backtop


Print 219 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Jun 16 at 2:33 PM

Today at Apple's WWDC presentation the face of its latest OS has been revealed in depth

Today at Apple, fast on the heels of the announcement of a vastly improved 3G iPhone came a preview of the new Apple operating system Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6).  Apple hopes that Snow Leopard "builds on the incredible success" of its Leopard predecessor

Apple touts that improvements coming in Snow Leopard will include better support for multiple processors, better GPU support, better use of large amounts of RAM, and support for Apple's new QuickTime® X platform.  The OS will ship in about a year and will come packaged with support for Microsoft Exchange 2007.

Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering describes the new OS stating, "We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more.  In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”

Apple says that integral to its plans is the new technology “Grand Central", which will help developers design more efficient multi-core programs for Macs.  The new OS will also allow use of Open Computing Language (OpenCL) to use GPUs for non-graphics applications.  And the sky's the limit for memory with 16TB of RAM, theoretically, at the new operating system's disposal (of course such levels are impossible with current chipsets and DIMM densities).

Quick Time X is also a major new feature.  It will draw from lessons learned with the iPhone and will feature support for advanced video and audio formats.  Apple is also throwing in a new version of Safari, which it states will include the "fastest implementation of JavaScript ever, increasing performance by 53 percent, making Web 2.0 applications feel more responsive."

With the addition of Microsoft Exchange, Apple should be able to better interface with Windows computers in a business setting.

The new OS marks a continued push on Apple's part towards a longer more Windows-like development cycle for Apple.  Apple has often been criticized for having too short a development cycle.  The OS X family has seen the production times slowly increase from an initial release-a-year pace.

DailyTech will follow Apple's progress in coming months as the OS approaches its release and prepares to compete with the upcoming Windows OS, codenamed Windows 7, due out in about a year as well.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Quicktime X?
By Fenixgoon on 6/9/2008 7:11:42 PM , Rating: 5
I still can't fathom how quicktime has become any sort of standard. It is slow, bloated, and won't let you play a video full screen unless you buy the "pro" version.




RE: Quicktime X?
By borismkv on 6/9/2008 7:15:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
unless you buy the "pro" version.


DING DING DING! We have a winner!


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By chick0n on 6/10/2008 12:28:10 AM , Rating: 4
Wow, You actually feel *proud* of that ?

We have a loser, yes. That would be you.


RE: Quicktime X?
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 1
Not sure if the language was seen as the issue, but the answer is correct - QuickTime Player does enable you to view movies in full-screen without an upgrade to the Pro version. The Pro version is only necessary if you want to edit a movie file, or create one. While it sounds a bit superfluous given that a Mac ships with iMovie of some version or another, QuickTime Pro is surprisingly useful and, honestly, well worth the money.


RE: Quicktime X?
By gramboh on 6/10/2008 5:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Except it sucks at encoding h264 versus free x264 encoder in terms of quality and options. For playback on the PC, Media Player Classic with FFDshow is superior (and will even play .mov if you have to use that awful container).


RE: Quicktime X?
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 2:26:09 AM , Rating: 2
I can't really comment on the merits of the PC version, nor the quality of the encoding. What I can say is that QuickTime Pro is damned useful for hacking video, such as cutting bits out or exporting tracks to a new file. I understand that the QTP isn't very fast at encoding video, which seems odd, but its a handy application on the Mac for video that is already encoded.


RE: Quicktime X?
By sporr on 6/14/2008 6:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
I second that. MPC+ffdshow and maybe ac3filter if you needs demand it.

Some of the best things in life are free :)


RE: Quicktime X?
By jpeyton on 6/10/2008 3:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
Apple can't "ice" Windows until they get the hardware numbers to challenge Microsoft's dominance.

They're on track to do it sometime in the early 22nd century.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Arribajuan on 6/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quicktime X?
By DASQ on 6/10/2008 11:06:47 PM , Rating: 1
erm... last I checked, doing alright actually.


RE: Quicktime X?
By daftrok on 6/10/2008 11:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/PostComment.aspx?newsid=1...

Granted it's in third place but has had a greater RATE of sales than the 360 since the beginning of '08. According to this graph by the end of 2008 the PS3 will have caught up with the 360 in worldwide sales.


RE: Quicktime X?
By akugami on 6/10/2008 11:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
The PS3 is doing terrible. Numbers wise, it's not that bad, dollars wise, it's a huge anchor on the SOE branch of Sony. This is similar to the original Xbox which had the distinction of being in second place in the last console wars but lost over two billion in the process while Nintendo's last place Gamecube made a tidy profit. I've posted it before but from a Japanese Sony executive, the PS3 was suppose to have taken them roughly five years to recoup their costs. I will make a huge assumption that it is with the PS3 in the lead for those PS3 projections. The PS3 is at best in second place and while it's not doing bad numbers wise, I have to wonder when and if it ever recoups its development costs. The ten year console projection is bologna.

Nintendo and Microsoft (if it chooses to remain in the console race) will most definitely have new consoles out in 4-5 years time that will more than equal what the PS3 has and likely one up it in many respects. Not only will the new consoles equal or surpass the PS3 but it'll have the shiny "NEW" tag whereas the PS3 will be considered old and worn, even if it more than holds its own against the new consoles.

The PSP which came off the gates fast, then slowed dramatically as the slow to start DS shot through the roof is doing very well lately. While the PS3 is doing better, the PSP is probably the sole bright spot for SOE right now.


RE: Quicktime X?
By talozin on 6/9/2008 7:27:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is slow, bloated, and won't let you play a video full screen unless you buy the "pro" version.


Er, what? I've been watching videos fullscreen with QuickTime Player ever since I discovered HandBrake, so this particular complaint was a surprise to me.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Fenixgoon on 6/9/2008 7:49:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, since version 7.2 That's 6.2 versions too late for me and the rest of the world.

VLC/QTA FTW.


RE: Quicktime X?
By xti on 6/10/2008 2:45:19 PM , Rating: 3
this reply wins the internet.


RE: Quicktime X?
By anotherdude on 6/9/2008 8:34:24 PM , Rating: 3
OK, I'll bite. How do I turn on fullscreen?


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 8:44:52 PM , Rating: 5
Quicktime is crap. Its the new RealPlayer.

Back in the 90's everyone used RealPlayer. Then RealNetworks got greedy and tried to get RealPlayer to take over your entire PC. And people stopped using it.

Same thing with Quicktime. You can't even install it anymore unless you also download bullcrap Itunes.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 9:07:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Reclaimer, are you really that FCKING DUMB??


Nah I guess it just goes to show how often I download Quicktime anymore. Which is never.

Relax kid, your foaming at the mouth. So indignant that people don't like your religion.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Arribajuan on 6/10/2008 11:01:29 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, there are quick time movies out on the net and then you are screwed at downloading quick time.

A normal user just clicks next and gets over with the installation.

Doing this with quick time installs a bunch of crap. That is something to bark about. This has always been the case with quick time and in general apple software.

Now keep barking.


RE: Quicktime X?
By overzealot on 6/10/2008 2:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
*cough* Quicktime Alternative *cough*


RE: Quicktime X?
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 12:56:17 PM , Rating: 1
I have used OSX and still hate it.

Although I more hate the superior attitude of Mac fans than the OS itself. And their commercials have gotten downright annoying. Not to mention they lie through their teeth.

And I forsee you having a heart attack at an early age.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 3:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention they lie through their teeth

Like that guy who recently lied about Leopard not working on PowerPC? ;-) You know that guy, dontcha? :))) [wink wink nudge nudge] :))

And I foresee you and your fanatical buddies Reclaimer & Co having a LOT more lies spread about Apple in future. Can't wait to see more of this BS in your posts. You know what is the best food for my critical posts, so please lie some more, it's going to be fun to continue teaching you how to check for facts before posting obvious BS here :P


RE: Quicktime X?
By gochichi on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 10:08:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I say let Apple open up direct competition with Microsoft and see what happens... see if we can't get some actual competition going in the OS market.


Thats already happened. Why do you think Mac's can run Windows now ?

Windows didn't sue and force them to do it. Their customers obviously wanted Windows.

I think the fact that Macs can boot Windows throws any sort of notion of Mac OS superiority out of bounds. Face it, they lost. They run Windows and Intel CPU's now. Theres no innovation or individuality in the Mac brand anymore. Its a closed source dinosaur thats been forced to submit to the needs of the free market because their way wasn't hacking it. Plain and simple.


RE: Quicktime X?
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 6:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
I think it just gave people that safety net of being able to think "I can just fall back to Windows if I don't like Mac OS X" when buying Macs, apart from the business need for Windows.

I mean, who would buy a Mac to run Windows on its own, the idea is ridiculous because they cost more.

The fact that Mac sales have rocketed in the past couple of years proves the exact opposite of your post - people want Macs, and what makes the Mac desirable is both the design AND the software - Mac OS X, etc. Maybe there is some iPod Halo effect going on as well, but I'm sure a lot of people have just had it up to here with frustrating experiences with Windows or cheap PC hardware.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, who would buy a Mac to run Windows on its own, the idea is ridiculous because they cost more.


For the carpal tunnel keyboard and the one button mouse ? I don't know honestly.

quote:
The fact that Mac sales have rocketed in the past couple of years proves the exact opposite of your post - people want Macs,


Inflated percentage based arguments. Their bulk sales figures compared to the top 4 OEM PC distributors is pitiful. Their overall market share of the PC market is equally laughable. First quarter of 2008 ? They are SIXTH in computer sales market share. Sixth !

Yes, their sales HAVE gone up. But guess what ? So has everyone else's. Percentages make Apple look like they are a roaring lion, when in fact they are the same paper tiger. Or should I say paper Leopard ?

My source
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

Really no room for argument here.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Chaser on 6/9/2008 10:27:25 PM , Rating: 3
Like this lie?

Mac hacked first in security expo contest:

Apple's track record on security was tarnished on Thursday when Mac OS X was the first operating system to be compromised in a hacking contest at the CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

The mystery crack by Charlie Miller was dependent on visiting a website containing malicious code. The exploit took just two minutes to surface at the start of the day, which also invited guests to hack Linux and Windows systems.

The exploit was presented on the second day of the three-day conference and appeared only once the competition eased rules, permitting hacks to require user actions rather than the strictly automatic hacks that were allowed the day before.

Miller wasn't allowed to publicize how he accomplished the feat, which organizing firm TippingPoint said would be passed on to Apple so it can develop a fix. However, the coding expert received the more immediate rewards of a $10,000 prize as well as the system he had infiltrated -- a new MacBook Air.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By RjBass on 6/9/2008 10:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
And as Apple and OSX gain more and more market share, they to will feel the wrath of greedy developers who have nothing better to do on a Sat night.

I really hate that argument from Apple lovers. So many of them think they are so safe from the evils of the internet just because they own an Apple computer. Well their day is coming and coming fast. Soon they will be crying about botnets and Win32 (or more OSX32) along with the rest of us.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Chaser on 6/10/2008 8:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is important is the total lack of viruses or infections for OS X, compared to gazillions of Windows virii and other malware.


It only took a simple webpage and all of a few minutes to counter the MAC's "legendary" security. No virii or malware was needed to render it completely compromised. Sorry but apathy isn't very effective against just one virus or other malware, or in this case a website. Happy surfing.


RE: Quicktime X?
By xti on 6/10/2008 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but if someone writes a virus with the intention of malicious harm or on top of that, wanting access to a computer...do you think they would aim for 10 million users or a 100 million?


RE: Quicktime X?
By ali 09 on 6/10/2008 2:34:02 AM , Rating: 1
Yes I agree - there are many dumb people - and you are adding to that number. Also, what do you mean by "low income"? I would like to see your income to judge whether you can make that comment.


RE: Quicktime X?
By 1078feba on 6/10/2008 9:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
Either too many teens here or too many low-income and low-education kind of people.

Wow.

I don't know where to start.

And Apple devotees can't fathom why Windows users think Apple users are tone-deaf snobs.

Say it with me now: "Cognitive dissonance is not my friend."

Repeat until simply talking about an OS doesn't produce in you a total mental mastubatory frenzy.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Arribajuan on 6/10/2008 11:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
The problem of installing crap is not disk space... that is dirt cheap.

Memory is the issue, you are left with a "handy" itunes service, ipod connecting service, blah blah helper services, quick launch quick time service, etc.

50 - 100 MB of memory just for that.

I do not care for disk space but definitely care about software taking on my memory and start up times.

As for the OS competition, is on and mac has a the lead. It is just a different competition. The 199 iphone tries to make mac ubiquitous and this will mean a platform for services.

I see the apple branding to change a little from "apple cool" to "apple everywhere".


RE: Quicktime X?
By plinkplonk on 6/10/2008 3:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
who needs quicktime anyway? your pc will always come bundled with WMP and if you're not happy with that then winamp is always the way forward. MACs i assume come with quicktime and therefore theyre in the same situation as with WMP, they don't need it on their macs just like I don't need quicktime on my PC


RE: Quicktime X?
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:31:26 AM , Rating: 1
What's the matter man? Why the snobby attitude?


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 3:32:14 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you ask this questin to any local Apple basher spreading lies about Quicktime? Ask them please why are they lying all the time? Why can't they research the facts and THINK a little before posting here? Ask THEM first, not ME, because THEY are the reason for my postings here.

If they stop LYING - then there will be no critical posts from me here. Is that clear?


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By oab on 6/13/2008 11:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know why this got voted down, it is correct. Hit Ctrl+F on a wind0z pc and it goes fullscreen. Hit CTRL+F again to bring it out.

Or go View->Full Screen if you don't like keyboard shortcuts.


RE: Quicktime X?
By retrospooty on 6/9/2008 9:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
" Learn your facts, idiot -> QT plays full screen in free version since version 7.2"

Here we go... another angry Mac psycho. Relax man, the guy made a statement about software... So what if he was incorrect. do you have to get all aggro about it and call him an idiot? Not to mention all the "wintel lamers".

Ya, 90% of the world is stupid for buying Windows. Its just you select few really smart people that buy Macs. The rest of us are all lame and stupid.

Get a life man. If you are going to get angry, get angry about something real.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 9:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
Quicktime is only on v 7.5. So what if they added fullscreen on the free version since 7.2 ? Pirks is making it seem like that was THAT long ago, like they are doing you a friggin service lol.

So every version before that didn't have fullscreen on the non pro version basically ? Thats just really sad.

Can't believe we're arguing so much about such a poor multimedia player anyway. Quicktime is garbage and nobody I know would ever even pay for it.


RE: Quicktime X?
By SilthDraeth on 6/9/2008 9:37:58 PM , Rating: 3
Pirks - since 7.2 ... Well people wouldn't know that if they stopped using it before 7.2.

You call us "Wintel lamers" and get angry and self righteous calling people idiotic, and fucking stupid, if they make a statement that is not 100% correct.

You MAY be more intelligent than everyone who uses Windows, but I highly doubt it. I can guarantee that you have one of the worst attitudes I have seen on DT though.


RE: Quicktime X?
By herrdoktor330 on 6/9/2008 10:45:50 PM , Rating: 5
100% Internet Annonimity + 1 Immature Individual = Troll

Wasn't that from a Penny Arcade?


RE: Quicktime X?
By overzealot on 6/10/2008 2:32:50 PM , Rating: 3
Personally I think he's going for lowest average post score, or first -2 post.


RE: Quicktime X?
By DASQ on 6/10/2008 11:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad ('Shitcock')


RE: Quicktime X?
By shockf1 on 6/10/2008 5:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still can't fathom how Wintel lamers like you and borismkv are even allowed to use computers


you mac fanboys are really quite entertaining.

always feeling the need to "prove" that there on the winning team by taking any small point and milking it for all its worth. LMAO.


RE: Quicktime X?
By mixpix on 6/9/2008 10:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Although it was annoying that past Quick Time versions didn't have full screen capabilities, the issue is pretty moot since the current version does... get over the past.

I watch Hi-Def trailers on Apple's site all the time in full screen.

Btw, the new version of Real Player is quite nice and it's media browser is the best for those of us who have large music collections.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Btw, the new version of Real Player is quite nice and it's media browser is the best for those of us who have large music collections.

Even if that is true, I still won't touch it.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 12:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of players have good media browser centers. Not enough incentive to go back to Real Player IMO. Screw them. They got greedy in the late 90's and tried to push a bloated invasive product and everyone stopped using them.


RE: Quicktime X?
By StevoLincolnite on 6/10/2008 2:08:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yet the Format itself was still great, it allowed people on 56k Connections to download movies and what not, sure it wasn't the best Quality in the world, but on Dial-Up you will take any improvement you can, but in this day and age of broadband connections, people are in love with DivX and Xvid.

Personally I hate Quicktime, and Real Player, BUT I do Like Quick Time Alternative, and Real Player Lite, nothing against Apple, but if I ca free up bloat, I will do so, thats where VLC comes into play, plus with VLC I can set movies as a Back Ground, it's a fairly useless feature, but it is cool in some ways.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 5:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Cool man.

VLC is neat, but I always keep going back to BS Player Pro. However recently I have discovered Crystal Player Pro and I may never look back.

Reclaimer 77,
'proudly refusing to use Windows Media Player since 1999 '


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 9:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
proudly refusing to use Windows Media Player
Why?


RE: Quicktime X?
By aebiv on 6/15/2008 5:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
WMP11 Is actually quite worthwhile. Better than anything else I've found.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Sandok on 6/10/2008 12:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
Quicktime is great for .mov and .mp4, that's it. The software is really bloated and slow on Windows (just to show that on Mac, it can run well).

A pity because it's easy to use!


RE: Quicktime X?
By plinkplonk on 6/10/2008 3:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
not to mention the handy feature for downloading videos off the web :)


RE: Quicktime X?
By psonice on 6/10/2008 4:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
You all need to visit the clue shop. Quicktime is NOT the same thing as Quicktime Player!

Quicktime is actually a framework for working with media files, and it's actually damn good (which is probably why quicktime player ended up being popular). It's this that will be updated with quicktime X, although I'm sure they'll update the player to utilise it.

The quicktime player is just that - a media player built on the quicktime framework. It's possible to build your own replacement that doesn't suck (not that it does.. but then I only use it on mac) with very little effort, if you can code. There's even an example app in apple's sdk that includes file export and encoding, pretty much giving you the 'pro' features for free.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Hare on 6/15/2008 3:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still can't fathom how quicktime has become any sort of standard. It is slow, bloated, and won't let you play a video full screen unless you buy the "pro" version.

You are talking about the player which is only a small application capable of viewing quicktime videos among other things.

The QuickTime technology consists of the following:
1. The QuickTime Player application created by Apple, which is a media player.
2. The QuickTime framework, which provides a common set of APIs for encoding and decoding audio and video.
3. The QuickTime Movie (.mov) file format, an openly-documented media container.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTime

The reason why it's a standard? Read the link above. There are plenty of good reasons.

Ps. Dailytech's underline tag is broken. It keeps underlining the space following the tagged word (see "player" above).


I'm Excited !!!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 7:10:14 PM , Rating: 5
Not.

quote:
Apple touts that improvements coming in Snow Leopard will include better support for multiple processors, better GPU support, better use of large amounts of RAM, and support for Apple's new QuickTime® X platform. The OS will ship in about a year and will come packaged with support for Microsoft Exchange 2007.


Yes, welcome to the PC world of three years ago where things like this were standard. Grats.




RE: I'm Excited !!!
By michael2k on 6/9/2008 7:16:59 PM , Rating: 1
You must have missed the multiple uses of "better". Apple has had support for multiple processors for over 10 years, GPU support for six years, though it only gained 64 bit support two years ago.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 7:29:09 PM , Rating: 5
I must have missed where these patches justify a purchase of a new OS to obtain them.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/9/2008 8:43:59 PM , Rating: 5
Ever since Mac OSX, every yearly or bi-yearly refresh was stamped with a $129 price tag. Were the three Service Packs that XP released cost anything? No. It was fixing the issues of the past for free because it was expected from them. This is the same with Office 2003, Vista, anything. A hellova lot of work went into the XP Service Packs and all you had to do was download it for free. And what did Leopard bring to the table? What it should have done FOR FREE. What was EXPECTED FROM THEM. Language support, easier coding for programmers. Core Animation. Upgrades to the programs like iChat and DVD. Easier to back up files. Given the premium Mac users spend on their hardware, the least Apple can do is offer the upgrade for free.

Now Leopard was meant to be the "foundation for future OS's" but looked what happened: instability, incompatibility, crashing, etc. etc. etc. Leopard was the Vista for Mac; it had alot of problems and now they are releasing this Snow Leopard to cool things down (hopefully not freezing or turning screens blue). But this OS better be free otherwise it is just another slap in the face for Mac users.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/9/2008 10:07:27 PM , Rating: 3
Basic: $99
Premium: $129
Business: $199
Ultimate: $219

Source: http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/content.aspx?ctI...

Where are you getting your info from?


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Excited !!!
By mixpix on 6/9/2008 10:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I have to point out that that is a direct download price.

For example if you went to a retail store like Best Buy to get Vista Home Premium you'd pay $129.99 the UPGRADE version and $239.99 for the full.

I personally buy OEM versions. That's the cheapest way.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/10/2008 2:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. In fact there was a loop hole (which has yet to be solved) where you can buy the OEM versions and hack it for a full legal install of the OS. I'd rather just stick with XP until Windows 7 because the only reason I would ever get Vista is for Directx 10 gaming and I don't plan to make a gaming rig until a few years from now.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By rdeegvainl on 6/10/2008 8:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
That hack if for the upgrade version, the OEM version is a full legal install. It is intended for new machines with nothing on them.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/10/2008 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake I meant to say upgrade version. But I prefer the Windows Marketplace over OEM because its more reliable and pretty much the same price.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By bupkus on 6/9/2008 10:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Membership of Cool has it price.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Gul Westfale on 6/10/2008 12:00:02 AM , Rating: 5
macs are not cool, unless overpriced yet underpowered hardware that only runs a small portion of all software and is wrapped in cheap ass plastic ("designed by apple in california", but made without smugness in some labor camp anyway) is cool these days.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By plinkplonk on 6/10/2008 3:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
oh yeah definitely very cool


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Doormat on 6/9/2008 11:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thats because, for all intents and purposes, XP was broken from a security standpoint. If MS had charged for SP2, people would have screamed bloody murder and we would probably have seen anti-trust issues brought. They ship something thats vulnerable to tons of malware and viruses in its default configuration (like Apple shipped 10.5.0, and then patched in 10.5.1). And MS, being a convicted monopolist, has to play by a different set of rules than everyone else.

I also find your position that Apple should give stuff way as completely unreasonable. Stuff like Time Machine is a huge innovation in getting average people to back stuff up. Why shouldn't Apple charge for it. Leopard had plenty of new features. A new "pretty" UI doesn't constitute a worth OS upgrade. I like the UI, and am happy they don't feel the need to waste resources on performing a huge overhaul.

And finally, I haven't had a single problem with 10.5 and I bought it day one. Most folks I know don't have problems either. So I don't really see how you can say Vista = Leopard.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By theapparition on 6/10/2008 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And finally, I haven't had a single problem with 10.5 and I bought it day one. Most folks I know don't have problems either. So I don't really see how you can say Vista = Leopard.

And I've had Vista from day 1 without any issues either? What's your point?

Many have had issues with both Vista and Leopard, too.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By michael2k on 6/9/2008 8:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
Huh?

Multicore CPU was supported with the first release of OS X 10.0, while GPU acceleration was added in 10.2 the first real applications that used it was in 10.3: Expose and Fast User Switching, with additional applications in 10.4 (Dashboard and iChat AV), and 10.5 (Spaces and Time Machine)

You get to decide which 3D accelerated apps were worth upgrading for.

So my point: OS X has supported these features for years, now, longer than Windows since Vista has only been out for a little over a year, now, and at least as long as XP since they were both released in 2001


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
Windows has been enjoying GPU support since the late 90s, maybe earlier.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 6:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, Vista is what brought in features that used the GPU like the pointless Flip3D (why? it's 3D alt-tab, it misses the point of something like Expose which is simply extremely useful, not just 3D glitz) and blurry window titlebars. Apple brought in hardware accelerated desktop compositing with 10.2 5 years ago and has since built on that with every release.

So what are you talking about? Surely not "2D Desktop Hardware Acceleration" aka hardware line drawing ...


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By michael2k on 6/10/2008 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
When we say GPU support, we mean 3D acceleration of the OS and UI.

Windows 98 (late 90s right?) only shipped with GDI, which did not support 3D hardware. At all.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By herrdoktor330 on 6/9/2008 9:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the one thing I noticed that I don't think anyone mentioned is "using GPUs for non-GPU programming tasks". I think that has some potential there. Now I'm not a Mac fan in any way. But if Microsoft could find a way to tap a GPU and use it like another core of a CPU, that could be a big leap in having more processing power on-demand. It'd be nice for all those people running Crossfire or SLI and want to use their GPU for video transcoding or some other heavy processor intensive application. The only other group I've heard do that is Sony in their Folding@Home app for PS3.

Now if only the linux developers would find a way to do that in the next kernel revision...


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By boogle on 6/10/2008 4:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't do it dynamically, you have to program specifically for it still, even in this 'new' version of OSX.

Windows has supported using the GPU as a programmable device since DX8, and fully programmable since DX10.

Make sure to check out ATI & NV's web sites, they've got quite a few cool apps for their GPUs on there. Recently (might still be going on) they've got a competition to get LAME running through CUDA. They provided a reference port that runs on CUDA already, the competition was to make it even faster.

For what you're after (a super-fast math-coprocessor), you'll probably want/need to wait for Intel's Larabee. That's a super-fast maths processor, that happens to be a graphics card too.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By herrdoktor330 on 6/10/2008 8:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
I figured some software optimizations would be required.

Ever since I read an article about one of the fastest mini-supercomputers being a bunch of nVidia GPUs bundled together, it just got me thinking about the untapped potential to do other things with a GPU.

As far as Larrabee goes, it sounds like it's going to be a tear-out year for Intel (lawsuits not included). And the one positive thing to say about that is everyone stands to benefit from it: Mac users, Windows users, and Linux users alike. Now, if they can offer a product with that potential power at a competative price point ($150 USD... I wish) that would seriously shake up the computing world. Especially if software was made to take advantage of multicore and GPGPU processing to the fullest.

But thanks for the reply. I'm going to go do some research on CUDA (CTM in my case) right now and see what my GPU can do for me.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 9:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
Uh the G5 was 64-bit.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 4:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not entirely sure you know what you are talking about here, or what 10.6 is going to deliver. What it is going to deliver is, frankly, unknown for the moment beyond what little is said in the press statement, and what is rumored. What is known, however, is that Apple's OS have supported all of the functions for years, and longer than Windows when it comes down to multi-processor support. What we are talking about here is the following:

1. Better Support for Multi-Processor/Cores: Making it easier for applications to run parallel processes/threads. Leopard introduced the NSOperation object to Cocoa API to make it easy to manage multiple threads in a process, but it sounds like they want to take this further. The question is whether the benefits will be gained automatically, only after a recompile for 10.6, or whether new code will be required?

2. Better GPU Support: This doesn't mean supporting GPUs for games, but rather allowing the GPU to be used by all applications for running general code. Visual effects already make heavy use of the GPU in Leopard (Core Video and Core Animation) but this is apparently enabling you to make better use of the computing resources in your computer - i.e. nVidia's CUDA.

3. Better Use of Large Amounts of RAM: I'm not sure the maximum amount of RAM that Leopard will support, but it is at least 32GB. I think the RAM limit of 16TB is strictly for super computers based on OS X.

At this point in time, can the PC world claim any of this today, let alone 3-years ago? I'm quite happy to bring the facts from the Mac world if you'd care to bring the facts from the Windows world.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By overzealot on 6/10/2008 2:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
As far as memory goes;
Vista:
Basic - 8gb
Premium - 16gb
Ultimate (or any business version) - 128gb

Server 2008:
Standard - 32 GB
Enterprise, Datacenter, and Itanium-Based Systems - 2 TB

So no 16TB, but then it's not really something that's within the realm of personal computing needs (at present)


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 2:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed - no one is going to need 16TB of memory in a personal computer for many years (I won't say never given the whole 640K debacle). Apple might not be popular in business, but it is popular with the scientific and academic communities. I suspect that 16TB (or at least memory capacities in that range) would be damned useful for working with very large data sets. Mind you, I'd hate to think how much all that RAM would cost...


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 12:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
I will say a personal computer user will never need 16TB of RAM. Unless personal computers evolve to the level of a holodeck.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 3:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a personal computer user will never need 16TB of RAM
640K will be enough for everyone (C) FITCamaro


Yeah but...
By Lightnix on 6/9/2008 5:39:11 PM , Rating: 5
I still won't buy it until they sell it to me without the 'you must run it on an Apple machine' crap.




RE: Yeah but...
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By Darkefire on 6/9/2008 9:48:47 PM , Rating: 1
Since Core 2 Quad and Penryn came out. Try to keep up, I know it's hard to stay current on hardware when your computer comes with a 50% "style" markup.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By michael2k on 6/9/2008 6:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
You'll run outdated software, but not outdated hardware?


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By Lightnix on 6/9/2008 8:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's a better compromise than being forced into having a preconfigured system in my opinion. Not to mention the price, against a self-built computer, Macs cost way too much for what you get. Admittedly Macbooks are alright for their price against other notebooks, still on the wrong side of £600, though.

Frankly, I'd move onto Vista, the reason I haven't is because my motherboard vendor doesn't have Vista drivers for my motherboard - and I blame ECS entirely for that (i.e. I'll be damned if I buy one of their boards again).


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By gochichi on 6/9/2008 10:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well well well...

Umm YEAH, Apple IS OUTDATED HARDWARE WITH A 50% STYLE PREMIUM. I'm a Mac user at times by the way... and I can probably know at least as much about Macs as their so-called "genuises".

Real example:
Dell Inspiron 530
Quad-Core 2.4Ghz
4GB RAM
640GB HDD
ATI RADEON HD3870
BLU-RAY PLAYER
Vista Sp 1, (Compatible with the best versions of Microsoft Office too)
$670.00

That's your "Core2" but Quad, you get me? Plus a current generation graphics card... SON. Not some remedial 8800... GS... not GT, not GTS... but some remedial 8800GS... and that's THE BEST an iMac can get. the VERY pricey iMac (nearly $2k). The $2,000 Mac Pro is pretty, and it can have an 8800GT added on for $250.00. Wow, if you don't think that's a premium, WOW!

I can appreciate Apple's software, I really can... and I can even appreciate their industrial design, but sometimes you just want a really fast computer to set on the ground and hook it up to a 24" DELL Ultrasharp ... not some "show and tell piece".

I do show and tell... my computer for $670.00 is a few years ahead of Macs in terms of raw power... and it doesn't look half bad either, it's a looker.

Do I wish I could run Mac OS on it legitimately? Yes! I would absolutely dual boot if Apple gave the option. Do I think that it's worth $1k+ of premium over $670.00... ummm HELL NO.

Now, the same CANNOT be said of Apple notebooks. Most PC notebooks are horrifically outdated from day one. 1.5Ghz processors are the norm... when really anything under 2.0Ghz is just outdated today. All Mac Notebooks (excpet the air, but that doesn't count) come with great CPUs, and the MacBOok Pro is probably the best notebook on the planet. The MacBook needs an LED display or a $150 price drop and it's good to go (but then again, 99% of PC notebooks don't have LED displays either).

So basically for my bones, it's PC for desktops and 50/50 on notebooks, Apple does make appealing notebooks and the industrial design is more relevant to the user in laptops as well.

I take a look at my Dell tower when I change Blu-ray disks... I take a look at my laptop every time I use it.

Apple is frustrating to watch, they could have so much more money and be a better company all at one time. But instead they opt to be industrial design Nazis as they pilfer opportunities. Guys... I can assure you, Microsoft should not be underestimated and competing with them now is a golden opportunity that Apple is passing up for no good reason.


RE: Yeah but...
By Doormat on 6/9/2008 11:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So basically for my bones, it's PC for desktops and 50/50 on notebooks, Apple does make appealing notebooks and the industrial design is more relevant to the user in laptops as well.


Pretty much. Most folks I know who have split PC/Mac households have a Mac notebook and a PC desktop. Myself included (MacBook notebook, Q9450@3.2Ghz desktop). What I wish Apple had was a great docking solution for the MB/MBP, so that when I want to use my notebook on my 24" LCD to write iPhone games in XCode, I can easily instead of the mess of wires and such now.


RE: Yeah but...
By bernardl on 6/11/2008 4:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
Ah ok... I wonder where that leaves my 8 cores 3Ghz 16GB RAM Mac Pro... :-)

Cheers,
Bernard


RE: Yeah but...
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:38:02 AM , Rating: 3
A 60's Chevy is way cooler than a Prius.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 10:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Necrophile!


RE: Yeah but...
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 12:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
And you can work on it yourself.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 12:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
Just like on Mac Pro :P


RE: Yeah but...
By niva on 6/9/2008 7:07:35 PM , Rating: 4
I'm with you too, I run vista and linux dual boot on my new machine and I have no desire to even bother with OSX or anything Apple related (like iTunes or really anything with an "i" at the start of it's name.) While I love rooting for the underdog I get the feeling that Apple is simply more of the same but slightly different flavor from MS.


RE: Yeah but...
By walk2k on 6/9/2008 8:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Macs are okay, they are pretty well designed, they would be decent computers, if they were priced the same as other PCs and ran Windows ;)


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By Darkefire on 6/9/2008 10:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
A Mac Mini is to a mid-range PC as my TI-84 is to a PSP. That $600 Mac Mini will net you a 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, and an 80GB hard drive. No mouse, keyboard, monitor, or speakers included. That same $600 will get you a Dell with a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive, a 19" LCD widescreen monitor, keyboard + mouse, and a one-year warranty. And that Dell is very much on the mid to low-end of computing, what with the complete lack of a GPU that would be able to even look at the Crysis box art without passing out.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah but...
By Rulother on 6/9/2008 10:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
I guess using a mac you wouldn't know what to do with all those specs ;)


RE: Yeah but...
By chick0n on 6/10/2008 12:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
WOW user experience in what? Limited + overprice hardware ? Buggy as crap OS codes ? Crashing like a mofo ? Oh yea here is a good one, an *so good company* which cant even write their own god damn Kernel code.

Its great to know man. its just great.

Mac people said their Mac is great because they cant use anything else. I use both and I want to ask this

"Why Apple still alive?"

I have an answer to this as well.

"Too many people like Pirks exist, people who knows nothing better."

Windows aint perfect. but OSX is far from what Window can do. Viruses? Do you even know why Viruses exist in the first place? OSX never had any viruses cuz no one freaking use that garbage comp + garbage OS. simple as that.

Now there are more people using Macs, I have couple of friends who can take a Mac machine down anytime they want, they did sent Apple about the problem. but noooo Apple did not even respond. Guess what will happen next? Go cry now baby. Your Mac is soooooo secure & goooooood.


RE: Yeah but...
By Darkefire on 6/10/2008 3:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Except Mac sales aren't growing. Your percent of the marketshare is roughly the same as it was 5 years ago, and will continue to be the same 5 years from now. My point was that you cannot get a computer of equal power for the same cost from Apple. The numbers don't lie, and I can pile up benchmarks as high as the sky that say PCs outperform a Mac at the same cost. People understand speed equals a better user experience, i.e. more productivity/faster apps, so they're going to prefer the better hardware.

The only thing Apple has on Windows in terms of user experience is that all the little crappy apps that pile up on a Joe Sixpack PC won't install on a Mac, ergo the Mac never slows down due to congestion like the PC. Mind you, that's like saying I'm never going to get in a freeway accident because I drive a scooter.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 10:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except Mac sales aren't growing.
Another lie from Windows fanatic.
quote:
Your percent of the marketshare is roughly the same as it was 5 years ago
Except that Macs keep grabbing more and more of the premium PC market, shoving Dells and Acers in the budget low-profit market where they belong.
quote:
you cannot get a computer of equal power for the same cost from Apple
You cannot get a computer of equal ergonomics for the same cost not from Apple.
quote:
and I can pile up benchmarks as high as the sky that say PCs outperform a Mac at the same cost
And I can pile up benchmarks that say Mac outperforms PC in ergonomics at the same cost.
quote:
People understand speed equals a better user experience
And Vista is something that kkind of lacks speed of Mac OS X.
quote:
they're going to prefer the better hardware
Exactly! That's why Macs grab more and more of the premium PC market share.
quote:
all the little crappy apps that pile up on a Joe Sixpack PC won't install on a Mac
And the little Mac apps are not as crappy as Windows ones hence piling up little Mac apps does not slow Mac down, maybe its also because Mac OS X has better design and is not slowed down by excessive app installatin like Windows.
quote:
because I drive a scooter
Yeah yeah, 8-core Xeon Mac Pro is a scooter, suuuure. Keep lying, whatever.


RE: Yeah but...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 10:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
And here is where Pirks pulls his ergonomic and premium PC arguments. Its the ultimate nuke, you can't win. Trust me, I have tried.

If you bring up performance, he counters with " ergonomics " ( lol ). If you bring up cost he invents a " premium PC " market where Mac virtually stands alone anyway because they cost the most.

Logic and reason won't make him go away. The most -1's by a single poster in a thread EVER didn't show him the light. Guys I guess we just have to face it. The degenerate rude obnoxious inbred Mac troll wins the day.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Logic and reason won't make him go away
Same about you - you'll never stop spreading lies like those about Quicktime - it can't be downloaded without iTunes, it can't play movies fullscreen and stuff like that. You must be a pathological liar, or just stupid PC user not knowing much about hardware and software world.


RE: Yeah but...
By heeros1 on 6/11/2008 6:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I never tried macs, but I have an interest, but every time I look at their site I can only think "wow that's expensive" or "wow that's slow". Granted, windows isn't the best OS, but there's other alternatives, like UNIX (what Mac is based on) or Linux (which is also based on UNIX), and there's obviously something about PC's that's good, or Mac wouldn't have adapted the platform.

But I have to fully agree with Reclaimer, if Pirks represents mac users, I want to stay away from them, he seems like a wild dog attacking everything in sight. He starts arguments in a rude manner, and just leaves them hanging and starts other arguments in similarly rude language a few comments down.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 8:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that Macs seem to be expensive and slow... until the moment you actually start using them. You have to give 'em a try sometime ;-)

PC is good too, but it's aimed at somewhat more technically minded and more budget conscious buyer, compared to Mac. Apple computers are marketed at those people who have some extra income and not a lot of technical knowledge. The reason Apple doesn't want to introduce cheap Macs is because they want to keep high profit margin, which would be severely shrunk if cheap Macs appeared in their model line.

Note that I know that Windows is not a bad OS just because liars like Reclaimer use it. So your point is wrong, you should not base your opinion solely on my posts. I saw a lot of Windows fanatics and still Windows is not that bad, same could be said about Linux. Fanatics are everywhere, are you going to avoid Windows now because there is a lot of Windows fanatics like Reclaimer? That's just stupid. Ignore all these posts, ignore other people's opinions, try stuff FOR YOURSELF. Stop being dependent, free yourself from the voice of the crowd! ;-)


RE: Yeah but...
By heeros1 on 6/12/2008 11:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say, I'm surprised. I honestly didn't expect you to be the one to respond.

but I don't base my opinion on what others think of something, unless I see their point. I generally do research on something before giving my opinion. And I AM dissatisfied with windows at the moment, that's why I have an interest in alternatives.

One of my reasons for posting was that I thought that most of your comments were inappropriate, and really might have hurt the image of mac users in some eyes (you sounded like a mac fanatic yourself). It seemed very one sided, with plausible arguments on the "pc" side and your flaming on the "mac" side. I believe there are probably benefits to ether (even thought you didn't mention any beyond "Premium" and "Aesthetics"), and a sensible argument should have been possible.


RE: Yeah but...
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple computers are marketed at those people who have some extra income and not a lot of technical knowledge.


Funny how money and stupidity go hand in hand.

quote:
he reason Apple doesn't want to introduce cheap Macs is because they want to keep high profit margin


Yet Apple fans tout Microsoft as being THE greedy corporation who only cares about money.

And I've tried OSX and hate it. I can't even buy a Mac with the hardware I've got in my PC. The closest I can get comes out to around $3000 or more. My PC costs about $1800 with the cost of Vista. And it runs just fine.

You say that a Dell with a 2.2GHz C2D and 2GB of RAM sucks with Vista on it? My parents have an X2 4400+ with 2GB of RAM in it and integrated graphics and it runs perfectly snappy. Plus as recent security seminars have shown, Vista is just as secure if not more so than OSX. And its plenty easy to use for stupid and smart people alike.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 1:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny how money and stupidity go hand in hand
If you are so smart - why are you not rich?
quote:
The closest I can get comes out to around $3000 or more
That's because you can't choose proper hardware for your home machine and want to go for Mac Pro, which is pretty stupid choice for home.

Your parents are among a lucky few who never had issues with UAC popping up in your face and refusing to go away at every system reboot. Unfortunately not all people are like that. Compare it with Mac where such problems never existed and even can't exist if you want them to, because of the clever design of the operating system.

I bet your parents would have liked Mac Mini much more than your huge ATX box you gave them. Same snappiness and speed but MUCH smaller and nicer looking case, and 100% virus protection would be a nice bonus for them too (my parents just reinstalled XP on their machine because of the virus that nuked it).


RE: Yeah but...
By heeros1 on 6/13/2008 10:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Funny how money and stupidity go hand in hand

If you are so smart - why are you not rich?

it's the other way around, his point was that people with money are stupid.

About windows vista running fine... it may work for people that just buy a ready made system with everything on it and don't do much more than checking their e-mail, but to me it's a driver hell. I have drivers that cause BSOD's, and hardware that just recently had the drivers exit beta stage. I personally am very disappointed with driver development. and UAC is seriously a pain. the first thing I do on new vista machines is turn that off. who wants to be bugged with endless questions about running trivial software? at least linux limits these to system critical processes.

When I delete files or folders off the desktop in vista I sometimes have to manually refresh it for it to show me that they're not there anymore. and unpacking a compressed archive in a folder sometimes puts the uncompressed folder at the beginning and sometimes at the end of the list. And sometimes when you close the media player you have to force the process to close in task manager because the music continues to play. I can really live without all these small quirks that frustrate me to no end.

So I really have to laugh when people say that vista is a good OS. Yes, they tried to improve security, they might have, but it's not a finished product.

Mac is obviously only interested in providing something that just works without having to fight it. Their systems are too expensive for my taste, but I have to admit that they are pleasing to the eye. and I don't know of anything equivalent to the BSOD on the mac platform.

I think at this point further arguing is pointless since nether side seems to have anything new and compelling to ad to their argument.


RE: Yeah but...
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 10:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree that Windows UI is dumb and annoying, cumbersome, etc etc, but I love Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. soo much that I even agreed to put up with this $hit once again :-)

If guys predicting death of PC gaming and total domination of consoles turn out to say the truth - I'll dump Windows and replace my ATX box with Mini or iMac without a slightest regret. But that's a big "if", I don't see PC gaming really dying soon, although it kind of declined recently... nobody knows if it will decline further into zero, or will rebound at some point in future.

And I don't agree that $600 for Mac Mini is EXPENSIVE. It's totally acceptable price for an ultra-portable and ultra-small home desktop. My gaming rig costs twice as much and I think it's dumb to complain this is expensive too. $1200 for iMac is also not expensive, if you look at hardware and design.

Well, it's all subjective of course, if you don't give a fck about ergonomics then yeah, Macs are too expensive indeed.


RE: Yeah but...
By heeros1 on 6/14/2008 12:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't think the mac minis are expensive ether. but the hardware could be a little faster, I just don't like the idea of having a sub 2ghz processor in a desktop, even if it is very small.
About the iMac, I think that's also reasonably priced, comparing it to similar form factors from sony and the likes.
My problem with the mac lineup is that there isn't anything between the mac mini and the mac pro except for the all in one unit (imac).
If you understand what the mac pro actually is, it's not bad, it might have c2d processors, but it needs to use the more expensive ones (socket LGA 771) to run 2 in the same system.

and about gaming, I don't really game too much, but I like keeping my options open, so I still use windows. if I do switch ,at this point, I'd probable try linux first, since I like the free aspect about it (I don't like paying for things I can't touch, like software ;-)


@ Pirks
By Rulother on 6/9/2008 10:35:11 PM , Rating: 5
Dude you are one overly caffeinated Apple fanboi. The effort you put forth to reply to so many of these comments is just ridiculous and yet, I feel the same that I actually read them all too.

1) Dell/HP etc etc can all be upgraded, as I own an E-Machine and a Dell that have both been heavily modified. (Oh and with whatever hardware comes out asap)
2) Having fun playing the most current games? Oh wait...
3) I can buy a Vista PC thats pretty nice for about 400-600, quad-core, 3gbs of Ram, 640gbs HDD etc... right now.
4) Windows XP Pro has a 64x edition as well.
5) Linux is free btw.
6) Majority of computer owners in general fall into the low income bracket.
7) There are upgrade options from Win2k>WinXP>Vista that reduce the cost to upgrade, while each has received its fair amount of free service packs (which ya each really did need).

I'm not going to go and say Windows is perfect, because its far from it. But I'm also not going to spend 2.5k on a computer that otherwise would of cost me 600 bucks. The great thing about Macs is that they come out of the box the way you want and the software was designed especially for that system setup, (yet little more). Also let me know when a Mac can run a network infrastructure the same way a Linux/Windows computer can, (I'm probably going to get flamed as I'm probably missing out on some information).

stfu fanboi. On a high note, things are looking better for the mac :P




RE: @ Pirks
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
If it's of any consolation, I agree entirely with you that Pirks is clearly nuts and an embarrassment to the Mac community. Additionally, you are correct that a Mac can't run a network infrastructure like Windows Server. While Mac OS X Server and an Xserve system are pretty capable, they aren't as well suited to a corporate environment as Windows is (no idea about Linux, personally). Mind you, a Mac OS X Server and Xserve combination is a lot cheaper than a Windows Server based environment when you start taking into account license costs per seat, but that's not as important as the tools that Windows Server brings when it comes to managing users.

Personally, I justify the Mac for the simple reason that it doesn't annoy me like Windows does. Whether that is worth the price premium is up to each person to decide but, for me, my sanity is worth it.


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 3:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pirks is clearly nuts and an embarrassment to the Mac community
Nah, I'm just taking potshots at stupid Apple bashers who use very easily detectable lies as their tool, but I don't touch smart Apple bashers who don't lie, got it?

I mean, it's really not my fault that some people that bash Apple are dumb and can't reserach the topic before starting to post their lies here.

On the other hand I really enjoy smart Apple bashers, but there aren't really a lot of them. Paul Thurrott sometimes makes fun of Apple in prety smart ways, but it becomes harder and harder to do as the Apple market share grows everywhere.

I'm afraid soon the Apple bashers will become indistinguishable from Microsoft or Vista bashers, then this forum will truly become boring :-)


RE: @ Pirks
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 3:10:59 AM , Rating: 2
Insulting people is no way to make an argument, regardless as to how "out there" their statements are.


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 3:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I'm experimenting here to see if punishment works in forums as well as it works on animals in real life ;-) I wonder what happens if people realize that when they lie and post stupid things they get punished by me. You think they are not going to learn to THINK first? Why? I thought people are smart here and learn fast, am I wrong?


RE: @ Pirks
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 7:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
1) Most users don't upgrade - external hard drives are convenient for the primary upgrade people do, and Macs have accessible memory slots for the other one.

2) 25+ year old people prefer to play games on their consoles and socially. Warcrack runs on Macs for the rest. Windows runs of Macs for the remaining few. Shame that there is no mid-range Mac with a PCIe slot for graphics however, but gamers aren't Apple's market. really.

3) Bully for you.

4) Hah, Windows XP 64-bit Edition. Really, that's such a good bit of software, not.

5) Indeed it is. And whilst I am a big fan of it, non-strong management of its direction means huge amounts of duplicated effort (Gnome, KDE, ...) and it isn't really ready for the desktop.

6) Yet they still got a car loan on that SUV ... again we come back to the lack of a computer between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro apart from the iMac that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

7) Fair point about the upgrade cost versus retail cost. I do think that this Snow Leopard, if it is what they have said it is, is a minor upgrade and should be cheaper for Leopard owners - $69 seems fair because it will have new features.

Mac OS X is based upon BSD Unix (and is also a fully accredited UNIX to boot) so it should be able to do any network infrastructure tasks that a Linux box can do.

By better management of memory in Snow Leopard, I suspect that they're moving to a FreeBSD 7 base, which includes a lot of enhancements relating to memory allocation (jemalloc) and multi-processing scaling to extremes. I'd argue that KDE on FreeBSD 7 is a better desktop than Linux right now :p


RE: @ Pirks
By Rulother on 6/12/2008 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
1) Upgrading (Yes if the user knows how to and yadi yadi yadi) allows to keep your computer more up to date without have to spend the full cost again. Better cpu/gpu/spu or whatever you may want to upgrade, can be done on the fly.

2)Regardless of how consoles are eating more and more of the gamer market, being able to or just knowing that you can play all "next-gen" games on your computer is always a plus to the buyer.

3) Hey I'll take that money I saved from buying a pc to pay off that car loan ;).

4) Point being is that it still supported 64 bit applications.

The thing is Apple is stuck and even if it claimed the regular user market, they still can't really touch what windows has in the business world. Macs can only do so much until they are limited to the software needs of a lot of professions that require the use of multiple computers. Mind you I pretty much give the Animation/Graphic/Website markets to Apple, but Windows is still king for the rest. That's not entirely Apple's fault either, just people using the "norm" that the majority of people already know how to use, and training people to use new software just costs more money.


RE: @ Pirks
By herrdoktor330 on 6/12/2008 6:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't pay Pirks any mind. He's just doing this mad chain of posts to get a date with Justin Long, that mac dude from the Mac vs. PC commericals.

He's trying to find the right plug to fit his firewire port, if you catch my drift.

... yea. I went there...


RE: @ Pirks
By herrdoktor330 on 6/12/2008 7:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
You know what... I'm not finished.

You, Pirks, are single-handedly helping propagate the stereotype that Mac users are self-righeous, uppidy, elitist jerks who think that they're doing the world a big favor by buying a Mac and giving the world a double dose of smug about how great it is and how dumb the rest of the world is for not getting on the boat. Have you ever heard the old saying that "You attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar"? If you really want to sell people on an idea, you don't want to go around bashing people. That's just not cool.

I don't have anything bad to say about Mac. I've seen it. I've used it. It's not bad. The hardware: it's Intel stuff now, so there isn't much to say about it. It's the same hardware wise as any PC out there. We get it... you love the product. There's alot to like about it because Mac does sell quality hardware. I know. I tried a personal Mac Pro "Apple Store vs. Newegg" by pricing the hardware piece by piece. And while I priced a Skulltrail mobo into my build, there really wasn't much difference.

So in a sense, I even agree with you. But what I don't agree with is going around flaming everyone who has a different opinion than you. If I went around berating everyone because they didn't agree with me, it wouldn't be as productive and educational to hear out the other side and let bygones be bygones and leave to each their own.

I mean, dude... you have a whole string dedicated just to you. Doesn't that kind of ring in as an exponent to your level of ***-hatisim?

So please... for the love of god... stop. It's fighting a battle where noone wins. It's M.A.D. at the forum level. The Mac/PC debate will rage on until the world blows up or one company folds. Accept it.

And go ahead and flame me if you want. It's just going to further prove my point of everything I just said here.


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/12/2008 8:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So please... for the love of god... stop
Don't you want to ask Apple bashers like Reclaimer to stop spreading their lies first?

I don't get it. Why you guys attack the symptom of the illness instead of the cause? The symptom is me and my postings, but the cause of my postings is Reclaimer, borismkv and other Apple bashers who never stop spreading lies about Apple products.

So go ask them, not me. Once they stop lying - I stop making fun of them. Is that clear?


RE: @ Pirks
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2008 9:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
Know whats really funny ? I'm about 85% convinced Perks doesn't even own a Mac. He just likes being in the cool kids fanboi club and trolling.

I have never had to lie to point out flaws in the Mac. Perks definition of a lie is if you didn't know they added fullscreen to free Quicktime .3 versions ago or whatever, knowing full well PC people don't use it. Notice he avoids every solid point and freaks out when he finds a mistake to jump on and call everyone a liar.

Perks also posted a link as " proof " that Apple is outselling Dell. But the link clearly states they weren't taking into account Dells internet sales, which makes up the majority of their business. Talk about liars...

quote:
You, Pirks, are single-handedly helping propagate the stereotype that Mac users are self-righeous, uppidy, elitist jerks who think that they're doing the world a big favor by buying a Mac and giving the world a double dose of smug about how great it is and how dumb the rest of the world is for not getting on the boat.


Hell I thought that about Mac users before. If Pirks actually does own a Mac, their stock is falling IMO.


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/12/2008 9:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you didn't know they added fullscreen to free Quicktime .3 versions ago or whatever, knowing full well PC people don't use it
The question is: if you know nothing about it - why you even talking about it? Isn't it smarter to stay silent about things you know nothing about?


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/12/2008 9:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Reclaimer, here's a nice new target for ya, feel free to go and flame that stupid guy from AnandTech, his name is Anand or something, he's obviously a Mac fanatic because in this article -> http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=33... <- he says, you know, absolutely horrible things, like "most innovative player in the PC space right now happens to be Apple"

I really love the fact that Anand actually posts things in line with my view, not in line with Reclaimer's view.

And it's a double pleasure to watch these articles posted on a hardcore PC site.

Eat this, Reclaimer :P

It's easy to pick on me, but you hide like a coward and say nothing in comments to this article. Are you afraid of Anand, Mr. Apple Bashing Coward?


RE: @ Pirks
By Rulother on 6/12/2008 11:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
I was kinda expecting more of a response to the thread towards you, so I gotta give him that. The thing that HP is trying to do is create that ~style~ that Apple has managed to create/keep through out all these years as Apple's distinct look and style has basically set itself apart from everyone else. People can agrue against it but you know it to be true, otherwise Apple wouldn't be doing so well.


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 12:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing that HP is trying to do is create that style
You mean _mimic_ that style, cause it was _created_ by Apple, not by HP. PC makers prefer to mimic Apple designs, instead of creating original and _successful_ designs on their own.

Check this one out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laptops -> The Apple PowerBook series, introduced in October 1991, pioneered changes that are now de facto standards on laptops, such as room for a palm rest, and the inclusion of a pointing device <- this is just one of the many examples

Educate yourself a little, then you'll go a long way beyond blind people like Reclaimer, borismkv and many other PC fanatics on this forum.


RE: @ Pirks
By Rulother on 6/13/2008 3:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying Apple is the only one that can have style? :P That's a bit harsh to say the least, at least HP is trying. Call it what you will, it's still progress.


RE: @ Pirks
By Rulother on 6/13/2008 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well I should of read all of your post before jumping to the reply button.

I know of and used to use one of those power books back in the day myself. The fact that Apple pioneered the innovations that are in use today has no subject matter here, aside from giving them a pat on the back and perhaps a cookie. Are you trying to just add fuel to the fire here or maybe I'm missing the point/relation of them creating these innovations and how HP is trying to make their computers more stylistic. Smart companies that see something that works and sells well will try to mimic/copy the same thing/idea, it's business. It's what they add to it that sets them apart, and I'm not bashing Apple here just saying that's all. That's how progress works as well, getting the train moving. Should we be calling out Sony/Nintendo etc for using rumble like vibrations within their devices because the Sidewinder with Force Feedback was the first to utilize the idea? (Yes I could be wrong on who was first to create the ~device~ BUT you get the general idea). But no we accept it cause it allows the world as a whole to progress. Jesus lol.


RE: @ Pirks
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 3:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not bashing HP for doing what they do - ripping off MacBook Air. I'm just reminding Apple bashers and Windows zealots like Reclaimer77 that Apple hardware is totally _not_ about sticking the fastest available quad in your cheapo ATX box for the least amount of money.

When Reclaimer and other Windows zealots hear that, they start spewing obvious bull$hit about Apple hardware sucking JUST BECAUSE the poor people like Reclaimer with low income can't afford buying Apple hardware, they prefer much cheaper PC ATX self-assembled boxes instead.

This is akin to saying that Lexus sucks compared to Toyota just because you don't have money to buy Lexus, you can only afford Toyota.

Do you understand the essence of our dispute now?


RE: @ Pirks
By Rulother on 6/13/2008 5:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
I know what you're saying and understand where you are coming from. They are just saying that Apple and PC are all built from the same components. The difference is the software put on em. When I say "same components" I don't mean the exact same, but those whom are educated shouldn't need me to further explain that. The difference is the price and what you're getting for it and that's basically the OS and the fancy case the parts come in. I guess the main thing that bugs me is the upped cost that Apple charges for it.

Another thing is, you can't say HP is totally ripping of the Mac Air as the goal for laptop makers has been to make laptops thiner and weigh less. Yes, the Macbook air beat everyone to the punch on that one, but does that mean everyone else should stop and accept the feat Apple has accomplished or go continue doing what they do, it's called competition and without it, Apple wouldnt care to make the Macbook air as their powerbook from eons ago would of been ~enough~.

One thing... There is no way you can use comparing a Lexus to a Toyota for a Mac and a P.C. A better analogy would be comparing a SUV to a regular Sedan. It just depends on the type of person and their needs.


Better be "free" indeed!
By gochichi on 6/9/2008 9:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with everyone else on this, I don't think you should have to choose between having an outdated OS or shelling out over $100 each year it "feels like".

And I tell you... it "feels like" Apple is there to nickel and dime you on each and every update. Not all Apple software should have free updates, just the following ones: iWork (should be free and come with every Mac too, not cost extra), iLife, and Mac OS X. I think that's a very reasonable request.

I think every time you buy a Mac, you ought to be able to register to get free update disks in the mail for 3-years... included in the high price. Instead, it's like a foreign car... and a Saab or Mercedez at that... as opposed to a BMW or a Honda. You pay extra going in, and then the oil change is like $90.00. It's too much expense APPLE! TOO MUCH!

Let the folks with Leopard at least get a free update... for crying out loud!

I think the little talked about reason this OS is going to be released is to try to stop Hackingtosh from entering the mainstream. Do us all a favor and just open the OS to all computers!




RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 9:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but people should get a clue beforehand about what they are getting into.

Apple exists to bleed dry its customer base with small sales numbers of overpriced average performing PC gear coupled with craptastic OS's that are updated about once a year for another $100+.

How can they get away with this ? Its a social movement made up of ignorant shills who think they are somehow " sticking it to Microsoft ". That they are part of some special exclusive club of progressive thinkers or something.

But what do you expect from a company that has built its entire user base on the fact that its users couldn't do simple things like turn their PC's on or get a digital camera to work with Windows ?


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 6:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't that Mac hardware costs a lot for what it is, the prices are very reasonable actually. If you have that money available.

It is that there are no lower configuration options available than that MacBook or that Mac Pro. It is therefore easy to compare some 2" thick POS PC laptop to the MacBook and say "it's cheaper, look!". IIRC a MacBook Pro was found to be the world's fastest Vista laptop, so what's that say about your "average performing PC gear" comment?

Normally Windows is updated every two or three years. 95 -> 98 -> ME -> XP ... but they really screwed the pooch with Longhorn, which by accident made XP a far better purchase, value wise, than Microsoft intended. Windows 7 will be 2009, so about 30 months after Vista, so back on track on the release schedule.

Mac OS X looks like it is going to be a bi-yearly release schedule now as well. Of course, you can get the fully featured OS for $129 each time (or you can choose to skip).

I agree that you shouldn't pay for necessary upgrades that fix deficiencies. I don't know if Snow Leopard will have $129 worth of new features inside. Maybe it will be cheaper.

And most Mac users I know don't think they're "sticking it to Microsoft", they have no interest in Microsoft, they might even use Office on their Mac. It's just that they prefer the system overall, for one reason or another. Maybe it just works for them! Out of the box.

I'd argue that the reason that most PCs come with a card reader port these days is because most users still can't get their digital camera to work with Windows.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But what do you expect from a company that has built its entire user base on the fact that its users couldn't do simple things like turn their PC's on or get a digital camera to work with Windows ?


I'm sorry, but that statement is just as accurate as me saying that WIndows is for idiots who couldn't find their way around a UNIX command line. How ignorant are these people? The OS is there to abstract the details of the hardware and the Mac OS does a damned fine job of that. If someone can't figure out how to connect their digital camera to their Windows PC, but can figure out how to connect it to a Mac, which OS is doing the better job?

Personally, I went over to Apple because I was fed up with the rubbish that Microsoft was making. So, yeah, I do think that I'm "sticking it to Microsoft" because I voted with my wallet. This is a policy I apply to everything - if I don't like a product then I'll buy a competitors that does a better job for me. It's not difficult, and it's not something to be mocked.

Seriously, I can't believe that you are practically praising Windows because its more difficult.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 4:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but that statement is just as accurate as me saying that WIndows is for idiots who couldn't find their way around a UNIX command line.


Not exactly. You have seen the commercials right ? Every one featured some Mac idiot saying something like " Omg like, I plugged the camera in, and like, it didn't work right off the bat ! " Yeah idiot, all you had to do was click NEXT when plug and play popped up ! Every add involves some simple moron who needs a simple computer.

I think plugging in perriphials , which requires an IQ of about 40, and mastering the UNIX command line, are extremely opposite views don't you ? Nice try.

quote:
Personally, I went over to Apple because I was fed up with the rubbish that Microsoft was making.


I know Vista had a horrible launch. I'm on record on DT for bashing Vista several times. But can you be more specific about this " rubbish " you had to put up with ?

quote:
Seriously, I can't believe that you are practically praising Windows because its more difficult.


Of course you WOULD say its " harder ", because your a Mac guy. Thanks for actually proving my point for me. Where did I say Windows was harder ?

Mac's " Build for Idiots, By Idiots ".


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 3:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
OK, let's go through this.

quote:
You have seen the commercials right ? Every one featured some Mac idiot saying something like " Omg like, I plugged the camera in, and like, it didn't work right off the bat ! " Yeah idiot, all you had to do was click NEXT when plug and play popped up ! Every add involves some simple moron who needs a simple computer.


Fortunately, they don't do adverts on the television for the Mac in Belgium, so I'm spared the Mac vs. PC ads. What you have to understand here, with the digital camera example, is that the drivers for all major cameras are built into the OS and are updated relatively frequently (note: there has been periods when drivers for brand new cameras have not been available). So, on a Mac it is literally just a case of plugging in the camera - iPhoto or your other selected application will start and pictures will be downloaded. Sure, on a Windows PC you might be able to just run through a PnP wizard, or install the drivers that came with the camera, and that is simple enough. The difference here is that, on a Mac, that installation process isn't necessary, and that's why its easier. If you introduce additional steps to a process then it annoys the user and it just isn't necessary.

quote:
I think plugging in perriphials , which requires an IQ of about 40, and mastering the UNIX command line, are extremely opposite views don't you ? Nice try.


I agree entirely, but if you are going to provide silly statements that suggest that making the user perform entirely unnecessary steps is unimportant, then I'm going to provide silly counter-arguments. If we can both agree that both statements are silly then we can all move on.

quote:
I know Vista had a horrible launch. I'm on record on DT for bashing Vista several times. But can you be more specific about this " rubbish " you had to put up with ?


Issues with XP about 5-years ago. Problems getting the damned computer to start up, error messages during use, and Windows generally getting in the way. The startup issues were hardware related, but the error messages tended to be stuff like "can't delete file because its in use". I decided to give a PowerBook a try since I needed to switch from a desktop to a laptop (plus Java was treated as a first-class API by Apple at that time) and have been amazed how much less hassle the Mac OS is. These days I'm running a MacBook Pro with XP SP2 installed via VMWare Fusion for Windows-only applications at work and the contrast between the 2 is stark.

quote:
Of course you WOULD say its " harder ", because your a Mac guy. Thanks for actually proving my point for me. Where did I say Windows was harder ?


I was a dyed-in-the-wool DOS and Windows guy for about 15-years prior to my switch, so I think I've earned the right to comment for both sides, with the exception of Vista. Given that I use Windows on most working days I can easily compare the 2. So, while I certainly consider myself a "Mac Guy", I am not an "Apple Fanboy" and I can provide an impartial opinion. So, if I say that Windows is harder for what I do then I mean it. In this respect I am confused as to what point I have proven for you. What you said was the following:

quote:
But what do you expect from a company that has built its entire user base on the fact that its users couldn't do simple things like turn their PC's on or get a digital camera to work with Windows ?


By definition you are saying here that Windows is more complex, without actually saying it explicitly. You are saying that it's more complicated to turn on a Windows PC (a statement, incidentally, that I don't necessarily agree with, although some manufacturers do try to do things differently). You are saying that it is more complicated to connect a digital camera to a Windows PC. So while you have not actually said "Windows is harder", you've provided examples where you say that a stupid user can't perform an action on a Windows PC but can on a Mac. The implication that you are making, of course, is that Apple users are dumb, but by saying that they can use a Mac without issue also implies that Windows is harder. You can't make the argument that Windows is easier with statements like that.

Here's the thing - Apple puts the user experience first. With Windows, that's not quite the same. A prime example can be seen with the Windows User Account Control in Vista, which Microsoft openly says that they introduced to annoy the user in order to stop them from accessing functions that could be considered hazardous. Is annoying the user the only way they could achieve the goal? I don't think so, but it gives an idea of the mentality at work there.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2008 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fortunately, they don't do adverts on the television for the Mac in Belgium, so I'm spared the Mac vs. PC ads. What you have to understand here, with the digital camera example, is that the drivers for all major cameras are built into the OS and are updated relatively frequently (note: there has been periods when drivers for brand new cameras have not been available). So, on a Mac it is literally just a case of plugging in the camera - iPhoto or your other selected application will start and pictures will be downloaded. Sure, on a Windows PC you might be able to just run through a PnP wizard, or install the drivers that came with the camera, and that is simple enough. The difference here is that, on a Mac, that installation process isn't necessary, and that's why its easier. If you introduce additional steps to a process then it annoys the user and it just isn't necessary.


Sure because with the Mac you only have about , what , ten cameras MAX to choose from ? Of course the OS has the drivers for them. Its impossible to expect the same out of WIndows massive amount of supported hardware.

quote:
Issues with XP about 5-years ago. Problems getting the damned computer to start up, error messages during use, and Windows generally getting in the way. The startup issues were hardware related, but the error messages tended to be stuff like "can't delete file because its in use".


Ugh typical Mac persons " issues " with Windows. Yeah, you had hardware issues which can radically effect how the OS behaves. And the file in use issue means, dummy, the FILE is in USE ! I knew it. Every single TIME Mac people cite their issues with Windows its something a ten year old figured out within two days of using the OS. You switched to a more expensive platform because of bad hardware and ignorance ? Well whatever floats your boat.

quote:
So, if I say that Windows is harder for what I do then I mean it. In this respect I am confused as to what point I have proven for you. What you said was the following:


You still have not quantified what about Windows is " harder ". All I know is you had some undisclosed hardware issue, and the simplest of warning messages leaves you at a loss.

Come to think of it, its a good thing people like you pick another platform. I can't fathom how anyone could claim Windows is " hard ". An OS that never requires you to use the command line or a terminal. You want hard ? Try doing ANYTHING in Linux. Thats hard.

quote:
Here's the thing - Apple puts the user experience first. With Windows, that's not quite the same. A prime example can be seen with the Windows User Account Control in Vista, which Microsoft openly says that they introduced to annoy the user in order to stop them from accessing functions that could be considered hazardous. Is annoying the user the only way they could achieve the goal? I don't think so, but it gives an idea of the mentality at work there.


If Windows didn't try to put the user first, it wouldn't be the number one OS of choice for the ENTIRE PLANET.

The UAC was put in place because of people like you, who just could not seem to understand even the most basic understanding of pointing and clicking with a mouse. It can easily be disabled. You seem to be more hung up on the way they worded the feature " annoying ", then the actual goal of the system. Which is quite novel. Its just unfortunate they had to waste time on it because of ignorant people like you.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
with the Mac you only have about , what , ten cameras MAX to choose from
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475 - this is just about RAW support but it sort of indicates the range of lies Reclaimer employs. The guy obviously knows absolutely nothing about internet, Google search and Apple itself ;)
quote:
I can't fathom how anyone could claim Windows is "hard"
Usually people compare Mac OS X to Windows when they say that. Windows may be easier to use than Linux, but it's still hard compared to Mac OS X. You know, all this stuff with stupid UAC prompts which you will never see on a Mac because Mac designers actually used their BRAIN when they designed the system. Nobody says UAC is not necessary - it is necessary in some form, but what people tend to say is that MS implementation of UAC is very dumb and ignorant. Compare it with user friendly Mac security without all this annoyance.
quote:
If Windows didn't try to put the user first, it wouldn't be the number one OS of choice for the ENTIRE PLANET
That's true but things are changing slowly, I think it may make sense for MS to start putting user first again (not their recent UAC annoyance style, you know). Especially now when Mac prices are in line with PC prices (compare iMac with similar systems from other PC vendors like Dell or Sony to see my point) and users have no more incentive to pick PC instead of a Mac just because of the price as it used to be several years ago.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 5:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry that you don't understand, and I pity anyone that tries to explain something to you because you seem to be unable to grasp simple concepts. Do I need to draw you a flow chart or something here? So, for the final time, here's the issue:

"Windows is harder because it requires you to perform more actions to achieve a task. In the example given, the connection of a digital camera, Windows requires you to install the software by going through an Installation Wizard. On a Mac, you just plug in the camera. I'm not saying that an Installation Wizard is complicated, simply that it adds additional, unnecessary, steps to a process."

Windows gave us Plug-n-Play, but hasn't gone as far as it could, as the Mac proves.

quote:
And the file in use issue means, dummy, the FILE is in USE ! I knew it.


Hilarious. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you've never encountered a file that the OS has locked despite no applications being open?

I'm sorry, but you are clearly an idiot, and I don't say this lightly. You appear completely unable to grasp such a simple premise and then suggest that I'm an idiot for choosing a platform that makes my life easier. I have better things to do than troubleshooting issues that don't exist on other platforms, but if you find that sort of thing fun then I have no problem with that.

However, I can't finish this post without this gem:

quote:
The UAC was put in place because of people like you, who just could not seem to understand even the most basic understanding of pointing and clicking with a mouse. It can easily be disabled. You seem to be more hung up on the way they worded the feature " annoying ", then the actual goal of the system. Which is quite novel. Its just unfortunate they had to waste time on it because of ignorant people like you.


Seriously, you should consider framing that. That the solution to UAC is always "just disable it" is amazing. Why would anyone include a feature that everyone turns off? That doesn't strike you as odd? David Cross has gone on record at the RSA security conference this year to say "The reason we put UAC into the platform was 'to annoy users'." Why the hell would you design features in your product to annoy your customers? I don't know of any other OS that finds this necessary, yet apparently Microsoft can't find another solution to the problem. Pure comedy.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 5:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I pity anyone that tries to explain something to you
That would be me :-) Yeah, I try sometimes to explain same basic things as you do, but Reclaimer seems to be not the kind of guy you can explain something to. That's why I just make fun of him :-) Although sometimes I post more serious replies when I'm in a mood.

See now where my insults come from? Imagine that you post all your detailed and resonable posts to a Windows zealot like Reclaimer, and you get absoluetly zero feedback, he just keeps telling you same lies again and again. You lose your patience and start calling names.

That's how this happens, kelmon, and you better stop posting for Reclaimer if you don't want to follow my steps. You already called him an idiot and it will only get worse, trust me on that, I know these people very well, just look at my rating! To avoid being downrated to zero like me you have to have a REALLY strong nerve/patience and you shouldn't mind repeating the same stuff over and over again to dumb people who don't even try to understand what you are talking about.
quote:
That the solution to UAC is always "just disable it" is amazing. Why would anyone include a feature that everyone turns off?
Jesus Fcking Christ!!! I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION HERE SOOO MAANYY TIMES!! And you know what I got in response? MINUS ONE RATING! ALWAYS! ALWAYYSS!!! kelmon, kelmon, you don't know who are you talking to, you have no idea who are DT forum readers, you are just wasting your time here, trust me on that.
quote:
That doesn't strike you as odd?
The fact that I got -1 rating for asking the same question stroke me as odd first time, but the second and further times I stopped perceiving this as odd. Now I'm more surprised if I post some truthful piece of info about Apple and am NOT getting downrated to -1 for that. This is DT, man! Get used to that already :)


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2008 1:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hilarious. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you've never encountered a file that the OS has locked despite no applications being open?


Then a process is using the file. You know what processes are right ?

quote:
Windows gave us Plug-n-Play, but hasn't gone as far as it could, as the Mac proves.


I agree. They COULD go as far as to carry drivers within the OS itself to natively install and run every single piece of PC hardware made to date. I mean, I suppose thats possible. But uhh....

quote:
Seriously, you should consider framing that. That the solution to UAC is always "just disable it" is amazing. Why would anyone include a feature that everyone turns off? That doesn't strike you as odd? David Cross has gone on record at the RSA security conference this year to say "The reason we put UAC into the platform was 'to annoy users'." Why the hell would you design features in your product to annoy your customers? I don't know of any other OS that finds this necessary, yet apparently Microsoft can't find another solution to the problem. Pure comedy.


You must have thought I was actually supporting the UAC. I understand why they did it, thats all. Simple fact is most of Windows " problems " are just users like you, so they felt UAC was a needed change.

Honestly, are you going to sit here to my face and tell me you have NEVER adjusted your Mac OS and disabled certain features and apps that came stock ? Ever ? Please, just don't.

Yes, UAC does suck. Period. But just turn it off.

I'm not sure how the UAC validates your argument fully. Besides, again, I'm on record for saying Vista could/should have been A LOT better. I'm running XP pro by the way, and will continue to run it 'till Windows 7 comes out.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By kelmon on 6/12/2008 2:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that's a bit more reasonable, so maybe worth a response.

quote:
Then a process is using the file. You know what processes are right ?


I have a Masters degree in IT with distinction, so, yes, I think I know what a process is. The problem here is that if you have no applications running, yet a file is still locked by a process, how do you identify which process has locked the file, or if that process is even still running and has released the lock? There's probably a command line tool that will identify the culprit, but the problem is just exacerbated by Windows that won't let you do anything with a file while it thinks it is in use. The Mac OS is not like this. You can move, rename and delete files without any issue, and applications that you using them deal quite happily with the update. No error messages, and the OS doesn't get in the way of you achieving what it is that you wanted to do.

quote:
Honestly, are you going to sit here to my face and tell me you have NEVER adjusted your Mac OS and disabled certain features and apps that came stock ? Ever ? Please, just don't.


Adjusted the OS, yes, but by leveraging the functionality inherent in it. I honestly can't think of any functionality that I've disabled because there has never been a need to do so. And, to be fair, I can't think of anything under Windows that I've had need to disable in the past, with the exception of some of the old processes that came with MS Office (I think one was called Quick Start, or something like that, and it did basically nothing except use CPU time). Since I've gone no further with Vista than a few of the betas I have not had the pleasure of dealing with UAC, but it sounds like the first instance of an OS feature that everyone disables.

To be fair, the UAC and camera scenarios don't validate my argument, but it is the culmination of little things like this that makes you wonder who designed Windows and thought this was OK. With the exception of the Windows Registry I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the platform, but those smaller things just drove me to the point that I looked for an alternative, and at that stage Apple was finally getting their act together. I mean, why is there no keyboard shortcut in Windows to create a new Folder? Such a common action but yet you must go through menus to achieve that goal. It's the little things...


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Pirks on 6/12/2008 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how do you identify which process has locked the file
Use ProcessExplorer -> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb...
quote:
it sounds like the first instance of an OS feature that everyone disables
Yeah, majority of users (most likely including Reclaimer too) disable it, because they are dumb and don't undersand a thing about how UAC works and what its purpose is. Smart users, however, instead of disabling it choose to update old XP-oriented software with new Vista-friendly versions. I replaced MeGUI with Handbrake as my video encoding tool precisely for this reason - MeGUI always wanted admin rights just to encode a video clip, and Handbrake is not written by braindead XP-oriented developers as was the case with MeGUI, so Handbrake never ever brings out that dreaded UAC prompt. I agree that UAC was designed by idiots, but the general idea behind it is very much justified. Think about it - how are you going to stimulate lazy software "developers" without brains to rewrite their software in such a way that it stops requesting admin rights every time you move a mouse or something? There seems to be no obvious direct way to punish ONLY THE DEVELOPERS AND NOT THE USERS for doing the stupid things that undermine system security. Hence the users must suffer as well.

If this implementation is wrong - how would YOU approach it if you were chief Vista architect? How would you push JUST the developers to update their software ASAP, without touching users AT ALL? Is this even possible IN THEORY?

Apple never had to do that because they developed their OS with proper design from the scratch, without legacy DOS/Win95 crap that is still everywhere in Vista (disk letters and windows registry anyone?), hence MS was kind of handicapped here - they had to support older software because of all their corporate customers and such.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2008 5:15:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Mac OS is not like this. You can move, rename and delete files without any issue, and applications that you using them deal quite happily with the update. No error messages, and the OS doesn't get in the way of you achieving what it is that you wanted to do.


Because if Windows worked this way, they would get 1,4344,534,4534534543,4353453 calls a day to their Windows Support Center from angry people wondering why they could delete files and folders without the OS warning them they were doing it. Or why they could move/delete protected files without the OS telling them they were protected. And so on and so on. Can you imagine ?

Also if thats the case why does this website even exist ?
http://www.macfixit.com/
" system not shutting off "
" Photoshop file corruption when saving remotely "
" iTunes crashing "
" Time Machine update fails halfway "
" Quicktime 7.5 slow, choppy playback. Startup issues, crashes "
" Poor AirPort throughput on MacBook Pros "
" Time Machine driver gets changed to read-only. HELP ! "
" Mac OSX 10.5.3 System refuses to boot !! "
" FireWire drivers not mounting, hangs on sleep "

Hey, there are thousands more examples of Mac's " just working " policy there. In fact I just bookmarked it because reading it put a big smile on my face. Especially when the only way to fix some of the problems is to roll back your entire OS to an older version or reformatting all together. I don't remember doing that when a Windows bug comes up. Because they actually fix things instead of charging you for updates.

quote:
To be fair, the UAC and camera scenarios don't validate my argument, but it is the culmination of little things like this that makes you wonder who designed Windows and thought this was OK.


When designing ANYTHING for a massive number of people, you have to keep the lowest common element in mind. This is why Linux OS's will never see mass desktop appeal.

I think Windows strikes a good balance of being powerful and flexible for power users and businesses, while also being easy enough and manageable for light users and novices. I don't love every single feature of Windows, but what am I gonna do ? It runs ALL my software, supports any and all hardware, and its great for gaming too. Plus the platform does not prohibit me from building my own systems and upgrading them myself. Something Apple doesn't seem to want anybody doing.

quote:
I mean, why is there no keyboard shortcut in Windows to create a new Folder? Such a common action but yet you must go through menus to achieve that goal. It's the little things...


You have a masters degree in IT and THATS bothering you ? I can't answer why Windows doesn't natively provide a specific key for this task. But this is easily solved by a programmable keyboard anyway. I highly recommend the MS Natural Ergonomic 4000 keyboard.

Windows was built around a two or more button mouse anyway. With a single right click I can make a new folder, shortcut, Briefcase, Image, word/notepad document , make a zip or .rar archive etc etc. Do you think the average user wants to memorize 5,000 + keyboard shortcuts when the mouse is so much easier and intuitive ? I sure don't.

But look, I see what your saying. I'm glad Mac's work for you. I just don't buy into the whole " We'll assume your an idiot AND charge you more money, and you'll love it " approach. That never works in electronics. Its working for Apple because they are stressing that the social movement of being in the club is more important then the end user experience.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Pirks on 6/12/2008 7:13:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its working for Apple because they are stressing that the social movement of being in the club is more important then the end user experience.
In fact it's the opposite for me and for kelmon too - we like Macs for great UI (less intrusive and annoying compared to Windows) and don't give a fck about its club of fags or somethin'. I hate insane Mac prices probably even more than you do ;-)

I routinely take a shot or two at Mac using dumbfcks who don't get why I still build my gaming rig all by myself if I can get a nice cute Mac Mini for the same price. But this is normal, as Mac fanatics are not really representative, same's true for Windows fanatics too - I'm sure there are tons and tons of Windows users who don't spread lies like "Quicktime can't show fullscreen video", hence if you lied about Quicktime this doesn't mean that Windows is bad.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't turn off UAC. I am far from the average user but I still like the idea of knowing when something tries to install itself. Sure for some things it means I have to hit Continue when an application starts up, but this takes about 1 second and doesn't annoy me.

About the only issue with Vista I've had is Ventrilo not properly saving my configuration settings for my headset while it worked fine in XP.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By BucDan on 6/10/2008 1:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
it's not exactly that they have outdated parts, i mean its still a dual core and a core 2 duo, which came out about a good 2 years ago, so it isnt all that old like old pentium d, BUT, the price tags that they put on these parts is not worth the money imho.

and the updates that apple does, a good 100+ for small incremental service packs is not worth the money either. id rather buy the full 64 bit vista ultimate and get free service packs, i dont plan on shellin 100+ bucks every bi-year.

and that's one thing that they(apple) lack, is the support for all computers, they are isolating themselves and uing closed source parts, almost forcing you to use their stuff only.

and when they bash windows on their apps, how come i see the major microsoft projects such as office 04 and the new 0ffice 08 being released? and being used greatly by many mac users who still bash on MS, for a reason im not too sure about,to me, MS is actually saving Apple in a certain way that'll keep them up, and i dont see microsoft wanting to compete head to head, since they are pretty much on a verge of a big monopoly.

so in the end of my honest opinions, they gotta open up, lower prices, and STOP feeding on folks who are willing to spend alot of money on whole new Mac upgrades and not incremental computer components that can be used to upgrade parts(like us PC users).

yea mac has it's ease of use, start it up, not too many bloatware, preinstalled drivers(good thing), preinstalled decent apps(another good thing),not much games for being the "cool guys comp"(boo),and just no big configurations to get things up, perfect setup especially if i were to get a computer to someone that doesnt know the big and specific picture of computing and it's coming and needs the ease of use because they dont wanna try to work it out for any reason. oh, and yea, the single body design is easy and compact, but that still doesnt justify its price fully even with all of those ease of use, and free apps; also it's like name brand, because its an apple, itll cost more since they make their own products in a closed source for themselves, just like....american eagle or old navy...of course you know which would be more pricey, kind of a comparison on reason of price; brand, and just...brand
But that's when PC comes in and well, if you buy from dell, yes there is bloatware but it can be dealt with(that's why you build your own comp with an install disk to avoid all of this and hopefully trying to save money, unless dell has a coupon that you just cant personally beat), more recent drivers from manufactures,games, and all 3rd party apps you can think of.

thats why i prefer PC, all of that typing i just did.


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Icelight on 6/10/2008 11:30:38 AM , Rating: 3
Very cool! Not only can you see into the future, but you seem to have swept away all other versions of Windows Vista with merely a few strokes on your keyboard!


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 3:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
Of course he swept away all stripped down versions of Vsita, and you know why? Because he's trying to do a FAIR comparison of FULL versions of both operating systems. Got it?


RE: Better be "free" indeed!
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 6:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's a reasonably good statement, although one that Apple themselves will clearly disagree with. Certainly, I'd support anything that means I get free stuff, particularly when the initial investment is pretty high. Nice idea.


OSX
By borismkv on 6/9/2008 5:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Service pack 6. Hurray. Maybe they'll put some text on their BSoD this time.




RE: OSX
By aharris on 6/9/2008 6:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
Silly goose: OS X kernel panics have text already.

http://www.dashboardwidgets.com/showcase/data/57/K...

We never claimed it was perfect, we just claim it's better than the credit everyone gives it. =)


RE: OSX
By borismkv on 6/9/2008 7:16:14 PM , Rating: 3
Why don't they just make it say "Service engine soon"?


RE: OSX
By aharris on 6/9/2008 7:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
Got a good laugh out of me.

To that I say: if it read "Service Engine Soon" that would imply that the core kernel needed repairs. This is contrary to the usual truth regarding kernel panics that: 1) There's a serious hardware flaw with the system; or 2) The user and/or their apps somehow caused the instability we see.

With the exception of the initial 10.0-10.2 OS Kernels, OS X has been fairly stable for a while. Every single Kernel Panic I've seen in recent years has been caused by bad memory/logic board/cpu, a software company that refuses to code per Apple's standards, or a user that decided to trash their local library (OS X Equivalent to the system registry, only more logical) and/or other necessary system files.

And while I've said it before, just to clarify any newbies to the discussion: every single iteration of OS X (10.0-10.5) has been a rewrite of the core kernel. These are not "service packs" as a lot of people claim, and that becomes glaringly obvious to any real users of the OS.


RE: OSX
By borismkv on 6/9/2008 11:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, see, I make an analogy with the "Service engine soon" light in the car because of the obvious lack of information given. You see that light go off in your car, and you have no idea what needs to be fixed, so you have to take it to a mechanic.

Windows blue screens have a stop message associated with them, meaning that the code can be looked up to assist in pinpointing the problem, allowing the problem to be fixed quickly and efficiently.

Basically, Apple is making every effort to make sure that they are the ones that fix the problem and therefore profit from it. That isn't to say that an extremely technical person can't fix the problem, but it does mean that the average google monkey can't just look up a code and find a solution.


RE: OSX
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 4:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the average google monkey can't just look up a code and find a solution
Haha, as if it's any different with Windows :))) Of course you also don't know that Mac OS X saves crash dump in a file and anyone with knowledge can examine it at will. You were not borismkv if you knew that :-P


RE: OSX
By darkpaw on 6/10/2008 12:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Any the funny thing is, bad hardware, bad applications, or dumb user error is the only thing that will bluescreen a windows box as well.

You'll never get an Apple fanatic to admit that though.


RE: OSX
By Pirks on 6/11/2008 4:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
bad hardware, bad applications, or dumb user error is the only thing that will bluescreen a windows box as well
Oh, so Windows kernel itself cannot contain any bugs? It's 100% bug free, absolutely bugless codebase? Wow! You Windows zealots are such hilarious crowd, I love ya all!! Post more please, I just looooove your posts guys :))))


RE: OSX
By xti on 6/11/2008 4:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
kneepads are on sale at academy.


RE: OSX
By nitrous9200 on 6/10/2008 1:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every single Kernel Panic I've seen in recent years has been caused by bad memory/logic board/cpu, a software company that refuses to code per Apple's standards, or a user that decided to trash their local library (OS X Equivalent to the system registry, only more logical) and/or other necessary system files.

That happens with PeeCees and Mac users claim it's Windows' fault and that it sucks. And you can crash almost any app in Leopard - just click the Help menu and push Apple + Spacebar. In 2 or 3 seconds it'll crash. Just goes to show you how amazingly bug-free it is.
quote:
These are not "service packs" as a lot of people claim, and that becomes glaringly obvious to any real users of the OS.

Hmm, not to me. I understand they aren't service packs, but I didn't really notice any changes making the upgrade worthwhile (video editing for the past ~5 months on Mac Pros/G5's). Comparing the Tiger machines to the one with Leopard, all I notice is the new dock which doesn't really help me out, the transparent menu bar which doesn't help me out either, and the rewritten dialog boxes. All of the "innovative" features like Spaces and Stacks seem pretty pointless not to mention that windows graphics drivers have supported multiple desktop switching for years. Just looking at the list of "300 new features" makes me laugh, they include things like new fonts, screensavers and widgets as well as support for other languages. New features, yeah right...
and for the record, why don't my movies just drag and drop into iDVD? Isn't it supposed to be SO easy?!


RE: OSX
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 6:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
While I realise you are trying to be funny, you are basically correct that Snow Leopard is almost analogous to a Windows Service Pack, at least based on the currently available information. Prior releases of OS X, with the possible exception of 10.1, cannot be described as being a Service Pack, unless you are prepared to accept Vista as XP SP4, for example. I've had this discussion before and its based on not having any idea what OS X actually is, or what changes between releases beyond what the marketing pages show. However, 10.6 does sound a lot like a Service Pack in that it's intended to improve the foundations of the current OS without adding much in the way of new features. It's probably also fair to say that 10.6 is going to be what 10.5 should have been, and that's a shame. Apple slapping themselves on the back for shipping OS versions faster than Microsoft is only good if the OSs themselves are of good quality, and Leopard certainly could have been better at its release (I'm still having issues caused by proxy server PAC files even in 10.5.3).


A change in ads?
By LorKha on 6/9/2008 5:39:10 PM , Rating: 5
Next generation commercials would have the Windows guy being touched all over by girls, signifying that it is "Multi-touch" based and the Mac guy would be wearing a white-fur coat with spots...




RE: A change in ads?
By Runiteshark on 6/9/2008 5:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
SP6 for OSX, and a really fun version of Windows where they consider 37mb "small" for a kernel.

Man I can't wait.


RE: A change in ads?
By amanojaku on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: A change in ads?
By Doormat on 6/9/2008 6:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Its not unlikely that Cocoa Touch could get in 10.6. Its not certain, and I figure its something they would keep close to the vest until they had the hardware that would require the use of Cocoa Touch APIs (e.g. tablets).


RE: A change in ads?
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 6:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
This is a very good point. Multi-Touch already exists in OS X and has done so for the past year in a shipping product. That the product itself is a phone is immaterial because the OS is still the same OS as found in a Mac bought today with the exception that the interface is provided by the Cocoa Touch API rather than "plain" Cocoa. There is absolutely no reason why Cocoa Touch could not be included in the OS for a Mac tomorrow. The more important question, however, is do we want it? I can see the value of multi-touch in a phone, PDA or tablet PC where the screen is the user interface, but in a "traditional" computer like a desktop or laptop? Honestly, I don't see it's benefits without the addition of a 2nd display that lies horizontally, perhaps like a mousepad. Frankly, anything that means I have to take my hands off the keyboard is, I consider, bad, so I want less of that rather than more. Multi-Touch in a traditional computer is just going to be a feature that sounds cool but doesn't have any practical benefits.


Bull
By SiliconAddict on 6/9/2008 6:55:50 PM , Rating: 4
I look at what Apple is saying and frankly it smacks of being an excuse to explain how to keep working on OS X while migrating resources over to the iPhone. Its obvious from the picts at WWDC if Jobs could make sweet love to the iPhone he would be all over it, and over it again.
It was one of the core reasons why 10.5 was late and I'll bet cash is the reason why 10.6 is a "breather" OS. But don't worry folks. There will be some new "feature" to and 200 new GUI changes (Font, button colors, start up logo.) to make 10.6 sound NEW AND IMPROVED! Best OS X EVAR!
*sighs* The RDF doesn't hit me as hard as it did a couple years ago. I just don't buy the marketing anymore.




RE: Bull
By cmdrdredd on 6/9/2008 9:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the iPhone really sucks and Apple screws you on the warranty for the crapass battery they install and you can't replace. Also, touchscreen typing isn't there yet, not on such a small screen. Unless you have the fingers of a first grader you'll hit the wrong thing 50% of the time. ANNOYING!

I'll wait for the new Blackberry which will also be 3G and is 100% better than anything Apple has. The iPhone could have been good, but it's really not.

As for OSX...$129 every year to 2 years is too much. With windows you pay $200 or so initially but that gets you service packs for 5+ years.


RE: Bull
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 7:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter if you hit the wrong key on the on-screen keyboard, as long as you hit the correct area. The software will auto-correct based on typing close enough to what you intended. It appears that this is a big mental step to take, but once it is done people stop having issues with the keyboard.

Given that so many people (6 million) are happy with the iPhone and that you presumably don't have one, I think I'll disregard your opinions. How will the new Blackberry be 100% better, really? A tiny keypad that is actually very hard to use, and can't refactor itself for other languages, different applications, etc?

So Windows 7 is coming out in 2012 is it? And we jumped from 95 to ME? No. 95->98->ME->XP->(longhorn failure)->Vista->Win7.


RE: Bull
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
I do agree with that, although perhaps not with the same colorful language. It is clear that the iPhone occupies a 3rd pillar in Apple's product line (with the Mac and iPod representing the others) and that this pillar is probably the most important to Apple at this time. Part of the reason why this is the case is because that pillar needs to succeed and you're not going to succeed if you don't invest heavily. Look at the Microsoft Zune as an example of how not to do this. Sure, the product is fine, but Microsoft has completely failed to invest enough into this, perhaps to avoid taking resources from elsewhere, such that the Zune has failed to penetrate the market to any degree worth knowing about. Apple clearly is going balls-out with the iPhone, and I agree that this shows in both their other product lines and what they want to talk about.

So, yes, I do think the Mac platform is suffering due to the iPhone. How long this will continue for is open to debate...


"Better use"
By Some1ne on 6/9/2008 7:57:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
better use of large amounts of RAM


Hm...so when new Windows features require extra memory, it's called "bloated", but when new Mac OS features do the same thing, it's called making "better use" of available RAM? Yeah, that sounds about right.




RE: "Better use"
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: "Better use"
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
It's all in how you spin it.


RE: "Better use"
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 6:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are trying to spin this incorrectly. "Better use of large amounts of RAM" means that the OS will take advantage of large pools of RAM when it is available, not that it will require more. You will be familiar with the concept that after a given point, adding more RAM to a system ceases to deliver additional benefit in terms of performance. It seems that Apple is seeking to move that point a bit further out. Given that RAM costs peanuts these days, this is to be welcomed and not ridiculed.


It just works!
By chmilz on 6/9/2008 7:15:10 PM , Rating: 1
On one carefully configured, overpriced, milky white box of dated parts that the PC guys don't want. Homogenized computing camouflaged as baby puke.

Windows "usually works" on >1,000,000 different configurations of hardware including hundreds of new components that aren't even out yet, and won't require an expensive software upgrade to use when they are.




RE: It just works!
By michael2k on 6/9/2008 7:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
1) You're a couple years out of date. Only the MacBook is milky, everything else is silver. Oh, and all the specs are current too, C2D, Penryn, 45nm, 802.11n, even quad-core
2) You don't own 1,000,000 different configurations, do you?
3) Why is a $129 upgrade more expensive than a $399 Vista?
4) Why do you think drivers cost Mac users anything? They usually ship with the hardware or they work out of the box (if they use standard interfaces).


RE: It just works!
By talozin on 6/9/2008 7:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and all the specs are current too, C2D, Penryn, 45nm, 802.11n, even quad-core

You left out one very important point: graphics. The high-end graphics option on a Mac Pro is an 8800GT -- which doesn't exactly suck, but is far enough behind the curve to give computer hotrodders heart palpitations. The best you can do with an iMac is an 8800GS. Meh.

In most other respects, you're right; Apple's hardware is actually pretty much up to date now -- they've improved tremendously since the bad old days.


RE: It just works!
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
And if the Mac's primary market was gamers, I'd be agreeing with you. But it's not. So, seriously, who cares about the graphics card that much? As long as it'll do the work that the OS and its applications need then this really is unimportant. The same is true on a PC - only PC gamers are bothered about the graphics card that much. As long as your applications aren't being slowed down by it, and it supports everything that applications and the OS can offload to it, then no one really cares that much. All it needs to be able to do is the job that it was intended to do. Nothing more, and nothing less. You put the hardware in that your customers need. And Apple knows its customers.

I would just like to note that I am not saying that the graphics card is unimportant. I need a good one in my MacBook Pro for working with RAW images in Aperture. What I am saying, however, is that not everyone is bothered about games, or whether their computer will run Crysis. If you are then I will happily recommend that you buy a Windows PC with the biggest SLI configuration that you can buy.


By bunnyfubbles on 6/9/2008 7:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
What's next, Albino Liger?




By suryad on 6/9/2008 8:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Deb: What are you drawing?
Napoleon Dynamite: A liger.
Deb: What's a liger?
Napoleon Dynamite: It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic.


By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder slightly about this myself. I'm not wondering about whether they've run out of big cat names (you've still got the likes of Lynx, Ocelot, etc.), but rather whether they knew this was going to be the plan when Leopard was conceived. Clearly the name has been chosen to imply that it's a different version of Leopard, but whether 10.5 was deliberately named Leopard so that they could release another version of it later is unknown. I think that this was the plan, and that itself is most interesting.


"Features"...?
By Goty on 6/9/2008 8:01:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years..."


Sure, it's just too bad that about half of those "features" were actually bug fixes.




RE: "Features"...?
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
Feel free to back that statement up with examples.


RE: "Features"...?
By Goty on 6/10/2008 5:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
I can't find the article I read citing some of the more ridiculous new "features" added to OS X, but it's out there somewhere.

How about this, I challenge anyone else out there to show me at least 200 (20% of apple's supposed number of new features) new features, and I'll retract my statement. This means features as in new functionality that was neither originally included and then fixed, or standard applications or tool that were meant to be included in the OS originally.


RE: "Features"...?
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 3:22:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm willing to take that challenge, but you'll need to amend the criteria:

1. Features Not Included Originally - Yup, I'm OK with that
2. Features That Aren't Fixes To Existing Features - Very ambiguous. Pure bug fixes should be excluded but I suspect we're going to disagree on what is a fix and what is new.
3. Features That Aren't Standard Applications/Tools - Disagree. There is no "standard" to measure this against.
4. Features That Weren't Meant To Be There Originally - Disagree. How can we know what was supposed to be there, and why would that not be considered a "feature" anyway?

Research for this will probably take a good few hours since I'll need to find the feature lists for the older versions of OS X with which to add to those of the later versions and then remove those that don't measure up to the criteria. However, I'm fairly confident that this can be done with 1 or 2 releases of OS X, let alone all 6.


Is Leopard a better linux?
By bupkus on 6/9/2008 10:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
Each year, little by little, I get more into Linux. Ubuntu is nice as both server & desktop, but I've never used a modern Apple PC.
How does the Apple OS stack up against Ubuntu or any other linux variant?




RE: Is Leopard a better linux?
By psonice on 6/10/2008 5:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on what you want from it. OSX is based on BSD, so a lot of the stuff underneath is very linux like, and you'll be at home in the terminal.

I'd say linux is better in that it's way more flexible and most stuff is open source/free, osx has a better interface, is way lower maintenance (the main reason I use it), and has more useful apps.

Personally, I recommend an OS along the lines of: linux for server use or basic web/word processing stuff, or for geek types, windows if people really need the few windows only apps or still play games on pc, osx for everything else.

Best bet is to give osx a try with one of the hackintosh versions, see how you like it. The 'real thing' will be pretty much the same, but probably more stable and without any hassle.


RE: Is Leopard a better linux?
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
That's a question that needs to know what you want to do before it can be answered. I tend to work a lot with RAW photography files, so tend to spend my time using Apple's Aperture application and Adobe Photoshop. Linux does not have any real competitors to Photoshop (GIMP does not "cut it") and I haven't heard of a competitor to either Lightroom or Aperture either. So, for me, Linux is a no-go area because it doesn't have the applications that I need. However, your needs may (well, almost certainly are) be completely different to mine, and perhaps Linux will be a good fit. So, rather than concern yourself with the cost factor, concern yourself more with what you want to achieve and find the system that fits your requirements. That means a lot of research if you are seriously considering a switch and it is not a decision to be taken lightly, although test driving Linux is very easy these days with both Live CDs (i.e. use without installing) and virtualisation options available.


The link is now dead on Apple front page
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: The link is now dead on Apple front page
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 3:49:30 PM , Rating: 1
Strange, now the linked page is back online...

[reading]

Seems like minor fixes and tweaks. So no major features for Snow Leopard then. Woot! Ballmer boys now have some time to catch up with Win 7. Let's wish them luck, guys!


RE: The link is now dead on Apple front page
By Dasickninja on 6/16/2008 8:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
So, by your own admission, this is a set of minor fixes. Why the hell does a set of minor fixes cost me $129


By Pirks on 6/16/2008 2:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
'Cause there's a lot of architectural/library/system internals type of development going on in 10.6 (Grand Central and OpenCL), and these things are not directly visible to the end user (they are for developers anyway) and are very costly to develop. Hence your $129 charge.

Same was true for Vista. Not a lot of visible changes, same XP with a new skin mostly, but a HUGE shift in development strategy and system architecture. The whole old API (Win32) is deprecated and replaced with new one (.Net), this is why Vista is so expensive.


LOL
By thebrown13 on 6/9/2008 7:09:32 PM , Rating: 3
All that stuff is already in Vista!




RE: LOL
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 7:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
It is unless you know what the article and Apple are talking about. If, for example, you are saying that "Vista already uses the GPU" then the retort to that is that "so did OS X 10.4", and that OS version is 3-years old already. I absolutely guarantee that Vista does not do today what they are planning in 10.6. However, I'm more interested to know what Windows 7 will deliver.


Feel the love?
By pauldovi on 6/9/2008 7:22:32 PM , Rating: 3
Boy DailyTech articles about OSX are nothing but cozy. Radically different than those about Vista / Microsoft.




RE: Feel the love?
By Icelight on 6/10/2008 11:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, what other use would a Mick article be for?


Steve Jobs looks sick
By B on 6/9/2008 11:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
Steve's face and body look very thin - I was surprised to see no comments or stories on this. I hope he is o.k.




RE: Steve Jobs looks sick
By Gyres01 on 6/10/2008 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm.....reads a few.....conclusion: Still not interested.


"Ice Windows?"
By gmofftarki on 6/10/2008 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple really cared about beating Windows in the open market, they'd get rid of the proprietary hardware requirements, and stop suing companies that try to find ways to get around them.

Yet, they won't. Despite the fact that Apple's now using Intel chips and nVidia/ATi GPU's, they show no sign of loosening the restriction.

Why? Because Apple fans are an obnoxious bunch who will pay the grand or more premium for an apple machine regardless of whether or not it's actually an improvement.

Would they, were the software opened up? Some might,