Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th May 2006 13:53 UTC, submitted by IndigoJo
Apple Alcibiades' recent article hit some sensitive nerves. One of our readers wrote a retort, stating: "The reader will notice that this author glosses over two important issues in attacking the Mac community. One of these is that Windows, at least since 95, has always been notorious for its reliability and security issues. He does not mention the 'Blue Screen of Death' even once. He does not mention the fact that, to run Windows reliably, you need anti-virus software which costs extra (unless it came bundled with the machine), and uses extra system resources. He does not mention the continual updates, which as time goes on, detract from the performance of Windows - or even that the last fresh Windows OS was released as long ago as 2001."
Order by: Score:
???
by somebody on Fri 12th May 2006 14:27 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

it's fast on my hardware (1GHz G4, 384Mb RAM)

Ok, up to this point I could still swallow some things, but after this stupidity it was too much FUD for me and I simply stopped reading.

p.s. I own G5 with 2GBRAM and mini with 512MB (this one is completely unusable for any purpose, and until I find some other sucker to buy this thing I'm stuck with it. Previous owner (buyer) simply returned it from the same reason I can't use it either)

Edited 2006-05-12 14:34

Reply Score: 5

Windows runs GUI applications well
by jonas on Fri 12th May 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "???"
jonas Member since:
2005-07-08

DISCLAIMER: I'm a happy debian user.

My parents run a 600mhz p3 laptop with 384 megs of ram in the living room and mostly use it to browse the web. It's set up to dual boot (as it was originally my machine) Debian and Windows XP, but I must say that XP is fairly responsive on it once it gets going.

Most people still consider windows 2000 a modern operating system, and yet it predates OS X 10.0 by a year. XP and 10.1 came out around the same time (1 month apart), but compare each operating system including free updates... I think XP has aged quite well.

By comparisson, Redhat 7.2 came out around the same time as well, but hasn't been updated in 2 and a half years. If you tried to run a modern linux app on there, you'd have your hands full. A few nights ago, my roomate was showing me some of his 'old program collection'; stuff from 1988-1994, and a fair ammount of them still ran on his win2k install. This is pretty unique among consumer class OS'es.

As much as I hate the FUD coming from the proprietary camp about OSS, I'm also quite tired of people who ignore the obvious and FUD back. There are things that Windows does better, and a growing number of things that apple does better, and a number of things that *nix does better. I'm not saying we have to hold hands and sing kumbaya, but at least we could not lie?

References:

rh release dates: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rh-releases.html
windows release dates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
OS X release dates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

Edited 2006-05-12 14:55

Reply Score: 5

rklrkl Member since:
2005-07-06

> By comparisson, Redhat 7.2 came out around the same time as well, but hasn't been updated in 2 and a half years.

Hmmm...this statement is bit misleading. It may be that Red Hat themselves released the last update for 7.2 that long ago, but Progeny - see http://transition.progeny.com/ - extended that with a paid update service for 7.2 (but that seems to have been terminated in December 2005).

I never attempted an "warm" upgrade from 7.2 to 7.3 myself, but it may indeed be possible (and is free). If you could move from 7.2 to 7.3, then you fall into the clutches of the Fedora Legacy project at http://fedoralegacy.org/ which is indeed still providing free updates for 7.3.

And I haven't even covered the possibilities of moving to Red Hat 8.0 or 9 from a 7.X release (which might be possible and also is free) or, indeed, shifting into the Fedora Core family of releases (also free). Compare all of this with moving from one release of Windows or Mac OS X to the next one - yep, it costs you money every time (and not a small amount either!).

Reply Score: 4

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Or, you know, staying somewhat up to date and having moved to RHEL when the free RH support was cut like 3 years ago...

There's no excuse for not being able to upgrade in a period of 5 years. If you can't upgrade in that time that system should be so well insulated that it won't matter. Otherwise: You have an IT problem.
Important systems that you can't upgrade in a few months and would need to be kept up to date that quickly are bad signs...

Reply Score: 1

RE: ???
by StevenHatfield on Fri 12th May 2006 14:58 UTC in reply to "???"
StevenHatfield Member since:
2005-07-06

p.s. I own G5 with 2GBRAM and mini with 512MB (this one is completely unusable for any purpose, and until I find some other sucker to buy this thing I'm stuck with it. Previous owner (buyer) simply returned it from the same reason I can't use it either)

My Wife uses a PowerMac for normal stuff, like editing Microsoft Word and Excel documents for work, but also for designing announcements with PrintShop and listening to music. She uses it to stream music to our stereo system via an Airport Express and for surfing the web and reading email.

So ok, I'm a sucker -- sell me your "unusable for any purpose" Mac mini and I'll put it to use -- as an upgrade to my wife's 400Mhz G4 PowerMac. It's at least 5 times faster than the PowerMac, and it looks like I just need to add some RAM for it to be a perfect replacement.

I'll give you $50 for it, since it is "unusable for any purpose"... you can go buy a self help book to get over the depression you'll feel after my wife shows you how to use your computer.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: ???
by somebody on Sat 13th May 2006 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE: ???"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

and it looks like I just need to add some RAM for it to be a perfect replacement.

Living in a dream world aren't you?
1. you can't open mini without breaking it. You need a special tool
2. RAM is very expensive to upgrade for mini (+ you have to pay installation fee, since you can't install it your self). I rather decided to throw it in the trash than paying that extortive ammount of money. And in trash it goes if I see I won't get back my money.

I'll give you $50 for it.

Nah, either I get whole money or I loose whole money:) 50$ is not worth to bother. Or to translate, if I don't get whole money, then it is better it ends in trash than some Mac fan continues preaching how this machine flies (50$ is not worth getting pissed off again). If you want it, you buy it. We can arrange for a full price, can't we? Either that or you're saying it is not worth it.

Edited 2006-05-13 03:31

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ???
by StevenHatfield on Sat 13th May 2006 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ???"
StevenHatfield Member since:
2005-07-06

you can't open mini without breaking it. You need a special tool

Actually, that isn't true:
http://www.macminihacks.org/viewtopic.php?t=12

If you don't like the computer, you should return it for a refund, or give it to a school or someone who doesn't have a computer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ???
by somebody on Sun 14th May 2006 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ???"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Actually, that isn't true:
http://www.macminihacks.org/viewtopic.php?t=12


After looking at that horrible way, I think loosing money by throwing it into trash is easier. Some of us do value our time, nerves and have ability to judge if some job would pay off or not. This one would definitely NOT.

But, I accept correction. As it seems it can be opened without breaking it. My wrong.

If you don't like the computer, you should return it for a refund, or give it to a school or someone who doesn't have a computer.

ok, I'm gonna explain it once more.
1. it was not my computer
2. customer was not satisfied, but time to refund already passed
3. too good customer so 600$ loss is more than acceptable
4. refund for me is not possible, Apple dealer doesn't want to take it back
5. I rather throw it into trash where it belongs than to hear someone bragging with another stupidity like the one which started this conversation

Reply Score: 1

RE: ???
by ApproachingZero on Fri 12th May 2006 15:50 UTC in reply to "???"
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

mini with 512MB (this one is completely unusable for any purpose, and until I find some other sucker to buy this thing I'm stuck with it

I have a G4 mini with 1GB RAM and I use it for GarageBand, iMovie, iDVD, plus Limewire, Bittorrent, IRC, iChat, web browsing, etc. My sister has the same mini but with 512MB RAM and she uses it for iPhoto, web browsing, email, and DVD authoring. I'm really surprised your mini is "unusable for any purpose". I really think you're exaggerating. If it's a G4 mini, why don't you just pop the thing open and put in a gig of RAM? You'll be surprised what kind of a difference it makes.

If it's an Intel mini, I wouldn't recommend popping it open and trying to install the RAM yourself, it's not nearly as easy as it was on the G4. But if it's an Intel mini and you bought it with the stock 512MB RAM, I really have to ask, WTF were you thinking? You should know better than that.

Reply Score: 4

v i hate name calling...
by tryphcycle on Fri 12th May 2006 17:39 UTC in reply to "???"
v RE: i hate name calling...
by rockwell on Fri 12th May 2006 20:10 UTC in reply to "i hate name calling..."
RE: ???
by polaris20 on Fri 12th May 2006 17:46 UTC in reply to "???"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

p.s. I own G5 with 2GBRAM and mini with 512MB (this one is completely unusable for any purpose, and until I find some other sucker to buy this thing I'm stuck with it. Previous owner (buyer) simply returned it from the same reason I can't use it either)

I am not an Apple fanboy, in fact I don't even own one, but that's just outright crap.

Macs much slower than that have been used exclusively in professional audio recording studios for years. And no, I am not talking about just Digi systems running off of DSP cards. I am talking host useage, with DP and Logic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ???
by thavith_osn on Fri 12th May 2006 23:33 UTC in reply to "???"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Maybe "somebody" could tell us what he uses his computers for, then we might have some idea why the machines he bought are "useless"...

If it's for games, then "somebody" who buys a machine without checking if the gfx cards can be upgraded or replaced (or what games are available) is the sucker, no matter what platform.

If it's for predicting weather or smashing sub-atomic particles, then again, maybe "somebody" could have checked with Apple before the purchace...

My Mum still uses a Bondi G3 (I put Panther on it) and she loves it. Of course, she only uses AppleWorks and that kind of thing, but a 233MHz machine is keeping someone happy out there.

I personally think this whole us v them thing is silly, based mostly on emotion and should be blogged in a religious forum, not here... All platforms have their good and bad points, we all need to understand that and get over it :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ???
by somebody on Sat 13th May 2006 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ???"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I wouldn't even bother responding to your unintelligent response if you wouldn't mention "somebody" once too many. I will at least try to have some intelligence and respond correctly.

Maybe "somebody" could tell us what he uses his computers for, then we might have some idea why the machines he bought are "useless"...

Mostly coding and quite a lot of design (but don't worry, wouldn't even bother to try the second on machine with 512MB RAM), and what does it makes unusable? Spotlight. Without it machine can be even used for some smaller purposes, but it chokes even on opening larger PDFs, and as soon as RAM is eaten out damn thing becomes too loud. If I disable Spotlight then friggin "system find" stops working completely. I know I could probably install some shareware or something, but I'm not really OSX fan, most of my work is done on Linux (and I'm considering leaving Mac arena completely. At least this software I'm working on won't live in the OSX version, all my previous were).

If it's for games, then "somebody" who buys a machine without checking if the gfx cards can be upgraded or replaced (or what games are available) is the sucker, no matter what platform.

Maybe "tavith_osn" could tell us how Mac and games would relate. My answer is no, games belong on PS2 at my home, which I'm very fond of.

If it's for predicting weather or smashing sub-atomic particles, then again, maybe "somebody" could have checked with Apple before the purchace...

Nope, customer wanted it for use at his home. All commercials are saying how usable it is and he believed them. I wouldn't have to take it back if this customer of mine wouldn't be too good customer and loosing 600$ means nothing here (a lot more money is at stake here). Now I simply can't find any sucker to buy this "piece of ..."

You could call it, acceptable bussines loss. And customer now seems happy with XP and PC.

My Mum still uses a Bondi G3 (I put Panther on it) and she loves it. Of course, she only uses AppleWorks and that kind of thing, but a 233MHz machine is keeping someone happy out there.

Yeah, and people with 128MB of RAM in their PC say their XP flies. Or some Gnome users say Gnome is snappy with 64MB. Then again, two factors are to be considered, Panther doesn't use as much ram and your mum is probably not doing some heavy work. No, I don't doubt your mum is happy, I can respect that (although I find it funny sometimes what people find as fast, I treat my dual G5 as too slow).

p.s. The lowest PC machine I have is AMD4400X2/4GBRAM+RAID0. Highest now is cluster of two 4xdualcore Opterons with 64GB RAM each and connected trough fiber (decided for these instead of two IBM p175 in the end). As you see my standards are preety high. Apple doesn't cut even close to near to my middle standards with their best specs. They are only usable for desktops in my line of work, nothing else. But as I said I won't support Mac desktops anymore.

I personally think this whole us v them thing is silly, based mostly on emotion and should be blogged in a religious forum, not here... All platforms have their good and bad points, we all need to understand that and get over it :-)

Same here. But if you check my history, I'm always saying this thing, I'm not bashing platforms I don't preffer, I bash everything that isn't as it is supposed to be. Second thing you can notice would probably be that even though I preffer Linux I often clash (in fact this would account for the most occasions) with people when I'm pointing out the mistakes on Linux. For example Gnome (before 2.14) was not usable on 256MB RAM, and I'm a biased Gnome user.

Was this answer good and clear enough for you?

Reply Score: 2

RE: ???
by chlordane on Sat 13th May 2006 14:08 UTC in reply to "???"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

I love Macs, but I would never buy a Mini, to limited, and the hard drives are slow (in my opinion), you could have gotten a used Dual 500hmz G4 for like, that would run Mac OS X just fine....

Reply Score: 1

Will this ever end?
by MrMotane on Fri 12th May 2006 14:43 UTC
MrMotane
Member since:
2005-12-31

My goodness this platform bashing is becoming tiresome. I'm happy OSnews is releasing other people's viewpoints and some of the authors viewpoint makes sense. Most of it was a rant and political view and that's partly what OSNEWs is all about. What I hate to see is people getting all upset about Mac or PC bashing. If someone doesn't like something, so what! Dont buy it. Honestly since Mac's run the same hardware as a PC, it really is a PC. (Hardware wise) It just runs a different OS with a different design. It's a platform package if you will. This package works for me on an office and media creation level. Yes, some things really annoy me about the platform, but it's not enough for me to throw my Macs in the trash. My computers, operating systems and software are tools for me to get my work done. If something works and I like it, I use it. It's simple. Thom, dont let these people push your buttons. Its great that people are passionate about the industry, but some people make this out to be a religious experience. I'd say that's a bit strange. I love my Macs too, but if someone calls them crap i dont care. I wont be up at 2AM trying to retrieve a paper that was attacked by virus's. Let them bitch all they want.

Reply Score: 5

Re: Will this ever end?
by stew on Fri 12th May 2006 15:35 UTC in reply to "Will this ever end?"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Shoot, the post above is already at Score 5. I'd vote it up to 6 if I could.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Will this ever end?
by rockwell on Fri 12th May 2006 20:15 UTC in reply to "Will this ever end?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//My goodness this platform bashing is becoming tiresome.//

So ... you're annoyed by the OS bashing, yet you then write:

// I wont be up at 2AM trying to retrieve a paper that was attacked by virus's.//

Gotta love your consistency! In any case ... I've been using XP since release, and that's never happened to me. In fact, my box has only seen maybe a half-dozen virii over the past 5 years, and each was quickly and painlessly eliminated by my (free) AV software.

Reply Score: 1

Who
by Soulbender on Fri 12th May 2006 14:45 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

cares?

Reply Score: 4

It's getting tiring.
by jbauer on Fri 12th May 2006 14:51 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

What's wrong with just saying "I use XXXX just because I like it"?

Spreading FUD and nonsense about other platforms just because they are not your platform of choice is quite ridicule and immature.

Reply Score: 5

attacking the Mac community
by Dekkard on Fri 12th May 2006 14:52 UTC
Dekkard
Member since:
2006-01-07

Honestly..sometimes i think people sleep with these machines. If someone says he doesnt like something to do with windows, its an attack on the "Windows Community". If someone says they dont like a Mac feature, its an attack on the Mac community, the same for loonix, beos, bsd, qnx..blah blah blah etc.etc. If I say I won't buy another chevy, is it an attack on the "Chevy Community"? No. It simply means I don't care for it, or that I prefer something else. The parody of a star trek convention with Shatner comes to mind. Oh wait.. I don't want to be accused of attacking the "Trekkie" community.

imac g4 (osx 10.3.9) and Dapper user.

Reply Score: 4

RE: attacking the Mac community
by elektrik on Sat 13th May 2006 12:55 UTC in reply to "attacking the Mac community"
elektrik Member since:
2006-04-18

"...Honestly..sometimes i think people sleep with these machines..."

I will never sleep with my computer-we're just too different =]

Reply Score: 1

RE
by ThanhLy on Fri 12th May 2006 14:52 UTC
ThanhLy
Member since:
2006-03-14

He does not mention the 'Blue Screen of Death'

Kernel panic...

He does not mention the fact that, to run Windows reliably, you need anti-virus software which costs extra

This is not true for everyone. Yes it is a solid point, but it's not one-sided nor absolute as if your computer won't boot up unless AV software is installed.

He does not mention the continual updates, which as time goes on, detract from the performance of Windows - or even that the last fresh Windows OS was released as long ago as 2001.

Ah yes, OSX is fresh and newer. New releases came out almost anually. Do you remember browsing through VersionTracker for free/shareware programs and having to see "compatible with Panther but won't run on Jaguar!" I applaud the patience of Mac users, for being patient enough to sit and wait for developers to update their software to catch up with OSX's release cycle.

What I don't seem to understand is the bias of people slamming Microsoft for shoving updates down our throats yet not a peep about the forced updates of OSX.

Reply Score: 5

StevenHatfield Member since:
2005-07-06

Kernel panic...
What's that? Is that something that Unix does when you have a hardware problem? It's not something that my PowerMacs have ever done in the 7 years that I've owned them.

...as if your computer won't boot up unless AV software is installed.

Actually, some viruses will disable your computer so that it won't boot up. Unless you have AV software installed to prevent them for doing this to your computer, this is exactly what will happen.

[MacOSX has] New releases came out almost anually.[sic]

Yes, this is very true. OSX has a new major release every 1 to 1.5 years that contain updated core components that add hundreds of new features and new functionality above what the previous version had. This isn't something that Windows users have had to deal with for at least 5 years. All they've had to do is upgrade to the next service pack that will prevent their existing programs from running... and if they don't upgrade to the latest service pack, they can't add critical fixes to their system. So Microsoft is forcing them to upgrade their core OS, which then kills some of their existing apps, because their core OS was so incredibly buggy and prone to crashing that they had no other choice. This doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

What I don't seem to understand is the bias of people slamming Microsoft for shoving updates down our throats yet not a peep about the forced updates of OSX.

OSX has no forced upgrades. You can run Software Update and see the security updates to your existing version of the OS, but you are never forced to buy the next big cat.

My Macintosh Testimonial:

Over the past 20 years, I have used almost every operating system created by man. Everything from the mainstream (Windows, Mac) to the not so mainstream (Linux, BSD) to the very much NOT mainstream (Datapoint's Resource Management System (RMS), for example). The one that I have chosen to run my home computers is Apple's Macintosh Operating System, currently at version 10. It is very stable, is regularly updated, and I've never had a fear of viruses, trojan horses, or spyware programs. The hardware has been first rate, and when I did have a problem (a bad video card), Apple cheerfully replaced it for free, and apologized for the inconvenience.

I'll take that any day over the "but everybody else is doing it" mentality of Windows... feel free to jump off the bridge with everyone else, but as for me -- I'll just sit over here and enjoy the show.

Reply Score: 2

ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

Kernel panic...
What's that? Is that something that Unix does when you have a hardware problem? It's not something that my PowerMacs have ever done in the 7 years that I've owned them.

Just because you don't see them (or even know what they are for that matter) doesn't mean they don't exist. I can also say that I seldom run into any of those problems you sited in your post regarding Windows in the same 7 year time frame as you. But that doesn't negate the flaws in Windows, I'll admit that.

I trust that you've used software outside of what already is bundled with you Mac. Surely you must have seen a few apps that will not run on older versions of OSX. If what you say is true, that we as users do not have to upgrade to every big cat OSX version, then are you willing to stick with OS X.0? Cheetah was it?

Reply Score: 2

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

// Unless you have AV software installed to prevent them for doing this to your computer, this is exactly what will happen//

right ... so ... install AVG Antivirus, Free Edition, and spend zero dollars for that protection.

Reply Score: 1

StevenHatfield Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately, there are downsides to running this software. Free or not, you still have to pay a price.

The first price is that you are forced to waste CPU cycles and spins of the hard drive for this protection. This isn't a problem when you are sleeping, but when you are using your computer and the hard drive is thrashing and the CPU is pegged at 100% while it examines every file, email and IM on your computer, it gets to be really annoying, and can really affect productivity if you are at work.

The second price is that AV software often prevents "real" programs from being installed, or when being installed they don't run correctly. The problem is that AV software plays the role of a "police officer" on your system, and it is often forced to guess what is good and what is bad. What happens when it guesses wrong is that the user is often completely confused as to what is happening, and thinks that their computer is broken. They often have to hire someone to figure it out for them, costing them $100 or even $200 for the pleasure of being told that their computer is fine, but they can't run that program unless they disable their AV software... leaving them vulnerable while doing so.

The third price is when you haven't updated your AV definitions and malware comes calling (and this is not necessarily a "zero day exploit" that I'm talking about. Some users just set their AV software to update once a week or even once a month). This happens all the time, resulting in systems that are slowed to a crawl, that open their computer to being used as a SPAM or DDoS bot, or simply open multiple Internet Explorer windows pointed to pornographic websites (which may not be a problem for you, but what about Mrs. Smith or her 7 year old son? Then it's a much bigger problem...) and simply take control of the computer away from the user. People who are victims of this type of problem spend hundreds of dollars restoring their systems to a usable state. It's interesting that ROI studies don't include these costs...

The maker of the OS should be held accountable for this problem, and they should fix it. Rather than Microsoft being proactive and eliminating the security problems in their OS, they rely on others (such as Symantec and McAfee) to treat the symptoms while avoiding a cure. Microsoft would rather place the burden of the problem on their users than take control of the situation and fix it themselves.

The real shame is that this software must be run at all. It will never cease to amaze me what corporations and home users alike will go through for the sake of conformity.

In the end, the person who pays for it, is you.

Reply Score: 2

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//The first price is that you are forced to waste CPU cycles and spins of the hard drive for this protection//

WRONG. AVG Antivirus has about a 5 MB memory footprint. I schedule scans when I'm not using the PC (maybe once a month). No waste here.

//The second price is that AV software often prevents "real" programs from being installed, or when being installed they don't run correctly.//

WRONG. I have _NEVER_ had an application fail to work as expected when using AVG Antivirus in the background.

//The third price is when you haven't updated your AV definitions and malware comes calling ... This happens all the time//

WRONG. "All the time?" Funny, I've been using it for about four years, and this has *NEVER* happened to me ... nor to the 50 or so PCs I've setup for friends/family/neighbors using the same process.

//In the end, the person who pays for it, is you.//

0 cost, 0 hassle, 0 virri/worm/trogans in about four years. So, I've paid 0. Terrible.

Begone!

Reply Score: 2

Brad Member since:
2005-07-06

A kernel panic is what OSX does when it crashes. If you have never seen one, well good for you.

My powermac kernel paniced every day or 2 for the first few months till apple finally got and update out that fixed it. Sadly that fix for me was the same that caused others to have even greater fan problems. I think it was 10.3.7 that fixed my issue.

OSX crashes, plan and simple. I never had a XP box blue screen. I was always able to just shut down the offending app.

And you can run it on slow hardware, I ran XP on a 500 celeron with 96 megs of ram without much issue, and that computer ran for 9 months without a restart, only a power outage took it down.

Reply Score: 1

RE:
by chlordane on Sat 13th May 2006 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

I was wondering do you run Mac OS X at home, and if so, have you had a Kernel Panic happen?

I have a windows machine that lovingly gives me the blue screen of death quite often....and in April, it gave it to me 4 times!

"What I don't seem to understand is the bias of people slamming Microsoft for shoving updates down our throats yet not a peep about the forced updates of OSX."

Yeah, who the heck likes a forced update....
I had to return a USB 2.0 pci card for my windows machine because I didnt have SP1, why?

I am just saying, Microsoft should use that 50 Billion, and make Vista and make Vista open source, and the same with Apple, dang, its Unix right..?

Reply Score: 1

Ok, I'll bite
by AntiFUD on Fri 12th May 2006 15:02 UTC
AntiFUD
Member since:
2006-05-12

One of these is that Windows, at least since 95, has always been notorious for its reliability and security issues.

There is little hard data on reliability between them, only anecdotes of Bluescreens versus Bombs and Kernel Panics. For some delicious irony, take a look at this:
http://kdough.net/gallery/mac_ad_crash/PICT0013


He does not mention the fact that, to run Windows reliably, you need anti-virus software

Untrue. Contrary to popular opinion, the majority viruses do not appear by magic on a computer. The only types that do are the worms that attack open ports, which are effectively closed with any firewall (even the one included in SP1). Avoiding virusses is easy enough if you know what you're doing. OTOH, if you're the clueless type neither OS X, OpenBSD nor SELinux will save you.


anti-virus software which costs extra (unless it came bundled with the machine),

Antivir, AVG, AVast.


and uses extra system resources.

This is mostly a Symantec problem. In my experience AVG and Antivir have neglible impact on system resources.


He does not mention the continual updates, which as time goes on, detract from the performance of Windows

You mean like these?
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303737
Fun exercise: count the number of "arbitrary code execution" on that page.


or even that the last fresh Windows OS was released as long ago as 2001.

Yet, amazingly enough, people can do about everything on it that they can on OS X 10.4, released in 2005.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ok, I'll bite
by snozzberry on Fri 12th May 2006 17:53 UTC in reply to "Ok, I'll bite"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

If I could mod your link to Apple's page informative, I would. About the only place I take exception is here:

Yet, amazingly enough, people can do about everything on [XP] that they can on OS X 10.4, released in 2005.

There's a video on YouTube of a Microsoft employee giving a demonstration of all of Vista's new features where the video portion has been replaced with someone doing the same things in OS X 10.4. Many of those things were available in 10.3 and some in 10.2.

As for backwards compatibility, this is a philosophical difference between Microsoft and Apple, driven mostly by which company is under pressure from business clients. Apple's mediocre track record on pleasing corporate clients speaks for itself, but it's also given them the latitude to put improving the product before keeping compatibility with products that depend on undocumented and potentially harmful behaviors. MS's reputation for hamstringing development in the name of backwards compatibility is well deserved.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ok, I'll bite
by chlordane on Sat 13th May 2006 14:13 UTC in reply to "Ok, I'll bite"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Tell me, is it the OS or the hardware....

http://www.dealcatcher.com/forums/m_402248/tm.htm

http://www.eng.bu.edu/~anc/macosx_bluescreen/blue2.jpg

I was just wondering, becuase people seemed a little excited about windows on a Mac.....

I am not..

Reply Score: 1

Troll
by miscz on Fri 12th May 2006 15:04 UTC
miscz
Member since:
2005-07-17

This article is just putting OSX in bad light and confirms pretty much of Alcibiades' article.

1. Windows NT 5.x is not really that insecure, with latest patches you are pretty much safe. There were some serious bugs and holes in the past but right now I don't worry about some worm infecting me without even touching a computer. I don't even use an antivirus but there are free ones too, AVG for example. If you don't use Norton or similar bloated stuff you won't even feel a performance difference. I wouldn't use Windows for anything critical but it's a nice desktop OS.

1.5. Spinning beach ball of death - self explainatory.

2. My parents still use WinXP on Pentium 3 450 Mhz and very similar setup and I wouldn't call it dog slow. It's not fast but they can do everything they want, use MS Office, browse web, send funny emails to their friends ;) I'd like to see how OSX performs on a similar hardware.

3. Author goes to the fact that OSX is fast on his hardware. Wow, 1 Ghz G4 with 384 Mb of ram, what do you expect? It's a modern machine.
From my experience OSX IS slower. There are some benchmarks on the net measuring performance of cross-platform apps.
I've tried using OSX on my Asus notebook with very compatible hardware. It starts quite fast but running apps is just slower (universal ones). Firefox starts to considerably slow down with just 30 tabs while I can easily have about 100 tabs open in Windows and Ubuntu (yay for pr0n browsing).

4. Apps. I will use my favourite argument at the moment. Find me a damn guitar tabulature editor that can open either Guitar Pro or Powertab files. There is none? What a shame. Linux and OSX are just too small to have as many apps as Windows.

5. Linux having problem with router going down? Unixish tasks easier in OSX? WTF is he smoking?

6. Windows/Linux having to support all that hardware problems. If you buy a complete computer just like you do from Apple you are mostly guaranteed that it will work with Windows (unless it's Dell ;) ). If you do some research it will work reliably with Linux with everything working out of the box. And if you want to build your own it's another point for graybox PCs, with Mac you just can't do that - way to go.

OSX does not suck but it certainly is not a second coming of Jesus like most of Apple fans describe it.

I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes on writing this :/

Reply Score: 5

RE: Troll
by starnix on Fri 12th May 2006 16:30 UTC in reply to "Troll"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

"4. Apps. I will use my favourite argument at the moment. Find me a damn guitar tabulature editor that can open either Guitar Pro or Powertab files. There is none? What a shame. Linux and OSX are just too small to have as many apps as Windows. "


Here you go: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Audio/KTabEdit-10256.shtm...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Troll
by miscz on Fri 12th May 2006 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Troll"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Installing it in OSX would be kinda like Kguitar from scratch - compile Qt, KDE libs, hope that midi will work, etc. I'll stay with an OS that is easier - Kguitar is just 5 clicks away in Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Troll
by starnix on Fri 12th May 2006 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Troll"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

I actually misread the original. I read it as neither OS-X nor LINUX had a tab editor.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Troll
by miscz on Fri 12th May 2006 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Troll"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

It is neither OSX nor Linux just like most of the unixish apps. Desktop Linux distribution package such apps and make them available in online repositories so they are very easy to install, it's more of a hassle on OSX - that was my point.
I misread your post a bit too, I tought it was Kguitar but now I see it's something different (KTabEdit) - I've gotta give it a try (ability to open Powertabs, hurray), thanks :p

Reply Score: 1

RE: Troll
by asiafish on Wed 17th May 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "Troll"
asiafish Member since:
2006-05-11

You mention that XP runs well on a PIII 450 and think OSX would be slow on such a machine. Well, you are quite mistaken. I have an old 1999 model PowerBook sitting around that is much like your old PC. A PpowerPC G3 400 MHz with 256MB of RAM, and guess what, Tiger (not even officially supported) runs just fine on this ancient Apple laptop. Its not fast, but its not annoyingly slow either, and is more than adequate for word processing (Word 2004), web browsing (Safari) and even can do this things while playing music on iTunes in the background.

Reply Score: 1

man, this is tiring
by BluenoseJake on Fri 12th May 2006 15:04 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

1.) I use AVG when I need to install AV software (which is on my client's computers), not all good AV programs cost money.

2.) of course XP runs like a dog on that 450, try putting another 128 or even 256M in that thing, and you'll see a big difference.

3.) I have never noticed a slowdown in my system caused by updates.

I come to this site (and others) to learn new things, to find out what my options are, and to get ideas about how to do things differently, and all this squabbling over MacOS X/WinXP/Whatever is just counter productive. I don't care for religious battles, I want good, objective info on Operating Systems, not articles written in "rebuttle" to an other article that was somebodies opinion, you can have yours, he can have his, and please, let me form my own

Reply Score: 2

Missing the point`
by maddocks on Fri 12th May 2006 15:05 UTC
maddocks
Member since:
2006-01-28

I do believe the original article was "mostly" about the Mac community, and applce perpetuating it. Granted he touched base on some of the flaws associated with mac os but just to give examples of how mac freaks either deny or push off them off. I agree with the author if your going to become serious about an os you need to have a decent community backing one that is helpfull and acknowledges any and all flaws so that everybody can work together to correct them. Beos has the best community I have ever had the pleasure to deal with. Mac on the other hand seems to be blinded by an elitest attitude. I realize its probly a small percentage of people and if I shelled out 3 grand for a box I too would goto extreme lengths to convince myself it was perfect.

Reply Score: 2

Same old same old...
by situation on Fri 12th May 2006 15:07 UTC
situation
Member since:
2006-01-10

Since 2k I haven't had a bluescreen, I don't run antivirus software, and from the odd Housecall online scan I do (plus just the feel of the system), I have never gotten a virus. Sure performance degrades over time with much install / removal, but if Windows XP is just used as a game platform it's alright.
Then the Mac users would retort, and so on and so forth, until no one has budged on their view (seriously, have you ever convined anyone of the superiority of a platform?), everyone is bitter, and much time has been wasted.
Just be happy using what you use, instead of bashing other people or feeling the need to show how "superior" one piece of software is to another.
I agree with the above posters, this is getting tiring and dull.

Reply Score: 2

omg
by A.H. on Fri 12th May 2006 15:29 UTC
A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

I hope in the nearest future someone will write an article "Why nobody cares if you'll buy macs or not"

Reply Score: 5

RE: omg
by ThanhLy on Fri 12th May 2006 17:21 UTC in reply to "omg"
ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

I hope in the nearest future someone will write an article "Why nobody cares if you'll buy macs or not"
Simple, for the same reason why no one cares if you bought an iPod now-a-days... everyone already has one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: omg
by rockwell on Fri 12th May 2006 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: omg"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

// for the same reason why no one cares if you bought an iPod now-a-days... everyone already has one.//

not me, I was smart and bought one of these:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Cowon_iAudio_U2_1GB/4505-6490_7-31129769.ht...

gotta love built-in mic recording and FM radio! Plus, it plays more formats than the $Pod.

Reply Score: 1

People still don't get it
by ronaldst on Fri 12th May 2006 15:43 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

The other author didn't get slammed for his experience. He got slammed because he acted like a big baby. Read the last page (1st paragraph), it's freaking unbelievable.

Alcibiades doesn't need to make articles he needs to grow up.

Reply Score: 1

RE: People still don't get it
by chemical_scum on Fri 12th May 2006 15:51 UTC in reply to "People still don't get it"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

The other author didn't get slammed for his experience. He got slammed because he acted like a big baby. Read the last page (1st paragraph), it's freaking unbelievable.

Alcibiades doesn't need to make articles he needs to grow up.


The referenced para:

You will hear applause for the Apple legal department which sues everyone in sight at a moment's notice for alleged infringements of copyright or trade secrets, and seeks to bully journalists, and claims to be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate members of the legitimate or illegitimate press. And sues even when the alleged infringements consist of linking to a site displaying the company's own service manuals!

This is a plain statement of fact not opinion on the activities of Apple' legal department. I think other people need to grow up too.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: People still don't get it
by ronaldst on Fri 12th May 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: People still don't get it"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@chemical_scum

The referenced para:

You will hear applause for the Apple legal department which sues everyone in sight at a moment's notice for alleged infringements of copyright or trade secrets, and seeks to bully journalists, and claims to be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate members of the legitimate or illegitimate press. And sues even when the alleged infringements consist of linking to a site displaying the company's own service manuals!


I don't even own an Apple PC. But Apple has a right to it's own privacy. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's place before putting your ideals first? Someone's rights stop when they hurt other's rights. Apple did right to fight back.

This is a plain statement of fact not opinion on the activities of Apple' legal department. I think other people need to grow up too.

Yep. People need to respect other people's rights. It's not because someone can do something that means it's automatically ok to do that something. It's all about respect. Bash others? Expect the same in return.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: People still don't get it
by Anim8me2 on Sat 13th May 2006 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE: People still don't get it"
Anim8me2 Member since:
2006-02-10

The referenced para:

You will hear applause for the Apple legal department which sues everyone in sight at a moment's notice for alleged infringements of copyright or trade secrets, and seeks to bully journalists, and claims to be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate members of the legitimate or illegitimate press. And sues even when the alleged infringements consist of linking to a site displaying the company's own service manuals!

This is a plain statement of fact not opinion on the activities of Apple' legal department. I think other people need to grow up too.


Lets take that statement apart for what it is... a stilted spin.

"sue's for alleged infringements"
Companies have a legal obligation to their shareholders and as an entity to protect their IP. Wether this is correctly or incorrectly perceived by the general public as "being mean" doesn't really matter.

"bully journalists... legitimate/illegitimate... members of the press"
This was a case of leaked IP. Going after the blog doesn't matter as they would have gone after NBC news if need be. It is just that going after the ISP in this case was the most expedient way of doing it. Had Think Secret just described the device without using Apple's internal code name (Asteroid), they would have been in a better position to argue... remember the old Mac the Knife articles in MacWeek?

"service manuals"
Again... IP. I worked as a Mac tech for years and we were always warned not to hand out this info. Apple wants to control the users experience. This to me is not a bad thing as for the most part people shoulsn't have to deal with it. Computers are appliances and we should expect them to work as well as our other appliances do. Do you open the back of your Sony TV when it goes on the fritz? Does it fail that often? NO? Neither do my Macs.

Reply Score: 1

The Need to Justify...
by JacobMunoz on Fri 12th May 2006 15:50 UTC
JacobMunoz
Member since:
2006-03-17

I'm seeing a lot of people getting tired of this argument, however the argument is the fault of both sides (pro-Mac, and anti-Mac). When you say someone's computer is junk for ___ reason, don't expect a warm and fuzzy reply. This applies to both sides, and it's mostly because YOU PAID FOR YOUR COMPUTER (unless it was free of course). Nobody want to hear that their car is a piece of junk - it makes you feel bad - so the same applies to PCs/Macs. There are many assumptions made by both sides, some Apple users think EVERY PC crashes on the hour, and some PC users think Apples are incompatible wastes of money. Only very rarely are these assumptions correct, and most of the time it's a person's gut feeling that dictates their opinion.

PC users who bash Macs without ever using one (the old elementary school boxen don't count) should stop listening to their lower intestines and actually try one out. The software is somewhat limited, but much of it is actually quite nice (although I personally perfer more options than what are usually provided). Mac users who bash PCs because they remember the BSOD, or didn't like the appearance of the machine - should also remove their heads from their rear-ends and give an XP/2K (or heaven forbid, Linux or other OS) PC an honest shot.

I've seen people do this, and they are usually surprised. They might not always change their mind, but they are usually surprised (probably because they never looked at the other side's world).

I don't like Macs for personal reasons, and they are very valid reasons to me. I work with Macs almost every day, and I can use them just fine - but they're just not my cup of tea. I drink soda. Give me an ugly, noisy, soldered-n-hacked-together PC, and I'm happy as a clam in whatever clams are happy in. But that's me, I know 90+% of the population out there wouldn't use what I use - but what a surprise, WE'RE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

I will take this quick moment to also point out that the major 'zealot camps' are on the behalf of Microsoft and Apple. The Linux, BeOS, BSD, and other camps are much slower to vilify eachother's platforms because they know how hard they've worked on them. Those that just 'buy the damn thing' didn't take any time to develop it (software, at least) - so to throw around superiority complexes is shallow and pointless (unless you're an Apple or Microsoft employee).

"Every computer sucks in it's own sucky way. Most of us paid for our sucky machines, so stop bashing mine because yours sucks too (for me, at least)."

Reply Score: 5

...the last fresh OS ???....
by detayls on Fri 12th May 2006 15:54 UTC
detayls
Member since:
2005-07-06

There hasn't been a "fresh OS" in the Windows world since Windows NT made its debut. Windows 2000 was basically Windows NT with the Windows 95 user experience. Windows XP was simply Windows 2000 plus jellybeans.

A fresh Windows OS for my money would include a kernel that can handle more than 16 real threads and knows how to reject all forms of worm. All of the email services should be sender verified. The web browser services should completely protect the user from all forms of worm and adware.

They should consider using the Unix permissions model, which by the simple expedient of having execute permission has kept its users safe for literally 3 decades.

Calling Windows Vista a "fresh OS" is like calling "whipped cream" from an aerosol "fresh". It isn't whipped. It isn't cream either. It certainly isn't fresh.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...the last fresh OS ???....
by Tom K on Fri 12th May 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "...the last fresh OS ???...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Ugh ... get a clue.

You did not make a single correct statement/implication regarding Windows right there.

Reply Score: 4

detayls Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, Tom. Please correct me. As far as I am aware everything I said is true.

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Alright, you've got it.

> There hasn't been a "fresh OS" in the Windows world since Windows NT made its debut. Windows 2000 was basically Windows NT with the Windows 95 user experience. Windows XP was simply Windows 2000 plus jellybeans.

The Windows software engineers out there could explain this one better, but ... new NTFS version, much-improved AD, administration based around MMC snap-ins (very powerful), full DirectX support, extensively updated kernel, dynamic disks, DFS, HAL, ACPI support, full USB support, huge improved performance in all departments, WFP, Windows Installer, hibernation, Plug 'n Play, EFS, Group Policies, and the list goes on ...

> A fresh Windows OS for my money would include a kernel that can handle more than 16 real threads and knows how to reject all forms of worm. All of the email services should be sender verified. The web browser services should completely protect the user from all forms of worm and adware.

Seeing as Windows Server 2003 x86-64 Datacenter Edition supports up to 64 CPUs, I'm sure it can handle "16 real threads". You clearly have not used Windows very much if you think that it can't handle threading very well. Most of Windows is multi-threaded.

As for "rejection" of all forms of worm ... it doesn't work that way. A worm is a program. The OS has no way of knowing whether a program is a worm or not, but combined with smart usage and some precautions, it's possible to avoid 100% of worms. Windows already provides a firewall. What gets through due to the user's incompetency is not something Windows can help.

E-mail services being sender-verified are a department that your mail server and your mail client deal with -- not your desktop OS.

> They should consider using the Unix permissions model, which by the simple expedient of having execute permission has kept its users safe for literally 3 decades.

Security in UNIX was an after-thought, and once the Internet became popular, the "security" myth was debunked when UNIX servers were being owned left and right.

As for Windows, it hasn't been dragged behind by UNIX-style permissions. Windows has had ACLs, and incidentally execute permissions, since 1993. When did Linux get ACLs?

> Calling Windows Vista a "fresh OS" is like calling "whipped cream" from an aerosol "fresh". It isn't whipped. It isn't cream either. It certainly isn't fresh.

There are plenty of resources on the Internet about this. Hell, there have been numerous articles about it here on OSNews. Everything from the graphics layer, to the audio stack, to user permissions management, has been re-done in Vista.

Every large OS is an evolution of what it predated. Mac OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, IRIX ... they are all forms of OS evolution. If you expect Microsoft (or anyone else) to rewrite all 50+ million lines of code with every release, then you ought to go take a CS class or two.

Reply Score: 4

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

bravo, great post. Pretty much enlightened the previous poster, and apparently shut him up.

Reply Score: 1

detayls Member since:
2005-07-06

"and apparently shut him up..."

Hardly.

1. As far as I am concerned "fresh OS" means exactly that: a new OS from the ground up. Windows NT was that for Microsoft and Mac OS X 10.0 was that for Apple.

2. Windows NT was introduced with support for 16 native threads per CPU and not much has changed in XP.

3. Permissions is the simple biggest reason that Mac OS X is safer than Windows. Windows ACLs are not the same and the user is NOT asked to approve execution of any new file as it arrives.

4. Vista has been gradually eroding in feature set since it was first mooted. The new file system was booted and so forth. I don't know the exact details of the new feature set but it all sounds like warmed over leftovers to me.

Nothing that you have argued says "fresh" to me.

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

> 1. As far as I am concerned "fresh OS" means exactly that: a new OS from the ground up. Windows NT was that for Microsoft and Mac OS X 10.0 was that for Apple.

Nope. Mac OS X is a conglomeration of various other (and old) technologies, with some new-era spice. NeXTStep, Mach, FreeBSD ...

Windows NT? Ever heard of OS/2? ;-)

> 2. Windows NT was introduced with support for 16 native threads per CPU and not much has changed in XP.

Do you have a source of information about this? Or is it just hearsay/FUD on your part?

> 3. Permissions is the simple biggest reason that Mac OS X is safer than Windows. Windows ACLs are not the same and the user is NOT asked to approve execution of any new file as it arrives.

Err ... first of all, OS X does not ask you to approve any new file as it arrives. It asks you to authenticate yourself if an application wants to do something that only administrators can touch.

Second of all, XP with SP2 asks you to confirm execution of downloaded/received files.

Third, none of this has anything to do with file system permissions. And ACLs still win out over typical UNIX permissions.

> 4. Vista has been gradually eroding in feature set since it was first mooted. The new file system was booted and so forth. I don't know the exact details of the new feature set but it all sounds like warmed over leftovers to me.

Vista never had a new file system, but rather a database layer on top of NTFS. This is still coming post-release.

The rest of your points ... well, you have no points. It just "I don't know the exact details, but I'm sure there's SOMETHING wrong with it!"

Bzzt. You lose.

Reply Score: 1

junior Member since:
2005-07-07

"Err ... first of all, OS X does not ask you to approve any new file as it arrives. It asks you to authenticate yourself if an application wants to do something that only administrators can touch"

Additionally, OS X asks you for approval if you try to download an executable file and if you try to run an executable file for the first time.

"Third, none of this has anything to do with file system permissions. And ACLs still win out over typical UNIX permissions. "

Luckily, OS X has support for ACL's which you can turn on or off with a single command. FreeBSD has had ACL support for years.


"Bzzt. You lose."

I always love intelligent, mature discourse.

Reply Score: 1

joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"2. Windows NT was introduced with support for 16 native threads per CPU and not much has changed in XP."

While I can understand advocating a platform you use and enjoy, I cannot understand those who spout blatant falsehoods, such as this.

Here is an article on how to create more than 2000 threads per process:http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/07/29/444912.aspx

Using Process Explorer, I can see my system is currently running 620 threads. Some proceses have close to 100 threads.

And you are right, the threading model hasn't changed much since NT. In NT you could have thousands or threads as well.

Please, stop spouting the crap.

Reply Score: 1

detayls Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, here's my source on Threads.

http://www.javaworld.com/jw-09-1998/jw-09-threads.html

I did get confused by the number of the threads and thread priority and I even got the number of priorities wrong: NT can only have 7.

There are two types of threads: native and "green" or "cooperative". While the OS controls both kinds the non-native variety are really not threads at all in the sense that they have to yield via an OS process.

Read the article and then tell me what has changed with Vista.

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Okay, so basically you went from telling me that NT can only have "16 native threads" to 7 thread priorities. Where does that leave your original point, exactly?

Clearly 7 priorities are enough -- and David Cutler is no retard. Take it up with him if you disagree.

As for threads ... yeah, I don't care about the difference between pre-emptive vs. cooperative. That's a red herring. Your original claim was absolutely false, and that's that. NT has no problems with threading whatsoever.

Thanks for trying, though.

Reply Score: 1

joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"I did get confused by the number of the threads and thread priority and I even got the number of priorities wrong: NT can only have 7.

There are two types of threads: native and "green" or "cooperative". While the OS controls both kinds the non-native variety are really not threads at all in the sense that they have to yield via an OS process."

Ok, let's test your reading comprehension. There are four little letters in that URL that spell out 'Java'. The 'native' v.s. green threads is entirely a JVM issue.

As for thread priority levels, NT/2000/XP have the following:
Time Critical
Highest
Above Normal
Normal
Below Normal
Lowest
Idle

For the windows scheduler, any two tasks at the same priority level should get basically an even shot at the CPU. Any tasks at a lower level will have to wait for tasks at a higher level. It's pretty simple conceptually, and I don't see why there needs to be more than 7 priority levels. Currently, with my hundreds of threads, there are 4 of these priority levels in use. Is there some reason I need more?

The java programmer in your article seems to like to use thread priority for some reason in his java programs (In my years of Java programming I've never encountered any task that needed adjusted priority).

So, instead of quoting an irrelevant article by some Java programmers who doesn't understand how to use threads, why don't you just admit that you were utterly and completely incorrect.

Reply Score: 1

Hmm,,,
by dylansmrjones on Fri 12th May 2006 15:59 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

He does forget Windows 2003 Server, even though it's not really a desktop OS, though it fares well as such.

Just a minor correction, that's all.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm,,,
by sappyvcv on Fri 12th May 2006 16:37 UTC in reply to "Hmm,,,"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows Server 2003 is *great* as a desktop OS. No need to disable everything on install, it's disabled for you ;) That, and IE is locked down to hell by default.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmm,,,
by IndigoJo on Fri 12th May 2006 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm,,,"
IndigoJo Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not marketed as a desktop OS even if it works well as one, and it costs an awful lot of money.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmm,,,
by sappyvcv on Fri 12th May 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm,,,"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

True and true. I got it very very cheap though ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm,,,
by dylansmrjones on Sat 13th May 2006 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm,,,"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I know, I've used it as such. Unfortunately certain drivers and apps didn't work with 2K3 so I had to downgrade to XP pro ;) - since then I haven't used Windows. It's installed but I'm only running Linux now. XP is just too big a disappointment to me.

Reply Score: 1

wtf?
by broken_symlink on Fri 12th May 2006 16:08 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

wtf was the deal with the fonts argument? Fonts look better on os x than on linux?

Reply Score: 1

RE: wtf?
by macisaac on Fri 12th May 2006 16:58 UTC in reply to "wtf?"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

I don't get it either, as a user of both platforms. Perhaps the last time the author used linux was say back in the RH 7 days, and under, when yes, Linux (XFree86) fonts did really suck that bad. Now however, I find they're about the best out there (though Apple's stuff is good too. It'd be hard to say one or the other is actually "superior" at this point.)

Reply Score: 1

smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

but after reading some of the comments here I'm not too sure anymore.

Reply Score: 1

Childish
by quenturi on Fri 12th May 2006 16:53 UTC
quenturi
Member since:
2006-04-10

Okay the first guy was happy with Windows when he was a MAC user in the first place.
Considering the propaganda out there it's quite surprising. We have more 'I was in the darkness, I used Windows, I saw the light, MAC rocks'.

Now we have a MAC user defending his ground.

AFAIK the first article was a personal point of view. The guy did not mention BSOD ? Big deal. Maybe he had none. He did not mention antivirus, antispyware, anti this and that ? Maybe he doesn't use them.

I can't wait next week article : 'Why I don't give a shit you keep buying Windows or Mac'.

Someone for : 'Why I want to buy a computer and not be told what I must run on it and once I decided what to run, not being changed into a fanatic and still use my brain' ?

I know. Tough one.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Childish
by ma_d on Fri 12th May 2006 18:18 UTC in reply to "Childish"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Next weeks article will be: "Why I'll Always Use Linux".

Anybody wanna start a pot on which day it will be?

Reply Score: 1

This is one big WTF-LOL
by JernejL on Fri 12th May 2006 16:58 UTC
JernejL
Member since:
2006-03-15

This is a typical mac user, i'd say you are a 100% clone of Steve Jobs, you are stuck with your representation of pc as dull beige boxes and windows a windows 95, but since then microsoft released 7 more operating system updates and changed the whole kernel of the os. not to mention that you talk about windows xp needing updates, it DID get updates, SP2 is a big update, and dont forget windows 2003 server. and BSOD are actually rare on windows, BSOD were often on windows 95 & 98, but not on windows NT line out of which windows xp comes from.

Also you are completely forgetting that even mac os already has viruses like windows, face it - mac os will get more viruses in the future.

And dont forget we dont need windows, we can run linux or freebsd or any other os, which is free, and dont forget where your mac os kernel came from!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is one big WTF-LOL
by spook on Fri 12th May 2006 17:04 UTC in reply to "This is one big WTF-LOL"
spook Member since:
2006-01-09

And dont forget we dont need windows, we can run linux or freebsd or any other os, which is free, and dont forget where your mac os kernel came from!!

===============================

1. So can the Mac

2. NEXT

3. so?

Reply Score: 1

What no-one comments on
by alcibiades on Fri 12th May 2006 17:19 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

- And I quite liked the article, it was good humoured and pleasantly written -

But its the business model issue. Suppose all computers were made and sold on the Apple model. Imagine in detail what the industry would look like. You would have the HP OS, running on and only on HP hardware. The MacOS as now. Maybe the Gateway OS. Maybe Amiga.

Non-transferrable apps, probably incompatible file formats. Would you like that? Do you think it would reduce prices to end users? Do you think it would lead to more or less intellectual freedom?

That's what I think is the underlying fundamental question.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What no-one comments on
by rayiner on Fri 12th May 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "What no-one comments on"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

At least you'd have competition, which is more than can be said for the current sorry computer industry.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What no-one comments on
by snozzberry on Fri 12th May 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "What no-one comments on"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

But its the business model issue. Suppose all computers were made and sold on the Apple model. Imagine in detail what the industry would look like. You would have the HP OS, running on and only on HP hardware. The MacOS as now. Maybe the Gateway OS. Maybe Amiga.

Non-transferrable apps, probably incompatible file formats. Would you like that? Do you think it would reduce prices to end users? Do you think it would lead to more or less intellectual freedom?


How old are you? Until Windows came out this was the dominant business model. It meant that computer manufacturers were 100% accountable for their OS working on their hardware. It also meant that the OSes were fine tuned to that hardware, UNIX excepted.

The major advances during the 1980s did not come from CP/M compatible machines all running the same z80 architecture, they came from small computer companies putting together integrated, burned-in systems. IBM only entered the personal computer market when the Apple //c started selling to businesses at an alarming rate and encroaching on their core market.

Outside of an economic angle, commodity PCs are a fricking blight on improving computers. Linux wasn't built to compete with Windows, it was a graduate student's wish to play with UNIX on his own computer while UNIX was still locked up under license and it became glaringly obvious HURD would never be released.

Homogenizing hardware will to some extent provide faster evolution between the platforms on that hardware. I won't argue with you on that because you're right. But there's a plateau effect where once the limits of that platform are reached, evolution stops and progression is limited to Moore's law.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What no-one comments on
by ma_d on Fri 12th May 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE: What no-one comments on"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I'd vote you up, cause you deserve a 5 for that post; but I don't have any.

Very well explained... Especially the point about Linux.

And, kudos on the nick (snozzberry)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What no-one comments on
by alcibiades on Sat 13th May 2006 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE: What no-one comments on"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"How old are you?"

One of the few to be old enough to have worked in the industry when the dominant model was of companies supplying hardware and software locked together, back in the days of discrete commponent processors. Yes, before microprocessors! In fact, I worked for one of them, long gone now.

The problem was, fragmentation and lockin and reduced competition because of them. In business, moving from one supplier to another was a massive deal. Nothing, nothing was compatible. The result was that there was competition between vendors, but it was very limited, and nothing like the competition in hardware that we see today.

It is true that the x86 architecture is limited. Its also true that Linux came about more or less accidentally. But none of this proves the superiority of the old model. Snozzberry says that it meant that computer manufacturers were 100% responsible for making sure their hardware worked with their software. No more so than today. You can be quite sure Dell or Acer is not going to ship hardware that does not work with Windows.

Rayiner says of this world that at least there was competition, and presumably is referring to the present day predominance of Windows. Yes, there was competition, but much less than you might think, and less than there is today. It was different, and it was less intense.

Try to imagine in detail how much competition there really would be in a world in which the different players with their locked hardware/software were something like this: HP 40%, Mac 30%, AnOther 20%, and it was all as incompatible as then. You want to move to or from HP, throw out all your hardware AND all your applications, AND struggle with document and archive conversion. Same would apply at the consumer level.

There's no doubt, what we have now is better, because more open. There is standard hardware. Never mind how Linux evolved, it did evolve, and it could only have evolved in an open standard hardware world. This openness is what places limits on Microsoft. People have a relatively low entry cost alternative, in a way they didn't in my youth.

The strongest argument against nostalgia for those days is Apple's progress. It did not in fact succeed on a dedicated hardware platform. It has not in fact delivered any better integration of OS with hardware than Dell or Acer with XP. It has not been more innovative in hardware design. In fact, its given up and adopted the x86 hardware standard. In order to survive and compete, Apple has become a private label hardware supplier.

If the model were so great, it would have stayed in the market, and Apple would have done better with it. Fact is, it (model) failed, and we should be glad it did.

Reply Score: 1

RE: omg
by sbenitezb on Fri 12th May 2006 17:31 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

I would care. I would prefer that more people buy Macs, so we can get a more heterogeneous computer world. Windows, Linux and Macs working together to get a better and fair competition.

Reply Score: 1

This one sucks...
by ma_d on Fri 12th May 2006 18:12 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

The article against Apple was well written. It was no essay and it didn't prove anything; but it was in good nature and the largely rhetorical arguments were fair and based on real facts.
This article was nothing more than a rant. It wasn't terribly coherent and had no flow. And it didn't prove anything either. It was marked by generalities like "Linux doesn't have commercial apps" and "Linux can't do GUI configs" and "some consider OS X Office to be better" and "I have no clue how openoffice is designed, but since there's just one exe I'll assume it loads all the libs when I load that."

Reply Score: 5

My opinion
by ehwood on Fri 12th May 2006 18:27 UTC
ehwood
Member since:
2006-05-12

It is funny that Microsoft's last release was in 2001, whereas I have Mandrake Linux 9.1, released in '03 if I'm not mistaken, running on my old school iMac. I also have a Mac Mini, though with a gig of RAM, and the machine is by no means useless. It can handle Halo and Neverwinter Nights well enough, and is a very speedy Linux box.

In fact, Linux runs circles around OS X on it. Go figger..

Reply Score: 2

Sensitive nerves is right
by Celerate on Fri 12th May 2006 18:54 UTC
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

I can't say that this article is fair at all, it brings up some valid points, but the author makes the very same mistakes he's critical of in the original article.

He accuses the other article of painting a saintly picture of Windows and Linux without mentioning their problems, but he himself goes ahead to kick those two in the sacks while mentioning almost no problems people have with OS X.

I can't say this guy doesn't strike a serious nerve either, he's taken several cheap shots on Linux and Windows which we have debated in the comments on this site for a long time. He's sensationalizing minor issues in both Linux and Windows, and sometimes creating issues in order to sell OS X. For example:

"He does not mention the continual updates, which as time goes on, detract from the performance of Windows" - Every OS gets updates, and if they don't then they're not being maintained any more. I have never heard of updates detracting from performance in Windows, or any other OS.

"or even that the last fresh Windows OS was released as long ago as 2001" - Microsoft has continued releasing security updates, what's the problem? Having to do a clean installation every two years sucks, why replace something that gets the job done just fine. Heck, Windows 2000 is still more than good enough for those who like Windows. It's not about when the last new version was, it's about the OS doing everything you need.


"[refering to OS X fonts:] notably the fonts, unmatched on any other platform including Windows" - Sorry, that's just plain fiction. I've had a look at the fonts on OS X and they're not better than Windows or Linux. The anti-aliased fonts in OS X can match the quality of anti-aliased fonts in Linux, but they still look fuzzy. I hate to admit it, because I'm not fan of Windows, but cleartype really does look the best even if Microsoft's default font sizes are small (they're not hard to make larger btw).

"He was pleased with XP on a system which was fast, with lots of memory and a huge hard disk; on the system I use XP on, a 450Mhz Pentium 3 with 256 megabytes of RAM and a 7Gb hard drive, it's an absolute dog." - Then refering to OS X: - "it's fast on my hardware (1GHz G4, 384Mb RAM), and it's reliable." - Am I the only one seeing a double standard here. Windows is slow on an obsolete system, but OS X is fast on modern system, therefore OS X is faster. What makes this more ironic is when he sais: "However, the competition [Microsoft] is also known for using morally (and legally) questionable tactics, such as issuing ad campaigns comparing the performance of their server OS with Linux on different hardware".

"Returning to the fans' attitudes, some Linux forms are notoriously unfriendly as well, particularly to newcomers." - I've experienced this too, with every OS. You just need to find a good support group. For example on this very site the Mac users are friendly to those interested in OS X and will answer almost any question, I've also found myself a very nice mailing list to get help with Linux.

"And the software available for Linux is just not up to the standard of the Mac's, much less what is there for Windows." - That's a cheap shot if I ever saw one. If Linux software is so infrequent and of poor quality then how come so much of it ends up being ported to OS X? That's a rhetorical question btw. Yes, there's less commercial software for Linux than for OS X, and even less than for Windows; and sure, it would be nice to have more software available on Linux, but if we were hurting we'd switch to another OS. Linux users can live with less software for the same reason Mac users can live with less software than Windows has, all that extra just isn't necessary, even if we do sometimes want software we don't yet have. The guy's examples are also both innacurate and unfair, but I've ranted enough on this one.

"The last actual new release of it was last year; the last version of Windows came out in 2001, and the upcoming version is not thought to work properly on hardware issued before this year." - I think my hardware is about two years old at least, and it'll run Vista with the fancy graphical effects.

"I like Linux; it's fun to play around with and it's just about adequate for some people's office needs." - Talk about an understatement. I can name several people who are satisfied with Linux for all their home and office needs. This referring to it as a toy is no less than an attempt at an insult.

"I strongly suspect it will not gain desktop approval, if it ever does, until someone works out a solution to its font problems (asymmetry and general ugliness, particularly on serif fonts)" - And who's to say that OS X has gained desktop acceptance, Linux and OS X still only have a tiny sliver of the Desktop OS pie compared to Windows. If Mac users can say OS X is a good desktop system, who is anyone to deny us Linux users the very same.

"But it does not have the serious desktop applications to make it overtake Windows or OS X, even if as an operating system it is vastly superior to Windows." - As a KDE user I can say that the whole suite of KDE apps is very attractive. Gnome doesn't seem to be doing too bad either, and dad seems to like it so it must also be doing something very right.

"Which is why, when I next need to buy a computer, if I can afford one and the Mac is as viable a platform as it is now, I will probably buy another Mac." - I'm planning on getting a Mac myself, but if there was ever an argument to talk me out of such a thing, this flamebait fanboy article would be it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sensitive nerves is right
by junior on Sat 13th May 2006 00:42 UTC in reply to "Sensitive nerves is right"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

"I've had a look at the fonts on OS X and they're not better than Windows or Linux. The anti-aliased fonts in OS X can match the quality of anti-aliased fonts in Linux, but they still look fuzzy. I hate to admit it, because I'm not fan of Windows, but cleartype really does look the best even if Microsoft's default font sizes are small (they're not hard to make larger btw)."

Well, I look at OS X and XP all day long and I really do think that cleartype is pretty crappy. In my opinion it has got very little to do with font smoothing, it doesn't preserve character shape for example. But I could live with that, what's worse is that it badly messes up font spacing which impedes legibility and gets annoying quickly.

If you think OS X's smoothing algorithm makes text fuzzy, you should set it to 'light' for a change.

Oh, yeah, and nothing beats Linux of course. Everybody knows that

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

If you were/are having security issues with Windows, assuming you have a general idea of how the OS works (eg - how to run programs, save/open files, etc), let me spend 30 minutes educating you and you will NEVER have anoother virus or piece of spyware on your computer again. In fact, you won't even have to spend any money to secure your machine. That's right, $0 for all the software you'd need. Did you know that? I bet you didn't.

See, the reason why these debates drag on and on is because many people do not truly understand the operating systems that they're bashing, and so they just go on and on when they don't know what the f**k they're talking about. And this is no exception. When non-Windows users talk about Windows, they're like "But what about viruses? What about spyware?" And I'm telling you right now that it is very, very, trivial to keep that crap off your machine. I know it's hard for you to believe that some of us Windows users don't have blue screens and don't have security issues whatsoever, but it really is true. In fact, except for when I have a piece of misbehaving hardware, my Windows boxes run smoother than a baby's ass. In fact, the computer that I'm typing this on has a Win2k install that's a little over 2 years old with 30+ apps installed, and still going strong.

If you can't run Windows without having any of these issues or really don't want to spend the time figuring out how to do so, then fine. But don't assume that everyone who uses the OS has the same issues. Some of us have figured these things out, and are not interested in jumping platforms in order to escape problems that we're not having in the first place. Sure, some people do have these problems and probably would be better off switching, but that's probably not very many people here ;)

Reply Score: 2

AVG is *NOT* Free
by Gryzor on Fri 12th May 2006 19:44 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

Ok, I've seen a lot of people mentioning Grimsoft AVG antivirus; it would be nice to remember that altought AVG is free (as in beer) for non commercial use, it is NOT free for commercial use.

So you cannot install it on a commercial organization. You'd need a licence.

Reply Score: 2

RE: AVG is *NOT* Free
by rockwell on Fri 12th May 2006 20:35 UTC in reply to "AVG is *NOT* Free"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//So you cannot install it on a commercial organization. You'd need a licence.//

Right, but you sure as heck can install it on home PCs and small businesses.

And home PCs make up a *gigantic* portion of XP installs -- larger than corporate installs, I'd wager.

Reply Score: 1

RE: AVG is *NOT* Free
by Celerate on Fri 12th May 2006 23:09 UTC in reply to "AVG is *NOT* Free"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

ClamWin AV is free anti-virus based off the open source ClamAV. I got tired of AVG always failing to fetch updates after every boot, so switched over and don't regret it.

I'd also recommend SoftPerfect Personal Firewall to anyone using Zone Alarm, no more manual update process, no more nag screens, no more tricks when you just want to download the free version.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: AVG is *NOT* Free
by Barnabyh on Sat 13th May 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: AVG is *NOT* Free"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

Yes, I switched to Dr.Web AV more than two years ago after AVG Free failed to detect two viruses on my machine, which I eventually only found by network scanning from another machine with Norton - or is it called Symantec?
Guess you should really go for AV protection when on p2p file sharing. Dr.Web has a very small footprint and updates efficiently with incremental updates and not the whole base every day. It uses about 5MB so can only recommend this lesser known prog to everyone concerned about their resources - but it's not free. That said you can use the same licence key on Windows and Unix machines if you migrate during your licence term.
I'm not paid by them, honest, just happy with it!

Reply Score: 1

??? 2 gig of ram?
by Barnabyh on Fri 12th May 2006 20:08 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

Any OS that needs 2 gig of ram to run comfortably i would consider a complete failure.

Anyway, the article seems to neglect that there have been two XP SP's since it's original release. Calling it therefore outdated and then comparing it with OSX 10.4 which is also just an update to the underlying OS seems unfair. So 10.4 was released 2005? When did SP2 come out, 2005?
Not that I care, using Linux and happy with it. And soon BSD as well.

Reply Score: 1

RAM hogs
by paperfrog on Fri 12th May 2006 20:17 UTC
paperfrog
Member since:
2006-01-01

> Any OS that needs 2 gig of ram to run comfortably i would consider a complete failure.

Right, and nobosdy should need more than 64kb of RAM. ;-)

OS X loves RAM, but it runs well on 512MB. I have two old G3s running Panther with 256 and 384Mb, respectively. At teh same time OS X really spreads out when you let it. I have 2Gb available on this machine, and it usually boots up with about 400Mb in use.

Reply Score: 1

This is not a rebuttal
by Fred on Fri 12th May 2006 21:07 UTC
Fred
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a whine about how bad the competition does things. All I can see is stuff about Windows and that mythical thing called "Linux".

Look, just because the "others" do it too (and worse) doesn't make it justified to follow suit.

Reply Score: 1

Not sensitive
by Snooks on Fri 12th May 2006 22:09 UTC
Snooks
Member since:
2006-01-10

Hit sensitive nerves? Poor thing Thom..it was just a dumb article and part of your usual drivel...when will your sad anti-mac effrots end? Hard to bleeive anyone could be an XP fanboy.

Reply Score: 1

Kernel Panic?
by Snooks on Fri 12th May 2006 22:11 UTC
Snooks
Member since:
2006-01-10

Get real. I've been using OS X since Jaguar after a five year absence from the Mac and have never seen one kernel panic. It's also a very unusual event in the Mac world in general whereas blue screen is very common.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kernel Panic?
by chlordane on Sat 13th May 2006 13:59 UTC in reply to "Kernel Panic?"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

I have had my windows machine give me the Blue Screen of Death 4 times in one month, in April, and once this month
in May.....so, yeah....I wonder which OS needs just a little help in my house...?

I havent seen a Kernel Panic either...

^_^

Reply Score: 1

another know nothing
by Snooks on Fri 12th May 2006 22:12 UTC
Snooks
Member since:
2006-01-10

"Spinning beach ball of death - self explainatory"

You have obviosuly never used a Mac with OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE: another know nothing
by miscz on Sat 13th May 2006 02:40 UTC in reply to "another know nothing"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

I did. I have it installed on my notebook right now (graybox Asus - Celeron M 1.6 ghz, 512mb ram, not a slow computer) and I used an iMac for a few days about two years ago (one of my relatives is an Apple fan). Both can be very unresponsive and the fact that you can't interact with spinning-beach-ball'ed app is very annoying.

Reply Score: 1

Why?
by aramis on Fri 12th May 2006 22:26 UTC
aramis
Member since:
2006-05-10

Why is'nt there any people talking about what they accomplish with their platform more than comparing and trying to destroy the others ....
Creativity and Produtivity should be in front row ....

Reply Score: 1

Izz'a Mac Thaang!
by cr8dle2grave on Fri 12th May 2006 23:51 UTC
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

All of you happy, enthusiastic, and satisfied Apple customers will probably never really be able to understand the reasons why some of us dislike Apple so intensely. It's not that you can't understand because you're stupid. Or because you're misinformed. Or even because you've come under the pernicious influence of Job's notorious reality distortion field.

You can't understand what motivates our hatred of Apple because our motivations are, at least at their deepest roots, profoundly irrational. And further, it's Apple's fault!

You see, Apple is primarily a marketing company. Now that's probably not exactly how a committed Mac user would choose to phrase it, but even among the Apple faithful it's generally recognized that much of Apple's success is on account of its remarkable marketing prowess. There's a very carefully cultivated mystique which surrounds the Apple brand, which no doubt accounts for much of its appeal.

Apple is cool. Apple is different. Apple is subversive...That's the message we've been recieving from Cupertino over the last two decades.

Marketing works, on the whole, because it is designed to make us act irrationally. A successful marketing campaign is successful to the extent that it is able to short circuit that more prudent part of our brains which would otherwise cause us to ask such questions as, "Do I really need to buy this thing?," "Is this the best possible deal I can get for this thing?," "Is this thing really worth what they're asking for it?," and, perhaps most importantly, "Should I put off buying this thing right now in order that I might get a better sense of my overall options?"

Of course, marketing doesn't cause everyone to respond in exactly the same way. Indeed, a commercial or print ad which pushes one person's "buy it now" button might well leave another person entirely cold. This is why marketing is generally geared toward a specific demographic. By tailoring the message to a smaller and better defined group, a marketing campaign can thereby greatly increase the likelihood of pushing more "buy it now" buttons and thus leave fewer people wholly indifferent.

But just as, in the case of physical law, every action is accompanied by an equal and opposite reaction, there exists the commensurate social law that for every demographic there exists an anti-demographic. I, and many of the Apple haters out there, belong to the Apple anti-demographic.

That mystique which you find so appealing doesn't just leave me cold, it provokes in me a deep contempt and loathing. While you may percieve Apple as hip, I percieve it as embodying the ultimate triumph of style over substance.

There are companies, such as DeBeers, which I find so morally despicable that I'm obliged to view them as truly evil (in spite of the fact that I'm disinclined from ever using that word). There are companies, such as Microsoft, whom I consider to be bad actors and who's actions I believe have an overall negative economic and social effect.

And then there's Apple, about whom I'm not exaggerating when I say that I despise their brand more than any other brand or corporate indentity out there.

Yes. My reaction is irrational. And, yes, you're no doubt correct that some of my contempt for Apple is fueled by the fact that where I'd prefer to think of myself as being somehow above the influence of marketing and commercial manipulations, the truth is that Apple's marketing has some definite effect upon me (even if it is a negative one). But to recognize and acknowledge that fact is only cause to hate Apple even more.

So while Apple's marketing may have convinced some of you to switch, it's all but guaranteed that I, along with others like me, will never, ever buy one damn thing from them.

(I should note that the one and only Mac advertising campaign which did not provoke any disgust in me was the original 1984 Mac commercial. Can't really say why, but I actually liked that one).

Reply Score: 2

Am I the only one?
by evilmegaman on Sat 13th May 2006 07:05 UTC
evilmegaman
Member since:
2005-09-20

Am I the only one who thinks this is pretty much like a debate on why *insert race* sucks more than *insert race*? Because if you ask me, whoever made this article is just an attention seeker. My question is: Would anyone be interested in writing a poem on OS wars? It would be fun. Something similar to a kumbaya theme ;) like

Let's all hold hands even if are hands are those of the daemons and yours are those of an apple, We can all rejoice because we now have this important poem to think about before we try start an OS war.

Something along those lines. If you do it, at least put it on your blog or something. Oh and email me about it cuz that would be really cool hehe

Reply Score: 1

RE: Am I the only one?
by alcibiades on Sat 13th May 2006 09:10 UTC in reply to "Am I the only one?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Its not OS wars. Its not about what I like.

Its business model wars. Which OS you pick has no more importance than which hardware you pick. Which business model the OS of your choice, and thus the industry, runs on is critical to society.

Reply Score: 1

.....
by Cezy on Sat 13th May 2006 09:19 UTC
Cezy
Member since:
2006-05-13

Win, Mac, Amiga... they're only operative system, not religons or somithing similar. I've never used a Mac, maybe I'll never use one. Maybe I'm losting something, maybe not, in any case, a good day on the beach with my girlfriend is better than any OS ;)

Reply Score: 1

Yikes!
by junior on Sat 13th May 2006 09:29 UTC
junior
Member since:
2005-07-07

"It appears our database has momentarily gone down"

Maybe it's time to add 'again' to the end of that sentence.

Reply Score: 1

chlordane
Member since:
2006-05-11

Even though I dont like the fact that Apple switched to the Intel chip (and thats a different topic for a different discussion) I will still buy Apple products, as long as the OS is as stable as it is now, and continues to become more stable....

Now for this Apple vs Microsoft debate....how about everyone use what they like and stop worrying about other peoples opinions.....we will all hve a good or bad experience with an operating system, so why does it matter.....

I love my Mac.....

Reply Score: 1

Oh Great, this again.
by Murrell on Sun 14th May 2006 21:43 UTC
Murrell
Member since:
2006-01-04

All operating systems suck. They just suck in different ways.

Everyone also seems to forget that not everyone has the same requirements as everyone else.

Good grief, they're operating systems, not religons. A means to ends. In the grand scheme of things, they don't really matter.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh Great, this again.
by google_ninja on Sun 14th May 2006 22:11 UTC in reply to "Oh Great, this again."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There are three things at work here.

1) Operating systems are complex mothers that take a significant amount of time to gain expertise on. People don't like to think they spent years learning something when theres something else out there which is superior. Hence the "mine's bigger" mentality

2) People who are unsure of themselves need validation from others. You see this when you talk to people about the movies they watch, the music they listen to, and the OS they use (amoung other things). So when combined with #1, this explains the Jihad posts in these kinds of flame wars.

3) Some people (like me) enjoy a good argument, especially when theres a chance at getting enlightened about something. By defending your position, you often end up realising all sorts of things that you plain didnt think of before. However, this type of person will only rarely post in this particular kind of thread, as there are very very few flame wars of the length or ferocity of Mac vs Windows.

If you want some advice, never argue with a zealot. Smile, nod, and back away. You won't win, because you cant. They are almost alwas in the first two categories.

Reply Score: 1