You people need to get a life and get a PC. Macs are great and pretty, yet support nothing. OS X is just like Win95 when it came out. All kinds of problems that will take years to fix. Apple didn't even write OS X completely. It's just a Unix flavor with a Photoshop make over.
MacOS X Sucks
- Thread starter henry770
- Start date
You do have a valid point with saying that MacOS X is like Windows 95 because there are problems that may take years to fix. There are currently problems, and there will most likely be problems for a while. However, I don't think that you can just say that MacOS X sucks. When it is completed, it may be better than Win95, but maybe not. One thing that Microsoft has proven a couple times is that sometimes *breaking* things is better than backwards compatibility. MacOS X is definitely breaking things. The future of the Macintosh platform is up in the air, and it could go either way-a better system, or a worse system.
I'm not going to sit here and bash any OS. My stance is that every operating system is better for certain purposes.
I'm not going to sit here and bash any OS. My stance is that every operating system is better for certain purposes.
bolindilly
John Galt Member
"apple didn't write OS X completely."
^--hey henry770, are you stupid? what is the name of this software? it's a <b>beta</b>! it's development software. of course apple hasn't finished it yet. that just goes to show the ignorance of PC users...
^--hey henry770, are you stupid? what is the name of this software? it's a <b>beta</b>! it's development software. of course apple hasn't finished it yet. that just goes to show the ignorance of PC users...
hmmm, I work on Macs since the Centris 650, quite a long time. now I use Mac and a Windows based system.
Windows 2000 is stable and acceptable. The MacOsX beta is also very nice - I prefer it to windows, cause I have also some exprience with linux: so it's a very nice combination of both.
However I see the problem in the hardware. I bought a MAC G4 450 in June and a AMD 900 Mhz a few weeks later. The AMD System was only 40% priced on the Macbox, in spite the fact, that it includes all the nice features like a DVD player, TV-ot, and so on. But the problem is, that the PC system is between 50 and 100% faster using for example Photoshop filters !!! (I have more RAM in the MACbox).
That's in my opnion the real problem for Mac, much more expensive for a quite slow hardware.
I like Macs, but the company should adapt MaxOsX for PCs, too. If not, I think they won't survive the next 5 years.
S.
P.S.: sorry for my english skills, I have another mother tongue
Windows 2000 is stable and acceptable. The MacOsX beta is also very nice - I prefer it to windows, cause I have also some exprience with linux: so it's a very nice combination of both.
However I see the problem in the hardware. I bought a MAC G4 450 in June and a AMD 900 Mhz a few weeks later. The AMD System was only 40% priced on the Macbox, in spite the fact, that it includes all the nice features like a DVD player, TV-ot, and so on. But the problem is, that the PC system is between 50 and 100% faster using for example Photoshop filters !!! (I have more RAM in the MACbox).
That's in my opnion the real problem for Mac, much more expensive for a quite slow hardware.
I like Macs, but the company should adapt MaxOsX for PCs, too. If not, I think they won't survive the next 5 years.
S.
P.S.: sorry for my english skills, I have another mother tongue
I hate to get involved in a debate over what sucks or not, but here's my 2 cents anyway:
Yes, OS X is a big break like Windows 95 was, and will probably face the same sorts of problems. It takes time to track down bugs, etc. after you rewrite an entire operating system. Still, I think the progress made in OS X is great, and am expecting a MUCH more polished OS by the time 1.0 is released. Using OS X for the last 5 months, I've seen a far more stable OS than the Classic MacOS ever was.
Yes, Apple did not write most of OS X. Almost the entire foundation was culled from Next, BSD, etc. So what? If it makes a better OS, then its a good idea. Plus, if Macs didn't support a whole lot of software before, now they do. In one environment, I can run classic MacOS, OS X, UNIX, and Java apps.
As for the "photoshop makeover", I don't see what's wrong with having a nice looking GUI frontend to your nice new OS. If you really don't like the GUI, log in as '>console' and enjoy the beautiful command line.
And yeh, Mac hardware is slow and expensive. I don't care what Apple ports OS X to, as long as it runs faster and doesn't cost me twice what I'd pay for a PC. Those Athlon's are getting faster every day, and there's only so many G4's Apple can cram in a box. No amount of marketing can make up for chips running at half the clock speed.
Yes, OS X is a big break like Windows 95 was, and will probably face the same sorts of problems. It takes time to track down bugs, etc. after you rewrite an entire operating system. Still, I think the progress made in OS X is great, and am expecting a MUCH more polished OS by the time 1.0 is released. Using OS X for the last 5 months, I've seen a far more stable OS than the Classic MacOS ever was.
Yes, Apple did not write most of OS X. Almost the entire foundation was culled from Next, BSD, etc. So what? If it makes a better OS, then its a good idea. Plus, if Macs didn't support a whole lot of software before, now they do. In one environment, I can run classic MacOS, OS X, UNIX, and Java apps.
As for the "photoshop makeover", I don't see what's wrong with having a nice looking GUI frontend to your nice new OS. If you really don't like the GUI, log in as '>console' and enjoy the beautiful command line.
And yeh, Mac hardware is slow and expensive. I don't care what Apple ports OS X to, as long as it runs faster and doesn't cost me twice what I'd pay for a PC. Those Athlon's are getting faster every day, and there's only so many G4's Apple can cram in a box. No amount of marketing can make up for chips running at half the clock speed.
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
OS X sux ???
Well, all this is in the eye of the beholder kind of discussion.
I can't argue with the guy with the cube & the 900Mhz AMD,
it's all perception. If you want to have a valid commparison, I suggest
having the same configuration, or really close to it so that you can actually compare
accuratelly.
As far as OS X.
X was written by apple indirrectly. Who was the president and founder of NeXT ?
Non other than steve Jobs. Who is the CEO of apple now ?? Steve Jobs. It's true that
OS X is a BSD flavor, but who cares ? BSD is a very stable and secure OS.
As pointed out by the guy above me, a nice GUI is something to like about an OS.
Who the heck wants to use an ugly OS ?
and lastly.
I disagree that it will take OS X years to work out the bugs. While it is a radical
departure from the original MacOS, the point of the beta to be distributed out in the public so much in advance is to have developpers make drivers for devices, for people to start making
and porting programs, AND to crush as many bugs in the OS as possible before the
final release's date of shipping. Having the general public test it out is good because it is not a simulation of real life situations, it IS real life and so the bugs can be found.
Anyway, woudl all the PC people please leave and take tehir idiocy with them
because they are not going to change their mind settings no matter what.
Well, all this is in the eye of the beholder kind of discussion.
I can't argue with the guy with the cube & the 900Mhz AMD,
it's all perception. If you want to have a valid commparison, I suggest
having the same configuration, or really close to it so that you can actually compare
accuratelly.
As far as OS X.
X was written by apple indirrectly. Who was the president and founder of NeXT ?
Non other than steve Jobs. Who is the CEO of apple now ?? Steve Jobs. It's true that
OS X is a BSD flavor, but who cares ? BSD is a very stable and secure OS.
As pointed out by the guy above me, a nice GUI is something to like about an OS.
Who the heck wants to use an ugly OS ?
and lastly.
I disagree that it will take OS X years to work out the bugs. While it is a radical
departure from the original MacOS, the point of the beta to be distributed out in the public so much in advance is to have developpers make drivers for devices, for people to start making
and porting programs, AND to crush as many bugs in the OS as possible before the
final release's date of shipping. Having the general public test it out is good because it is not a simulation of real life situations, it IS real life and so the bugs can be found.
Anyway, woudl all the PC people please leave and take tehir idiocy with them
because they are not going to change their mind settings no matter what.
henryhater
Registered
henry770 is Daniel Henry a student at SPSU. He runs win 2k and has reinstalled it over 20 times. He is one of those morons that touchs the cupcake hooked up to the electric generator and doesn't learn his lesson. If you would like to talk to him his phone number is (770) 499-2552. You can also send him an e-mail at dhenry@spsu.edu. The reason I know all this is because I am also a student at SPSU and I am a friend of his roomates.
Come on people, I'm an avid Mac user- got one at work and home. Even though I'm a big fan of the Mac OS, there are some features that PC users have and we dont. On the other hand, As nice as win 2000 is, there are some features that only Mac users can enjoy. What I'm trying to say is that there is no perfect OS, and neither of them suck. What we need is Apple and Microsoft to work together to make the perfect, unified OS that will bring world peace.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll retreat into my delusions.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll retreat into my delusions.
To heck with microsoft. They don't have a creative instinct in any of their products (except fpr thei roptical mouse, which was pretty cool). But they are good at one thing - stealing. As far as I can tell, almost everything that is so "innovative" about Windows came from either NeXT or Apple. They just had the advantage of working with the major platform, x86.
When they force you to use a browser (not that I don't use it sometimes), when they crush competition, etc, I find it hard to support that kind of a company. On the other hand, when a company has a CEo like Steve Jobs who puts to much pressure on his people, tries to kill all dissension withing apple (killing rumors, that whole "pirates" thing, etc), egtc, apple has its own problems. So I'm more pissed about the whole business mindset of the two companies. Why can't apple be completely the good guy we want it to be? Life would be so much easier if we could always take the moral high gorund all of the time instead of most of the time.
Grr.... makes me want to start a coup in both apple and microsoft...
F-bacher
Get lost you and you pussy metal box piece of shit PC. By the way you should get a life; Unix and MacOS was here way before that Winshit and will be here way after it too, simply because it is better. And Billy G. Jurk will have to accept it and join the UNIX community or the Unix will get ride of Billy Boy.
Aufwiedersehen du PC Scheisser.
Aufwiedersehen du PC Scheisser.
I just thought that I would point out that Microsoft wasn't the first company to make optical mice. I had been using an optical mouse on my computer for 3 years or so before microsoft released theirs. They did however, make it so that the optical mouse did not require a special mouseplate. Which was actually pretty innovative.
Piet Keizer
Registered
The first replies in this thread surprised me because of their reasonability. Usually, Mac users get pretty unreasonable when people say their platform is dead.
Thus, the latter replies are very disappointing.
I use Mac and PC, but the Mac is my most commonly used computer.
My experience on Macs supporting nothing is that I miss nothing except games (which I'm not running on my PC either, so I apparently don't really care).
Things that are supported on PC and not on Mac, are usually not top pruducts.
I'm not a techie, but I see OS X as a heroic undertaking, which should be cherished with patience and optimism. (just like Microsofts 'Whistler', which must be a hell of a job, too. For a company like MS.)
Thus, the latter replies are very disappointing.
I use Mac and PC, but the Mac is my most commonly used computer.
My experience on Macs supporting nothing is that I miss nothing except games (which I'm not running on my PC either, so I apparently don't really care).
Things that are supported on PC and not on Mac, are usually not top pruducts.
I'm not a techie, but I see OS X as a heroic undertaking, which should be cherished with patience and optimism. (just like Microsofts 'Whistler', which must be a hell of a job, too. For a company like MS.)
<blockquote><b>>You people need to get a life and get a PC.<BR>>Macs are great and pretty, yet support nothing. OS X is <br>>just like Win95 when it came out. All kinds of problems <br>>that will take years to fix. Apple didn't even write OS X<br>>completely. It's just a Unix flavor with a Photoshop<br>> make over.</b></blockquote>
<p align="left">/* Begin SHOUTING!... */<h4><b>HEY Henry YOU SUCK! and MAC OS X DOES NOT! What do you mean 'just a Unix flavor'? Show me better OS than Unix? You can't. Windo$$ has been sucking almost a decade now. And every computer user say prayer before they touch their Windo$(__)(__)!
</b></h4> /*End SHOUTING*/</p>
<U>Fatih uses FreeBSD. OpenBSD, Mac OS X and proud of them!
Fatih thanks Apple giving an opprtunity who are sick of Microcrap!</U>
___________________________________
G4 Cube 450 512 MB -->> Mac OS X
Athlon 800 256 MB -->> FreeBSD
___________________________________
<p align="left">/* Begin SHOUTING!... */<h4><b>HEY Henry YOU SUCK! and MAC OS X DOES NOT! What do you mean 'just a Unix flavor'? Show me better OS than Unix? You can't. Windo$$ has been sucking almost a decade now. And every computer user say prayer before they touch their Windo$(__)(__)!
</b></h4> /*End SHOUTING*/</p>
<U>Fatih uses FreeBSD. OpenBSD, Mac OS X and proud of them!
Fatih thanks Apple giving an opprtunity who are sick of Microcrap!</U>
___________________________________
G4 Cube 450 512 MB -->> Mac OS X
Athlon 800 256 MB -->> FreeBSD
___________________________________
uhm... OS X doesn't "suck" in my opinion.
Mac OS X does support things. It supports the myriad of programs for Mac OS 9 and below via Classic and with some work via Carbon. Any NeXTStep/OpenStep apps should work on it with some porting. And last, but by no means least, it supports most UN*X apps, but they need a little bit of work to iron out incompatibilities.
Cocoa is a very efficient, cool framework that enables application development to be much more streamlined than ever before.
Carbon enables all Mac OS developers to use their current skills to develop great Mac OS X apps.
And best of all, developers are interested in Mac OS X and it has FREE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS. This way more and more programs will be supported.
I fully understand the logic behind Apple's decision to use RISC... It's definitely a superior technology to CISC processors such as Intel's x86/Pentium range. However, Motorola has much less R&D funding than Intel does, so progression will be slower.
Apple is really banging Mot tho because everybody realises that even though Steve Jobs can do Photoshop bakeoff after bakeoff, nobody will believe it until they pump up the MHz.
And I dispute the statement that most of OS X wan't written by Apple - NeXT is now part of Apple, and they wrote a load of it, but loads of the actual OS is written by Apple. It was ported to PPC by Apple.
Mac OS X does support things. It supports the myriad of programs for Mac OS 9 and below via Classic and with some work via Carbon. Any NeXTStep/OpenStep apps should work on it with some porting. And last, but by no means least, it supports most UN*X apps, but they need a little bit of work to iron out incompatibilities.
Cocoa is a very efficient, cool framework that enables application development to be much more streamlined than ever before.
Carbon enables all Mac OS developers to use their current skills to develop great Mac OS X apps.
And best of all, developers are interested in Mac OS X and it has FREE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS. This way more and more programs will be supported.
I fully understand the logic behind Apple's decision to use RISC... It's definitely a superior technology to CISC processors such as Intel's x86/Pentium range. However, Motorola has much less R&D funding than Intel does, so progression will be slower.
Apple is really banging Mot tho because everybody realises that even though Steve Jobs can do Photoshop bakeoff after bakeoff, nobody will believe it until they pump up the MHz.
And I dispute the statement that most of OS X wan't written by Apple - NeXT is now part of Apple, and they wrote a load of it, but loads of the actual OS is written by Apple. It was ported to PPC by Apple.
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
OS X might have it's bases in NeXT, and it might not be
considered an apple product, but guess who the founder and
president of NeXT was....non other than Steve Jobs, yep, the guy who created apple as well with a few other guys such as Wozniak.
While OS X might not be the child of apple directly, it is the evolution of Job's project and as far as I am concerned
Jobs is apple. He brought the company back from financial hell.
The only thing I regret is that he whas not used any of the newton technologies in macs. Can you imagine the posibilities if macs can built in with 100% handwritting support and voice support?
It would be damned nice
(Hey by the way, what happened to speech recognition and speakable items in OS X ? lol)
Admiral
considered an apple product, but guess who the founder and
president of NeXT was....non other than Steve Jobs, yep, the guy who created apple as well with a few other guys such as Wozniak.
While OS X might not be the child of apple directly, it is the evolution of Job's project and as far as I am concerned
Jobs is apple. He brought the company back from financial hell.
The only thing I regret is that he whas not used any of the newton technologies in macs. Can you imagine the posibilities if macs can built in with 100% handwritting support and voice support?
It would be damned nice
(Hey by the way, what happened to speech recognition and speakable items in OS X ? lol
)Admiral
I believe that speach technology as well as handwritting recognition could make the Mac more powerfull and distinctive. This technology is part of the Mac for a few years, and I would like to see it improved with OS X...
In fact, even if the first comparison with Win95 surprised and shocked me, we can hope one thing: if with their big publicity campain Microsoft sold like bread a piece of crap, Apple can do it's best to promote it's power with this new tool on the Mac. The world need to know that OS X is the best, and I'm judging it seriously, not just because I love the Mac anyway...
So a computer that greets you with speach as soon as it is out of the box would be terrific. My iMac came with a step by step installater of an internet acces (can't remeber the name). It was impressive: the voice commands guiding you... And with QT, they promoted the possibility to make "help movies". Well now is the time for Apple to impress us... Make it all vocal, video, whatever, but make it great!
In fact, even if the first comparison with Win95 surprised and shocked me, we can hope one thing: if with their big publicity campain Microsoft sold like bread a piece of crap, Apple can do it's best to promote it's power with this new tool on the Mac. The world need to know that OS X is the best, and I'm judging it seriously, not just because I love the Mac anyway...
So a computer that greets you with speach as soon as it is out of the box would be terrific. My iMac came with a step by step installater of an internet acces (can't remeber the name). It was impressive: the voice commands guiding you... And with QT, they promoted the possibility to make "help movies". Well now is the time for Apple to impress us... Make it all vocal, video, whatever, but make it great!