I went on and wrote a review about MacOSX 10.0.4 a month ago, but it was never finished as I had to fly to France for my own wedding. I came back and MacOSX 10.1 had been released. I scrapped completely the old text, as 10.1 brings some more speed and new features to the system, and restarted writting the review from scratch.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
My question is: why was Eugenia chosen to do this review? As he/she states in the article, he/she has little experience with MacOS as a whole (does running a Mac emulator under Windows even count as Mac experience?) and was one of only two PC users in an office full of "underpowered" Macs. Fairly or not, this reads like the reviewer has an axe to grind - and I'd still feel this way if a Mac user who had always felt that Windows was too kludgy, insecure and unstable was chosen to review Windows XP on the basis of having used Windows twice and VirtualPC a while back.
Interestingly, the reviewer seems to mention and then quickly skip over some of the most important points concerning OSX: Java integration, free and powerful developer tools (did Eugenia really have a tough time finding them on Apple's website? And yet he/she claims to have 7 OS's installed, some of which, presumably, required at least a bit of digging around and configuring to even install? Why doesn't this add up?), out-of-the-box stability and security (especially compared to Linux and/or Windows 98/NT/ME/2000/XP), enhanced AppleScript (especially with the publicly demoed AppleScript Studio), inclusion of Perl, TCL, tcsh, and so on. The whole *point* of OSX is that it's Unix with a friendly face. Is it possible that Eugenia had trouble using OSX simply because he/she is so used to the Windows way?
As for speed - this I find confusing. I'm currently writing this from a Wallstreet PowerBook (300mhz G3 with 256mb RAM) and have no speed complaints - although in all honesty, OS9 is still faster on my machine. The same is not true of 10.1 on my 400mhz G4 with 384mb RAM. On that machine, OSX is honestly as fast as Windows 98 is on my 700mhz Athlon (Of course, if someone wants to argue that XP is faster than 98, well...) Perhaps a reviewer could take the time to test more than a single machine? Especially before writing a potentially negative review? That's the way I always wrote my reviews. Kept me from looking silly.
At any rate, I think the sum total of the review is that it's not particularly well done. Too much "It feels like..." and not enough substance. Especially for a website with technical readers. Clearly, a website like Ars Technica is in no danger from OSNews' competition.
My question is: why was Eugenia chosen to do this review? As he/she states in the article, he/she has little experience with MacOS as a whole (does running a Mac emulator under Windows even count as Mac experience?) and was one of only two PC users in an office full of "underpowered" Macs. Fairly or not, this reads like the reviewer has an axe to grind - and I'd still feel this way if a Mac user who had always felt that Windows was too kludgy, insecure and unstable was chosen to review Windows XP on the basis of having used Windows twice and VirtualPC a while back. Interestingly, the reviewer seems to mention and then quickly skip over some of the most important points concerning OSX: Java integration, free and powerful developer tools (did Eugenia really have a tough time finding them on Apple's website? And yet he/she claims to have 7 OS's installed, some of which, presumably, required at least a bit of digging around and configuring to even install? Why doesn't this add up?), out-of-the-box stability and security (especially compared to Linux and/or Windows 98/NT/ME/2000/XP), enhanced AppleScript (especially with the publicly demoed AppleScript Studio), inclusion of Perl, TCL, tcsh, and so on. The whole *point* of OSX is that it's Unix with a friendly face. Is it possible that Eugenia had trouble using OSX simply because he/she is so used to the Windows way? As for speed - this I find confusing. I'm currently writing this from a Wallstreet PowerBook (300mhz G3 with 256mb RAM) and have no speed complaints - although in all honesty, OS9 is still faster on my machine. The same is not true of 10.1 on my 400mhz G4 with 384mb RAM. On that machine, OSX is honestly as fast as Windows 98 is on my 700mhz Athlon (Of course, if someone wants to argue that XP is faster than 98, well...) Perhaps a reviewer could take the time to test more than a single machine? Especially before writing a potentially negative review? That's the way I always wrote my reviews. Kept me from looking silly. At any rate, I think the sum total of the review is that it's not particularly well done. Too much "It feels like..." and not enough substance. Especially for a website with technical readers. Clearly, a website like Ars Technica is in no danger from OSNews' competition.