the windows task bar was a s**ty version of the NeXT dock/tray, hell, the whole win95 interface was a s**ty version of the NeXTStep interface. do some research before you start bashing macs in a mac forum
.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows Longhorn? 3-D?
- Thread starter MacManiac1224
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
.
Edit: After going back and re-reading what I was replying to and feeling like a complete and total moron/wanker, I retracted my post.
I actually combined your post with the post you were replying to to read "the dock is a task bar rip off but the task bar is a NeXT rip off"
Teaches me to rush over things, doesn't it.
LOL
I actually combined your post with the post you were replying to to read "the dock is a task bar rip off but the task bar is a NeXT rip off"
Teaches me to rush over things, doesn't it.
LOL
no problem. just a little editing and the whole incident is erased. i just wish i could go back and "edit" what i say in real life...
The way I see it, apple has 3 years to pump up OSX before longhorn hits the scene. 3 Years is alot of time, 10.3 will be out, and I am guessing that in late 05' when longhorn is about to come out, 10.5 will hit the scene and the next OS war will begin.
I am also predicting that within 2 years apple will dump motorola. Now I dont know much about these AMD, x86, G5, 970 rumors, but in 2 years I hope the result would be 3-4 Ghz apples. Many of the arguments people have made earlier in the thread about OSX being slow are true, but on a 3-4 Ghz apple, those arguments will be down the drain.
I believe that the hardware slump apple seems to be in right now is just temporary. I bet Steve Jobs isnt planing for the short term, but the long term. If my predictions come true, he is planing for the 05' OS war. This switch campain is just the start. Next will be the sudden switch from motorola. Then 10.3, then 10.5.
I honestly have no idea why I just typed all this, bye.
I am also predicting that within 2 years apple will dump motorola. Now I dont know much about these AMD, x86, G5, 970 rumors, but in 2 years I hope the result would be 3-4 Ghz apples. Many of the arguments people have made earlier in the thread about OSX being slow are true, but on a 3-4 Ghz apple, those arguments will be down the drain.
I believe that the hardware slump apple seems to be in right now is just temporary. I bet Steve Jobs isnt planing for the short term, but the long term. If my predictions come true, he is planing for the 05' OS war. This switch campain is just the start. Next will be the sudden switch from motorola. Then 10.3, then 10.5.
I honestly have no idea why I just typed all this, bye.
So the lag I'm experiencing with menus et. al. on a PII 300 MHz compared to running Win98 with the same setup is ok? Win XP on a PII is definitely far from a satisfactory experience.
interesting. . . and I thought this was a mac user forum. . .
Well, I just read through all the threads in this discussion for the past hour, and it's been interesting. I've been a mac user ever since having a IIci when I was in kindergarten and have not looked back, ever. All I can say is that Apple products have never been better. Admittedly, Apple's unsuccessful attempt at becoming a major industrial giant like IBM by inviting a big-name president, as well as the series of dissappointing execs, ruined Apple for a good part of the 90's. You could see it directly through a bloated product line that was largely overpriced, inefficient, and confusing to the consumer. On top of it, it's OS was becomming largely inefficient as build piled on build. It had simply lost it's identity as an innovative, more humanistic computer company. I think Steve Jobs learned this lesson the hard way, but it made his return to Apple tenfold successful. He brought back the innovation necessary to keep Apple afloat, as well as learning to behave more like a businessman than a guru.
With this in mind, here's my take on where the OS war currently stands. In Apple's defence, the current OS is by far the best thing that has happened to the Mac platform. It's kernel was not developed solely by Apple's own programmers, and had the input of UNIX and Mac programmers around the world. It's the most user friendly to new users (and that is key, especially since the computer market has yet reach a saturation point) without sacrificing accessibility by the UNIX savvy. Since Unix is arguably the lead OS for web servers, the inclusion of a terminal is a blessing. Mac OS will continue to be cutting edge because the use of such open-source standards. On top of the important unix technology, Apple is letting everybody in on the bandwagon with a things they pioneered such as Firewire, WiFi, and Rendezvous. I don't see M$ doing such things. It has to be big-business' way, or no way. They merely play the catch-up game.
The point has been raised that OS X is luggish on slower machines, especially G3s. If you can run XP on a slow PII, and you're satisfied, go with it. I just pity you can't afford a decent G4 to run Jaguar. It's pretty lame to argue the strength of an OS when you are using outdated (300mhz, give me a break!) hardware to compare the two. Mac OS 10.2 runs excellently on current and recent hardware, and that's how it should be evaluated. The OS NEVER crashes. Not, "The OS NEVER crashes. . . well, sorta" as in Windows. I have a score of friends who are switching to Mac next computer purchase for this reason.
More will join this crowd if they are properly informed about the direction M$ is planning to take with the inclusion of Palladium technology. It is blatant privacy invasion and a squemish attempt by M$ to protect the investments of big wig corporations and their own petards. They have ranted about Copyrights for years, not because they care for the right of the intellectual property of artists and musicians, but because they themselves are losing money from pirated copies of their OS. To give a monopolistic giant like M$ the ability to filter and see what is on your computer is utterly revolting.
But OS X and Apple aren't perfect. Although I think Apple has good headway in bringing Unix network administrators and programmers over to the Mac, it still needs a push to get the consumer market going. Sad to say this, but games are the missing link as of now. There are thousands of great games that are written for Winblows, but the Apple selection is still lame, especially for new games. Mac OS X is a great OS for games, and Apple needs to encourage developers to tap into it. If they do so, the large generation brought up on games will adopt the Mac. The Mass doesn't care about things like scalability and overhead. As long as their games and Office programs work, they're happy. Things like movie making and listening to music on a computer are what interest people. Right now, Winblows blows for these more creative things. If OS X can bring in the gamers, they'll make headway in the future.
This article is really biased, so reply for some lively discussion!
Well, I just read through all the threads in this discussion for the past hour, and it's been interesting. I've been a mac user ever since having a IIci when I was in kindergarten and have not looked back, ever. All I can say is that Apple products have never been better. Admittedly, Apple's unsuccessful attempt at becoming a major industrial giant like IBM by inviting a big-name president, as well as the series of dissappointing execs, ruined Apple for a good part of the 90's. You could see it directly through a bloated product line that was largely overpriced, inefficient, and confusing to the consumer. On top of it, it's OS was becomming largely inefficient as build piled on build. It had simply lost it's identity as an innovative, more humanistic computer company. I think Steve Jobs learned this lesson the hard way, but it made his return to Apple tenfold successful. He brought back the innovation necessary to keep Apple afloat, as well as learning to behave more like a businessman than a guru.
With this in mind, here's my take on where the OS war currently stands. In Apple's defence, the current OS is by far the best thing that has happened to the Mac platform. It's kernel was not developed solely by Apple's own programmers, and had the input of UNIX and Mac programmers around the world. It's the most user friendly to new users (and that is key, especially since the computer market has yet reach a saturation point) without sacrificing accessibility by the UNIX savvy. Since Unix is arguably the lead OS for web servers, the inclusion of a terminal is a blessing. Mac OS will continue to be cutting edge because the use of such open-source standards. On top of the important unix technology, Apple is letting everybody in on the bandwagon with a things they pioneered such as Firewire, WiFi, and Rendezvous. I don't see M$ doing such things. It has to be big-business' way, or no way. They merely play the catch-up game.
The point has been raised that OS X is luggish on slower machines, especially G3s. If you can run XP on a slow PII, and you're satisfied, go with it. I just pity you can't afford a decent G4 to run Jaguar. It's pretty lame to argue the strength of an OS when you are using outdated (300mhz, give me a break!) hardware to compare the two. Mac OS 10.2 runs excellently on current and recent hardware, and that's how it should be evaluated. The OS NEVER crashes. Not, "The OS NEVER crashes. . . well, sorta" as in Windows. I have a score of friends who are switching to Mac next computer purchase for this reason.
More will join this crowd if they are properly informed about the direction M$ is planning to take with the inclusion of Palladium technology. It is blatant privacy invasion and a squemish attempt by M$ to protect the investments of big wig corporations and their own petards. They have ranted about Copyrights for years, not because they care for the right of the intellectual property of artists and musicians, but because they themselves are losing money from pirated copies of their OS. To give a monopolistic giant like M$ the ability to filter and see what is on your computer is utterly revolting.
But OS X and Apple aren't perfect. Although I think Apple has good headway in bringing Unix network administrators and programmers over to the Mac, it still needs a push to get the consumer market going. Sad to say this, but games are the missing link as of now. There are thousands of great games that are written for Winblows, but the Apple selection is still lame, especially for new games. Mac OS X is a great OS for games, and Apple needs to encourage developers to tap into it. If they do so, the large generation brought up on games will adopt the Mac. The Mass doesn't care about things like scalability and overhead. As long as their games and Office programs work, they're happy. Things like movie making and listening to music on a computer are what interest people. Right now, Winblows blows for these more creative things. If OS X can bring in the gamers, they'll make headway in the future.
This article is really biased, so reply for some lively discussion!
OS war?
Now, I know that this is a Mac forum, as /. is a linux forum, but please.... MacOS had been horribly outdated until OS X came about.
Rip mp3's, photoshop, and surf the web? At once? Not in any efficient manner until the last year or so.
As to the "Longhorn" screen shots that keep popping up, and disappearing... I think they are most likely a load of cr@p. Any boob could re-create his XP desktop to look like these pitiful screenshots.... o0o0o0o0.... the clock is bigger, and the taskbar wastes more screen real estate. Must be progress!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish I could afford a Mac.... :-(
Now, I know that this is a Mac forum, as /. is a linux forum, but please.... MacOS had been horribly outdated until OS X came about.
Rip mp3's, photoshop, and surf the web? At once? Not in any efficient manner until the last year or so.
As to the "Longhorn" screen shots that keep popping up, and disappearing... I think they are most likely a load of cr@p. Any boob could re-create his XP desktop to look like these pitiful screenshots.... o0o0o0o0.... the clock is bigger, and the taskbar wastes more screen real estate. Must be progress!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish I could afford a Mac.... :-(
cannot agree more.
Once a hierarchy is established, it is hard to change. Windows will always be playing catch-up with mac OS because of this. Gates, even though he's the richest man in the PC industry, knows he's never been innovative and will never be on top of Jobs. The hierarchy was established in the 80's.
Once a hierarchy is established, it is hard to change. Windows will always be playing catch-up with mac OS because of this. Gates, even though he's the richest man in the PC industry, knows he's never been innovative and will never be on top of Jobs. The hierarchy was established in the 80's.
Now... I respect your opinion but a PII 300 will not run Windows XP just fine. I would rather say that it would barely be able to run XP.
I own a PC with a PIII 500 and based in my experience I can tell you that even with a fresh installation of XP the PC runs very slow. It gets a little better if you turn off all the OS visual effects (menu animations, etc), use the Windows Classic theme, change some other options, and *only* if you install the 3 or 4 apps that you need and nothing else.
If I don't do the above mentioned XP gets so damn slow that it's not funny.
Pale Fire, NewBorn77:
Uh. I had a Pentium II 233 MHz. Ran Windows XP on it since Beta 2, with 128 MB RAM. Ran barely fine. Without the fancy **** running (had settings to the lowest possible configuration), runs just fine, even with Visual Studio, IE, AIM, Office, etc.
Let's see, can we turn off Aqua in Mac OS X? Unfortunately not. I just need a GUI *that* works speedily. That's primarily my problem with Mac OS X. Runs like **** on older computers.
I guess I have very high expectations.
Uh. I had a Pentium II 233 MHz. Ran Windows XP on it since Beta 2, with 128 MB RAM. Ran barely fine. Without the fancy **** running (had settings to the lowest possible configuration), runs just fine, even with Visual Studio, IE, AIM, Office, etc.
Let's see, can we turn off Aqua in Mac OS X? Unfortunately not. I just need a GUI *that* works speedily. That's primarily my problem with Mac OS X. Runs like **** on older computers.
I guess I have very high expectations.
First of all, OS X's kernel isn't the fastest out there. There have been many tests done comparing the linux kernel to the mach kernel, linux *always* comes out on top.
This should be obvious to anyone who knows the history of the mach kernel, because the mach kernel (at least in its original design) is a micro kernel, not a monolithickernel. Microkernels, though more flexible and extensible, are often harder to implement and are notoriously slower than classic monolithic kernels such as the linux kernel and the NT kernel (and its derivatives).
Its like the difference between C coding and Java coding. C is messy, hard to manage and hard to abstract in, but its really fast. Java can be very clean, organised and easy to abstract in, but you take a performance hit for those abilities.
The "problems" with OS X's mach kernel are being slowly nullified by faster hardware and constant kernel development from the Darwin project.
But just to drive the point home, OS X's kernel is NOT as efficient as many of the other kernels out there. Do I think that is a real problem?? Probably not.
Taft
Oh yeah.
And the site that this thread is based on is so obviously written by a MS shill that its funny.
Take this:
Who out there really thinks that Palladium is good, let alone exciting?? People are protesting this and generally think its doing the bidding of the RIAA and MPAA (what the DMCA is currently trying to do).
And the spam bit is such a load of crap. Trusted addresses?? How would this really work? Does it block all addresses except those you mark as trusted??
People have been trying for years to get rid of spam. Palladium is not going to succeed completely where so many have failed before.
Taft
And the site that this thread is based on is so obviously written by a MS shill that its funny.
Take this:
Who out there really thinks that Palladium is good, let alone exciting?? People are protesting this and generally think its doing the bidding of the RIAA and MPAA (what the DMCA is currently trying to do).
And the spam bit is such a load of crap. Trusted addresses?? How would this really work? Does it block all addresses except those you mark as trusted??
People have been trying for years to get rid of spam. Palladium is not going to succeed completely where so many have failed before.
Taft
Heh.
Does anyone remember the last time Microsoft tried to be innovative?
Two words: Microsoft Bob.
I rest my case. Microsoft should go back to stealing ideas from everyone else and stop trying at this idea of "innovation" they keep hearing about.
I have downloaded the beta...and it's not very innovative...and the "dock" thing takes up wayy too much space and as far as I can tell it seems to be pretty-task oriented only now with huge friggin buttons that get in the way.
Oh, I miss Windows 2000 already. Oh, well at least I can show my PC toting friends "Hey, look it's the future of Windows!" running along-side my glorious powerbook running X. You can guess the kinds of responses I get.
Does anyone remember the last time Microsoft tried to be innovative?
Two words: Microsoft Bob.
I rest my case. Microsoft should go back to stealing ideas from everyone else and stop trying at this idea of "innovation" they keep hearing about.
I have downloaded the beta...and it's not very innovative...and the "dock" thing takes up wayy too much space and as far as I can tell it seems to be pretty-task oriented only now with huge friggin buttons that get in the way.
Oh, I miss Windows 2000 already. Oh, well at least I can show my PC toting friends "Hey, look it's the future of Windows!" running along-side my glorious powerbook running X. You can guess the kinds of responses I get.
Does this mean that any updates that have a more efficient mach kernel will actually be improving multithreading/multitasking, thus increasing the effective speed of software running under OS X ?
Presumably. But I really don't know how much performance they can eek out of the design of the Mach kernel. I do know that they have done a lot of work on the Darwin underpinnings since the original OS X beta release. Since everything on the system relies on the underpinnings (file access, multitasking, networking), a faster system base mean faster application performance.
Many of you linux heads (or Slashdot readers) out there will remember when Linus took a few pot shots at the Mach kernel and said that it had just about every design mistake that you could make. He wasn't very favorable towards the kernel at all.
Taft
Screw Linus. He's too biased.
All different types of kernels are suitable for certain tasks. Just like all different types of processors are suitable for certain tasks.
Mach kernel is very fitting for BSD + Mac OS X, IMHO.
RED FLAG: oops thats absolutely false. you have
just lost all credibility. i run jaguar on my 667
tibook with 512 of ram. and its fine...photoshop,
illustrator, ical, these are usually open at the
same time. your wrong...i dont know if your just
spreading lies or your misinformed.
.
Gee troll, my parents run X on their 500 iMac without issues, I ran X on my G4 450 without issues, my wife runs it on her iMac 800 without issues. Your flaimbait should have read "it simply flies on a dual 1ghz G4 and is satisfactory on older machines". So keep on trolling!
Re: Heh.
I think sometimes Mac folks put way too much emphasis on the innovative side of things and then lose their perspective of this. Innovation isn't everything as Apple almost innovated their way out of business with projects like Opendoc and such in the mid 90's. Don't get me wrong I love Macs and the Mac OS but I also like what MS has done with Windows in 2000 and XP. Quite frankly I don't care who innovates an item in the beginning. As a consumer I want a tool that does the job best. Sometimes that improvement could be considered by many as innovative.
Me? I was always a fan of MS's Start Menu and Taskbar over Apple's Apple Menu and Control Strip. Some considered those items from MS innovative but I bet many diehard Mac folks won't.
Attacking their "lack" of innovation is a lost cause. Sure they've stolen or bought many of their ideas(not all of them) but though you may frown on it, they have actually been very innovative in a business sense which is what the bottom line is all about.
Keep things in perspective though. They were originally talking 2005 for the release of that OS. By then people are going to be running higher resolutions and you have to admit that it's still early in the beta cycle that things can change. When Aqua was introduced, many were disappointed that things were taking up too much reale estate if you had a screen res of 800 x 600 and some didn't even like it with 1024 x 768. You also have to keep in mind what kind of users are going to be picky about that as well. The basic home user typically won't care that much depending on how bad it is.
At any rate I'm not out to condone what MS does or is doing but lets not be blind to things either.
I think sometimes Mac folks put way too much emphasis on the innovative side of things and then lose their perspective of this. Innovation isn't everything as Apple almost innovated their way out of business with projects like Opendoc and such in the mid 90's. Don't get me wrong I love Macs and the Mac OS but I also like what MS has done with Windows in 2000 and XP. Quite frankly I don't care who innovates an item in the beginning. As a consumer I want a tool that does the job best. Sometimes that improvement could be considered by many as innovative.
Me? I was always a fan of MS's Start Menu and Taskbar over Apple's Apple Menu and Control Strip. Some considered those items from MS innovative but I bet many diehard Mac folks won't.
Attacking their "lack" of innovation is a lost cause. Sure they've stolen or bought many of their ideas(not all of them) but though you may frown on it, they have actually been very innovative in a business sense which is what the bottom line is all about.
Keep things in perspective though. They were originally talking 2005 for the release of that OS. By then people are going to be running higher resolutions and you have to admit that it's still early in the beta cycle that things can change. When Aqua was introduced, many were disappointed that things were taking up too much reale estate if you had a screen res of 800 x 600 and some didn't even like it with 1024 x 768. You also have to keep in mind what kind of users are going to be picky about that as well. The basic home user typically won't care that much depending on how bad it is.
At any rate I'm not out to condone what MS does or is doing but lets not be blind to things either.
Take it easy, will ya?
Everyone has different uses and perceptions. I know lots of folks who will grade how fast a computer is just from how fast the internet bandwidth is going to the system. A 300Mhz system could appear more useable and faster than a 1Ghz system if the speed to the internet is a big enough difference. They would have no idea what was inside the two systems but just know that one was faster than the other. Lets not forget what a difference being configured correctly and having the right harddrive and amount of memory makes. I find it ridiculously entertaining how people keep talking here about Mhz and what's fast enough for what OS.Remember the Mhz myth people? Duh! It's the same argument that you use when you're trying to defend the speed of the Macs.
It applies to all systems and depends greatly on what functions a computer does. Many times if you throw memory at it a system can almost seem to become a newer faster computer. Ever try Windows 2000 on a P5-100 with 128MB of ram. For browsing the web and eudora for email it's very useable without the known tweaks on the internet. I should know...I made my wife use one for 5-6 months instead of a PowerMac 7500 with a dual 200Mhz 604e card installed. The PowerMac had only 96MB of ram. She said that the Pentium system was faster to her. This after 5-10 min of using it. She ended up going back to the Mac because she felt more confortable with it but admitted she felt she took a speed hit when she went back. By the way the Win2k machine never crashed. The PowerMac with Mac OS 8.6 and later 9.1 had a tendency to lock up every couple weeks if left on. 8.6 was more stable but Sherlock and such was the argument to keeping the newer OS on there.
What I'm getting at is everyone sees things differently for various reasons so folks need to chill out here and stop making such judgement calls for the masses.
Can't we just all get along?
Clarifications
Did you even notice the "I" in my sentence. I was referring to my opinions for MY own needs.
So I'm lying and wrong about my needs? Interesting.
It's not satisfactorily for me on older machines. The iMac G3 700 MHz we have runs Mac OS X horribly slow, Jaguar is better, but it's still too slow. I'm far more productive in Linux using WindowMaker on a single 1.733 GHz Athlon.
Again, to these guys responding about how horrible XP is on a slow PII, I still disagree because my experience is quite the opposite. YMMV, though.
Bring on the PowerPC 970! About one more goddamned year to go, if not less.
BTW, I don't consider my post as flamebait. I was simply posting my opinions on my needs and priorities.
Oh, so running Jaguar on your 667 MHz PowerBook is fast enough for me? Nope.
Did you even notice the "I" in my sentence. I was referring to my opinions for MY own needs.
So I'm lying and wrong about my needs? Interesting.
Again, note the "I." Mac OS X may be fine for your parents and wife on old computers. But it is not fine for me. I don't care about your parents or wife. I care what's best and what works best for me. If your parents and wife find that Macs are better value, more power to them; that is what matters. I find it sluggish on anything slower than the dual 1 GHz.
It's not satisfactorily for me on older machines. The iMac G3 700 MHz we have runs Mac OS X horribly slow, Jaguar is better, but it's still too slow. I'm far more productive in Linux using WindowMaker on a single 1.733 GHz Athlon.
Again, to these guys responding about how horrible XP is on a slow PII, I still disagree because my experience is quite the opposite. YMMV, though.
Bring on the PowerPC 970! About one more goddamned year to go, if not less.
BTW, I don't consider my post as flamebait. I was simply posting my opinions on my needs and priorities.
