my stance for macs.

[solrac]

Originally posted by RacerX
I hate to see Steve wrong as much as the next person, but if he said (and I don't remember hearing him say that, but I was working on some stuff during the presentation) that Apple was second behind Sun in the server market on companies that produce both the hardware and the operating system, then there isn't much else to say. Lets look at some examples:

Sun Microsystems:

• 
  operating system: Solaris
  hardware: not only makes their own, they make their own processors (UltaSPARC)

Apple Computer:

• 
  operating system: Mac OS X Server
  hardware: makes their own

IBM:

• 
  operating system: AIX
  hardware: not only makes their own, they make their own processors (PowerPC)

Silicon Graphics, Inc. :

• 
  operating system: IRIX
  hardware: makes their own, owns one of the companies that makes their processors (MIPS)

Hmmm, true. But watch the Xserve quicktime presentation. Steve Jobs said it!! But he listed 3 things, I believe. I think he said that only Sun and Apple make their own hardware, their own OS, and all through one support channel. Maybe he said some other sly little adjective to make it true.

As for Mac OS 9, I have had uptimes of weeks without crashes. ... [RacerX proceeds to give a long list of how OS 9 is stable and his clients never call him to fix OS 9]

Well I already argued the hell out of this in another thread from months ago. My conclusion was that YES... you have succesfully run OS 9, with stability, for weeks. I, however, have not. Why? I don't know. It's not hardware. My computer in question is a G3 we bought in 1999. (Then top of the line.) Several months ago I installed Mac OS X for my mom on it, with only Photoshop, Office, and Netscape, and AOL. That's it. (Same as she used in OS 9). She doesn't even use Photoshop, actually. Since the install, months ago, the computer has not crashed once. Only explorer heheheh.

So here we have the SAME EXACT 3 year old hardware, and when it had OS 9 it was crashing constantly, even on a clean install after formatting the drive with 0s and only standard apps. Now with OS X it has yet to crash once. So it's not a hardware problem.

My conclusion is that OS 9 works sometimes, and sometimes doesn't. In your case, it worked. In my case it didn't. That makes it an unstable platform. OS X will work for everybody, pretty much equally across the board, with no problems.

Oh yeah, and I had a question, RacerX. I asked if Apple developed OpenStep or NextStep or whatever the original thing was from scratch???? Thanks

edit: also, if I was one of your clients, RacerX, I would not call you when OS 9 crashed. I learned to accept it as a way of life and that the only solution was to restart, then everything was fine. It almost became an inborn instinct, hitting restart. I'd time the crashes so I could take a dump or go make a sandwich or something hehehe. So you wouldn't be getting any call from me during the crashes. Maybe you should monitor a couple of your OS 9 clients whether or not they call you and see how often it crashes.

 

[RacerX]

pointed out by solrac
My computer in question is a G3 we bought in 1999. (Then top of the line.) Several months ago I installed Mac OS X for my mom on it, with only Photoshop, Office, and Netscape, and AOL. That's it. (Same as she used in OS 9). She doesn't even use Photoshop, actually. Since the install, months ago, the computer has not crashed once.

Wow, actually I would now be almost willing to bet money that it was hardware. I have retired (pulled everything but the motherboard and power supply) three 1999 G3 Blue & Whites because of a flaw in the motherboard (part no. 661-2104, the problem did not appear in part no. 661-2194 used in later Blue & White G3s, and Apple's current replacement part would be part no. 661-2253, the motherboard from the PCI G4s). It may not be effecting Mac OS X to the same degree, but it can (and does, I've seen it) crash Mac OS X from time to time.

From that (without any further information and not having seen the system in person), I would conclude that your ill feelings towards Mac OS 9 are actually based on bad hardware that could be fixed (if you wanted) by upgrading the motherboard.

edit: also, if I was one of your clients, RacerX, I would not call you when OS 9 crashed... So you wouldn't be getting any call from me during the crashes. Maybe you should monitor a couple of your OS 9 clients whether or not they call you and see how often it crashes.

My clients are as picky as they come. They would consider any crashing (and in fact any minor problem long before crashing) to be worth a service call. These are publishing companies which are constantly fighting to meet dead lines. With most, I have keys and passcards so that I can effect most of the major repairs during off hours (it is not unusual for me to do a quick fix in the middle of the day to get someone productive again and then come back later to do the complete fix at night. And yes, I have spent hours on site (full day yesterday helping the FileMaker Pro consultant with networking and workstation configurations stuff), and not one crash (7 hours, pushing dead lines, 9 systems running Mac OS 9).

I don't know what most people would consider an okay crash, but my clients consider anything that causes them to lose their work while fighting a dead line to be completely unacceptable... and so do I.

Oh yeah, and I had a question, RacerX. I asked if Apple developed OpenStep or NextStep or whatever the original thing was from scratch???? Thanks

No... Yes... sorta...

When Steve Jobs was pushed out of Apple, he took a number of Apple best engineers with him and started NeXT. Shortly after starting NeXT they hired one of the original designers of Mach from Carnegie Mellon named Avadis " Avie " Tevanian. Over the next couple years they developed an operating system (funny, but it really was second in importance to hardware for Jobs) to run on NeXT hardware based on Mach with a license for 4.3BSD (which made the whole system very expensive) to be used as the primary interface to the kernel, and a fully object oriented framework for the GUI and application environment based on Objective C (which at the time was actually easier to use than C++, which was not being used mush at that time because C++ programs were so much slower than programs written in C). These APIs used to create programs in NEXTSTEP were what really made the computer world sit up and take notice. Within a short period of time (with the help of Sun) NeXT was able to make a portable runtime environment that would run a portable version of NeXT soft on almost any platform (though they only actually created these environments for Solaris and Windows NT). This portable environment was called OpenStep, which they (both Sun and NeXT) completely over used that name. NeXT changed the name of their operating system from NEXTSTEP to OPENSTEP for Mach, The runtime environment was call OpenStep for Windows or OpenStep for Solaris, and Sun (who wanted to replace CDE as the default Window manager on Solaris) called their NEXTSTEP based GUI OpenStep Solaris which would run on Solaris 2.4, 2.5 and maybe 2.6 (but I haven't actually seen that so I'm not sure).

So here we were, 1996. Sun and NeXT had a major partnership, CDE had one foot in the grave at Sun, Sun bought Lighthouse Design and their suite of office apps (sorta like they would later do with StarOffice), everything was going great.

Apple buys NeXT.

All plans are off. Apple has there own designs for NeXT's operating system and application environment that has nothing to do with Sun. CDE remain as the default environment on Solaris until GNOME replaces it in 2002 with the release of Solaris 9. The only thing that didn't stop right away, Apple continued to sell OPENSTEP (and even released OPENSTEP 4.2 in early 1997) as enterprise software (which is why www.next.com redirected you to www.apple.com/enterprise/ up to about a year ago). After another name change and some changes to the GUIs feel Apple released Rhapsody 5.0 as Rhapsody Developer Release. There would be 6 more versions (Rhapsody 5.1 to Rhapsody 5.6, aka Mac OS X Server 1.2, only Rhapsody 5.2 was not release outside of Apple), and part way through a change in direction leading to what we call Mac OS X today.

Considering that NeXT was for the most part a group of rogue Apple people, considering that Apple is now being run by those same rogues after NeXT acquired Apple in 1996, it is hard not to consider in some way that some part of Apple had developed it from scratch. I don't look at NeXT as being different from Apple because of who was where, who started where, who ended up where, and where we are now.


Note: edit was to correct the part numbers for the motherboards

 

[QuackingPenguin]

Ok. i have one problem with something one of you said on the first page.

All it has to do is sit there and not crash. Windows
can do that too.

Actually. No, it can't. I go to tafe, and they use ibm pcs there. everyone else there uses pcs at home. i am ALWAYS hearing about how this happened or that happened. my friend recently went from win98 to win2k on his pc. guess what. the first release of win2k DIDN'T SUPPORT AGP. What's that you say, server OS. IT WAS PROFESSIONAL EDITION. ya know, the one that was SUPPOSED to replace win98 on desktops. I will admit right here, that i do not like having to use linux. i am not used to it, and sometimes things seem kinda backwards. but i would prefer to live my entire life having to use linux badly than using windows at an expert level, because no amount of know-how can stop windows from crashing. today i heard a story of someone's pc not booting to XP because they installed a burning program. thats right. clone-cd made XP hang at the loading screen. i admit that Macs have faults. even X. i had to re-install it today because it was bein stupid and the partition had some funky error. it still isnt quite right. i have had a couple of scary screens at bootup with text saying kernel panic, and we are halted. but because it is unix, i know it is happening for a reason, not because it's some dodgy microsoft ****. and now i can say two people have tried to tell me that MS owns Apple. funny thing is, the last guy was full of **** too.
have a good day all.

QP

 

[serpicolugnut]

the first release of win2k DIDN'T SUPPORT AGP. What's that you say, server OS. IT WAS PROFESSIONAL EDITION.

Actually, it does. I have Win2000 Professional running on a PIII800, and it has AGP.

I really hate it when I have to stick up for Microsoft. But, to be fair, WinNT and especially Windows2000 are very solid OSes. Still prefer OS X, but I'd rather use Win2000 than OS 9 anyday.

 

[klamps]

Anyone who is using IIS has no business talking about security. If security is one of the criteria of for being a server, then Microsoft has yet to produce a true server (but hey, I think we all knew that one already )

Agreed. As I said on the beginning, I'm NOT defending M$ and it's products. That's why I run Linux on my servers.

In a recent review of streaming media server solutions, Quicktime streaming server running on Darwin not only out performed the Real and Windows Media solutions, it bettered them in price (Apple has made both Darwin and Quicktime streaming free). Sounds pretty giving to me.

Everybody knows that Real is a poor excuse for a streamming solution. At least anyone that ever had to deal with it. You can't expect M$ to be good either. Quicktime just rules.

You really should try not to repeat that. The combination of the Mach kernel and the BSD interface was started by NeXT back in the late 80's. I'm not sure what your definition of new is, but in the computer world that would be as far from being new software as you could get.

I'm not a Mac user, as anyone would've guessed, and I based my point on info given by solrac and news. So as I far as I knew, OS X was based on BSD.

That could not be any further from the truth. If Apple didn't care about developers, Rhapsody would have been released as Apple next generation operating system back in 1999. It was because Apple wanted to make sure people would develop for the Mac (specially classic Mac developers) that Apple put the OS on hold while it developed a new application environment, Carbon, that would make moving to Mac OS X easier for developers who already had a large investment into their current apps.

I'm a not Mac developer, but why is everybody else complaining? If what you say is true, then why people talk **** about Apple? I'm talking about Mac developers.

So tell me, which is better: hiring someone like me to set up Mac OS X Server and coming in when real problems actually occur (my best client only paid me $2500s last year, and only about $500 of that was for actual server admin tasks that I needed to perform), or buy the cheap hardware and FreeBSD and hire a full or part time admin at from $30,000 to $100,000 a year. Think about this really hard, I think the answer is very clear.

Actually, I manage servers (Linux and Windows) myself. I have servers that run without any problems, including Windows servers. So it doesn't really matter what kind of server it is, as long as you know what you're doing. So I could get a PC, install Linux, configure the network and leave it alone. They just need to call me when the computer crashes, which is not very often. Unless, of course, the hardware is faulty. Which can happen to a Mac as well. So it really depends on what kind of activity you have going on that server. Therefore, the answer is not that clear.

Where did you get the idea that Red Hat has been making money? If Red Hat was doing so great why did they sell out to AOL?

Because they only have a couple of products. They made money only by offering support and other minor activities. I never said they were doing great. But they did hang for quite a while.

Considering the amount of corrections needed, neither of you is in a position to call the other ultimately brain-dead. There is a rich history to all this stuff guys, take some time to learn it. [/B]

That's an inside joke that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Solrac is my personal friend. I will, however, take your advice and learn some more.

- Marco Machado

 

[klamps]

Biggest advantage is not crashing constantly like those d@%^ Windoze computers do. I run a 300mhz G3 with OSX (1997/1998 technology) and have VERY LITTLE (maybe once a month) problems with it. However, when I run the Dells at a remote location (866 PIII and a 1.6 P4) we have nothing but problems. Every 10-20 minutes Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Photoshop, or InDesign will cause the M$ Windoze (98 & ME) to crash. Not only is this time wasted in a business enviroment, it is a royal pain in the a$$! My stress levels are 300 times less, while my productivity is 100 times more on the Macs.

Any computer can crash. That's due to how computers work. My Windows doesn't crash very often either. I run Windows 2000 and I know that 98/ME is just crappy. I'm not saying that 2000 is perfect, but is alot better than 98/ME. Solrac used to have major problems with a G4 (OS 9)before, just as I had problems with 98. So you see, Macs can crash just as often as PCs.

As far as ease of use, it's been proven to the Mac's advantage before.A network admin had his but kicked by a 12 old in a machine set-up, and configuration test between Windoze and Mac machines. The veteran took 45 minutes to setup the Windoze machine and get it online...the 12 year old got the mac up and online in 10-15 minutes. Now which was easier to setup? Oh, did I mention the Windoze machine crashed when the guy finally got it online...embarrasing eh?

I know that Macs have a history of being easy to use. That's why M$ copied (poorly) Apple back then. A person that takes 45 minutes to configure a machine that crashes, cannot be called a veteran. This doesn't sound like a real story either. If both computers were brand new, freshly out of the box, I would expect both to take about the same time to setup. I recently bought a Sony laptop PC and I had it running in about 10 minutes. And no, it didn't crash.

The ony reason Windoze seems better for home users is that that's all they know. I started on a Commadore 64, progressed to a 386DX33 (WIN 3.1, later 95), a P-100 with 95 & 98, and finally my Mac 300 G3 with 8.6, then the 9 series and X series. All future purchases will be Macs. I spent most of my time online through a freenet using lynx from a 2400 modem dialup on a Unix provider. That was in 93. later to the smoking 14.4, and the killer 56k. Now it's a 768k DSL line. Sometimes I wish we were back in the days of text only, at least you could find what you're looking for. I'd rather my computer work correctly and efficently...the mac does, the Dell doesn't.

I never said that Windows is better for home users. As you said before, and I agree, Macs are easier to use. Funny thing, my second computer was a Commodore 64. I still have it. Altough it does run that good anymore. Seems that they didn't use good silicon for the memory chips. The only way to make it run is to have a super-fan on top of the chips. Anyway, if you say that you run Macs, how can you say that Dell's ****? My PC seems to run just fine for me, and I built it myself.

- Marco Machado

 

[klamps]

Steve Jobs said it himself at the Xserve demo: Sun is the only company which provides the hardware, its own software (OS), and the support channel, all from the same company. Apple is now the second.

Read RacerX's first reply. He claims that there are other companies that do the same thing, and I have to agree. It didn't come to my mind when I replied to you, but those companies DO offer hardware and software on their own. So who's right?

This is very cool info. Did Apple develop NextStep from scratch???

Wait! Did Apple develop NextStep? I though it was Jobs' other company.

Yes, once more, proving that Mac OS X is not a completely new system. It has been tried and tested and proven since the late 80's. It's Apple's fault for not publicizing this on their Mac OS X page and their XServe page. That's a big selling point!!!

Funny. This is the first time you say this. Did you forget about this before?

Yes I agree this whole "Apple hates developers" thing is a very poor argument.

Sigh. Then Apple developers are talking out of their a$$es.

Yes, free Dev tools rock. And klamps, isn't the .NET project builder thing like a lot of money??? Heheheh. Apple is pretty much su cking developer's cocks right now to show them how much they are appreciated and needed.

VisualStudio.NET costs money, but you can download the SDK for free.

Yes you are right. But klamps comes from the point of view of starting your own company, where you are your own server admin, so he was not actively thinking about an employer who needs to hire a guy, and choose a box.

But it's basically the same thing. You still have to do it. So you can have an idea of how much it would cost.

Yeah I heard Red Hat was having $$$ problems. Sure they have public stock but that doesn't mean much. Still, I'm sure they have more money than Azteca.net, and Vmatrix HAHAHAHAH.

Considering that Vmatrix actually paid my $59.80 and Mario, well ... Yes they do have more money. =)

Trust me, klamps is definetely ultimately brain dead because he has eaten too many jumbo jacks and smoked too many cigarettes. Wait, actually the reason is because he hangs out with Jobby too much. HAHAHHA. Why is jobby not posting in this thread?????????

That's actually not true. Even though I had some jj's last week, I had not eaten a single jj this week. I do smoke lots of cigarettes though. And I haven't seen Jobby since monday. And he's not posting because he's too lazy to create an account.

- Marco Machado

 

[klamps]

Actually. No, it can't. I go to tafe, and they use ibm pcs there. everyone else there uses pcs at home. i am ALWAYS hearing about how this happened or that happened. my friend recently went from win98 to win2k on his pc. guess what. the first release of win2k DIDN'T SUPPORT AGP. What's that you say, server OS. IT WAS PROFESSIONAL EDITION. ya know, the one that was SUPPOSED to replace win98 on desktops. I will admit right here, that i do not like having to use linux. i am not used to it, and sometimes things seem kinda backwards. but i would prefer to live my entire life having to use linux badly than using windows at an expert level, because no amount of know-how can stop windows from crashing. today i heard a story of someone's pc not booting to XP because they installed a burning program. thats right. clone-cd made XP hang at the loading screen. i admit that Macs have faults. even X. i had to re-install it today because it was bein stupid and the partition had some funky error. it still isnt quite right. i have had a couple of scary screens at bootup with text saying kernel panic, and we are halted. but because it is unix, i know it is happening for a reason, not because it's some dodgy microsoft ****. and now i can say two people have tried to tell me that MS owns Apple. funny thing is, the last guy was full of **** too.

I don't suppose you read my other replies. I hate Windows. But is something that I have to use because of my work. I develop for the web and there are no good tools for Linux. I'd rather run Linux on all my computers, but I simply can't. Sometimes I have to connect to a M$ SQL server, and they only have tools for Windows. So you see, you're wrong about me.

Problems can happen to any computer. Remember the iPod issue?

But you can't deny that M$ does own Apple shares, and that saved the company some years ago. Hey! I don't like AOL owning Red Hat either. But ....

- Marco Machado

 

[RacerX]

I'm a not Mac developer, but why is everybody else complaining? If what you say is true, then why people talk **** about Apple? I'm talking about Mac developers.

I think that is very vague. Windows developers complain far more than Mac developers (with better reason, considering the number of Windows software companies that Microsoft has forced out of business). And I assume that you use Linux for your desktop, and anyone who has written for X-Windows (specially if they have been around for more than ten years) knows just how broken that system has become, but in that case, the developers need only look to them selves for not sticking with standards. I think I can sum up my feelings for X-Windows and what it has become with the following:

• 
  X-Windows: ...A mistake carried out to perfection.
  X-Windows: ...Dissatisfaction guaranteed.
  X-Windows: ...Don't get frustrated without it.
  X-Windows: ...Even your dog won't like it.
  X-Windows: ...Flaky and built to stay that way.
  X-Windows: ...Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems.
  X-Windows: ...Flawed beyond belief.
  X-Windows: ...Form follows malfunction.
  X-Windows: ...Garbage at your fingertips.
  X-Windows: ...Ignorance is our most important resource.
  X-Windows: ...It could be worse, but it'll take time.
  X-Windows: ...It could happen to you.
  X-Windows: ...Japan's secret weapon.
  X-Windows: ...Let it get in *your* way.
  X-Windows: ...Live the nightmare.
  X-Windows: ...More than enough rope.
  X-Windows: ...Never had it, never will.
  X-Windows: ...No hardware is safe.
  X-Windows: ...Power tools for power fools.
  X-Windows: ...Putting new limits on productivity.
  X-Windows: ...Simplicity made complex.
  X-Windows: ...The cutting edge of obsolescence.
  X-Windows: ...The art of incompetence.
  X-Windows: ...The defacto substandard.
  X-Windows: ...The first fully modular software disaster.
  X-Windows: ...The joke that kills.
  X-Windows: ...The problem for your problem.
  X-Windows: ...There's got to be a better way.
  X-Windows: ...Warn your friends about it.
  X-Windows: ...You'd better sit down.
  X-Windows: ...You'll envy the dead.

Um, yeah... you were saying something about Mac developers not liking Apple or something like that?

Actually, I manage servers (Linux and Windows) myself. I have servers that run without any problems, including Windows servers. So it doesn't really matter what kind of server it is, as long as you know what you're doing. So I could get a PC, install Linux, configure the network and leave it alone. They just need to call me when the computer crashes, which is not very often. Unless, of course, the hardware is faulty. Which can happen to a Mac as well. So it really depends on what kind of activity you have going on that server. Therefore, the answer is not that clear.

So your saying that managing tasks on Linux is as easy as on Mac OS X Server? That you could leave a server configured in the hands of someone without admin experience and you would not be needed again after that. I make it a point to make sure that if I fall off the face of the Earth tomorrow, that my clients systems aren't going to cost them an arm and a leg to get someone else in their to figure out what I have been doing up to that point (seeing as I have been in that position far too many times). I feel I should only be there for real problems, not because the only way to perform a task is via command line (when the task is not that complex and a GUI would let almost anyone do it).

Most terminal jockeys live to keep people in the dark. They want to be the only solution to any problem (no matter how small). I believe this is not the way to do good business, and Apple has produced a product (and AppleShare IP and Mac OS X Server 1.x where just as good) that does what is best for the consumer.

You, for yourself, can and should do what you want. I just hate to see people who need solutions being held hostage by people who really don't need to be there. Command line servers are going the way of the DOS desktops, most people are smart enough to solve problems when they aren't hidden in cryptic commands, and Apple has made strides towards that type of server solution.

Like I said, it is very clear (just not to those it would adversely effect ).

Solrac is my personal friend.

That's good to know, I was worried about some of the harsh comments.

Even though I had some jj's last week, I had not eaten a single jj this week.

I’ve had to go 5 years without a Jumbo Jack... life is hard here in Siberia.

Oh, and I think I forgot to mension that Windows NT was designed to be POSIX compliant originally (versions 3.1, 3.51 and 4.0) but I don’t know if Microsoft kept it up through to 2000 and xp.

 

[phatsharpie]

That according to Red Hat's latest SEC filing, its 2002 adjusted fiscal net income was -$140,000,000. In other words, RH lost $140 million last year.

They are not making money.

And the decision for Suse, Caldera, TurboLinux, etc. to united together to create UnitedLinux is as much a fiscal one as a technical one. The truth is that none of the Linux distrubitors have been able to make money via the open sourced model as of yet. This bothers me a great deal, because I think Linux is a great alternative on in the Intel world. However, to think that any of these companies are in a comfortable position is a major mistake.

RacerX, you rock!!! Sometimes I wonder what would've happened if OpenStep followed its course with Sun... Oh well.

P.S. Link to RH's SEC filings... http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=RHAT&script=700

 

[klamps]

I think that is very vague. Windows developers complain far more than Mac developers (with better reason, considering the number of Windows software companies that Microsoft has forced out of business). And I assume that you use Linux for your desktop, and anyone who has written for X-Windows (specially if they have been around for more than ten years) knows just how broken that system has become, but in that case, the developers need only look to them selves for not sticking with standards. I think I can sum up my feelings for X-Windows and what it has become with the following:
Um, yeah... you were saying something about Mac developers not liking Apple or something like that?

I'm not a X-Windows developer nor I use Linux on my desktop. But I would like to. I simply can't because of my work, as explained on a previous reply.

So your saying that managing tasks on Linux is as easy as on Mac OS X Server? That you could leave a server configured in the hands of someone without admin experience and you would not be needed again after that. I make it a point to make sure that if I fall off the face of the Earth tomorrow, that my clients systems aren't going to cost them an arm and a leg to get someone else in their to figure out what I have been doing up to that point (seeing as I have been in that position far too many times). I feel I should only be there for real problems, not because the only way to perform a task is via command line (when the task is not that complex and a GUI would let almost anyone do it).

Yes. Linux, specifically Red Hat, DO have administrative tools on the X environment. Graphical tools. I take you are a very good sysadmin, therefore your hourly rate is not cheap. But I would expect another person to able to offer the same services for the same price. So, if you don't cost an arm and a leg, why would anybody else?

Most terminal jockeys live to keep people in the dark. They want to be the only solution to any problem (no matter how small). I believe this is not the way to do good business, and Apple has produced a product (and AppleShare IP and Mac OS X Server 1.x where just as good) that does what is best for the consumer.

I agree with you. I never leave a customer in doubt and I encourage them to learn what I've done. I drove many times to customer's locations to do something real simple. Every single time I explained what caused the problem and the easiest way to fix it themselves.

That's good to know, I was worried about some of the harsh comments.

Don't worry. We do that on a constant basis. =)

I’ve had to go 5 years without a Jumbo Jack... life is hard here in Siberia.

That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard. Can't imagine life without JJs.

- Marco Machado

 

[[Scizo]]

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

Hmmm... as for the Windows API it's basicly just a big load of cr*p!!! ... I'll take GTK+/Gnome programming over it _any_ day...

Ever wonder why the Windows API documentation ships on a DVD rom ?? .. it's your DLL h*ll all over again.
I havent had the time to study the Cocoa API yet.. (just bought my first Mac last week).. But from what i can tell the API is pretty small, which is good because it allows you to learn it / get familiar with it very quickly, and thus produce better bug free code. (fewer functions == better understanding)

 

[lonny]

And welcome onboard!

 

[charmkat]

Are you guys just plucking this stuff out of the air?

First off, MS doesn't own any of Apple, and hasn't for a long time, they sold their shares for a healthy profit years ago. When Apples shares went from the high teens to the mid 70's. And the only reason they did that wasn't to "Bail apple out" as many think, but as a gesture to cement their good intentions with Apple back in 1997. In return, apple dropped the lawsuits against MS for stealing the mac os GUI.

Anyway, I digress....

As for OS X being open source, it is. To a point. BSD is an open source operating system. MAC OS X isn't. Apple has a team of engineers that work on the open source foundations of the operating system. Any changes they make, (Legally) they have to share with the open source community. Aqua, Carbon, Cocoa, Classic, and all those other things, are not open source, they are apple owned intellectual property. that is why you arne't able to modify Aqua, or change the Carbon Development environment for your own needs. They are provided as tools and or the GUI for Mac OS X, which is "Based" on an open source operating system.

So I hope this lays that part of this drawn out argument to rest.

As for the quote that was made regarding Apple not caring about developers, that is totally untrue. Perhaps in the dark days of Gil and Scully, but since 1997 when Mr Jobs returned, Apple has been agressively marketing itself to developers. That is why they have such a good Developers program. Apple knows that to survive they need developers to write new software to keep the platform valid. Apple doesn't want to write ALL of its own software. If they did, they wouldn't be courting developers. The reason apple makes software such as iTunes, iMovie, Final Cut Pro etc., is because they are wonderful showcase products. Apple is a Hardware company and makes the majority of their revenue from hardware sales, not software. They make these great products becasue they showcase their hardware the way they want it to be. iMovie is a great program because it has to be, same with Final cut Pro. and iDVD. It is basically saying. "Look what our systems are capable of!"

All this other stuff is so subjective. Arguing about which OS is better and whose hardware is better is stupid. Use whatever makes you most productive and which one you enjoy using. I personally worked in a company that used only PC's and I was fine with that because PC's did what we needed them to do. However, we could have used mac's. We used all cross platform software (photoshop, flash, director etc.) They jsut chose PC's.

I personally prefer Apple because of the innovation that always comes out of the company. When new hardware nad software is announced it is actuallyl exciting. How many Dell rumor sites are on the net? I can't even think of 1. That's because Dell/HP/etc. make the same product with a different name. They have no intellectual property. The only way Dell is innovative is because they developed a really good sales and production strategy that keeps them making money. Apple however actually owns intellectual property. They developed FireWire, they have an OS (2), 3 if you count Newton's, their own programming environments, a world renowned industrial design department, as well as a bunch of really , really, great software.

So as much as I love Apple Hardware, these debates over which one is better is stupid and repetative. People who hate Apple now, could one day come to love our platform. My uncle used to tease me all the time saying "oh what a cute little toy " or "Apple is going out of business". Now is he trying to find a deal on a new G4 system becuase he has found Mac's to be much better to run ProTools on for music, and he is really, really excited about buying one.

So, arguing is stupid, each platform has their strengths and weaknesses.

Just enjoy the platform you enjoy and leave it at that......

****ing contests are a big waste of time because the guy you are arguing with is never going to just stop and go "wow you are right, I'm gonna get myself a PC/Mac today..." it just isn't going to happen...

 

[ex2bot]

Get both (Mac and PC)

I have both. I like my OS X better. I like my PeeCee games. I always thought it would be fun to have:

a NeXT
a Unix box
NT
a laptop
a home LAN


Now I have them all.

You can have them all.

You simply must have them all.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Blah blah blah

Why spend money on Mac?
We hate Windoz.
*nix is for U
Steve Jobs wears women's underwear.
Don't buy a Mac. Geeks will laugh at you.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant points!


Doug

(Add Compaq to my computer list below. I'm so proud. By the way, What the H*LL is Windows ME?)

 

[solrac]

My argument is that Mac OS X is the best OS in the world, when applied to the most amount of people: meaning, OS X would be the best choice for the highest number of people. That's very exciting, and I could never say that about Apple's OS before.

Now that it is Mac OS X, it can fulfill the needs of Apple's professional users, as it always has (video editing, graphics, print, etc.), AND it's better for home users (stability, no crashing, easy to use, etc.), AND it works within the UNIX environment and can be a server, and use standard awesome tools such as Apache and PHP, etc. etc. It's EVERYTHING, and does it better.

The only things macs are not just plain better for:
1) Web browsing in a browser, especially flash playback.
- this will be mostly fixed when 10.2 comes out and quartz rendering is much faster, and also when Chimera/Navigator matures and becomes the fastest stable browser for macs, unless IE 5.5 renders 100x faster. Either way, this drawback will be fixed soon. As for flash playback, that may never be fixed unless Macromedia does something about it.

2) Development in certain areas
- I heard there's no good editors for PHP and the like. I know of many but they do not seem as good as some you can get on Windows. Even if there's editors I haven't heard about, when a developer is really used to his set up and software, it's really hard to switch platforms, and I don't think the mac is just plain better for this. And of course if you're a .NET guy or an M$ developer you can't use a mac.

3) Games
- Currently some of the most popular games are not out for mac, like Half-Life/Counterstrike. Soon, hopefully, this will no longer be the case. But for now it is.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. For everything else, Mac OS X is the best OS there is, to the most people, but of COURSE, not for everyone.