays Macintosh is a perfect example of how things really can be too simple...

Op Ed by A. Sadofsky


----------



## cellfish (Dec 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *So I've thought it was everything including my chair or the way I was seated that made osx so bad, I've run the gambit on this dog. Come full circle. I've been heavy in to OSX for the last 2 months now and the following is sadly, depressingly, undeniably true: It's buggy, glitchy, crashy, clunky and all around a pain in the ass. Just navigating around folders, doing normal stuff is fearful, literally. And Apples Dumbing Down campaign has reached an all time low that they think were not even smart enough to use spring loaded folders, labels, memory allocation, changing appearances, create a folder heirarchy of our own, or system view fonts without the aid of third party hacking software that costs more money. Yeah I know all about Labels X and Tinker Tools and it's ilk. I don't want more crap on my system to glitch it up, nor SHOULD i want it...*



I'm not going to deny that what you are saying is quite easily true. I ran up to a lot of problems with OS X also until I updated to X.2.2. Before then, OS X was a pile of sh*t to be honest. I can't really speak about the contrast of OS 9 to OS X because I'm not familiar with anything below OS X, nor do I really want to be. However, I find that OS X, albeit troublesome in some areas, is all-around effective. The lack of defragmenter bothers me to some extent and I had to buy PlusOptimizer (didn't want to shell out 70$ USD for Drive 10). The fact that certain programs, like iPhoto, require 256 megs ram to me is kind of ridiculous too. I don't want to return to Windows despite it because I'm sick of constantly repairing problems. I'm sick of turning on the computer one day and having my brand-spanking new motherboard tell me that the CMOS battery is dead, only to have it run fine after reconfig for months at a time. I'm sick of trying to figure out why a CD-ROM will load fine one day, and not the next day. I'm sick of the screen redraws, the constant threat of new spyware and viruses, the third-party cookies and the conflicts between programs. There's so much to hate about the PC that the small problems that I have (the lack of defragger and the ridiculous requirement of RAM) with the Mac mean nothing overall. I willingly bought a Mac, despite having a powerful PC (Athlon XP 2000+) simply because I couldn't stand the noise of the computer, the problems, the viruses, the spyware and the fact that no Windows 'feature' will execute without sacrificing another.



> *People can easily make fun of me for not researching my products well enough, cuz I didn't, and yeah i was gullible to trust Apple, I never will again. But people need to hear the real truth, and take a stand against this corporate political nightmare machine that Apple has become. We don't have to take this. If every person that views this would send as many emails to Apple as I have, things would be changing for the better. We could have our Mac back. Todays Macintosh is a perfect example of how things really can be too simple...*



Well, I have to be honest with you in saying that as bad of a corporate machine as Apple might be, it's still better than Microsoft. I don't hate Microsoft. I actually love Office and MSN Messenger and think IE is the best browser for the Mac. However, as much as I like their products, I don't like their OS'. The OS, while quite good, is the reason I got out of the PC world. It offered me everything except what I value the most -> functionality. I like that they have a preview program for JPG's and faxes, I like how they now offer drivers for most hardware and I like just plugging my digcam in there and it being seen, but I hate putting the computer to sleep and having it still make tons of noise and not wake up properly on-demand. Plus, one of my friends is now an employee of Microsoft. When he came to town last weekend, I told him why I bought my Mac (he got me Office X for 50$ USD). I told him that I was worried about how Motorola was no longer making processors and hoping that Apple would find a way out of their clock speed hole. He then said 'you mean Apple no longer has new processors? They might die?' and I said that I don't think so but it can only hurt the company. He then laughed and said 'Yes! There goes the competition!' ... My friend was never that way and his sudden interest in killing the competition was actually worrisome. He insisted that Microsoft does everything it can to make sure its clients are happy with their product and says the employees work hard, but his attitude showed me the opposite.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *But people need to hear the real truth, and take a stand against this corporate political nightmare machine that Apple has become. We don't have to take this. *



I am going to have to respectfully differ with you on this. While I am sure that you are having the problems you say you are, I do not believe that you are truly representative of all Mac OS X users. You may wish to believe that all of us are having your same problems, and you may think that we are not telling the truth when we say that we arent, but the simple fact is that if everyone was having your problems, then no one would be able to get any work done. We, who live and die by the productivity of our computers, would be starving now if Mac OS X was as bad for us as it seems to be for you.

Beyond working in a system that I feel productive in, I use my PowerBook as a representative system of how I can keep systems up and running for my clients to see. I was using Rhapsody on that system ever since I got it because I could not afford to have it be _buggy, glitchy, crashy, clunky and all around a pain in the ass_ in front of a client. The only way 10.2 earned its place on my PowerBook is by impressing the hell out of me. Believe me, if my PowerBook was acting like you say your system is, I would have Mac OS X off that thing so fast it would make your head spin!

The fact is that Mac OS X is, for me and a majority of others, doing its job and a very good job at that.

Please contact Apple as much as you can. You should have a system that works. But dont try to rally people to a cause that is not representative of a majority of Mac OS X users. You, personally, are having problems with Apple. You, personally, need to work with Apple to resolve these problems. Your personal problems are not _the real truth_ for every one, no matter how bad they seem to you personally.


----------



## fryke (Dec 7, 2002)

Have to second here, too.

I have been on the bandwaggon since Rhapsody DR 2. I've tried to move my productive work to Apple's NeXT operating system several times and finally managed with 10.0.3. Although there were some issues with software in Classic, I haven't looked back much. When 10.1 appeared, I had to applaud Apple. And when I finally got rid of the last Classic apps, I got rid of the Classic environment altogether. Mac OS X has been my productive operating system for years now, and the hardware went very well with it. I'm also in charge for some other Macs that are all running Mac OS X 10.2, and they do work fine and are all used for production of graphics design.


----------



## kendall (Dec 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *...If every person that views this would send as many emails to Apple as I have, things would be changing for the better. We could have our Mac back. Todays Macintosh is a perfect example of how things really can be too simple...
> *



If I were to send an email to Apple it would address the following things.

A) I love Mac OS X, especially Jaguar.

B) I love my iBook far more than any PC notebook I've ever owned.

C) Keep up the good work.


----------



## fryke (Dec 7, 2002)

Even better: I've switched two of my female friends to iBooks, and THEY have written Apple with their switchers' stories. 

If *I*'d write Apple an e-mail, it'd contain the 3 points of itanium (but with PowerBook instead of iBook) plus the following:

D) Please make a clean, translucency-free, professional theme for the next version of Mac OS X. I don't want to hack the OS by installing themes. I want an original, Apple-made theme I can use for work without distraction.

(That said, I actually _do_ replace Aqua with Rhapsodized. Can't say it enough...)


----------



## RacerX (Dec 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *D) Please make a clean, translucency-free, professional theme for the next version of Mac OS X. I don't want to hack the OS by installing themes. I want an original, Apple-made theme I can use for work without distraction.*



I'll second that. I may like Aqua, but it would be nice to turn it off by using something that is native to the OS.


----------



## koim (Dec 8, 2002)

You know what really hits me here on this forum?
That once somebody comes with just slight criticscism of mac os x, somebody just slaps him or her in the face this standard story of how good this OS really is and how much Microsoft sucks.

Hey, I like MacOSX, but I can still see it´s faults and and always think of better ways to do things.
(What annoys me right now is the lack of a web-browser that has all the features of IE6, a lot of technology on the web is oddly enough designed with only the PC user in mind)

But to all you die-hard mac fans who refuse to tuch a PC because you´re afraid you might catch a nasty disease, think of this:

Microsoft has designed an OS that runs smooth on biilions of different configurations, video cards, motherboards, memory, around the globe.

Apple still has problems getting their OS to work perfectly on their own customized machines.


I have little expierience with windows, 
I´ve used a mac all my life, and love it.
But, hey, don´t get brainwashed by Apple, 
Think Different you know!


----------



## cellfish (Dec 8, 2002)

I have to admit that koim makes a good point.


----------



## edX (Dec 8, 2002)

> Microsoft has designed an OS that runs smooth on biilions of different configurations, video cards, motherboards, memory, around the globe.



i would really like to see you support this statement. if this was true, there would be no switch campaign. 

most of us will admit that os x needs some improvements. show me an os that doesn't. we only get up in arms when someone makes the claim that windows is somehow superior.


----------



## koim (Dec 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *i would really like to see you support this statement. if this was true, there would be no switch campaign.
> *



Well, most people I´ve spoken to have had no problems with XP.


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2002)

Hey, I'm using quite a decent little subnotebook this very moment, and it's a PC alright. A Sony VAIO PCG-CX1N. It's running Windows smoothly after some tweaking, and I might try and install Linux on it tomorrow, though I doubt I'll find all necessary drivers for it. Still, I wouldn't want to work on it, because the OS would get in my way too much. It's fine for browsing, chatting and for writing my stories (almost any OS I know of is fine for text input...), but for more I want a Mac.

I do admit OS X has flaws that have to be fixed, certainly. But you'll have to accept that for the jobs I'm doing, Mac OS X is the best operating system around, and I'm glad I'm getting some decent hardware to run it on. Nothing really beats Apple's notebooks for me.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 8, 2002)

Koim,

I don't think you quite have a grasp of the _why_ to many of your statements. Why does Windows have a web browser that is so much better than the rest of the computing world? Because Microsoft has been going out of their way for years to kill standards and get people to use proprietary code. Why does Windows have the ability to run on so many PCs? For years Microsoft forced PC maker to include a license for Windows with every PC they made or loss the ability to sell PCs with Windows. Why does Windows work with so many third party parts? Because the makers of those parts write drivers for them for free (Apple has had to write their own drivers or had to pay third party venders to write them).

The problem is that you seem to be a little brainwashed by Microsoft here. This is the way it is with every non-Windows platform, not just the Mac. Solaris on SPARC, Irix on MIPS, they have the same problem we do. Even Linux, BSD and the BeOS have had an up hill battle on x86.

If you thing that moving to x86 is going to solve the problem(as you seem to in your _Apple's future_ thread), your completely wrong. It didn't help SGI when they moved to PCs. It didn't help NeXT when they moved to PCs. It didn't help Sun when they moved to PCs. And it surely didn't help Be when they moved to PCs.

Microsoft has not gotten to this point by making quality products. They got here by making people believe that using Windows is the path of least resistance. They didn't force people to use their products nor have their products ever been the best on the market, they work to remove alternatives. 

If you want to use a PC, please, by all means use one. No one here is stopping you. Just let other people use what they feel happiest with. You don't have to agree, but berating people for their choice because it is not the same conclusion that you seem to have arrived at is not needed either.

Enjoy your PC.


----------



## tamma (Dec 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *
> See, every day I crank up Photoshop 7 (50% max system RAM[512MB] - G4 dual 1GHz), Illustrator 10, Dreamweaver, and Explorer. Of course filters work faster, but not THAT much faster, and in Illustrator 10 I noticed hardly any improvement, even in launch time then in my G4-450MHz.  I'm really trying to keep an open mind about osx, as for taking this thing in to have somebody check it out, well, I'm literally broke after buying the thing in the first place. I tried out the same machine at this place called Microcenter, and speedwise, it was exactly the same, Photoshop and everything. If you don't believe it, please do this test: *



I run the same apps as you do and i have never been happyer with them. I normaly have 2 or 3 apps open when i work with photoshop and it still runs beautifully. i did run illustrator in classic mode and it worked fine for me. I do not think OSX is to blame for your problems

I am am a tech at my job and i support macs in 11 buildings and i have seen your problem before. i actulay saw it on a new imac. and the solution was simple i sent it to an authorized apple service provider and they replaced the motherbord. the repair took 9 days. and when it came back it worked like a dream. Just send it in. You will be glad you did.

OH and i forget to mention XP Sucks!!!!!!! I know you like it but..... DAM XP SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RacerX (Dec 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by koim _
> *But to all you die-hard mac fans who refuse to tuch a PC because you´re afraid you might catch a nasty disease, think of this:*



They aren't called _diseases_, they're called _viruses_ and _worms_! And yes, I would be afraid of my system catching one if I used a Wintel system, as every Wintel person I know has had numerous infections of their systems and/or they have to sit and watch for the weekly (sometimes daily and hourly) hole patches that Microsoft issues.


----------



## cellfish (Dec 8, 2002)

As much as I like the Mac, I have to say that I feel the hatred toward Microsoft is somewhat unwarranted. While I think Chimera is a much cooler browser than IE, I still think that there's nothing better than Microsoft Office X, I think MSN Messenger is quite good and I even enjoy Windows Media Player on the Mac. Microsoft, while responsible for a few technological atrocities left and right, have really cleaned up in the past few years.

XP, while it was my last hope for remaining on the PC, is actually not that bad despite its faults. Most of the stuff you would need from an operating system is already there, the speed is pretty good, the stability is pretty good and the compatibility with programs is damn nice (compared to Mac OS X). The PC's problem is not so much Microsoft as it is the PC makers. Microsoft isn't the one making HSP Winmodems that pollute the earth, MS isn't causing the processors to overheat and require humongous fans not to burn your house down, MS isn't responsible for how bad USB 2.0 is. Sure Windows absolutely sucked once, but the reason it sucked is not because of MS, but rather because of the hardware it runs on. I'm pretty sure Windows wasn't meant to run on a 30$ motherboard with an on-board everything with fail-sure 0.20$ ram.

Apple only releases hardware that has been thoroughly tested. Microsoft doesn't, MS doesn't have control over that. As a result, you get crap operation and blame that is directed toward the wrong party.


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2002)

Actually, MS made quite an impact on hardware development. While they haven't succeeded everywhere, they DID push hardware developers to create cheaper hardware. However, you're right, it's a jungle out there and you can get better and worse hardware. That's a plus for Apple, too, as they don't usually choose that badly.


----------



## edX (Dec 8, 2002)

> ...and the compatibility with programs is damn nice (compared to Mac OS X)





> As a result, you get crap operation and blame that is directed toward the wrong party.



could it be you are also blaming the wrong party? last i checked it is the responsibility of the developer to make the software compatible with the system and not the other way around. people blaming apple for a particular app's failure to perform has always made me laugh. well writen programs work great  with os x, poorly written ones don't.  tell me where this is any different on any other platform.


----------



## cellfish (Dec 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *could it be you are also blaming the wrong party? last i checked it is the responsibility of the developer to make the software compatible with the system and not the other way around. people blaming apple for a particular app's failure to perform has always made me laugh. well writen programs work great  with os x, poorly written ones don't.  tell me where this is any different on any other platform.  *



I've made it mission never to claim that I know something with 100% certainty, but it's my belief that hardware makers, especially in the case of Windows, should make their hardware compatibled with IT and not Windows with the hardware. Unlike Linux distrois and Apple, Microsoft does not lose out in not supporting hardware. The fact of the matter is, if a hardware manufacturer makes a device that doesn't work in the world's most used (I refuse to say most popular because of my definition of popular) operating system, that manufacturer is automatically not going to sell as well as he would want. Therefore, a hardware manufacturer should try to make any device to work in Windows and not the other way around in the PC world. However, the case becomes that Microsoft tries as hard as it can to support the hardware even though the responsibility should rest on the manufacturer and that is where possible conflicts emerge.

The responsibility Microsoft took upon itself is comparable, in my opinion, to someone visiting the Tower of Babel and deciding to standardize every one of the foreign languages into one common dialect. However successful that attempt might be, every speaker will have an accent in trying to speak the new standardized language. The same way they would have an accent, Microsoft has various issues emerging from millions of different configurations. The result is a freeze, a crash and a load of complaints. As bad as that is, it's the best Microsoft can offer for the time being and I commend them on that.

What I escaped from, in moving to the Mac, is the Microsoft issues that are common to all users. I rarely had XP crash, so that was not my concern, but when I say that Windows refused to wake from sleep, had USB devices fail after waking from sleep, Outlook not working properly after installing, SP1 causing my computer not to shut down properly, I can say with certainty that I was not the only one suffering from those problems. I was running away from the problems that I CAN blame Microsoft for, not the ones that I know they aren't responsible for.

So in the end, MS and Apple are the same kind of company. MS has a lot more to deal with and as a result opens itself to a lot of additional scrutiny. Both have their highpoints and their drawbacks. Apple deals with less and thus the product looks and frankly IS better. I will not say that a Mac is better than a PC or that Apple is better than Microsoft, but I will say that the current standard Mac configuration is way better than the current standard PC configuration.


----------



## edX (Dec 8, 2002)

cellfish, i think you make many valid points in this last post. i'm not sure why you quoted me as i was talking about your claim that "programs" are more compatible in windows than in os x and then the ironic observation that people are blaming the wrong party when it comes to pc hardware compatiblity. and i agree with you on the latter but think you were making the same mistake when it comes to software. m$ is not resposible for programs being any more or less compatible than apple is. in both case, it is the developers who write a compatible program or not. 
if by chance you were referring to backwards compatibility for programs written for previous system versions, then m$ would have a slight edge as they have not completely rewritten their os to produce XP. however i, think apple has, up to this point, done a great job of addressing this thru the classic layer and the ability to have multiple versions of the os on the same boot disk so that one can easily use a workable system for those few problem programs.


----------



## Sogni (Dec 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by koim _
> *
> Microsoft has designed an OS that runs smooth on biilions of different configurations, video cards, motherboards, memory, around the globe.
> *



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Oh my god!!! This is sooo FUNNY!!!

MAN I needed a good laugh! 

But at the same time - That's a very scary thought! I'd be out of business! 

Ok, back to fixing the two Windows-PC Laptops and the Windows-PC Tower (for clients). 

Whew...


----------



## cellfish (Dec 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *cellfish, i think you make many valid points in this last post. i'm not sure why you quoted me as i was talking about your claim that "programs" are more compatible in windows than in os x and then the ironic observation that people are blaming the wrong party when it comes to pc hardware compatiblity. and i agree with you on the latter but think you were making the same mistake when it comes to software. m$ is not resposible for programs being any more or less compatible than apple is. in both case, it is the developers who write a compatible program or not.
> if by chance you were referring to backwards compatibility for programs written for previous system versions, then m$ would have a slight edge as they have not completely rewritten their os to produce XP. however i, think apple has, up to this point, done a great job of addressing this thru the classic layer and the ability to have multiple versions of the os on the same boot disk so that one can easily use a workable system for those few problem programs. *



The thing about rewriting the OS completely, I completely agree with you and think it is a valid reason why the programs would not function directly in the OS as they used to (obviously). I can't really say anything that opposes what you just said but simply bring up a question of sorts:

Was it wise, looking back, to write a Mac OS that had no direct compatibility with the previous installment? Would it have been better to rewrite the classic Mac OS code entirely and render it more efficient and if necessary, more aesthetic?


----------



## RacerX (Dec 9, 2002)

It needs to be pointed out that Microsoft doesn't make drivers for hardware, they don't have to. Microsoft forces hardware makers to make the drivers for Microsoft. Need an example? How about nVIDIA? Where do you go for drivers for nVIDIA hardware for Windows? Where do you go for nVIDIA hardware drivers for Macintosh? Who wrote the drivers for Windows? Who wrote the drivers for Macintosh?

Apple, IBM, Sun, SGI and the open source community are all left to make drivers that work for their systems for third party hardware while third party hardware venders go out of their way to write drivers for Microsoft. This is as far from a level playing field as you can get. And given the amount of work that Microsoft doesn't have to do, their is no excuse for the high cost of Windows. On the other hand, Mac OS X is not that expensive considering that Apple was left to provide the hardware support that we have at their own expense.

Makes me wonder what Windows users are paying for. Upgrading from Windows 2000 Professional (Windows NT 5.0) to Windows XP Professional (Windows NT 5.1) is currently about $200.00, while upgrading from Mac OS X v10.1 to Mac OS X v10.2 is about $130.00. I know what Apple needed to do to keep supporting hardware, but Microsoft didn't need to do anything like that, why the massive upgrade price?

Also it should be noted that it has taken years to switch people to Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 was almost useless, NT 3.51 was a good step in the right direction but NT wasnt really usable until NT 4.0 sp3. And even then, people still didnt really use it in any real numbers. All these years later and only now are people starting to use NT in any great amount. 

If we are going to compare Apple and Microsoft, lets look at a very smooth transition that Apple has made with Mac OS X compared to all the missteps that Microsoft had made with Windows NT.

Anyone care to guess at how much time past between the release of Windows NT 3.1 (in July of 1993) and the release of Windows NT 4.0 (it should really be NT 4.0 sp3 though)?



_(Answer: 3 years)_


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 9, 2002)

Racer,

I totally agree... and I am a "Switcher."  i worked on Wintel machines for 12 years... lets see that was way back when Windows was still in 3.11 mode... hehe...

but since MS decided to into networking now... All of sudden when Linksys, Netgear, 3com, to name a few have been dominate in that field... MS writes the drivers for it's networking cards, hubs... This I know as a fact because they had to release a serious update because their nic cards were not working on some of the machines they were on...

The debate here is Why no to switch... I can think of many reasons to...

1. Stability is the numero Uno here.
2. Sleekness and elegance.
3. It gets the job done faster and more effiecently than Wintel machines...
4. It took me 15 mins to set my G4 up from out of the box... Wintel machines can take 45 min or longer plus if there is a driver problem and your new to windows i feel for you...
5. The inside of the G4 is not a dangle wires of mess unlike wintel machines.
6. OS X is a baby and bent on new code and Unix... MS is still playing with DOS even though they have said repteadely DOS is dead.
7. OS-9 is on it's way out... and OS-X is becoming more and more prominent slowly but surely.

that's why i have switched...


----------



## RacerX (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sirtovin _
> *MS writes the drivers for it's networking cards, hubs... This I know as a fact because they had to release a serious update because their nic cards were not working on some of the machines they were on... *



No, your right. I can totally see Microsoft wanting to write it's own code for mission critical parts. And with the NT line (which has always been their pride and joy) I wouldn't really expect anything less.

Actually I always felt that Gates was a little hurt that more people didn't move to NT just because it was a better product than 3.x/95/98/ME.  They finally had to do the same thing that Apple was doing, drop the older OS in favor of the newer one, to get people to switch.


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *No, your right. I can totally see Microsoft wanting to write it's own code for mission critical parts. And with the NT line (which has always been their pride and joy) I wouldn't really expect anything less.
> 
> Actually I always felt that Gates was a little hurt that more people didn't move to NT just because it was a better product than 3.x/95/98/ME.  They finally had to do the same thing that Apple was doing, drop the older OS in favor of the newer one, to get people to switch. *




hehehe... true... true... but he still has not killed DOS... It's still avaible to a certain extent on XP... 

Gates is just happy that the JD didn't shut him down like they wanted to.

As for my MAC... I love it.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *It needs to be pointed out that Microsoft doesn't make drivers for hardware, they don't have to. Microsoft forces hardware makers to make the drivers for Microsoft. Need an example? How about nVIDIA? Where do you go for drivers for nVIDIA hardware for Windows? Where do you go for nVIDIA hardware drivers for Macintosh? Who wrote the drivers for Windows? Who wrote the drivers for Macintosh?*


They don't make drivers for Windows because Microsoft makes them, they make drivers because there is money to make.
It isn't so that Apple writes these drivers for the Mac, nVidia is also highly involved here.

If some hardware vendors don't make drivers for the Mac it is just because it is not viable for them. I think on the Mac hardware market you can hardly survive if your product isn't OEMed by Apple.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tigger _
> *They don't make drivers for Windows because Microsoft makes them, they make drivers because there is money to make.
> It isn't so that Apple writes these drivers for the Mac, nVidia is also highly involved here.
> 
> If some hardware vendors don't make drivers for the Mac it is just because it is not viable for them. I think on the Mac hardware market you can hardly survive if your product isn't OEMed by Apple. *



Funny, about a year ago there was a problem with the nVIDIA drivers for Mac OS 9 that was causing some serious problems with the cards being shipped with the (then) new Power Mac G4s. As it was a problem with the nVIDIA hardware and nothing else (I had one client running off an ATI Rage 128 out of an old B&W without any problems during that time) I called nVIDIA for support. They told me that they do not write the drivers for the Mac OS and that I should talk with Apple.

Apple did finally release an updated version (1.5 as I recall), but nVIDIA washed their hands of the problem. 

As very few hardware venders make anything that is Mac-only, survival is not even a question (there are more Mac users now than at any other point in time, and more than the total number of computer users at points in time in the past), what it does come down to is profit margin and what companies feel they can get away with.

Besides, isn't nVIDIA an OEM vender for Apple? All I'm saying is that Apple is forced to eat the cost of supporting hardware (as are many makers of operating systems) while venders are tripping over themselves trying to make drivers for Windows and in some cases paying Microsoft to include them with Windows so their products can be _plug-n-play_.

So are you saying this isn't the case? Or are you saying you don't see this as an advantage for Microsoft (or at the least a major disadvantage for Apple and the others)?


----------



## Tigger (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *As it was a problem with the nVIDIA hardware and nothing else (I had one client running off an ATI Rage 128 out of an old B&W without any problems during that time) I called nVIDIA for support. They told me that they do not write the drivers for the Mac OS and that I should talk with Apple.*


If you have a PC with a Ati Rage on board and call Ati about your problem, they will tell you that you have to call the motherboard manufacturor, although they do the drivers and give them to their licencees.
Apple and nVidia are working together on those drivers. If Apple would do these drivers on their own, I really wouldn't want one of these inside a Mac.



> *
> Besides, isn't nVIDIA an OEM vender for Apple? All I'm saying is that Apple is forced to eat the cost of supporting hardware (as are many makers of operating systems) while venders are tripping over themselves trying to make drivers for Windows and in some cases paying Microsoft to include them with Windows so their products can be plug-n-play.
> 
> So are you saying this isn't the case? Or are you saying you don't see this as an advantage for Microsoft (or at the least a major disadvantage for Apple and the others)?*



Sure this is an advantage for Microsoft.
But what I said is that Microsoft forces noone to make drivers for their OS. They don't have to. nVidia is a company that is really big on the PC side, and has a good name. Apple wanted to have nVidia on the Mac side, so they have to do something for that. nVidia is not selling hardware for themselves, they only develop technology.

The transition from Windows 9x to NT took longer cause Microsoft wanted to let the old DOS programs to die out.
They are not stuffing a new OS down the throats of developers (I know, this is too harsh, it isn't that bad, but you get the idea).

I am no Microsoft fan. I don't like Microsoft. But I don't like Apple (as an enterprise) either.


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 9, 2002)

the transition took longer because the software vendors told bill to go to hell.  To be frank... This is why it's been a slow transition away from 16-bit programs to true 32 bit programs on the microsoft side.

Intel has been yelling at Microsoft to go 64 bit for quite sometime... but MS has been slow to comply... yes they have Itanuim out there... but the fact is MS is the one who has been telling intel what to do lately... That hurts...

As for apple... I am happy... The transistion is going well... Jobs, has a firmer grip on this situation...


----------



## Tigger (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sirtovin _
> *
> Intel has been yelling at Microsoft to go 64 bit for quite sometime... but MS has been slow to comply... yes they have Itanuim out there... but the fact is MS is the one who has been telling intel what to do lately... That hurts...*


But isn't a 64bit version  of Win 2000 out since fall 2001?


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tigger _
> *But isn't a 64bit version  of Win 2000 out since fall 2001?  *



Only Windows XP... Professional... has been out in 64-bit... since early this year... 2002...

it's a shame because it's only availble for the server end systems... not yet retail wise... another words if i walked into CompUSA, or Bestbuy, and said let me buy a 64 bit Windows system... They will tell you it's special order through microsoft site...

Sad but true.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 9, 2002)

Only 64-bit version of Windows that I know of is Advance Server. If you are looking for a 64-bit workstation solution for Itanium, Linux is your only choice at this point.

And after NT 4.0 sp3 the only apps that I knew of that didn't run correctly with NT were games. As far as I could tell the only reason for 98/ME was for gamers (and until 2000 was released, USB support).


----------



## Sirtovin (Dec 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Only 64-bit version of Windows that I know of is Advance Server. If you are looking for a 64-bit workstation solution for Itanium, Linux is your only choice at this point.
> 
> And after NT 4.0 sp3 the only apps that I knew of that didn't run correctly with NT were games. As far as I could tell the only reason for 98/ME was for gamers (and until 2000 was released, USB support). *



Racer... Got to correct you sorta... The only games that will work on NT are Microsoft games and a few WestWood games... but's that it... Microsoft always makes sure their games work with all their systems...


----------

