Why I know pedantic mac users are a new phenomenon

strobe

Puny Member
You "Ten Ten" people are pissing me off. Did you know Apple marketing tried to pronounce SCSI as "sexy"?

Yea, sure Apple. I'm glad mac users weren't so pedantic back then:

"Hand me the sexy dongle"

"I can't mount my sexy hard drive"

"My sexy bus isn't terminated at both ends"

"My new sexy adaptor does it's job in half the time as my old sexy setup"

"My sexy box is running too hot"

"I can't dismount my sexy hard disk"

"Sexy cabes are too thick"

"Sexy cables can only be 12' long"

"My removable sexy Jaz™ ejects when I turn it on"

"My sexy male connector has a broken pin"

You get the idea...pure disaster!

Ignore Apple Marketing, It's "Oh Ess Ex" dammit!!!!!!!
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
MAN THIS IS HILLARIOUS!!!!
I dropped down laughing :p

btw I think it's og ess ex (X for uniX :p )


Admiral
 

Hurricane Floyd

Registered
Originally posted by endian
it's Mac O'Sex as in 'will there be Mac O'Sex drivers for my Ultra Sexy card?'
I wish sex could always feel as slow motion as OSX under Aqua (on my dualproc G4). Yaaaawn, I think I fell asleep sweetheart.

Just installed the dev final release: my DVD player will not work (even under Classic), power users will freak about functionality decreases... I haven't used a Mac that felt this slow since running Photoshop in the days of 6.x. My menu is gigantic play-skool kiddy mac and very little is customizable. Bleck. Blindly hoping consumer version will be more complete.

The best thing about OSX is that I can choose to startup without it.

Give Apple your $120 bucks to save the company and use the CD as a coaster until OSX 12.0 or whatever comes out.
 

thedbp

Frantic Messenger of Hope
This conversation is particularly amusing, because the use of the word pedantic, while an admirable try, not to mention a glorius attempt to impress the rest of us with your knowledge of minutae of the english language, was used horribly incorrectly.

Rather than explain the meaning here, I'll let the author, and the various readers, look up this word on their own. I believe that word definitions are still best clarified in hardcover.

By the way, does it really matter what the OS is called, or, rather, pronounced? And who the hell is really going to believe that Apple tried to market SCSI as "sexy?" Even if it IS true, it still beats "Scuzzy!" Personally, I prefer to pronounce it "Skizzy." Then again, I also prefer to have my raw ass spanked with peanut butter coated herrings, so there ya go.

And as a last little side note, I must say that I prefer to call this new OS one thing, and one thing only:

GOD!
thank you.
zjd

B&W G3 350/384 RAM / OS 9.1 / OS X PB
8600/300 / 128 RAM / OS 9.1 / OS 8.1
Quadra 660av / 54 RAM / OS 8.1
 

Hobeaux

Registered
This version of the Mac OS has never been called Mac OS Ex. From the very first announcement that Apple made about the product, it was pronounced "ten."

Mac OS Ex sounds too much like Mac OSSex -- which is something that Apple would like to avoid... not to mention it makes it sound like another Linux clone rather than a forward-thinking, next-generation operating system.

 

gronos

Registered
Irrespective of what OS X 10.0 is called, it is indeed "just another linix clone". The hope it has is that the installed mac base will use it, some percentage of them will recognize the underlying power of the unix operating system, write programs for it, and keep the OS alive for a few more years. If Darwin is really ported to intel boxes, Apple may make real inroads into the mass market yet!

rich G.
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Please allow me to disagree.
MacOS is <b> NOT </b> a linux clone. Linux and BSD, while both unixes, are <b> NOT </b> one in the same.

Secondly, I seiously doubt that mac OS only has a few years more to live.

Thrirdly, even <i> if </i> darwin is ported to intel (or PA-RISC, SPARC, MIPS or whatever) what makes you think people will flock and install it???

Most PC users are simpletons. I might be overexagerating but this is a fact. People who have used windows for years now, even though linux is "in", they will not make the move. Why ? Fear and Simplicity. People are afraid to even say the evil 6 letter word (format) and probably even more afraid to say <i> partition </i> and this lays in teh fact that people are afraid of data loss and afraid that they wont be able to use the software that they paid good money for (especially if you buy software like photoshop).

Linux, which has a large software base, has not been able to get a large cross section of windows users, what makes you think that apple and OS X will ?? I mean linux, with the SUSE distro comes with 6 CDs (I believe) with <b> A LOT </b> of software for the average and not-so-average user to use. What does OS X come with at this point ??? <b> zilch </b> ... just the bare essentials. Does is come with an office suite ? <b> no </b>, does it come with communication software, browsers, messengers etc ? <b> no </b> .... OS X is based on the fact that it is an "upgrade" OS for people that already have macs and have software for it, or for new users who are buying macs and thus can use old mac software already in the market.

People with darwin/X on intel though... they would not have the luxury to use this already available software. Big big problem. All the ooohhh aaaahhhs of OS X will not last a day for a user that wants to actually <b> DO </b> something on their computer, unless software is available...and even with software available not many people will follow.....

The <b> ONLY </b> way I forsee OS X (or any other OS) being viable on intel is is a <b> BIG </b> virus/glitch hits wintel machine whiping everything M$ off it and not allowing people to reinstall windows for some reason. No windows means that al their software is not able to run, thus room opens up room for other OSs to fill the vacuum created by this virus/glitch. (this is known at the "tabula rasa theory")


C'est tout

Admiral
 

gronos

Registered
Geeze Admiral, I wasn't knocking either Macs or Linux users. I realize that the Mach kernel is not Linux, but Darwin is certainly a "flavor" of linux using the free BSD addons to the Mach kernel. It seems that the biggest difference between LinuxPPC (and other linuxs for the PPC processor) and Darwin is that Darwin recognizes HFS+ and so doesn't absolutely require repartitioning of hard drives (which is beyond most Mac and PC users (and me if you remember my previous post!)). If Darwin can revitalize the Mac OS so that it can gain some market share (and eliminate some of the terrible bias against Macs that many business IT and even some university IT people have against Macs), then it will help Apple survive and MAYBE even gain some market share. What I don't know, and won't know until I get my OS X 10.0 disk, is how difficult it is to recompile linux software for OSX. If it's relatively easy then some people currently using SGI boxes will switch to Macs because it's easier to find software and to use one machine rather than two.

I'm disheartened as a Mac user to see that some scientists have switched from Macs to PCs because "their people", meaning new students and post-docs, are PC users rather than mac users. Apple has lost significant market share in Universities and secondary schools, and hopefully OSX will reverse this.

Making Darwin and OSX able to run most scientific linux software (under either X-windows or Aqua) will go a long way to increasing Mac use in universities.

Rich G.
 

VGZ

Registered
Originally posted by gronos
but Darwin is certainly a "flavor" of linux using the free BSD addons to the Mach kernel.
Darwin is NOT a Linux flavor. Linux is a flavor of Unix. Linux is actually a seperate OS than Unix though it operates in much the same way.

Originally posted by AdmiralAK
What does OS X come with at this point ??? <b> zilch </b> ... just the bare essentials. Does is come with an office suite ?
Not right now though you can use Appleworks which is sort-of an office suite and openoffice is being ported along w/ M$ office.

does it come with communication software, browsers, messengers etc ?
Umm,lets see:
mail.app, included w/ several other alternatives available.

Fire.app for messaging along w/ icq.

Omniweb, IE, Icab, Fizzila, and soon Opera.


Gee Did you forget about all this.

Not to be rude but please verify something before you post it as a fact.

 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Yes I *do* know that mail.app, omniweb, fire and so one *do* exist for OS X.

What I was refering to was built in ready to go once you install the OS kinda thing, not what you can download. Currently only IE and mail.app are included.

I was doing a comparison between linux that comes with a plethora of software (well at least SUSE linux does) and right out of the box you have everything you might need. Even an office suite. Last time I checked appleworks was still *not* free for download, I would not amke M$ $500 richer by buying office, and staroffice is still not here.

I know the facts, but these apps are not included with OS X.
Small misunderstanding

Admiral
 

strobe

Puny Member
The difference between Linux and OS X apps is I actually want to use OS X apps. Don't compare apples and oranges.
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
I was <b> not </b> talking about mac users in this post. I was talking about PC users who are thinking of converting and their considerations of the OS out of the box.

I am not comparing apples to oranges (well I am because every OS is unique but for this argument OS X & linux are in one category... ti *nix type of OS ). If a PC user wants to move over he will want to *resume* his life as a computer user and not star over again as if a natural catastrophy just occcured thus linux, at least suse linux, provides a lot of share/free/GNUware with their os for fast recovery (the 5 step program as opposed to the 12 ... LOL .. ok ok bad joke )

I as a mac user could care less about what linux has to offer since I stopped using it a while ago and only entertain the thought of using it when I feel bored and feel like playing around. Most other mac users share this sentiment. I know that linux apps might not be up to caliber but at least they are a start for the migrating crowds.

We as macusers have it all, we have our IMs, our browsers, our mail apps, our games, our emulators our ROMs, our everything...migrating crowds dont.

Dont take this post as if I were talking abour macusing people. Think about it from the PC-user-that-will-migrate-point-of-view.


Admiral
 

strobe

Puny Member
An PC user has to learn a whole new interface every time he gets a new app. So long OS X maintains a common HI he can think of OS X as one new app.
 

FUGGER

Registered
I have worked with PC/mac/UNIX for 22 years now and from experiance, mac users have always been afraid of the command line. I remember jokes about config.sys or autoexec.bat, even after win98 came out and those files were no longer needed.

I have disliked macs due to the poor support for developers in the past. OS X has sparked some intrest due to the UNIX foundation. I look at is as a challange to get apps ported and running on OS X.

Since a majority of Linux flavors run on x86 and next to nothing for PPC(suse, genius), alot more PC people have had a chance to work with linux.

As I dig deeper into OS X, and see the stuff that Apple is doing to the end user (root login tweaked and disabled / directory browsing) to prevent the end user from accidently damaging his machine. Most mac users do not know unx file structure, /usr /etc /bin /sbin and so on. let alone how to use vi or many other unix commands.

The OS 9 support is whacked IMO, takes way too long to start up just to run stuffit or view a text document. annoying!

Not sure where im going with this, just wanted to add to topic =)
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
My fave joke is "Dad....what's a dip switch ?" LOL :p

I have used lots of apple machines. Anyone who has been with apple form day one knows that apple has had CLIs in their OS. DOS, SOS, ProDOS were the CLIs of the Apple II, the Apple III and the APple IIgs. With the mac line they faded out. CLIs do exist for the mac but as a freeware option. There existed a CLI that emulated DOS behavior so you could do your cd and dir s :p I found it useless for the simple reason that I was more productive with all the kwyboard shortcuts that I had already learned after 7 years of mac use :)


Admiral
 

Hobeaux

Registered
I'm doing some work for Apple and needed some screenshots from OS X so they sent me a GM version to use.

The first thing I did was to remove everything from the Desktop: the drives (through the Finder's preferences) and the shortcut to the Mac OS 9 Desktop folder-- having used the public beta since day one i knew that the folder was visible from within X so I didn't need a shortcut to it.

unfortunately, things changed between the PB and the GM release -- the desktop folder is no longer visible within X so my access to that directory was removed. Sherlock wouldn't even report files from it.

What was I going to do?

I took a tip from the 'movable dock' hack and decided to give this a try:

I opened up Terminal, su'ed to Root (having already set up a Root user earlier) then used the command line to edit the .hidden file. I removed the reference to Desktop Folder, logged out/into X and voila! the Desktop Folder was back again.

It was a joyous moment.

not only that, but while in Terminal i also figured out how to open directories that contain illegal characters (such as the space, parenthasis, etc.) by wrapping the phrase in ' ' , learned that one can launch apps with the Open command, and so on.

it was so cool.

To me, though, this is different from the old DOS environment that I would deride PC users in the old days about. Back then, PC users were dependent on command line and having to deal with all that nasty stuff -- but with Terminal, it seems to extend my user experience.

Anyway, that's my two cents.
 
Top