Apple - Part II
- Thread starter georgelien
- Start date
- Status
georgelien
Registered
"Good" is relative. I just wish OS X could be speedier. I really don't want to wait until 10.2.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
You know, the usual. TextEdit (obj-c port), Quicktime, MacOSXAmp (mp3 player), PDFView, Create (actually the complete Stone design suite), TIFFany 3, Cutting-room, OmniWeb 3.1, WriteUp (I like TextEdit better), PasteUp (Create is better for what I do), HTMLEdit, RBrowser, Web Objects, and of course games (DOOM I & II, Quake II & III, Balling, Hextris, and others), and my desktop system acts as my internal Apache web server for testing out web sites I work on (I can see what a web is going to look like on almost every type of system in the internet).
As a Rhapsody power user, I have a Rhapsody system with me everywhere I go. I am currently transferring 4 GB of documentation on every type of system I might come across from my ThinkPad to my PowerBook (which is running Rhapsody 5.6... no Mac OS installed).
What do you run on your Windows systems, which are taking more electricity than my Rhapsody systems I imagine.
And here is a shot of my desktop for you.
Attachments
This has gotten totally out of control. Isn't this fun?
I'm going to try and not use names or put more fuel on the fire, but I do want to clarify one semantic issue from my POV.
I don't recall ever once saying "unbearable" (please correct me if I'm wrong). My term has always been "unacceptable". "Unacceptable" does not equate with "unusable" so much as it equates with "disappointing". I know that sounds trivial, but I don't want to be lumped in with the wrong crowd.
As for who to blame, it's clearly a chicken or the egg syndrome. One could easily blame Apple for deciding on Aqua or whatever it is that is making the UI so slow, or one could blame the app developer for not optimizing for it. Or we could go back to blaming Apple for forcing the apps to use the main CPU instead of a graphics card for rendering (in which case all of the blame is on Apple), though there are some examples of apps by non-Apple devlopers that seem to run just fine. I don't know who to blame, nor do I care. I am simply an end user who is unsatisfied with a certain UI experience. In my opinion, it is Apple's primary responsibility to provide the tools and influence to make properly coded apps by third parties. Unfortunately, the types of apps that I use which take the biggest hit all seem to perform sluggishly. For example, Illustrator is mildly painful. It scompetitors (Freehand and Corel) perform equally sucky. So who do we blame there? Nobody seems to be able to find a way to do fast vector-based redraws in X. At least not in a high end fully developed app like those. There are some low end ones that perform great.
I use OS X exclusively and have for about 6 months, so obviously I see the advantages that all of you do. I am SIMPLY saying, and most everyone has agreed, that OS X has some graphics layer speed issues.
"g" has a more extreme view then me and with OS X as a whole, but I stand by my criticisim of this particular speed issue.
As for the poll. I voted "Love OS X" because that poll question is about the OS as a whole. My point has never once been about OS X on the whole, which I do love. It's been about one single issue which is very important to me, just as Networking, Permissions, Serving, Gaming, File Organization, Interface, etc. might be to some of you.
I'm going to try and not use names or put more fuel on the fire, but I do want to clarify one semantic issue from my POV.
I don't recall ever once saying "unbearable" (please correct me if I'm wrong). My term has always been "unacceptable". "Unacceptable" does not equate with "unusable" so much as it equates with "disappointing". I know that sounds trivial, but I don't want to be lumped in with the wrong crowd.
As for who to blame, it's clearly a chicken or the egg syndrome. One could easily blame Apple for deciding on Aqua or whatever it is that is making the UI so slow, or one could blame the app developer for not optimizing for it. Or we could go back to blaming Apple for forcing the apps to use the main CPU instead of a graphics card for rendering (in which case all of the blame is on Apple), though there are some examples of apps by non-Apple devlopers that seem to run just fine. I don't know who to blame, nor do I care. I am simply an end user who is unsatisfied with a certain UI experience. In my opinion, it is Apple's primary responsibility to provide the tools and influence to make properly coded apps by third parties. Unfortunately, the types of apps that I use which take the biggest hit all seem to perform sluggishly. For example, Illustrator is mildly painful. It scompetitors (Freehand and Corel) perform equally sucky. So who do we blame there? Nobody seems to be able to find a way to do fast vector-based redraws in X. At least not in a high end fully developed app like those. There are some low end ones that perform great.
I use OS X exclusively and have for about 6 months, so obviously I see the advantages that all of you do. I am SIMPLY saying, and most everyone has agreed, that OS X has some graphics layer speed issues.
"g" has a more extreme view then me and with OS X as a whole, but I stand by my criticisim of this particular speed issue.
As for the poll. I voted "Love OS X" because that poll question is about the OS as a whole. My point has never once been about OS X on the whole, which I do love. It's been about one single issue which is very important to me, just as Networking, Permissions, Serving, Gaming, File Organization, Interface, etc. might be to some of you.
edX
mac shaman
thank you mindbend for the well worded reply which addresses the issue. george seems to have gotten caught up in defending himself and forgotten about the subject, repeatedly ignoring points that others have made on the issue.
you blame apple, i blame the developers. i am willing to concede that the truth probably is somewhere inbetween. i have never had a need to use them myself, but i am wondering if you have ever tried any of the process managers out there? is it possible that by controlling the process memory allocution during long tasks that would normally time out and share with other tasks, that your issue might be solved or at least improved?
you blame apple, i blame the developers. i am willing to concede that the truth probably is somewhere inbetween. i have never had a need to use them myself, but i am wondering if you have ever tried any of the process managers out there? is it possible that by controlling the process memory allocution during long tasks that would normally time out and share with other tasks, that your issue might be solved or at least improved?
georgelien
Registered
RacerX,
Your Rhapsody looks like the Mac OS X Server, the 1.x version, that I used to run until I found Linux to be more efficient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Spruiell,
I never need to "defend" myself since the market already proved me right. While I read and understand your points, I can't see you guys putting out the same effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mindbend,
I too expected OS X to be better than it is now. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait. Hell, I have been waiting since 1996, might as well wait a little longer.
Your Rhapsody looks like the Mac OS X Server, the 1.x version, that I used to run until I found Linux to be more efficient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Spruiell,
I never need to "defend" myself since the market already proved me right. While I read and understand your points, I can't see you guys putting out the same effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mindbend,
I too expected OS X to be better than it is now. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait. Hell, I have been waiting since 1996, might as well wait a little longer.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Why don't you just move to Windows and make yourself happy? RacerX is happy in Rhapsody, so let him use Rhapsody. You don't have to force your opinion on everybody else, as it seems you are doing. Most of us here acknowledge that Mac OS X has some user interface speed issues, but we think that Mac OS X is the best operating system yet. If you ask around, you'll find some WINDOWS converts. Hmm, funny that, isn't it?
The market already proved you right? What in the heck does the market have anything to do with the price of tea in China?
Apple's market share in the U.S. has actually grown this year (see IDG market statistics), because of Mac OS X, the new iMac, and Apple's iApps. Sure, Apple accounts for only about 5% of the market, but that doesn't have anything to do with Mac OS X being the worst operating system ever.
You know, there are many more cockroaches than humans on this planet. Does that make cockroaches inherently better than humans?
Oh, and it seems like most everybody is in agreement that you are the one that's just being a "mindless drone" who seems to not be able to see the light. *shrug* To each his own.
It seems like you'll always be waiting. Why don't you make the switch to Windows like RacerX suggested, and be done with it?
edX
mac shaman
whatever you say george. I can see now that you are always right. after all, the market doesn't lie or deceive. there is only one true market and it is all powerful. there is nothing we can do, because the market has already decided our destinies.
I'm guessing you are trying to use the old, 90% or more of the world uses windows argument and that many people can't be wrong. an IQ curve would tell me that about 95% of people have an IQ below mine. Should i therefore abandon my perceptions and rely on theirs?
george, how much is there to understanding your latest posts? you haven't offered any new points in quite a while. and the posts that have countered your suppositions with examples and suggestions, you ignore. instead you continue to explain what a superior guy you are and how wrong it is for everyone to attack you. You are about at the point where name calling and character questioning would be more entertaining than trying to engage you in discussion. You seem to be more responsive to it at any rate. You have yet to explain how you can blame the os for the behavior of specific apps?
unless you are 15-17 years old, why don't you stop playing "my computer is bigger than your computer"? If you are 15-17 years old, then we should just go away and let you go thru this developmental stage on your own.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
You must not be up on the version numbering systems for Rhapsody. They are as follows:
Rhapsody 5.0____________________ Rhapsody Developer Release
Rhapsody 5.1___________________Rhapsody Developer Release 2
Rhapsody 5.2________Rhapsody 1.0 (pulled before being released)
Rhapsody 5.3___________________________Mac OS X Server 1.0
Rhapsody 5.4_________________________ Mac OS X Server 1.0.1
Rhapsody 5.5_________________________ Mac OS X Server 1.0.2
Rhapsody 5.6___________________________Mac OS X Server 1.2
All versions from Rhapsody 5.1 on use the same interface and can run most of the same apps (in the case of the Intel version, the developers needed to have compiled the apps for either Intel or both Intel and PPC).
And as for moving from Rhapsody to Linux, this is not surprising. I removed Linux from one of my PCs (and bought my ThinkPad) to run Rhapsody (5.1). Then again, these are being used as workstations (which was what the OS was designed for), not closet systems. Nothing runs headless like Linux.
Like simX said, this is what I enjoy working with. I'm happy with my systems, and I never even thought about starting a thread like this one. If i didn't like something, I move onto what I did like.
Again, I think you should move completely to Windows and/or Linux. As you keep pointing out, you like them better. It is actually funny that you still feel the need to vent on the subject when you have already stated what you think is a better platform.
I am sure that the rest of the Mac community would be happy to join me in showing you the door (or Window) to that better platform. Your knowledge and experiences with this one, lacking as they are, will not be missed. The Windows community truly deserves you (and I offer my sympathy to the Linux community).
An example of Rhapsody 5.1 for you (yes, I love my systems
, note that uptime!).Attachments
.dev.lqd
Angry Member
Sweet jesus on a popsicle stick! This is still going?
Honestly Goerge...
'I don't want to wait until 10.2'?
Rest assured, Apple has heard your obviously empirical observations and has dispatched Steve Jobs in a pixie outfit to sprinkle magical pixie dust on your system. Expect him within the half hour, or your next labotomy is half-off!
Of course you don't want to wait, but exactly what update would you want them to deliver this speed update in? a sub-point release? How about 10.1.5, due in around 2-3 months?
I have yet to read of any specific complaints or claims that you've made. What I have been reading are general sketchy perceptions and vague complaints about perceptions and UI and speed. It basically sounds like you just want to bitch. Stop... it's all been done before.
If you really are dead set on this... reread the old threads of this ilk from the forum's extensive archive. If your initial response is 'but I don't have that kind of time to waste!' think again... because you're doing the same thing now. The only difference is that the responses are being generated on the fly and are directed to you, personally.
You made a comment about musicians. You're dead wrong.
Pro tools- THE 800 lb. gorilla. Think Avid, think Photoshop, think Pro Tools (you can draw a few metaphors between avid and pro tools since one owns the other). Don't bother trying to run it on 2k or XP. It works best on a Mac, period. MOTU- makers of the fabulous Digital Performer digital recording package (available ONLY on Macintosh), also produce the poster children product for firewire based digital audio interfaces, the 828 and the 896. Audio people want it to work and they want it to stay out of the way. Disparate hardware configurations and attempts at broad hardware support markets don't translate into reliable performance.
My point- Macs are the ideal for pro audio. The people who don't go Macintosh usually make the choice because Macs are at a premium. There is a 9600 with a G3 upgrade card at school that's running the pro tools setup there for film scoring. My dual 500 tears apart Digital Performer. The possibilities of all this are really really exciting. Ask anyone... the best way to go is on a macintosh. Sound Engineers, musicians, studio managers, producers.
Honestly Goerge...
'I don't want to wait until 10.2'?
Rest assured, Apple has heard your obviously empirical observations and has dispatched Steve Jobs in a pixie outfit to sprinkle magical pixie dust on your system. Expect him within the half hour, or your next labotomy is half-off!
Of course you don't want to wait, but exactly what update would you want them to deliver this speed update in? a sub-point release? How about 10.1.5, due in around 2-3 months?
I have yet to read of any specific complaints or claims that you've made. What I have been reading are general sketchy perceptions and vague complaints about perceptions and UI and speed. It basically sounds like you just want to bitch. Stop... it's all been done before.
If you really are dead set on this... reread the old threads of this ilk from the forum's extensive archive. If your initial response is 'but I don't have that kind of time to waste!' think again... because you're doing the same thing now. The only difference is that the responses are being generated on the fly and are directed to you, personally.
You made a comment about musicians. You're dead wrong.
Pro tools- THE 800 lb. gorilla. Think Avid, think Photoshop, think Pro Tools (you can draw a few metaphors between avid and pro tools since one owns the other). Don't bother trying to run it on 2k or XP. It works best on a Mac, period. MOTU- makers of the fabulous Digital Performer digital recording package (available ONLY on Macintosh), also produce the poster children product for firewire based digital audio interfaces, the 828 and the 896. Audio people want it to work and they want it to stay out of the way. Disparate hardware configurations and attempts at broad hardware support markets don't translate into reliable performance.
My point- Macs are the ideal for pro audio. The people who don't go Macintosh usually make the choice because Macs are at a premium. There is a 9600 with a G3 upgrade card at school that's running the pro tools setup there for film scoring. My dual 500 tears apart Digital Performer. The possibilities of all this are really really exciting. Ask anyone... the best way to go is on a macintosh. Sound Engineers, musicians, studio managers, producers.
georgelien
Registered
.dev.lqd,
Pro Tools|24 actually runs on Windows 2000. Currently none of the digidesign product runs on Mac OS X. How about that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valrus,
Thanks for the warning. I expect nothing else from a bunch of mob.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RacerX,
Cool! Do you mind sharing some specs on the hardware your Rhapsody is running on?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction everyone!
I do like MacOS X, despite its current state of lack of full software support (Yes, Adobe finally came out with Photoshop, but we're still waiting for Quark, right?), I just wish it would run more efficient on my PowerBook G4/500.
Like everyone else, I spent a fortune on it, $3,600 USD to be exact. PC people don't need to spend this kind of money for a decent system, but we do. You see my point?
If we cannot provide decent system with acceptable price, I don't see how the Macs can gain more market share.
Pro Tools|24 actually runs on Windows 2000. Currently none of the digidesign product runs on Mac OS X. How about that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valrus,
Thanks for the warning. I expect nothing else from a bunch of mob.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RacerX,
Cool! Do you mind sharing some specs on the hardware your Rhapsody is running on?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction everyone!
I do like MacOS X, despite its current state of lack of full software support (Yes, Adobe finally came out with Photoshop, but we're still waiting for Quark, right?), I just wish it would run more efficient on my PowerBook G4/500.
Like everyone else, I spent a fortune on it, $3,600 USD to be exact. PC people don't need to spend this kind of money for a decent system, but we do. You see my point?
If we cannot provide decent system with acceptable price, I don't see how the Macs can gain more market share.
.dev.lqd
Angry Member
Correction- Pro Tools runs on Windows 2k. It works on Windows 98.
It rocks on a Mac
And presently, there's almost NO pro audio software out for MacOSX, because Core Audio is a huge shift from Sound Manager/ASIO. Most people are being patient, because their studios still work with os9. Cubase SX is almost kind sorta out... but a lot of the other people have just said 'we're working on it already'. I know a lot more studios running MacOS than I know that are running Windows 2K.
The reason? Driver shift between the 95/98/ME cores and the NT core in 2k. The people that make this stuff hate working with system software... once they have their interface code setup... they don't want to mess with it again (since it's a huge chore). There's also been a lot of wierdness between hardware in general (esp. when it comes to sound). I won't say Pro audio on 2k isn't viable... it's just iffy. Most things are just more stable in 98.
It rocks on a Mac
And presently, there's almost NO pro audio software out for MacOSX, because Core Audio is a huge shift from Sound Manager/ASIO. Most people are being patient, because their studios still work with os9. Cubase SX is almost kind sorta out... but a lot of the other people have just said 'we're working on it already'. I know a lot more studios running MacOS than I know that are running Windows 2K.
The reason? Driver shift between the 95/98/ME cores and the NT core in 2k. The people that make this stuff hate working with system software... once they have their interface code setup... they don't want to mess with it again (since it's a huge chore). There's also been a lot of wierdness between hardware in general (esp. when it comes to sound). I won't say Pro audio on 2k isn't viable... it's just iffy. Most things are just more stable in 98.
Um guys - georgelien is comparing a bleeding edge OS to an already old OS! He's comparing OSX to Windows 2000 - and NOT XP!
Hmmm... I wonder why he's bitching and complaining about OUR Bleeding-Edge OS while not even testing those same waters on MS's Bleeding-Edge OS!
What's the matter? Affraid OSX will beat the living daylights out of XP georgelien?
Am I right? Oh common you know I'm right!
You can no longer get a new system with a later version of the OS in Windows - so stop comparing OSX to Windows 2000 and older!
Now, how many of those PeeCees you got georgelien that can actually run Windows XP? Ooooo wait, you're going to go broke before you can even try installing XP on that many computers, huh? At what - 300$ a pop (Pro Edition)? *OUCH*
Hmmm... I wonder why he's bitching and complaining about OUR Bleeding-Edge OS while not even testing those same waters on MS's Bleeding-Edge OS!
What's the matter? Affraid OSX will beat the living daylights out of XP georgelien?
Am I right? Oh common you know I'm right!
You can no longer get a new system with a later version of the OS in Windows - so stop comparing OSX to Windows 2000 and older!
Now, how many of those PeeCees you got georgelien that can actually run Windows XP? Ooooo wait, you're going to go broke before you can even try installing XP on that many computers, huh? At what - 300$ a pop (Pro Edition)? *OUCH*
Nope, Quark will no longer get my money as I've given up on them. And not because of OSX
Nope... I don't see your point... Mac people don't need to spend $3,600 for a decent system... from Macmall.com:
New iMac from $1,394
G3 iMac from $794
iBook from $1,194
Powerbook from 1,994
I think only people doing Profesional stuff spend $2000 and above for ANY system setup - PC or Mac!
Are you really living in a cave? Does newspapers and current prices of things ever reach your cave?
edX
mac shaman
George - so if photoshop and other Adobe products are what isn't cutting it, why not write to Adobe about it? Why not start a thread called "Adobe Sucks"? We could be on the same side of that one. we might become new 'best buds'.
or if it is a whole set of programs from different developers, why not contact them and voice your complaints. Why not let them know you are worried about their market share? I know getting the 'big guys' to give you as much consideration as my example of the small developer who fixed my speed complaint isn't very easy, but they sure aren't going to hear you or care as long as you keep laying all the blame on Apple. too many of the big companies are making excuses about osx and blaming apple while small developers are making the most of the new revolution. Wuite frankly, i hope all the old standards who fell so high and mighty that they can jerk us around, all lose their market share and fall by the wayside while younger and more responsive companies come along and take their place. But while apple isn't perfect, i have had my small problems with them since about 1984 or so, they are still the best of what's out there in terms of caring about their customers. I would love to hear an arguement to that.
or if it is a whole set of programs from different developers, why not contact them and voice your complaints. Why not let them know you are worried about their market share? I know getting the 'big guys' to give you as much consideration as my example of the small developer who fixed my speed complaint isn't very easy, but they sure aren't going to hear you or care as long as you keep laying all the blame on Apple. too many of the big companies are making excuses about osx and blaming apple while small developers are making the most of the new revolution. Wuite frankly, i hope all the old standards who fell so high and mighty that they can jerk us around, all lose their market share and fall by the wayside while younger and more responsive companies come along and take their place. But while apple isn't perfect, i have had my small problems with them since about 1984 or so, they are still the best of what's out there in terms of caring about their customers. I would love to hear an arguement to that.
georgelien
Registered
So you guys are waiting for me, eh? FYI, all of the hardware I own can run Windows XP just fine. I'm worry guys. First XP "borrowed" many ideas from OS X. And should they will benefit by attracting people to their camp. I still see myself a Mac user who also uses Windows.
Say whatever you like, but you are not making fun of me, but the people use Mac OS X--yourself included.
The reason why I don't run XP is because I know that at core its Windows NT 5.0 or Windows 2000 2.0, and at the surface, its an interface that borrowed ideas from Windows 98 and OS X.
Windows 2000 Professional has been around for close to two years now. OS X should be out the same time. No, but instead it's still at 10.1.4 stage while Windows 2000 already have Service Pack 2 out and soon SP3 will be out.
OS X beats XP right now, but with the speed Apple is perfecting OS X, XP will be pass it in no time.
And by the way, I'm the one of suckers who bought my PowerBook G4/500 when it first came out in January of 2001. Call me stupid but I love my Mac. Just wish OS X could live up what Macintosh standards.
Say whatever you like, but you are not making fun of me, but the people use Mac OS X--yourself included.
The reason why I don't run XP is because I know that at core its Windows NT 5.0 or Windows 2000 2.0, and at the surface, its an interface that borrowed ideas from Windows 98 and OS X.
Windows 2000 Professional has been around for close to two years now. OS X should be out the same time. No, but instead it's still at 10.1.4 stage while Windows 2000 already have Service Pack 2 out and soon SP3 will be out.
OS X beats XP right now, but with the speed Apple is perfecting OS X, XP will be pass it in no time.
And by the way, I'm the one of suckers who bought my PowerBook G4/500 when it first came out in January of 2001. Call me stupid but I love my Mac. Just wish OS X could live up what Macintosh standards.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Rhapsody 5.1:
(1) IBM ThinkPad 760 ED* (Pentium/133, 80 MB RAM, 6 GB hard drive, 12.1 @ 1024x768 display)
(2) Digital Celebris (Dual Pentium/233, 48 MB RAM, 2 GB hard drive)
Rhapsody 5.6:
(1) PowerBook G3/266 (1 MB of L2, 192 MB RAM, 4 GB hard drive, 14.1" @ 1024x768)
The Digital was originally running Red Hat 6.1 (which was move to another Digital system that is also running OPENSTEP 4.2). The ThinkPad and PowerBook models were dictated by drivers. Apple didn't officially support mobile systems, but Steve Jobs had a ThinkPad like mine, so they made video drivers for it. Engineers at Apple wanted to use Rhapsody on PowerBooks so they added unsupported drivers for the 2400/3400/Kanga-G3 in Rhapsody 5.1 and unsupported drivers for the 2400/3400/Kanga-G3/WallStreet-G3 in Rhapsody 5.3 - 5.6. Results of attempted installations on Lombard-G3 systems were mixed at best, and all known attempts on Pismo-G3 systems have failed.
Seeing as I was buying these systems to run Rhapsody and they would be little more than a paper weight to me (specially a PC laptop) if they couldn't run Rhapsody, I made my purchases conservatively (buying only systems and/or parts I knew Apple had made drivers for).
And now for the big question... why do you care?
The PowerBook I just got cost me $500, my copy of Mac OS X Server 1.2 (with Web Objects 4.0) was $35, and I'm thinking about getting a NeXT ADB mouse for my PowerBook which adds another $25 to the total. Quicktime movies run great on it, mp3s sound great (compared to my ThinkPad which Apple didn't make sound drivers for), and Quake II plays great. It NXBenched 3.5 times as fast as my ThinkPad, but even that played my movies (silent though they were) great.
Oh, I couldn't help noticing that you seemed to be leaving out the cost of Windows on the prices of the PC systems you list ($320 for Win 2K Pro, $1000/$1200 for Win 2K Server). I just spent three weeks working with Microsoft's lawyers proving that one of my clients had all the licenses for the Microsoft products that they owned (which wasn't much because it was a magazine, and they used mainly Apple and Adobe products). You are paying for all that great software aren't you? They seem very touchy about that type of stuff from my experience.
(* denotes second system of the exact same configuration, first system was stolen almost two years ago)
- Status