OSNews

/ I don't regret buying my iBook. And running linux on it //

er ... you bought an iBook to run linux? Glad you don't handle my finances.

If it's not the broadcom wireless it's not a bad investment.
It's one of the more affordable laptops which you don't wonder if it'll suddenly crap out on you; or it was 6 months ago, but laptops have come down a lot this last year.

Yup, when I bought my iBook a bit over a year ago I wasn't looking for an Apple. All I wanted a small (12" screen) laptop with good battery life, wifi and reasonable performance. The iBook was much cheaper than any x86 laptop fulfilling those criteria. I've stuck with OSX mainly because it hasn't yet annoyed me enough to make me want to change.

The broadcom wireless (you mean the Airport Extreme, right?) is supported on linux now. Development on the driver is still going on, but I'm using that driver already for a couple of months now, so it is definitely working for me.

Apart from the running linux thing (even being a linux user myself linux as primary OS on a PPC isn't the best choice for me)
You think that the iBook it's expensive? I often hear that mac are overpriced, but find me a noetbook like the ibook 12" at the same price!!
Some machine are expensive (like the powerbook 12") but other not, and are simply better that sameprice machines

I know... My iBook's only problem in the 2+ years I have owned it is a misaligned combo drive due to me dropping it on the floor from my couch. My battery has lost its life, but that happens when you use a machine every single day for hours at a time.

My P laptop was in the shop 5 times for a week at a time. I think it speaks for itself.

I found running linux on a PPC to be complete hell. Just getting a JRE to install took me far longer than it should have. I'll keep running ubuntu on my Dell Inspiron than put up with that any day (although I wouldn't mind using a Mactel).

I use Fedora Core PPC and Gentoo PPC on 2 ibook G3.
It works OK but compilation for Gentoo PPC and yum/yumex on FedoraCore PPC take a lot of time.
Apple did sell expensive hardware at high prices with a slow slow CPu ...
I used Linux on these systems because MacOs X was so damned slow ...
I miss on these systems things such as Flash (swf) support in browsers - Blame it on Macromedia - and
Vmware ...

Clearly I will buy a DualCore (Asus or Acer) to be more productive (and will consider Asus or Acer)
with PCLOS + Debian ...

SL/

What article did you read? Or are you just trying to prove his point?

And does anyone find it odd that this is the only comment that this guy posted? As well as him opening a new account today just to post it?

So what, I had to sign up the first time I wanted to comment about an article I thought was bunk. A lot of people just read the news and don't bother commenting because of all the pointless trolling.

I agree.

And no I am not a Mac groupie! I have not owned or used a Mac since the early nineties.

After crowning on and on for 5 pages, the author on the last page paragraphs says he has a moral, yes moral, obligation not to buy any another Mac due to the culture of some Mac users. (And his belief that Apple fosters this culture.)

Bottom line, you buy any computer and OS to accomplish tasks. If it does what you want and at a price you can accept, you buy it and use it. Nothing else really matters.

I get sick of people whining about the price difference. People don't complain with the same fevour when car made by GM is more expensive than a very similar car made by Chysler. Or that Sony DVD player is more expensive than a DVD player made by Apex, even though they share common components. Or how about tires where noname tires which are made by the brand name companies just relabeled are sold at difference price. Seems the same elist culture you question about Mac users exists in computer users in general.

I think in the progress of moving to a disposable electronic industry, the quest for cheap has actually hurt us in many ways. (A topic itself)

These opinion articles are no different than the cutlture of Mac users you question. Instead of talking about how the Mac worked for you, you and others are too worried about the guy down the street and what he has. OMG, he paid 20% less and his CPU runs 20% faster. Whoa is me. My spreadsheet calulates a microsecond slower!!

I would hate to live my life aways looking beside me to compare things to others. Does it do what you want/need and can you accept the price? If yes buy it and be happy, if not, don't buy it. To try to influence people on any other factors is just stupid.

It's a rant or, more nicely, an opinion, but it's not an editorial really.

If a person buys and uses something or does the opposite because of someone else's idealism, there is something missing.

I'm not a fanboy of any certain product but I use a lot of different items and have brand loyalty. Still, the world changes--change with it.

How can you run on a Windows PC? if you are a real Nix user windows i in your way at every step and has a file system that is overly bloated with layers which cause one to scream.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate?

Just don't assume you have any right to tell me that I shouldn't buy one.

Where does the author say you shouldn't buy one? He only explains why HE will not buy one. He doesn't try to impose his not-Mac-buying on you.

Edited 2006-05-10 20:22

Where does the author say you shouldn't buy one? He only explains why HE will not buy one. He doesn't try to impose his not-Mac-buying on you.

The author never quite says it, no. And I didn't claim such things were said. However, he clearly almost says it at the end when he starts proclaiming that his desire to not buy any Apple products is "almost a moral issue." As soon as it becomes a moral issue for someone it gets twisted into the mighty concepts of "right" and "wrong" and soon after that we have people trying to tell other people what to do and think for "their own good."

Unless, of course, he's reasonable enough to know that different people will have different views of right and wrong. Simply because he deems apple wrong does not immediately mean he's going to attack you for supporting them....

Maybe the chances are higher, but this does not mean it's definitely going to happen. Simply because we live in such a polarized society does not mean we must continue the mac-win-linux/democrat-republican left-right polarizations that do nobody any good...

If you do not feel that this guy is trying to tell all others not to buy a mac ,
explain to me why he is publishing it ......
If i do not want to buy the Honda .......I will not try to tell everyone else not to buy a Honda

I am astonish .....is it a correct english word ????
Aramis

Because this is a web forum and people use web forums to present their opinions to those with similar hobbies?

If you do not feel that this guy is trying to tell all others not to buy a mac ,
explain to me why he is publishing it ......
If i do not want to buy the Honda .......I will not try to tell everyone else not to buy a Honda

In the free and normal world people publish articles about why they won't buy Hondas, Toyotas, or especially Renaults, Citroens and Alfa Romeos all the time. Do not presume to ask "explain to me why he is publishing it" in that Animal Farm manner, just because it's Apple he's talking about.

Again, another comment that proves the author's point in so many ways sadly.

It's a five page editorial on why he won't buy another Mac, or rather five pages of self-righteous digital dogma implicating to its readers that they should follow along.

The bottom line is: Apple has no right to tell people to shut up unless it infringes on Apple's ability to conduct profitable business. So far, that's all they've done, and wouldn't expect them to go any further.

Apple has no right to tell people to shut up unless it infringes on Apple's ability to conduct profitable business.

I didn't realize the First Ammendment had an "...unless that speech interferes with a corporation's right to profit" clause.

Revealing trade secrets and redistributing copyrighted material is not protected by the First Amendment. FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) states that "Private commercial or trade secret information" is exempt from government disclosure. If the U.S. government can't legally disclose it, what makes you think somebody with a web page can?

See other post.

Edited 2006-05-11 03:04

How the hell an empty comment like that is modded to +5? Too much Mac wanking...

wow! I'm glad I didn't write that piece! Ouch. :-p

"Little bits thrown in under-breath like his friends cube that was underpowered and "was overheated" "

Do you KNOW the history of the Cube?
It had cache problems from the outset and it DID overheat. I had 12 of them in my office and we had to return them all. So, perhaps he DOES know what he's talking about?

I have a hard time believing a 5 page rant about apple fanboys got onto osnews,

In that case, you must have only read the final 2 pages of the 5 the article offers. There's a lot more to it than fanboys.

Little bits thrown in under-breath like his friends cube that was underpowered and "was overheated" sound more like someone venting than making a point.

This is true. I know of many universities and colleges who have had umpteen problems with these things - and Apple's support is less than perfect. These places have a 15% to 20% failure rate of Macs, and Apple's support is worse than Dell's. Explain that one.

To retort: Yes it is unreasonable. Moronic actually. As was the fact that you dedicated 5 pages to trying to justify a moronic point. Grade F.

Grade G to you. You've seen at least some elemants of truth in what's been written and written a moronic comment in reply, rather than respond to the main points.

In fact, you've unwittingly proved his point. Something concrete that is actually happening in the real world has been pointed out, and a Mac fan comes in, defends Apple to the hilt, denies that your problem is a real problem and labels you as a troll. Grade A on that one ;-).

I have a hard time believing a 5 page rant about apple fanboys got onto osnews

You must not frequent OSNews.

Waste of my time. I was with him for well over half the article. But it fell completely flat as the author's arguments degraded to pot-shots at now irrelevant downfalls to Mac ownership and "morals."

Yeah - I was following the author just about through the first half of the piece and it is good in that part. Then it turns into a rant that is no better than anything you can see on Mac, Linux or other battlefield forums. Good start, but the finish is very weak and unconvincing - proud owner of Dell, Acer, PowerBook G4 and MacBook Pro.

Good thing is that we all have choices and can pick a platform that suits us best.

What a lot of people seem to not realize (and from your post you are such a person), not everyone _wants_ or _needs_ iLife and the other software included. And *gasp* not everyone wants to run OS X. So if you take those two "strong points" out of the price equation, you see that a similar spec custom built or off the shelf machine is better value.
There is just no point in paying for something that you neither need or want, and it is kind of getting old arguing that iLife is such great value when most people have trouble using Word.
As to your "nothing comparable" on Linux or Windows, this again goes back to personal preference. If I want a simple image viewer on Linux, I can grab one of the many available. Such a "non-standard" program on Mac would likely cost money or have some sort of shareware license. So just because you consider iPhoto the end all of apps doesn't mean everyone else does.
Freedom of choice (and price) on Mac is not good at all, and I personally find that a huge huge limiting factor.

You are right , if you do not need a Mac , do not buy it ..... I totally agree but , please do not say I do not need one .....
Aramis

Freedom of choice (and price) on Mac is not good at all, and I personally find that a huge huge limiting factor.

Since a Mac can run all OS X software, has an X11 compatibility layer for UNIX/Linux apps to run right inside OS X, can dual boot into Linux or Windows, and can run Windows in virtualization inside OSX, you really can run any piece of Windows, Linux or Mac software on an Intel Mac. So what do you mean about freedom of choice not being good on a Mac? Get a Mac, you can run whatever you want on it.

As for the cost, yes a $599 Mac mini might be more expensive than a bargain-basement eMachine or something you built yourself, but it's also much smaller than a an eMachine or any shuttle you would build yourself, dead silent, and has great included features like built in wifi/bluetooth/gig ethernet/firewire, etc...so it really is a good value as I see it. For people who want to build their own systems, a Mac will never be for you. Nor will you like a Dell or a Sony or a Lenovo, for that matter. But luckily for Apple & friends, very few people are into building their own systems these days.

I do, however, agree with the previous poster that you can't enjoy a mini on 512MB RAM. Unless you're doing only the most basic stuff, you'll want at least a gig. Personally, I max out the RAM on any system I use, even a PC running Windows. (Mac mini maxes out at 2GB RAM)

Good point. If you don't want OS X and iLife good - buy what you want.

I believe the author of the original comment forgot to mention something what seems natural for all Mac users and that is that the iLife applications are INTEGRATED. No other package on Windows or Linux offers this level of integration and I really looked. There is a lot of great point solution software for both Windows or Linux, but no suite that seamlesly integrates picture, video and music. Again if you don't need this you have a choice to go elsewhere and buy what you want.

As anything in life it comes to personal preference. You can chose Lenovo, Dell, Apple or any other machine to run whatever you want. Only if you want OS X and other OS's on the same machine you can get it only on Intel Mac.

3. You have more "OS choice" on a Mac than you do on any Shuttle you built yourself, since it can run Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the number of Linux distributions that runs on PowerMac is less than 5. You also have NetBSD. I further believe that the number of Linux distributions which do /not/ run on an x86/AMD64 box is at best equal to the number of non-x86 platforms out there. Out of more than 300 distros, that leaves about 300 which run on X86.

So, on a PC, you can run upwards of 300 Linux distros, plus all the BSDs, various flavours of DOS, Win9x, 2K, 2K3, XP, and MacOS (via PearPC), Minix, SyllableOS, BeOS, Haiku, Solaris, OS2/eCosStation, and via emulators ITS, AROS, AmigaOS, Mac OS Classic...

When I was at school, 5 was about 295 short of 300. And I was never even any good at maths.

I believe he was referring to the new Intel Macs.

The BSDs sometimes have compatibility issues with some Intel hardware (i.e. much more than Linux).

Heaven help you if your only choice to run both OSX and *BSD doesn't boot on Apple's chosen "Commercial Off the Shelf" x86 hardware.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the number of Linux distributions that runs on PowerMac is less than 5.

I guess you haven't heard about the whole Intel switch thing that's going on, huh? Can't blame you...the press has been really quiet about it.

Also, you may want to check out iLife (iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, iWeb, iPhoto, etc.) which ships free with every Mac. It's really a lot of fun, very useful, comes free with a Mac. There's nothing comparable on Linux or Windows.

You mean,"nothing comparable on Windows". Many Linux distributions ship with much, much, much, MUCH more free, high quality open source software you can even imagine.

"You mean,"nothing comparable on Windows". Many Linux distributions ship with much, much, much, MUCH more free, high quality open source software you can even imagine."

Sorry, I have to respond to this one. I use Windows, OS X and A number of Linux distributions. I have to say that Joe average Windows user would not be able to use all that high quality open source software you speak of. Free is not a good price if it sits there unused because the user can't figure out how to make it work.

With Windows they can purchase software that they can figure out. With a Mac the software comes with the system. 200 applications to do the same job are of no use if you can't make one of them do exactly what you want to do.

Free is not a good price if it sits there unused because the user can't figure out how to make it work.

Neither is expensive. I don't have XP anymore because Linux does all I need, and therefore having XP on the laptop as well would waste space. I can barely compile a kernel, and use KDE. I put SuSE on the laptop because it installs faster and easier than Gentoo, which I have on my desktop/server. [So does Linus Torvalds, btw. Not {flux,black,open}box. Not WindowMaker. Not wmii.]

If my non-tech-savvy friends and family couldn't figure out amaroK I'd think they'd been bodysnatched.

Personally I can't wait until the KDE libs get a stable release on XP, so they can ditch Media Player for amaroK. They already use Firefox. I was surprised to learn yesterday they've already all ditched IncrediMail (which used yet another proprietary format for mail, nothankyouverymuch) for Thunderbird.

Oh, and about the name: On my SuSE box, amaroK is listed as Media Player (amaroK) in the KDE menu. If I set it up for my family I could get it to say just Media Player. To run amaroK at the commandline you type amarok. To run Windows Media Player at the commandline you type C:someoddpathwmplayer If they knew you don't have to type the extension, they'd wonder why Windows treats "files" and "programs" inconsistently.

Yeah, Linux is hard, alright.

Argh. Couldn't edit.

The "So does Linus" comment referred to KDE.

" I was surprised to learn yesterday they've already all ditched IncrediMail (which used yet another proprietary format for mail, nothankyouverymuch) for Thunderbird. "

First, let me say thanks for keeping the discussion civil. And I can't tell you how much I despise Incredimail. :-)

Second, the programs you mention are not the problem. I agree anyone can use them on Linux as easily as the Windows equivalents. Unfortunately most people I know want to view, edit and print their photos and the last time I looked GIMP was not the easiest program to use. Also, burning is not nearly as transparent in Linux so that poses a problem as well. And when it comes to editing video/audio neither comes close to the ease with which it is handled under OS X.

I know a lot of people who would probably use and like Linux, but I would have to set it up for them and also maintain it. Admittedly, there would be fewer problems than most have under Windows. Don't get me wrong, I do like Linux but when I want to do video/audio tasks I use OS X. I just wish there was a native Mac port of Evolution.

Your idea of the "average user" must be different from mine. I'm not thinking of people who edit photos. Having said that, k3b and GIMP work fine for me, though I understand a lot of people used to Photoshop hate the latter. As I have never used PS, I can't comment.

Of course, if you're used to using cdrecord to burn cd's in Linux, i can understand why you might hate it.

A windows port of Evolution would be nice, too. I don't particularly like Thunderbird.

I've used linux. I haven't found anything that compares to iMovie, iDVD or Garageband.

Then you haven't used it for more than five minutes, I presume?

I've never used iMovie, iDVD, or Garageband. Neither have 95% of the computer-using population of the world.

What a load of rubbish. All of that Open Source software that runs on Linux (using the POSIX API) runs just as nicely on MacOSX Tiger. I spend a large amount of time hacking open source on my Mac, sometimes for me it's just a very pretty Unix box.

But other times, I want to create a movie, where I can import music from my music collection, or from one of my own creations in a music authoring package, or import photos seemlessly from my photo collection. When done, and I want to publish that film on the Web, or on DVD, to share it with friends and family, I don't waste my time trying to configure all of my open source packages to play nice together, or even just to play together period, I just go straight for MacOSX.

If you want all of the flexibility and power of Linux, and yet want to retain the ease of use of a true GUI interface, there is only one game in town - Mac.

MY beige tower can run eComStation, OS/2, BeOS, Haiku and ZETA. The Intel Macs can't. Probably won't in the future either. Also applies to every bit of software those platforms can run.

Sweeping generalised statements are what causes articles like this and comments like yours. The world isn't just Win / Lin / OSX. I think that is one of the points in the articre, choice of OS, which is hey, software!

Also, you may want to check out iLife (iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, iWeb, iPhoto, etc.) which ships free with every Mac. It's really a lot of fun, very useful, comes free with a Mac. There's nothing comparable on Linux or Windows.

Pricewise, no, there certainly is nothing comparable in Windows. In Linux, it's all free so pricewise they are the same.

As for the software itself, on Windows I've used Cool Edit Pro and find it more powerful but much more difficult to use than GarageBand. It's actually more comparable to Logic on the Mac. Fruity Loops Studio is closer to the loop-based simplicity of GarageBand while still being much more versatile, and more affordable than Cool Edit Pro. In Linux there is Audacity, which is simply a wave editor, albeit a very powerful one. To my knowledge there is no loop-based audio software comparable to GarageBand available for Linux. If there is, I would be extremely interested in trying it out.

There's better software for web publishing on the Mac than iWeb. It's called RapidWeaver, but alas it also is not free. iWeb is a close second to RapidWeaver in useability and functionality, and being free it is of course the only option for many people. In Windows, you have Nvu (free), Serif WebPlus (older versions are freeware), and I'm sure a whole host of other free-to-cheap web publishing suites. However, none of them seem to have the simplicity and ease-of-use that RapidWeaver and iWeb have. Linux has Nvu as well, and other similar apps like Bluefish, Screem, Quanta Plus which are all very powerful html editors.

iMovie has a free alternative built into Windows XP called Windows Movie Maker, but WMM is nowhere near as powerful as iMovie. There are several other programs available to Windows that are low-cost or even "free" if you receive them with video-capturing hardware. In Linux, I've heard of Kino but never used it, as I have no need for such software. It is, of course, free.

iDVD seems to be a very complete and easy to use DVD mastering program. Its only drawback that I could imagine is that it is tied to an Apple-branded SuperDrive. To my knowledge, you cannot use it with non-Apple burners. I found this out the hard way on my Mac Mini when I tried to use it with a USB DVD burner. I now no longer own the Mini but I would like to fully explore iDVD one day. There are several DVD mastering packages available for Windows, all are commercial software with moderate to high cost. Linux, once again, has Kino.

iPhoto I will take issue with. It was outdone by a large margin by Google's Picasa 2 software. Not only is Picasa much easier to use, it is a lot faster and more stable than iPhoto. It is very intuitive and makes organizing and sharing photos a no-headache-process. I can't say that for iPhoto; I spent more time trying in vain to get iPhoto to do what I wanted than should have been necessary. On Linux, you have digiKam and Lphoto, both almost as easy and powerful as Picasa and still better (in my opinion) than iPhoto by far.

I don't miss my Mac (anymore), I don't miss iLife as I only really used Garageband, and my friend who got the Mac from me is very, very happy with it. I am just as happy with Windows for World of Warcraft and Doom 3, and Linux for everything else. I won't be buying another Mac; it was a fun ride but in the end I needed the versatility of Linux and, though I hate to say it, the need for gaming keeps Windows on my other hard drive. Software isn't my only reason though; to my knowledge I cannot get a Mac with the graphics power of my system (GeForce 6600GT), or for that matter the upgradeability. Literally every piece of hardware on my desk is upgradeable in some way. Even with an Intel Mac, that is not possible. Besides, I'm poor, and I cannot afford another Mac even if I wanted to. I applaud Apple for creating the best OS I've ever used, and I wish them well in the future, but I will not be a part of that future.

// Besides, I'm poor,//

You're "poor" ... yet you can afford a GeForce 6600 GT vid card, and a WoW monthly subscription, and Doom 3?

me wishes I were so destitute.

Yes, I am poor. I saved up for four months for the $200 video card, which I only recently bought. Doom 3 has been $20 for quite a while now; I had wanted to buy it since it came out but I'm not paying $50 for any game (WoW was a gift). And yes, it hurts my budget to pay the $15/month for World of Warcraft, but that's less than most cigarette smokers pay for their addiction. I make less a month than most of you make in a week, but I know how to budget and am willing to put off a big purchase and save up for it. And believe me, $200 is a very big purchase for me. I still wonder if I made a good decision spending that much money on entertainment. If I weren't poor, it wouldn't be an issue.

Next time, think before you belittle someone about their financial situation.

//Next time, think before you belittle someone about their financial situation.//

Sorry, pal, but next time you should realize that 99.9% of REALLY POOR people would never be able to afford a computer in the first place, much less spend $200 (which is double what I spend on FOOD in a month) on a freakin' vid card.

Quit feeling sorry for yourself.

You are that poor, but you obviously can afford a computer too, perhaps even a Mac? Since you are posting here, I assume you are using a computer of some sort. I smell a troll; I'm done with this conversation.

iDVD seems to be a very complete and easy to use DVD mastering program. Its only drawback that I could imagine is that it is tied to an Apple-branded SuperDrive. To my knowledge, you cannot use it with non-Apple burners.

That's not true anymore. The iDVD that comes as part of iLife '06 is not tied to Apple's DVD burners. In fact, you can now install and use iDVD on Macs that don't even have DVD burners, which you couldn't do at all with the older versions of iDVD.

Thank you for the updated info. I wasn't aware the limitation had been lifted, and frankly I'm surprised Apple took such a move, considering their past issues with hardware/software lock-in.

Oh and to clarify: iDVD was installed by default and would run on my Mac Mini, which didn't have a SuperDrive. However, I (obviously) couldn't burn my projects to DVD, even with an external burner. I never bothered trying iDVD in iLife '06.

Please go to the Apple store, look at the specs of the hardware that they're offering, and tell me what "proprietary plugs" exist on a Mac mini, an iMac, or a MacBook Pro.

I know you won't, because THERE AREN'T ANY ANYMORE.

The "no hardware choice" argument is dead and tired. It would be like me saying I'm not going to buy a Mac because I need a UNIX command line and OS9 didn't have one. It's 2006 my friend, join us.

If the best reasons you guys have for hating Apple are that their systems were sucky and proprietary in the '90s...well then those aren't really valid reasons, are they?

Please go to the Apple store, look at the specs of the hardware that they're offering, and tell me what "proprietary plugs" exist on a Mac mini, an iMac, or a MacBook Pro.

I know you won't, because THERE AREN'T ANY ANYMORE.

The key word there is 'ANYMORE'. Saying this doesn't happen anymore doesn't cut it. Why has this happened, you may ask. Because the PC world got that part right and FORCED APPLE INTO IT through shear economics. It would never have been done otherwise.

If the best reasons you guys have for hating Apple are that their systems were sucky and proprietary in the '90s...well then those aren't really valid reasons, are they?

They still are sucky and proprietary - in different ways. iTunes, iPods, Apple's support, DRM, changing to a different, arguably even more sucky, hardware problem which necessitates that people emulate their current software so that it runs dog turd slow...... The list is endless.

Oh yer, and Macs are damn slow - even on Intel hardware. Oh, but of course the benchmarks that were produced recently only apply to statistical software and those of use who've experienced the slowness of the desktop from 8 (and even 10) onwards are just imagining things. There can't possibly be anything in that.......

Edited 2006-05-10 23:28

"They still are sucky and proprietary - in different ways. iTunes, iPods, Apple's support, DRM, changing to a different, arguably even more sucky, hardware problem which necessitates that people emulate their current software so that it runs dog turd slow...... The list is endless. "

And of course MS does nothing of a proprietary nature with their software and does not support DRM? They are just pissed off because it is one category they haven't managed to yet lock up. And all your other comments could be just as well applied to the PC at one time or another. They all would like to lock you into their line of software and equipment.

I have no problem with macs... just every jerkhole that gets his cock in a twist when I say i wouldn't shell out the dough for one.

There's a good reason they've gotten rid of these types of plugs, people hated them. And while many of the external plugs have finally been stabilized (it's only taken, what - 2 decades to do so?) the PCI card collection is not as vast as that of PCs. Yes, many of these PCI devices have Mac drivers - but that's only about 30-40% of the cards out there (granted, this number has slowly risen) and when a person asks me what a good machine for video editing would need - I don't recommend Windows, I don' recommend IBM, I recommend a PC - because it has THE MOST compatability with modern computer hardware. You can't change the past, I agree with you on that - but it does explain why Apple's history has been so anemic.

and when a person asks me what a good machine for video editing would need - I don't recommend Windows, I don' recommend IBM, I recommend a PC - because it has THE MOST compatability with modern computer hardware.

What are you talking about? What does that even mean?

You don't recommend an IBM-compatible PC, you don't recommend a PC running Windows, but you recommend a PC (a personal computer) because it is the most compatible with modern computer hardware? WTF? I can't make any sense out of that. I feel bad for the people you purport to give advice to.

As far as what you should recommend to someone who wants to do video editing, you need to take into account that there's more to video editing than hardware. Apple has fantastic consumer and professional tools for video editing, they consider it a core of their business. So what if there may be more pieces of hardware with Windows drivers than Mac drivers? You aren't going to have any trouble finding Video editing equipment that is Mac compatible. Any video capture/input device/camera that's worth buying is Mac compatible.

While I don't at all understand the advice you're giving to people who come to you asking what they should use for video editing, if you're recommending Windows, I really feel you're doing a disservice to them. As someone who has done video editing on both systems, the Mac software is far, far easier to use than anything I've seen on Windows.

"What does that even mean? "
- It means that I don't rely on any ONE company for my needs. "I don't recommend IBM" means that I don't recommend IBM, I would recommend AMD, Soyo, Gigabyte, even Dell - just NOT IBM (I thought I was pretty clear on this). Many Apple users are still referring to PCs as IBMs - this is SO COMPLETELY WRONG! Just because they started it, doesn't mean they're still the ONLY game in town - but because Apple users only really have ONE game in town, they think this applies to the rest of the world. "I don't recommend Windows", means that if they have the luxury of an OS choice - THEY SHOULD PROBABLY USE IT. I really don't feel like spending half of a paycheck on 'quality' software when there is free stuff everywhere, so I often recommend Linux for those that are unsure of what they want to do with their machine (Linux = Not Windows, how much explaining did that need?).

A PC is a blank slate that you get to color whatever you want. I'm happier when draw what I want rather than accept a painting from someone else.

> There's a good reason they've gotten rid of these
> types of plugs, people hated them.

In your opinion, of course. I've never hated anything about Mac plugs. Life is far too short!

> And while many of the external plugs have finally
> been stabilized (it's only taken, what - 2 decades
> to do so?) the PCI card collection is not as vast as
> that of PCs.

Plugs have been just as unstable on the PC side. The probelem was resolved more quickly because the clones were emulating the IBM models (mostly.) But PCI, ISA, EISA, Plug and Play, VESA Local bus? Stable? Maybe from about 1996 onwards.. maybe. Bare in mind that the Mac, though using different standards, has been stable as long. The only difference was that Macs dropped LEGACY support more quickly. PC's are still kow towing to the masses over than.

> Yes, many of these PCI devices have Mac drivers -
> but that's only about 30-40% of the cards out there
> (granted, this number has slowly risen)

If the manufacturer doesn't write a driver, what do you expect to happen? If the manufacturer refuses to publish the datasheets for their cards, its pretty much impossible to legitimise the process required to gain the necessary info to hack a driver up. Linux only gets away with it because technically the direvers are free IMO. If Linus started to chage for drivers that have been reverse engineered, I wonder how long a law suit would be away?!

> when a person asks me what a good machine for video
> editing would need - I don't recommend Windows, I
> don' recommend IBM, I recommend a PC - because it
> has THE MOST compatability with modern computer
> hardware.

Hmmm. The "PC" would include Macs. An IBM compatible PC would be what you mean. "Personal computer" is not a term restricted to intel IA32/x86 based hardware.

I would recomend a Mac simply because the software and hardware is already there out of the box. But then that's me.

> You can't change the past, I agree with you on that -> but it does explain why Apple's history has been so
> anemic.

Apple's history has been a bumpy road, especially in the mid 90's, but all companies have their ups and downs. The connectors had little to do with this.

'Hmmm. The "PC" would include Macs. An IBM compatible PC would be what you mean.'

The days of trying to pedantically sort out the usage differences between an "IBM compatible PC" and "personal computer" has long gone. IBM hardware line-up includes more than just Intel MPUs these days, so technically "IBM compatible PC" doesn't really have any relevance anymore.

To further drive the point home, Apple recognizes the widely accepted meaning:

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

I agree with ApproachingZero. That statement makes no sense whatsoever. I can only imagine you mean commodity hardware running a free OS, which doesn't abbreviate to "PC."

Sun might be able to compete for the proprietary plug award, it's so irritating trying to get their older hardware going.
I guess with x86 Macs the special connectors seem to be going away, which is always a step in the right direction.

My 1999 Sawtooth Powermac uses all standard PC connectors as well. I have a regular VGA flat panel cheapo monitor, my regular keyboard works with it (although I am using the Apple keyboard because I like the size and layout of it), using a regular logitech wireless three button mouse, samsung printer, canon scanner, regular harddrive I popped out of my Pentium 3 desktop.....I fail to see the authors point about proprietary plugs. I unplugged all of the hardware from my Compaq desktop and plugged it right back into my Powermac, and it all seems to be working.

Here's why I'll never buy another PC....because I don't like running DOS! Sheesh.

The proprietary plugs have been gone for years on the Powermacs.

Someone else made a comment about bastardized DVI connectors....but fails to mention that DVI supports more bandwidth and it is becoming more and more available on PCs as well.

Hmmm...

RJ-45 keyboard plugs were from the 1980's. The original Mac had them, not anything recent. We're talking the classic all-in one Mac 128's and such.

Round serial ports: Just because the PC standardized on a specific connector, don't believe it is the only option!! In 1984, the serial connector on the Mac was no more non-standard than the RJ-45 keyboard plug. The other notable thing about the Mac is that it does not use the RS-232 standard. IIRC it is RS-422. Why should an RS-422 connection use a DB-9??

4-pin (non PS/2) plugs - now you're bing extremely stupid. PS/2 is a standard protocol invented by IBM. AFAIK it is pretty much designed to carry only keyboard type data - essentially its a bit of a serial hybrid. ADB is a BUS. With ADB you can connect any ADB devices to your Mac. Admittedly, this was mainly keyboards and mice, but other devices were available. Joysticks, Graphics tablets and ISTR MIDI interfaces. ADB was proprietry, but NeXT, for example, used it on their computers. In fact NeXT had their speakers (sound box) running off of ADB. ADB could have done some of what USB now does - maybe a little less well, but it was certainly a more interesting concept than PS/2.

USB keyboards - this is a troll. You know well why Apple moved to USB for their Keyboards and Mice. They dropped all the other bits you complained about.

As for the SCSI - adapter's my friend.

Audio Jack - well my 4 Mac's all have standard audio Jacks. My Classic (68000), 6100, 9500 and Beige G3. So that statement does not ring true through out the entire Apple history.

Crippled IDE cables? You mean, IDE cables that only allow master and no slave devices? That was the hardware, the ROM. Nothing to do with IDE cables, connectors or indeed IDE hardware. The Mac ROM was fixed at some point in the latter G3 era.

Most PCI cards would work on a Mac if they adhered to a standard the Mac could use. Older PCI Macs admittedly use a farily old PCI spec, but a lot of the PCI cards that don't but should work, are quirky and have drivers that tweak windows or have BIOS that are specific to the PC/Intel hardware. I've successfully used USB 1 and USB 2 cards from a PC, NIC's and Matrox Millennium 2 graphics cards (after reflashing to a Mac BIOS) in my Macs. In fact, anything with out a BIOS has worked fairly well.

And finally: Monitors - buy an adapter. Keyboards/mice, but a PS/2 to USB adapter. As for the 2 button quip - my G3 uses a 2 button USB mouse quite happily, thanks.

Wow... rant.

Okay, first off - I TOLD you I was ranting, didn't I? I work with new and old Macs all the time, so I reserve myself the right to do so.

"ADB is a BUS."
- Good for ADB, bad for me. The last thing I need is yet another keyboard interface.

"With ADB you can connect any ADB devices to your Mac."
- Gawd, I should hope so!

"USB keyboards - this is a troll."
- You've left out the notched-metal socket, conveniently. Just because they don't make them anymore doesn't mean the ones they did make just majically disappeared.

"Audio Jack"
- You clearly haven't looked at the microphone plug on the back of a G4. Examine one, please.

"Nothing to do with IDE cables"
- Take a careful look at the middle of the ribbon in the G3 and G4 (blue and silver 'handle case' models) and you'll see that they've stamped-out a conductor for some reason. Should I worry about this, probably not too much, but I do. Sorry for the duress, but having non-standard IDE ribbons makes me uncomfortable.

"Monitors - buy an adapter"
- I shouldn't HAVE to BUY and adapter. Period.

"my G3 uses a 2 button USB mouse quite happily, thanks."
- So does mine, and you're welcome. But we both BOUGHT AFTERMARKET MICE, didn't we? hmmm? I know it's not really Apple's fault for that archaeic lawsuit by IBM and MS, but it's still an inconvenience.

"4-pin (non PS/2) plugs - now you're bing extremely stupid."
- And you're "bing" extremely rude, for no reason I might add. It seems that BeOS took all the nice users with it when it left Apple hardware. The Mac community has become more and more violent towards the rest of the computer world (ESPECIALLY on OSNews). This is sad to me, because I remember the Apple userbase USED TO be kind, helpful, appreciative, cooperative, and understanding. But something went very wrong in the upgrade path... I believe it is a side-effect of Steve Jobs' "Reality Distortion Field".

"Wow... rant."
- Yes, I ranted. And just to warn you, I'll probably do it again.

Peace out.

Amiga could have been here today.. But MS had their hands in its demise. I spoke to as friend who had worked with Amiga for a number of years, including the Gateway years. Being in the Gateway complex, visits from MS were common. When MS saw what the Amiga guys were working on, pressure was applied to Gateway to kill off the technology. Go figure.

USB plugs with a metal tab that prevents you from using USB-compliant (but non-Apple) devices?

They still do this. When I had my Mini, I got tired of the bluetooth keyboard so I bought an official Apple USB Keyboard. I noticed a little dent on the USB connector, but it fit just fine in the USB port so I paid it no attention. The keyboard came with a USB extension cable which at first I didn't use for the keyboard. I figured I'd use it for my thumb drive so I wouldn't have to reach around to to the back of the Mini to plug it in. Well, guess what? The extension cable had a tab that prevented you from plugging anything into it that didn't have a matching dent. The keyboard, of course, has this dent. So, you can only use the otherwise-standard USB extension cable that YOU OWN with the Apple keyboard, not with your other hardware. That irked me to no end, I assure you.

Wow, that sucks, I didnt realize they had proprietary plugs. I guess every Apple has a lot to learn...

If he bought Final Cut Pro, why did he need Apple to put it back on there?

As far as I'm aware, one cannot simply download FCP and then purchase a registration from Apple, you have to buy the boxed item. If he loses his physical property, surely it's his problem?

Of course, if you mean that FCP wouldn't install from the disk again, then he had a perfectly decent reason to complain.

I would also like to point out that they never had pastel colored towers.

Isn't this pastel?

http://retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/m_g3twr.jpg

No, that's not pastel. That is the "highlighter" colored G3 tower. You could also call it an "electric" blue. Pastel colors are light, almost washed out looking. The color of those towers is almost exactly the opposite of a pastel.

Not at all. Technically, pastels have soft hues (pale colors). The color in question isn't pale by any stretch of the imagination.

Thom, are you kidding? That's the highlighter blue I mentioned. It was way to garish to be considered a pastel.

Why are we worried about cosmetics, when the insides matter, I know this is an old argument, but dang Microsoft, use that 50 Billion to write something that is not so prone to spyware, for example: I am looking at a message that says: "STOP! WINDOWS REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION....." an operating system that is SOOOOOOOOOOO opposed to open source(unike Apple, they should go open source completely, they only support the unix side) it sure does seem like everytime you turn around some donut has written another program that seems infiltrate more deeper than most programs should...why do people do that?.....
and what is up with those ServicePacks, I bought a High-Speed USB card the other day, and the software to run High Speed wanted SP1! Why, why does it matter....?

I have yet to run into this problem with Mac OS X...

I am just sayin'
Oh, windows is still the best for gaming I will give you that, its mostly the hardware though.....

Edited 2006-05-12 12:08

Yes, they removed these plugs - that doesn't change history. I've got an entire room here at work with all sorts of ill-conceived Apple incarnations - that's not speculation, my friend. It's taken a near-collapse of the Apple corporation for Steve J to admit that being different isn't necessarily a good thing. "MacIntel" was supposed to happen after Hell froze over.

So, today - they have standard plugs. But they didn't for some time. Sorry for looking around my room and pointing this FACT out.

I do agree that for my work , I do not know if the Mac could be feasable , usable .....Would Apple be reponsive to bugs ......? I doubt it .....
But , for my personal use ..........WOW! What a computer .......
Understanding , easy , user frienly ......anything ....
That is my cup of tea .....
I have touched Irix , Solaris , Linux ,Vax, PDP11, Unix , Mac , Window 2000 , XP , 3.1
Os 6, 7, 8, 9 ..... Amiga , OS-I6502 , Cromenco.......Z81 .....
My most adorable PC was my Amiga 1000 first ........
My MACmini second for now .......
And not far my G5 .........

Aramis

Just to clarify: OS/2 is still formally supported by IBM.

:-)

Just to clarify: OS/2 is still formally supported by IBM.

No it's not.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13107

Yes, it is. Standard support != all support. Most corporate OS/2 customers (and there are still a surprising number of those) have their very own support contracts negotiated with IBM, and little folks like me get support from SSI (who in turn gets fixes and such directly from IBM) for our eCS installations.

According to Bob St. John, support from IBM is expected for a while yet. The current published "End of Service" date is 12/31/2006 (over seven months away), but chances are that even that could be extended again as it has in the past, and of course individual organizations are not limited to that date even if it doesn't change.

As I said, OS/2 is still formally supported by IBM. I stand by that statement.

Edited 2006-05-10 22:31

Actually, OS/2 is still supported AFAIK: but it's on a per-contract basis, which probably costs rather a lot.

However, if you are an eComStation user, then you get all the updates to the kernel, drivers etc for free.

With regards the Apple article itself: I have come across zealots on pretty much all platforms that I have used: they are never witty and rarely wise, yet nor do they represent the majority of users.

Yessir! and eCom is shaping up nicely! Name change does't mean it's not still around.

"The author seems to have good capabilities in computer software and hardware, which maybe makes him excellent "user"; but what the author didn't see is the whole picture of computer industry users needs. You have those people who want to cut the IT cost to minimum and who do not like to configure and know about the inner workings of systems and rather prefer to spend time on productivity and who requires also the highest security all in one sigle packaged system, well such people will end up best served with Mac OSX."

Okay, I'll have to admit that I am a little confused by this one. I am an avid Linux user but, in corporations, Windows seems to rule. I am not sure how Macs would lower IT costs (granted, I don't have a deep knowledge of Macs). I would think hardware costs would be higher. Also, there would be an issue of fewer software options so, this would drive costs higher, as well. Then, of course, if you are like my company, you have specialty software (for accounting, supply chain, human resources, etc.) which may not even run on Mac. This would mean special code rewrites/custom code or the use of emulators which, again, would drive up the cost of ownership.

So, I guess I would have to ask how this would lower IT costs. I'm not trying to belittle your argument. I've just never heard of Macs lowering TCO among industry users.

Speculation? Those are facts. They never respected standards, and because now they do doesn't invalidate the previous point.

Um, yes it does, unless your next system is going to be something circa 1999 off eBay. Apple made mistakes with the proprietary plugs they created in the 80s and 90s, and have taken steps to rectify that. Their current models do not use proprietary plugs of any kind. What more can they do to appease you?

If you were in the market for a Dell, would you judge their current offerings by what they were selling in the '90s?

Yeah, that's why shallow people buy Macs, alright. So that their shallow friends can sit around all day shallowly gawping at it.

OK, I will admit that not every Mac user is like that. Like the rest of the population, I'm sure a good proportion of Mac buyers buy their computers to use them.

Mac's have a fair share of zealots; second only to Linux.

ROTFL. Oh, please. If there are more Linux zealots than Mac zealots, perhaps it's because more people can AFFORD (and therefore USE) Linux?

If Linux zealots were halfway bad as Mac zealots, Firefox and Thunderbird and OpenOffice and cygwin would NEVER have been ported to Windows.

The HARDWARE is more expensive but you gain other perks in the total package (if you DISAGREE with that OPINION you probably use a PC).

And if you AGREE with that "OPINION" you probably use a MAC. I'm sorry, were you TRYING to make a "POINT"?

"If Linux zealots were halfway bad as Mac zealots, Firefox and Thunderbird and OpenOffice and cygwin would NEVER have been ported to Windows."

Yeah, because we all know Windows zealots don't exist, and if they did they wouldn't port those apps.

> "If Linux zealots were halfway bad as Mac zealots, Firefox
> and Thunderbird and OpenOffice and cygwin would NEVER
> have been ported to Windows."
>
>> Yeah, because we all know Windows zealots don't exist,
>> and if they did they wouldn't port those apps

Discount out the noise and the zealots. Think about the developers. If you were involved in writing these apps, wouldn't you want as many people as possible to use them? Linux != Firefox, Thunderbird, OOo etc., and it's a far stretch to equate the availability of these apps to other platforms as a measure of zealotry. It is also a far stretch to think that your average Windows zealot would port these apps just because they are zealous about Windows. You might well find that the developers of these apps don't care to take sides.

I think you missed my point a la sarcasm. I was simply indicating that it is silly to assume an application won't get ported to Windows because Linux developers won't do it. I only used Windows zealots as an example because they had not been discussed yet. Equal time, I say.

"You might well find that the developers of these apps don't care to take sides."

That's rarely true. I develop applications that run on Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows; and I take sides based on technical merit all the time. I would say most developers only develop for either Windows or UNIX/FOSS, and that by default is taking sides.

"I think you missed my point a la sarcasm. I was simply indicating that it is silly to assume an application won't get ported to Windows because Linux developers won't do it. I only used Windows zealots as an example because they had not been discussed yet. Equal time, I say. "

Sorry, my bad regarding mis-reading the sarcasm.

"That's rarely true. I develop applications that run on Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows; and I take sides based on technical merit all the time. I would say most developers only develop for either Windows or UNIX/FOSS, and that by default is taking sides."

Sure, but you develop for the platforms to further your applications' install base, not to further these platforms' agenda (for lack of a better word).

"you develop for the platforms to further your applications' install base"

Not really. Only a few applications make it to all platforms. Most applications are unique to each platform, again, based on the system's technical merits. These technical merits are what keep me biased for writing certain applications for only certain platforms. If I'm writing scientific visualization software it's going on a *X (Mac OS X, *NIX) system, whereas corporate business software goes on a Windows system. I'm all for furthering a platform's agenda if the platform is really good at something.

In my experience Windows zealots are closed-source zealots.

So no, they probably wouldn't.

That's funny. How would an open source zealot be anymore motivated to develop for a closed source platform than a closed source zealot develop for a closed source platform? Someone's porting the applications to Windows, and as far as I can tell it's Windows platform developers (even if some of them just happen to also be open source developers).

You misunderstand. I'm saying that an open source zealot would not develop for a closed-source platform, and the reverse. TB, FF, and OO.org would in that case not be developed for Windows or anything else by closed-source zealots, because they're open source.

I'm not misunderstanding you at all. You're right when you say, "an open source zealot would not develop for a closed-source platform, and the reverse" but that's not what you're really talking about. You're talking about open source software on a closed source platform. You're mixing up the software with the developer. I don't see the disparity of a closed source zealot developing open source software on a closed source platform. The zealousness is tied to the platform, not the software, hence the terms Windows zealot, Mac zealot, Linux zealot, etc.

This argument relies too much on a false premises. Free software was developed to be portable to platforms from proprietary UNIX vendors long before Win32 ports were of any significant importance. Part of the whole point is that free software can go where the users are, regardless of where that is, and permit them to have the source code for the programs they use available to them for modification. The recent importance of the Win32 simply reflects that a large number of people use Windows, and yet still desire free software. Every time a Windows user picks a piece of free software (OO.org, Firefox, Gimp, etc) over a proprietary piece of software, they become that much more free. It's less time they spend using the proprietary equivalent, less time they enrich the closed formats or broken standards of those equivalents, and if the software is portable the more able to express platform choice they are in the future.

The proverbial "linux zealot" isn't even necessarily a developer of anything.

"ROTFL. Oh, please. If there are more Linux zealots than Mac zealots, perhaps it's because more people can AFFORD (and therefore USE) Linux?"

I think it would be more accurate to say the percentage and not the numbers are higher. There are more Linux zealots out there because there are more Linux users out there. And there are more Windows zealots because of the vastly larger number of Windows users. From my experiences the percentage of zealots seems to be consistently distributed across the spectrum. :-)

From my experiences the percentage of zealots seems to be consistently distributed across the spectrum. :-)

I'd agree with that, though if you mean that then you've mixed up:

the percentage and not the numbers are higher.

OK, what I was trying to say is that the percentage of zealots seems to be about the same regardless of the OS. This would mean that the more popular OS would numerically have more zealots because it has more users. Personally, I have never found one OS that would do everything I want to do. Though I have to admit if BeOS had been able to continue it might have come close by now. :-)

And, OK, maybe I switched with the Intel inside too early. Thunderbird wasn't native, camino was (and seemed nice)....but overall, with 512mb ram, performance was not good, not good at all, considering even the mac mini has decent hardware.

You should have gotten a PowerPC mini, which would have done everything you wanted, including a more native OOo (Neoffice/J) or MS Office if you wanted.
If you go for the early adopter stuff, you have to live with the headaches.
There IS a thunderbird for Macintels BTW ( http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/X86_software )

And why replace it with a Windows PC when you could dual boot Windows ?

Quote from Tyr.:

You should have gotten a PowerPC mini, which would have done everything you wanted, including a more native OOo (Neoffice/J) or MS Office if you wanted.
If you go for the early adopter stuff, you have to live with the headaches.
There IS a thunderbird for Macintels BTW ( http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/X86_software )

And why replace it with a Windows PC when you could dual boot Windows ?

End Quote

Ah, yes, Boot Camp

Interesting, but I always knew that if the Mac worked well, I would want to look at virtualization. But, why buy an expensive XP or XP pro license when you can buy a used small form factor WITH the XP pro license for less. I did the math, dual boot made no sense.

The problem / benefit with Macs is that they don't lose value quickly....I might have tried the g4 mini....but if it's not heavily discounted, but go with a decidedly slower processor. The good news is that if I sell, I haven't lost much, and gained the knowledge of trying!

Well, you'll probably be missing out on the good stuff: You see, you tried to use the same applications for OSX (OO.o, Thunderbird, Firefox) as exists for Windows or Linux. It does sometimes work but not always. In the case of OO.o, the port just plain stinks.

I'm betting you were also grumbling a bit about why it's so hard to run apps maximized in OSX when it's so easy in XP. :-) There are reasons for that.

The thing with OSX is that if apps are not written in Cocoa, they just run like crap or sometimes about adequately, but the experience would be no better than when using XP. You are not taking advantage of OSX at all.

You could try using Pages instead of OO.o, an application written in Cocoa which takes full advantage of OSX capabilities. It's a jillion times faster and offers better text rendering. It imports Word documents very quickly and can convert them to PDF much better than OO.o can. Really it's like night and day. Of course it's not open source, but that's how things are.

Or study the power of the deceptively simple TextEdit, the "equivalent" to Windows' Wordpad, except it does a whole lot more, like read Word documents and export to PDF, built in spell checking and can use OSX services to almost extend it to be a full word processor.

Try some Cocoa based apps. I assure you they run much better than most ported apps that are not cocoa-fied. A good one could be Camino, which is a cocoa-fied Firefox.

Or to see the real power of Cocoa, download the demo version of Omnigraffle and try making a few charts in it. Where would you find such an app for XP?

Try using Preview.app to edit PDFs, copy/paste images from here to there to anywhere in Pages or TextEdit or make new images. It's beautiful and only OSX can do this. So many things are so fast and easy to do which are nearly impossible or difficult without extensions in XP. Unfortunately you won't discover that within the first five minutes. It takes weeks and months to discover all the details.

Oh, and learn the keyboard shortcuts. There are a ton of them.

Edited 2006-05-10 22:15

Oh, and learn the keyboard shortcuts. There are a ton of them.

I've made this point before, but it's too good not to make again, expanded.

I thought Macs were meant to eliminate esoteric keyboarding? [such as "copy file" to do the dishes, I mean, copy a file] So why does the Mac have not only esoteric keyboard shortcuts, but esoteric keys? Command-V (or is it Option-V?) for Paste? Where in the word "paste" is there a letter V?

Is there even a consistent difference between the use of Alt, Ctrl, Command and Option?

And how can users too stupid to use a two- or three- or ten-button mouse ever be expected to cope with an 80+ key keyboard?

So why does the Mac have not only esoteric keyboard shortcuts, but esoteric keys? Command-V (or is it Option-V?) for Paste? Where in the word "paste" is there a letter V?

Since these particular shortcuts were first used on the mac it is the rest of the world that's esoteric. Also "V" looks like a mark you would make an paper to indicate an insertion between 2 words, not to mention it is right next to the keys for cut and copy.

Also "V" looks like a mark you would make an paper to indicate an insertion between 2 words, not to mention it is right next to the keys for cut and copy.

Which is so blatantly obvious that I had to ask.

Since these particular shortcuts were first used on the mac it is the rest of the world that's esoteric.

That's like saying that all extant democracies are esoteric, because they're representative democracies and the Ancient Greeks, being the first to develop democracy, used the direct form.

Edited 2006-05-10 23:38

Is there even a consistent difference between the use of Alt, Ctrl, Command and Option?

I can't cover it all, but here are some examples:

Ctrl-key works with shells. This is very nice, because Ctrl-C is a common operation in a shell to stop a program. Unfortunately on standard PC keyboards, this collides with the Copy shortcut.
Doesn't on a Mac keyboard, since the Cmd-key is mapped to such operations.
Ctrl-key can also alter the behaviour of the keyboard navigation keys
It even behaves like old-style UNIX cursor navigation and text editing with Ctrl+F, B, D, etc. in normal text fields.

Alt-key provides alternate chars for letters.
Alt-key also alters the behavior of the mouse buttons and is sometimes used in combination

Cmd-key is basically what Ctrl does on a PC keyboard. It provides access to most keyboard shortcuts. It's also what you press to call up popup menus when you have a one-button mouse.

I think the design is very consistent and complete. There is no "Windows-key", a key that you only use for a few things under Windows, where the Cmd-Alt-Ctrl trio provides hundreds of combinations to access things through the keyboard.

And how can users too stupid to use a two- or three- or ten-button mouse ever be expected to cope with an 80+ key keyboard?

They don't have to. They'll use a one button mouse to slowly navigate the menus and press the clearly labeled buttons, icons, etc. They have almost the same amount of access as those who know all the keyboard shortcuts.

The rest of us who know what we're doing can hook up a 27 button mouse and an airplane cockpit for a keyboard.

OSX scales very well with the skill of the user.

They don't have to. They'll use a one button mouse to slowly navigate the menus and press the clearly labeled buttons, icons, etc. They have almost the same amount of access as those who know all the keyboard shortcuts.

You're forgetting that some people use the keyboard to type! :-)

There are probably more touch-typists in the world than efficient three-button-mousers like myself.

What I always tell people when teaching them the X, C, V tricks is the X looks like scissors, so you'd cut, the C means copy, and the V looks like a glue bottle tip that you'd paste with.

I personally never use those as I use a touchstream. Even if I wasn't using the touchstream, I use the dvorak layout, so those are weird shortcuts for me anyway.

I can't believe how often this argument is used, as if style or "personality" mattered at all for _getting work done_. You know it's pretty much straw man time when you are pulling out the "but but it looks better!" arguments.
People can walk up and touch a mac mini because the rest of the Linux (and even Windows) world is busy working and not caring about the specific tint and shade of their case.

I can't believe how often this argument is used, as if style or "personality" mattered at all for _getting work done_. You know it's pretty much straw man time when you are pulling out the "but but it looks better!" arguments.
People can walk up and touch a mac mini because the rest of the Linux (and even Windows) world is busy working and not caring about the specific tint and shade of their case.

Yeah that's why case-modding is big-business and skinning is considered an essential part of every interface these days, because people don't want their computer to have style and personality.

Your home doesn't need personality or style to live in it, but it makes it a hell of a bit nicer. Why not do the same for your computer, you spend enough time in front of it (well I do at least).

I can't believe how often this argument is used, as if style or "personality" mattered at all for _getting work done_.

"Style" and "personality" have nothing to do with driving from home to the office, yet people make their car purchasing decisions based on precisely those factors.

"Style" and "personality" have nothing to do with covering our genitalia, keeping us from freezing to death, or getting work done at the office, yet people make their clothing purchases based on precisely those factors.

"Style" and "personality" have nothing to do with keeping a roof over your head, keeping you dry and safe at night, yet people make their home buying decisions based on precisely those factors.

Why should we consider things like style and personality in every other thing we purchase and choose to surround ourselves with, EXCEPT for computers?

Do you throw a hissy fit when someone supplies you with a bog-standard biro or, Jobs forbid, a pencil?

I don't know about you, but I don't stare at a pencil all day.

Besides, Apple's industrial design is more than just good looks. It's also about usability and ergonomics. It's one of the reasons the iPod is so successful. The last two Macs that I've owned I can open up to upgrade RAM or hard drives within literally a second (without tools) and physically make the upgrade within seconds more because Apple does an intelligent job of laying out its motherboard components. In other words, Apple generally adheres to clean designs, inside and out. That attention to detail will obviously cost a few more dollars.

Most new dells come with same easy access features, I used a dell pc at work in 2000 and it was jus as easy as our g3 and g4 towers to work on, and that was 6 years ago

That's one thing Apple needs to learn - I didn't particularly like my Dell Inspiron 3800 laptop (hate Windows, can't make Linux see the wireless card), but I did like the little drawer on the side, that held the hard drive. I bought a larger drive, unscrewed one large screw, and pulled the old drive out. I replaced the old drive with the new one, partitioned, formatted, and installed my OSes, and was done.

Try installing a hard drive in an iBook... I'd still rather use the iBook 101 times out of 100.

It's true that the attention to detail in hardware is variable across PC clonemakers, but then that would be true if there were Apple clones, too. A lot of people seem to think Apple HW is getting shoddier.

I don't know about you, but I don't stare at a pencil all day.

I don't stare at the case all day, either. The monitor, yes. I have a nice setup on the KDE desktop, imo.

"A lot of people seem to think Apple HW is getting shoddier."

A throw-away statement. Consumer Reports would disagree.

"I don't stare at the case all day, either. The monitor, yes."

Sometimes people want to stare at both to save space: iMac.

Under this monitor is a SparcStation 20. Damn sight bigger than an iMac2 base. Hardly gets noticed.

You picked on someone because of their argument for social commonplace and acceptance of design. Just what are you trying to add by stating you have a SparcStation 20? Sun's Sparc line isn't commodity hardware. Sun takes as much pride in their industrial design as Apple. I bet, "Hardly gets noticed" is just the comment Sun wants to hear from its users about its design.

Personally, I prefer the Sun Fire T2000. I don't have any preference for their workstation models.

Off-topic, but I just use an emulator and one of these great retro-joysticks : http://www.vesalia.de/e_competitionusb.htm
There's simply no substitute for being able to use a real joystick for your retro gaming pleasure :-)

And WHY do I have to pay the FULL PRICE for an OS *upgrade*?

Because they have to pay someone to create it for you?

It's still cheaper than a new Windows version (assuming there is a new Windows version someday. XP only seems cheap since doesn't have to be replaced for 5+ years.)

It's still cheaper to upgrade a registered version of Windows than it is to buy it. Yes, I know Microsoft could probably bring the price of an upgrade down to £2 or even $2 and not make much of a dent, but that isn't the point.

The point is that Apple have forced people to upgrade to a new architecture twice in 10 years, three times in fifteen. That's the equivalent of switching from XP to Linux, then from Linux on the PC to Linux on the PowerMac, then from Linux on the PowerMac to OS X on the PowerMac. Except much more expensive.

It gets even worse if you go back in time to '84. Yes, Apple did provide an upgrade path for LISA customers, but for the value of $10,000 in the early eighties I should damn well THINK so. They also made the Apple II more Mac-like. But AFAIK they never provided a Mac that could run Apple][ programs. In fact it was the distinct lack of Apple][ compatibility that sunk the Apple///

"The point is that Apple have forced people to upgrade to a new architecture twice in 10 years,"

Odd, when was anyone forced to upgrade? I'm happily using a G4 Powerbook right now and I don't see anyone from Apple dragging me to the Apple Store to buy a new machine. Looks like you can even still buy G4 and G5 computers from the Apple store. Heck, they're even releasing all of their software as "universal" binaries specifically so you don't have to upgrade. Where is this "forcing" occurring exactly?

Well, it's more to do with peripherals and other software.

Get a new version of Photoshop that doesn't work on old hardware? upgrade. (OK, MS is as bad for this as Apple).

Going from SCSI to IDE? Tough. ADB to USB? ditto. Notice that you don't get the same benefits as PC users, for one thing because (for example) ADB and USB are both designed to be plug and play (whereas serial ports weren't); for another because not nearly the same amount of hardware is released with Mac compatibility.

"The point is that Apple have forced people to upgrade to a new architecture twice in 10 years, three times in fifteen."
Nope, only two. 680x0->PowerPC in 1995 or so was the only other Mac hardware transition.

" But AFAIK they never provided a Mac that could run Apple][ programs."
They actually sold an Apple II compatibility card. I remember running Apple II software on the old Macs in grade school.

I only skimmed the article so I can't comment on what the writer said. All I can say is that Windows annoys me to no end and Mac OS X doesn't. And while yes, you don't have the near-limitless choice or rock-bottom prices (though I find that consumer-level Macs to hold a decent value), I'm perfectly happy with my iBook. It's a tradeoff, and some people are willing to take it. </Capt. Obvious>

"And WHY do I have to pay the FULL PRICE for an OS *upgrade*?"

Since XP professional is much closer to OS X than XP home is I can only presume you prefer to pay $200 to upgrade Windows over $130 to upgrade OS X...

Oh, and I forgot, with the $200 you have to be able to prove you have a previous version of Windows, since it is only an upgrade and not the full version, and you are REQUIRED to activate it with MS if you want to use it longer than 30 days.

And you are forgetting that if you want to take that version of Windows, uninstall it, and then install it on a different machine you have to jump through the hoops. Yeah, that Windows update is a real bargain.

You're welcome to read my other posts, at least one of which will tell you, I don't run Windows either. I don't like it, never have, (AmigaOS without memory protection crashed less than "Windows Be-all-and-end-all Spend-the-military-budget-of-a-small-European-country-to-launch-it, AKA Windows95) and thank God, don't have any use for Windows-only software, except at work.

All I have to do to buy OSX is buy a £500+ computer to go along with it.

//You're welcome to read my other posts, at least one of which will tell you, I don't run Windows either. I don't like it, never have ... AKA Windows95)//

Uh ... Windows has changed just a *tad* from 95 to XP SP2.

You don't have to prove anything when you upgrade windows, as the install detects the exisiting install of windows and UPGRADES it, how simple is that? IF you don't have windows installed, and try to use and upgrade disk, you are SOL, but that is because it is an upgrade disk.

You also do not have to jump through hoops to install your copy of windows on a new machine, you just install it and let it activate over the net, no hoops required. If you are being sneaky you can actually install it on several machines, just not at the same time. if you install it on new hardware more than x times in a given time period (I can't remember the criteria, as I only ran into the limit once, and was rebuilding my computer like a madman, I believe it was 6 or 7 times), you have to phone them, say the computer died, and they will give you a new code, 2-3 minutes total time on phone.

So it seems obvious to me that you have never upgraded a windows xp box lately, or have never have at all.

How does that relate, in any way, to the monetary cost of upgrading? Well, there's phone calls, I suppose.

Sorry, got the wrong end of the stick. Ignore just above.

"You don't have to prove anything when you upgrade windows, as the install detects the exisiting install of windows and UPGRADES it, how simple is that? IF you don't have windows installed, and try to use and upgrade disk, you are SOL, but that is because it is an upgrade disk."

OK, let's see how far you get user your method after replacing the HD with a brand new larger HD and doing a clean install of the upgrade. With OS X all I have to do is boot from the CD and off I go. But then why would anyone ever need to do a clean install of Windows.

The $130 OS X does not provide a price break for previous versions, true. But when you go out and pay $300 for the full XP Pro you expect to be able to upgrade when the time comes. And $200 for the upgrade version is no bargain either.

You wouldn't happen to still have that IIfx, would you?

In particular, if you sign on to any of the News Groups specific to almost any OS you will be greeted with the same problem you noted on the Mac forums. Post any comment that can be construed to be negative and you will be attacked. So in that respect it is not a Mac only phenomenon.

Now THAT is true.

As for price you have to look at what you want to use the system for. For some people the included software can make up for the difference in cost between Mac and Window PC's. I leave out Linux here because it still has a ways to go to be ready for the average non computer literate person.

I'll leave out Macs, because I don't know much about using them.

Windows is at least as unready for the desktop as Linux is now (maybe not in the past, but now).

Oh, I'll openly admit that if I standardized the family on Linux, I'd be doing most of the administration.

So why is a distro that has almost no graphical administration tools (Ubuntu) growing so rapidly, when there are so many distros with YaSTs and DiskDrakes coming out their ears?

Depending on the computer I'm using, I use Gentoo (harder, if probably less time-consuming, than Ubuntu to configure) or SuSE (easier than Ubuntu to configure, though YaST is pretty slow.

My family have been using PCs for about ten years now. Before that it was Amigas. (R.I.P.) My parents can use (MS) Office, Outlook Express, IE, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Photoshop, Illustrator, IncrediMail, Firefox, and Thunderbird. My father can defragment his PC. When their email had to be set up to use the same settings in TB as IncrediMail, it fell to me to do it. If there's something they and I don't know how to do, it falls to me to grope around menus looking for it.

In short, I standardized my family on Windows, and I'm still doing most of the administration.

If the "average desktop user" is using Windows, then the average desktop user is acquainted with people in whose company they could cope with Linux. Maybe not Slackware, but some Linux.

"(whereas windows users have a long history of surviving problems...lol...what doesn't kill you makes you stronger !)"

Actually, you are incorrect on this point. It doesn't make the average Windows user stronger, it gives me a little extra cash and makes me stronger. :-)

"(whereas windows users have a long history of surviving problems...lol...what doesn't kill you makes you stronger !)"

>Actually, you are incorrect on this point. It doesn't >make the average Windows user stronger, it gives me a >little extra cash and makes me stronger. :-)

True ! My asumption was only correct for the windows people who like to build/set up their comp.

It isn't true at all for the average joe user.
:)

">Actually, you are incorrect on this point. It doesn't >make the average Windows user stronger, it gives me a >little extra cash and makes me stronger. :-)

True ! My asumption was only correct for the windows people who like to build/set up their comp.

It isn't true at all for the average joe user.
:) "


What I get the biggest kick out of is going to someone's house when they have a problem and they tell me they have been on the phone with "Tech Support" for hours and couldn't resolve the problem. Had one the other day. Went in and looked up the device in Device Manager. Item was disabled. Uncheck box and system works fine. Total time about 60 seconds. I think Tech Support is a bigger problem than what OS is running inside.

2) I dislike paying premiums for looks/brand/hype (at least for comps parts).

Personal preference, but I don't think the premium is that high.

3) I dislike the "we are better than windows/linux users" attitude.

Untrue. (IMHO)

4a) windows xp works fine and is quite stable.

Opinions vary wildly on this one, that's all I'm going to say.

4b) There is more (commercial/leaders) software on windows than on Mac/linux/etc...

But there's still enough for OSX if you're not afraid to try something different.

4c) There are more people using windows and probably more people developping for windows

1.3 billion chinese eat dog

5) I think that Apple will be in a pinch after people start buying less ipods

I don't think that will happen, even if it does they have money in the bank a good reputation (vs MS) and creative people. They'll manage.

[/i]6) I get the feeling that people using macs are spoiled (mac=it just works ) so, when they are confronted with a problem, they are at a loss...[/i]

Among the mac-guys I know there are 3 unix sys-admins (counting myself :-) That's an unfair generalisation.

"6) I get the feeling that people using macs are spoiled (mac=it just works ) so, when they are confronted with a problem, they are at a loss... "

Let's see, according to the latest Consumer Reports survey Apple tops the list in Tech Support again. They also came in with needing the fewest repairs in the desktop category and were only one point below Sony and IBM in the laptop category. That would seem to indicate they have reason for that attitude. And when my keyboard went bad on me while under warranty they shipped a replacement out at their expense the next morning. And I was not at a loss about what to do.

"6) I get the feeling that people using macs are spoiled (mac=it just works ) so, when they are confronted with a problem, they are at a loss... "

>Let's see, according to the latest Consumer Reports >survey Apple tops the list in Tech Support again. They >also came in with needing the fewest repairs in the >desktop category and were only one point below Sony and >IBM in the laptop category. That would seem to indicate >they have reason for that attitude. And when my keyboard >went bad on me while under warranty they shipped a >replacement out at their expense the next morning. And I >was not at a loss about what to do.


Lol man, you don't get the point at all !!!!!!!!!!
This isn't about customer service.

When my comp breaks, I diagnose the problem then I go buy another part myself and I set it up (the hardware and software parts)....

Whereas I think (if I'm not mistaken) that you are entirely relying on Apple support if your comps breaks
(opening it voids the warranty, right ? ).

If your comp doesn't start anymore, you have to send it to Apple support and wait for them to repair it and send it you again, right ?

4a) windows xp works fine and is quite stable.

>>Opinions vary wildly on this one, that's all I'm going to say.

Well, staying up for 2 months is enough for me
Don't need more for my desktop.

That sentence wouldn't be true If I was running a server (I would then use linux or solaris or a bsd).

4c) There are more people using windows and probably more people developping for windows

1.3 billion chinese eat dog

Well...dog might actually be good. Rats too. I'll have to taste it if I go to china...

Hey...I'm french and I eat snails and frogs. So I guess I score the point here

What I meant was that...the more people/developper that use an oses...the more you are likely to see new software sprouting/being available.

I mean...it motivates (there is money to be made) the developpers to code for the platform


>Among the mac-guys I know there are 3 unix sys-admins >(counting myself :-) That's an unfair generalisation.

Man...you aren't the average mac using person...(I am quite sure that you are much better than me at comps as it's your job and I'm a maths teacher)
Remember that the people that read osnews or slashdots article are usually a bit more knowledgeable about comps (we are all geeks ! )that the people out there

People buy Beemers because 1. they are German and 2. they look like they go fast. I doubt people buy them because it looks good because honestly Beemers dont look that good.

I like my Mac because of the OS. I use it for college work which is mainly Java programming but I also write shell and perl scripts. I also write papers on it, browse the web, listen to my music collection, IM, watch films etc. People buy Macs for a whole bunch of reasons. People do stuff with their Macs that people do with their PCs.

I find it ironic that people criticise Mac owners for being elitist and then slag off Mac owners for being slaves to fashion or for choosing form over function.

The two aren't incompatible. Unlike OSX and Windows.

"I chuckled at the BMW analogy, since I have first-hand experience of both. Expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, expensive (or impossible) to get parts for - all with a wiff of cheap burning plastic in the air. Or should that be cheap burning thermal paste?"

BMW's come with full service for 5 years. When I had my 3 series I'd take it in just for them to install new wiper blades and top of the fluids. They'd even give me a rental for a day. How exactly is all maintenance included expensive to maintain?

Everything a mac has IS better. All the components are higher end...Macs are very upgradable now. They take standard RAM

So I guess standard RAM has to pass through the famous Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field before it becomes higher end, eh?

I've been using windows since windows 3.0, and I have never seen an error message when trying to cut or paste. Perhaps it is the apps you are using, or the way the admin (could be you) mucked up the system. I also use antialiasing on my XP boxes, it's called cleartype, but needs to be turned on, it's in the display control panel app, under appearance -> effects. try it.

Yep... the moral of the story is, zealots suck.

My Windows XP box has been up for 28 days, no problems, and I took it down to put in more ram, before that it was up for 96 days. I generally use ubuntu, or freebsd, but if your XP box can't stay up for 21 days, maybe it's the hardware or the drivers

Don't feel too bad.

As a BeOS/Zeta user, I'm branded as 'living in denial'.

I agree with you completely.

"I'm branded as 'living in denial'."

No, that's Amiga users

To the best of my knowledge, my father still uses a Commodore 64. What stereotype would that be? I'm looking for creative entries.

He'd be branded as a stoned hippie (living in the stoned age

C64 users nowadays would be hairy 30-something HardSID music-scene Germans or hairless Sweed 1337 demo-sceners

a HMMV, a Volvo, a truck or a tank - you have a choice!

hmmmm, I was thinking about that... and I'd have to say Volkswagens. Not the A3/A4 VWs built after 1993; those are most definitely Mac cars. But anything before that -- A1/A2 cars, and of course the Beetle and the Kombi -- those are true Linux cars. You need to tinker with them to keep them running happily, but it's quite all right because you enjoy doing it anyway. Most of the parts are standard and interchangeable, but you'd better have a full kit of metric socket wrenches and the Bentley shop manual!

wait -- I've just described myself. Ha!

....n/m

Edited 2006-05-12 00:38

OS choice, and the model under which OS and computers are sold, is no longer a technical matter. It has become THE critical ingredient in people's access to intellectual freedom.

What part of YOU HAVE MORE OS CHOICE ON AN INTEL MAC THAN ANY OTHER COMPUTER don't you understand? Seriously, why is that so hard to grasp?

Any random computer: Linux + Windows + hobby OSes
Any Intel Mac: Linux + Windows + OS X + hobby OSes

If OS choice is such a big deal to you, I think you should get a Mac. Unless you don't want to have the "choice" to run OS X on your computer.

It's not hard to grasp. It's simply untrue. See my earlier post on the subject.

It's not hard to grasp. It's simply untrue. See my earlier post on the subject.

Your "earlier post on the subject" is completely moronic, because you compare the number of Linux distros that run on PPC (you say 5) to the number that run on X86 (you say 300), and conclude that Macs only run plus or minus 5 OSes while PCs run plus or minus 300.

You complety IGNORED the fact that Macs use X86 processors now, the last remaining PPC systems Apple sells will be completely phased out in about 4 more months.

So let's make this simple for you to parse: Whatever # of operating systems run on any random X86 box, we'll assign the varible Y to that #. Are you with me so far? Number of OSes you can install on your Dell or your Shuttle = Y.

Now, since an Intel Mac can run all of the same OSes that you can install on your Dell or your Shuttle, in addition to OS X, the # of OSes that you can install on your Intel (x86) Mac = Y+1

Get it yet? Y+1 > Y. Therefore you have more "OS choice" on an Intel Mac than any other personal computer you can buy.

It's really not that hard to grasp unless you continue to refuse to believe x86 Macs exist.

Edited 2006-05-14 11:44

Not all Linux distros work equally well on all commodity x86 computers. x86 Macs are still proprietary, because of EFI.

Now, how many Linux distros did you say are known to work on x86 Macs?

Not all Linux distros work equally well on all commodity x86 computers. x86 Macs are still proprietary, because of EFI.

A firmware update to Intel Macs released by Apple at the same time Boot Camp was released added BIOS support to their EFI firmware.

That was a great trolling post. Two Thumbs up.

I was about to defeat the Overmind, and it was like bleep bleep bleep bleep and it devoured my Carrier fleet. It was a real bummer.

Now THAT was a quality post. Then proceeds to make cult fan sites about some dude who's PC crashed during the last stages of Starcraft.

Thanks for the laugh.

>> I'm not sure why there is even a debate - XP crashes far too often for anyone to be satisified with it.

Oddly enough, the only time XP crashes on me is when I'm doing something stupid, like clicking yes on a activeX installation (which should NEVER be done IMHO, ActiveX needs to die horribly) or running decade old software that is not fully NT4+ codebase compatable.

>> I was, just now, playing Starcraft on XP. I was about to use my Protoss force to crush the Zerg, when my plans were foiled. No, it wasn't the Zerg Overmind! XP just locked up.

Oddly enough, SPEAKING of decade old (or close to it) software that isn't 100% NT4+ codebase compatable... Just be glad it runs at all, and the reason it runs is the endless backwards compatability hacks Microsoft has been including in their operating systems since Windows 95 - which of course is the real root of the instability problems most everyone has on the windows platform.

I have a uptime on my XP box that amazes most people, being in the >1 year mark with the exception of windows update reboots and one physical move of the box - how do I do it you ask? Simple, I have a list of software that isn't allowed ANYWHERE NEAR this workstation:

Microsoft Outlook/Outlook Express - grab by the balls and pull shortly after installation of the OS.

Nortons, Symantec or McAfee ANYTHING - 98% of the computers that come into my shop for instability problems or 'acting absurdly slow' I wipe these steaming pile of ....... and the machine is FINE. I swear most of the 'windows maintennance cycle' of reformat/reinstall the OS is caused by these and not the OS itself.

Java - Call me paranoid, but I just don't trust it. I was infected with Java viruses in the early days of Java, and have never really trusted it since. It's slow, unstable, drags the machine under on processing, frankly the inconsistant UI's of the applications come off as unprofessional and annoying, not to mention I have yet to find a single java crapplet that I cannot get equivalent functionality out of a native application on Windows.

Chat Clients - Yahoo's is the worst offender, but they are all getting pretty bad. Desktop shortcuts and favorites entries for things you don't want, applications installed in the background without your permission... I seriously thought we were PAST this nonsense. I use GAIM or Trillian (depending on the host OS I booted to) so I can handle all the protocols AND not burden my computer with their crap.

I'll stop ranting and get to my point (I could go on for hours about software that SHOULDN'T be run) - 99.99% of the time people blame Windows for crashes, but how do you know the fault lies with windows and not the POS application you were running? Let's face it, windows has a larger install base of applications and backwards compatability layers to things you probably SHOULDN'T be running on a modern machine.

How stable is MacOS 7 through 9 compatability under OSX again? MacOS 1 through 6? How about backwards BINARY compatability in Linux? In linux you don't have the source for an old application, you are totally SCREWED - and even if you have the source if nobody is maintaining it anymore you might be up the creek without a coder.

Meanwhile under Windows XP I can run the old 23k DOS Visicalc off the original binary from 1982 on a baseline install. (even if ntvdm does start chewing resources like a rabid wombat)

It's all a matter of what you want to DO with your OS - and let's face it, you were talking gaming... I'm reminded of the old phrase "For the first month you own a Macintosh you'll be amazed by what it can do; for the rest of your life you'll be amazed by what it can't do." - or as Alt-Ctrl-Del (the webcomic) put it "There are no Mac gamers"