Home > Rumors > Mac vs. PC: Which is Better for Digital Video Editing? Mac vs. PC: Which is Better for Digital Video Editing? Submitted by Prognathous 2002-05-27 Rumors 99 Comments DigitalVideoEditing.com features an article listing the 10 top reasons why someone would or should use Mac over the PC, or a PC instead of a Mac for Video Editing. Update: Another one here, submitted by CattBeMac. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 99 Comments 2002-05-27 4:43 pm which OS is better? i’d say you need both. just so you can compare it for yourself. if you can’t afford both, then get what you can afford and be happy with that. this article is simply an opinion article, and just as with everyone else’s opinion, it will be different from what you might have. no one’s the same. i can’t wait to read what others have to say. i’m sure there’s gonna be another round of flaming, as usual. 2002-05-27 4:52 pm Charlie White is known for being just a tad biased against the mac. He does admit it in a round about way in this “editorial”. Mac vs PC articles always brings up the hit counts . 2002-05-27 5:06 pm “Mac vs PC articles always brings up the hit counts .” Of course, I meant that for Charlie’s site and sites such as ZDNet, this site gets lotsa hits for all kinds of articles (don’t want Eugenia to get mad at me : ) ). 2002-05-27 5:10 pm As far as the OS goes, it is evident [to everyone but M$ victims and groupies]that OS X is superior to Windows, as all the BSD’s are. I am typing this from an iBook with Gentoo Linux installed. I couldn’t see myself buying an INTEL or Celeron notebook with a Winmodem a Win this and a Win that. I’ll leave that for all the suckers out there. If you think this is a flame, you don’t know what hot is. 2002-05-27 5:16 pm Of course everything is easier on a mac! 2002-05-27 5:22 pm 5. You like Apple’s proprietary apps like iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto and iDVD This is what I can’t stand about apple “proprietary” 2002-05-27 5:24 pm His conclusions are correct (just go with the one you like!) but I feel his methods are lacking, causing a bias towards Windows. According to his logic, because more people use Windows, then you will be more comfortable with it, so just use that instead of the Mac… unless you want to be a poseur and get a mac. Of the users that I have known, those who try a Mac usually stick with the Mac. This goes for video professionals, web designers, programmers (with OSX), and base users. There is something compelling, easy, yet powerful about the Mac. Of the many, many users I have seen switch to the Mac, the only one that had a problem was a friend’s mother who was so used to Windows for business applications that she probably should not have switched in the first place. I realize this whole discussion is one big flame-bait in the making, but honestly if people actually knew the power and ease of the Mac, they would never go back to Windows. 2002-05-27 5:25 pm I’d like to read an article based on facts, not FUD. 2002-05-27 5:34 pm Instead of arguing the broad-based question of which is better, PC or Mac? (hint: it’s Mac)…this article is asking “which is the best tool for the job?” I like this approach better than some open-ended argument that just dumps more gas on the PC/Mac flamewars. 2002-05-27 5:39 pm Having used both PC’s and Mac’s for video editing, I would have to say, that even with OS9, Mac’s were by far better, and easier to work with. I think though, that the software is the key. Both Mac’s and PC are capable of video editing, the software tools available make a huge difference. For PC, unless you have unlimited resources, you are pretty much stuck to Primiere and After Effects, which both SUCK to use when compared with Final Cut Pro on the Mac. Of course, nobody in their right mind would use these things for high-end work right now. 2002-05-27 6:04 pm thank god no flaming or wars on this article. now i can sleep. =) go mac. 2002-05-27 6:38 pm >>I am typing this from an iBook with Gentoo Linux installed. this is so typical when mac users want to get proud. “ohh, i can use a browser under macos. how cool!!!” what the hell is so extraordinary that you can browse through the web-pages?? 2002-05-27 6:50 pm Well you know, if the PC is actually better than the Mac and then somebody comes around and writes about it, this doesn’t make him biased… it’s a matter of fact, get over it… 2002-05-27 6:55 pm I thought macs were for dummies….. 2002-05-27 7:07 pm “this is so typical when mac users want to get proud. “ohh, i can use a browser under macos. how cool!!!” what the hell is so extraordinary that you can browse through the web-pages??” !@#$%^&*? 2002-05-27 7:23 pm That list really is more general than the question that it asks. If one stays within the bounds of the question, the next question that must be asked is whether this is for pleasure or commerce. If it’s just a hobby, then cost may or may not be an issue. Some people like to brag about how much they spend on this or that. Others have budgets, or simply don’t want to waste money. However if this is for profit, then cost is a major consideration. The bottom line is profit, and the means to this goal is by getting the best and most economical tools for the job. In this respect, the PC wins hands down. The exception to that is #3, where a shop may be staffed by PC-illiterate people. In that case, it may be more economical to keep the current staff. I would argue that in the long term it would be more of a drain than a benefit. People who are already behind the curve professionally, and who aren’t willing to grow will become all but useless in short order. If you notice, most of the reasons for choosing the Mac are related to personal entertainment, and not to producing work. “Workers” like that could already be a drain on a business! A good compromise would be to let attrition take its course. Replace a Mac station with a PC station when someone leaves. If the benefit is dramatic, you can accelerate the pace. Software is another factor. I sure wouldn’t call Final Cut Pro a production-level product. Nothing with the word “Pro” in its name is broadcast quality! That’s just marketing hooey. Choosing a PC gives you access to a whole lot more products, from a whole lot more vendors. So if you don’t like one product, you actually have a choice. That’s a Good Thing. 2002-05-27 7:35 pm I realize this whole discussion is one big flame-bait in the making, but honestly if people actually knew the power and ease of the Mac, they would never go back to Windows. Don’t you think that’s a little bit of an over-generalization? I was a Machead for a decade, then moved over to PCs. Have I looked back sometimes? Sure. For example, OS X is starting to really shape up (although the people who give the blanket “it’s so much better than XP in every way” are obviously either ignorant of or dishonest about its shortcomings), their hardware is beautifully designed, and their iApps are genuinely useful. And typically, Apple’s “we do it all” approach leads to fewer headaches with getting things working together (although a quick trip to Maintouch’s “Issues” page would show that it’s not as perfect as some Mac fans claim, and even Steve’s iPod wouldn’t sync correctly at Macworld). There are lots of reasons why Macs are a great choice for lots of people. But there are lots of good reasons why Macs aren’t a good choice for lots of people, too. One of my favorite examples comes from MWSF this year, where Macplay was positively beaming with pride that they expected to get “Alien vs. Predator 2” out only six months after the PC version. Or how about all those Mac gamers who never got to play Half-Life? Or those who can’t use their joysticks in OS X? How the Mac users who still can’t use Kazaa and other such services? A few times this year I’ve unexpectedly needed to fax something, and XP comes with beautiful built-in fax support. If you’re not running NetInfo, currently OS X offers nothing comparable to Network Neighborhood if you just want to browse the network. Also, I had to print out about 60 pages of PowerPoint slides a day for class this semester, and XP’s simple “print x pages per sheet” feature is fantastic. I could go on, but you get the idea–there are a wide variety of needs out there, and right now, XP is more mature. Plus, for $290 right now, I can upgrade my system from a Celeron 566 to an Athlon 1.5 GHz with DDR2700 RAM–certainly, my mother wouldn’t want to perform an upgrade like this, but there are those of us that would, so your general statement just falls flat. I know the ease of use and power of the Mac fully well, and I still choose to use Windows. 2002-05-27 7:49 pm “try to be as fair and even-handed as possible” Nice _try_. In fact, 9 of the 10 pro Mac Arguments are like: “Because I’m to stupid to use a PC” which are not the real pro-mac arguments at all. 2002-05-27 7:58 pm “3. The PC’s huge market share (about 95%) gives you lots of other users to commiserate with when the thing breaks, along with lots of places to get it fixed ” isn’t that window’s market share and not the pcs, since i can buy a pc and put linux on it and those “lots of places” start to dwindle down quite fast. “8. You’ve noticed that right-clicking and scrolling are more well-developed, contextual menus with right-clicks are more extensive — the system is designed for a mouse with more than just one button and no scroll wheel” people would choose to buy a wintel computer over (i assume) a mac because of a friggin mouse? macs have right click ability and it works just fine, but it is easier to use 1 buttoned mouse and more straight forward for beginners. btw, half this article had nothing to do with video editing?! 2002-05-27 8:02 pm “what the hell is so extraordinary that you can browse through the web-pages??” Dude, he’s running Gentoo Linux — browsing the internet is an achievement on Linux. Now I will eat my own words (and extinguish the flame) by saying it’s an achievment on FreeBSD. Man, I spent many sleepless hours trying to get a decent browser to work on my FreeBSD box. This is to my “slow” friend out there: Mac hardware is way better than PC hardware, Vi is better than Emacs, BSD is better than Linux, and my God is better than your god! 2002-05-27 8:03 pm As a long time Wintel user and new Mac user who is trying to decide a good platform for doing video editting I find there is almost nothing in this article thats useful. Most of the points made would more easily fall into an over all “Mac vs. Windows” arguement. The only real issues seem to be: Mac: You can use Final Cut Pro 3.0 PC: There’s lots of video editting hardware In my own observations I would say that I like iMovie better than Windows Movie Maker as I feel I can do more. iMovie feels like a stripped down version of Premiere (which I’ve used on the PC), it won’t do everything I want but there’s enough there to keep my happy. Movie Maker you feel crippled from the get go. Of course these are my opinions, I could be wrong. 2002-05-27 8:14 pm Anonymous posted… >>Well you know, if the PC is actually better than the Mac and then somebody comes around and writes about it, this doesn’t make him biased… it’s a matter of fact, get over it…<< No, it is a matter of opinion, just like if the Mac is actually better than the PC and then somebody comes around and writes about it, it doesn’t make him (or her) biased… it’s a matter of opinion, so you get over it! 2002-05-27 8:19 pm i never installed gentoo linux, i’m using SuSE and it has never been a problem for me to set up a browser. if there is something special with gentoo that i don’t know feel free to flame me, if this going to make feel smart. it still comes unlogical to see the browsing-capability as a PRO. i never used a mac, so i am not against it. but from what I read and see there are not much specialities about it, if you find it cool and use it that’s good for you. it’s not my problem. PS: i’m not slow. but it seems that you are a little bit snob and arrogant, try to be nicer, you’ll see the world will be nicer, too. 2002-05-27 8:36 pm >>I am typing this from an iBook with Gentoo Linux installed. this is so typical when mac users want to get proud. “ohh, i can use a browser under macos. how cool!!!” what the hell is so extraordinary that you can browse through the web-pages?? In response to you, READ what he was saying. He wasn’t proud of browsing, he’s proud of what he uses. In response to this article. I like the idea behind his approach, but I thought his implementation was stupid. He didn’t even list many real good reasons! Hell, one of his reasons for using PCs was JUST to comform to what others are using. And once again, I reitterate. You should use what works for you and what you like. You should also be proud of what you like since that’s a part of who you are. If you feel the need to mock people for what they prefer, then you’re just showing the insecurities of a childish bully. That goes for people attacking both Macs and PCs. If what you prefer is so much better then you shouldn’t even feel the need to attack the competition. 2002-05-27 8:58 pm bah, how is this commentary different from the same boring old thing….sounds like an excerpt from bashing the p.c. on a mac board or visa versa. No originality, nothing new, no insight, and certainly not worth bothering to read. 2002-05-27 9:19 pm Don’t worry about #3. There’s an assumption being made that it will break. I don’t see anything to make me believe that’s true. It might break, but then again so does just about anything man-made. So what? It’s not like Macs are exempt from this! The only real difference here is that in the PC world, if something goes wrong, people can help you. In the Mac world, if something goes wrong, all they’ll do is try to hypnotize you into believing that it never happened, or that it’s a “feature”. 2002-05-27 10:17 pm Face it folks, this is an old debate that will never die. Some of Charlie’s points were on, while others were off. He makes it sound like Mac users don’t know how to use their computers, when in fact a majority of Mac users were once PC users. The funny thing is, I was originally a PC user myself (helk I still that old PC), I also program around some nasty and complicated operating systems and I can say that it was a huge sigh of relief when I went to the Mac side of the fence, it wasn’t perfect, but I enjoyed coming home to something that was simple and seemed to think and work the way I wanted, and not the other way around! I guess am so spoiled being a Mac user that I couldn’t imagine myself using anything else at home these days, not until something better comes along! 2002-05-27 10:25 pm “i’m not slow. but it seems that you are a little bit snob and arrogant, try to be nicer, you’ll see the world will “be nicer, too.” Dude, I wasn’t calling you slow. If you noticed “slow” was in quotations. It was a punny irony (if it can be called that) left there for my good friend “speed” who keeps trolling my posts and flaming me with irrelevant nonsense. I suppose it’s my own fault for not being more direct, but what gives? Everyone is so touchy on this site. As for the first half of the message it was a joke — in fact all of it was a joke. I mean the last paragraph should have given that away. You guys gotta lighten up or something. 2002-05-27 10:58 pm This is really stupid, and just another lame pc/mac flame bait. If you know how to use a computer, switching between win/mac is a trivial issue, period. My grandmother just switched and it took her a total of about 30 minutes. If your interested in serious video editing/compositing/etc., you’ll choose neither. Does Pixar use mac or pc’s? What does ILM use? What about Flash Film Works? If your get to this point in your deliberation, you’ll know what other platform(s) to look towards. So, this really boils down to the kind of stuff you do on a sunday afternoon, showing your latest, greatest video of Fido doing flips or grabbing a beer out of the kitchen for you. At this point, if you do any type of research, you’ll know which platform to choose, it just makes sense. Note the total agnostic stance: I have 2 OSX boxen, 3 Linux (and a little beowulf cluster for rendering) and 2 Winblows machines, oh and that old BeBox that I use for personal stuff. 2002-05-28 12:50 am Yeah, I’ve had to tell you to behave several times before fye did. But it’s never your fault, right? It’s always the other guy… Jim Strawberry, you are one of those hypocrites who loves to dish it out, but is mighty thin-skinned when it comes to taking what comes around. Unless you learn how to get along with people, I forsee a lonely life full of punishment for you. I welcome all that you have to say about the topic. Sometimes you do have something valuable to contribute. But stop there. Leave the sociopathic crap unwritten. 2002-05-28 2:04 am Comments here about Mac being hobby only, final cut pro not being a pro app.WRONG! Steven Soderbergh,”24″, Discovery channel, use DV and Final cut pro (and yes macintosh).Avid is definately feeling the heat from final cut pro. The creative world uses macintosh computers every day. A large creative community uses macintosh computers “The bottom line is profit, and the means to this goal is by getting the best and most economical tools for the job. In this respect, the PC wins hands down.” Absolute rubbish. Creative pros who use Macintosh computers will laugh in your face if you said that in their shop. 2002-05-28 2:48 am (Top 10 Reasons You’d Choose a Mac Over a PC) 1. You like the “user experience” of the Mac better But apprently, I don’t like Aqua jelly like, strip, semi transperant stuff. Personal preferences. 2. You like the way OS X is finally usable, and it’s a multi-threaded, multi-tasking OS. It’s nicely designed and easy to use, yet has lots of UNIX power under the hood Except for UNIX power, didn’t Windows XP come is multi-tasking, multi-threaded support? Anyway, UNIX =! the only stable OS. 6. You have a fear of the complexity of PCs, have never used one and maybe have a fear of the unknown Then buy a Sony, or a Gateway, or a Dell, or a Compaq, or a HP… 7. You like the way Mac cases, monitors, and OSs are designed I like the ergonomics, but never liked how the iMac G3 looked, the iBook toilet seat looks, the iMac G4 and the PowerMac. Personal preferences. The only few stuff I like from Apple is the iBook, the TiBook, the old PowerBook, the iPod, Cube etc. 8. You like being a member of an exclusive club of Mac users who see themselves as “special,” “artistic” and “creative,” and see yourself as a rebel, a maverick, superior, and an original, although you may be just a poseur (the “SUV” syndrome). When you heard people saying that PCs are (uncool, difficult, trouble-prone, slow, whatever), you believed them I’m a rebel, that’s why I use Linux 9. All the parts are the responsibility of one manufacturer, and there’s no finger-pointing when something breaks Same goes for all branded PCs. (Top 10 Reasons You’d Choose a PC over a Mac ) 6. You like the way Windows XP offers a polished user experience that’s extremely stable and versatile, lets you go back to a previous configuration using System Restore, and gives you the ultra-sharp ClearType fonts I like ClearType, but never like its default UI. I prefer thw Silver colour scheme. Things are far more readable, and less confusing. But then, I spend most of my time on KDE, I can’t really judge. 8. You’ve noticed that right-clicking and scrolling are more well-developed, contextual menus with right-clicks are more extensive — the system is designed for a mouse with more than just one button and no scroll wheel Actually, I notice how Macs work great with multiple button mouses, it is just some consumer apps that don’t support that. 10. You like the fact that there are two competing companies designing chips for the PC, Intel and AMD, ensuring that chip speeds rise on a regular and accelerated basis. This also holds true for the variety of hardware manufacturers in the PC space It is nice, but there aren’t two. Transmeta for example got Intel making its Low Vortage line. VIA C3 also played a major role. If you’re trying to decide between the two operating systems, I’d say first consider the applications you’re going to run. If you’re set on editing with Final Cut Pro, for example, your only choice is the fastest Mac. I think the best approach is to consider what you’ll be doing, how quickly you want to do it, and how much money you have to spend. Above all, do your best to tune out all the half-truths and reality distortion that is so prevalent in the marketing of computers, particularly the quasi-religious fervor that constantly accompanies information concerning the Mac platform. You can say that again :p 2002-05-28 2:58 am Seriously, the Edirol VideoCanvas DV-7 based on BeOS is highly regarded. Check it out here: http://www.edirol.com/products/info/dv7/index.html http://www.edirol.com/products/info/dv7/features.html http://www.edirol.com/products/info/dv7/specs.html http://www.avs-inc.com/EdirolSpecs.html Just can’t have an OS News article with out mentioning BeOS ya know… 2002-05-28 3:02 am If you are video editing, running a print house, into 2D graphics, and/or sound editing, there isn’t any choicefor you guys, if you are pro. Yeap, Mac holds all those niches. Get it through your thick skulls. And for the rest of you, get it through your thick skulls that Macs isn’t for everyone, Linux isn’t for everyone, and Windows isn’t for everyone. *sigh* Computers are made for the user to be more productive and pershaps have more fun. If, say, for me, I find myself more productive on a PC with Linux, good for me. If CattBeMac find it more productive to use Macs, good for he/her. If Jim finds it more productive to use Windows, who are we to tell him otherwise. Come on, there are real religions out there, why join a cult for a product never made to be a cult center of attention. So leave it like that. Mac is easier, so what, if I can get the job done on Windows. Linux is more advance, so what, if I can’t get the job done. Windows is so good, so what, if it can’t get the job done. EVeryone have different jobs, leave it that way. 2002-05-28 3:20 am I disagree with Speed, Final Cut Pro is definitely professional level software. It may not have every bell and whistle an Avid system has, but it also doesn’t come with a lot of the headaches. And, of course, even an Avid alone won’t cut it on a professional post-production assignment. But the truth of the matter is that as long as you don’t need your project (shot on film) to go back to film for distribution, you can get what you need done on Final Cut Pro. A lot of professionals are making the switch (as someone mentioned, TV shows such as 24… probably many more than that). And to be honest, many of the PC software packages aren’t up to speed. One of the more popular ones, Premiere, really can’t compete with Final Cut Pro, especially if you are undertaking a extensive project. If you truly are a professional, then the bottom line is profit, but I doubt the grand you save on a real PC digital editing solution (the prices aren’t drastically different when you start getting into hardcore systems) is going to affect your bottom line. The time I feel people would save with a Final Cut Pro system would be more valuable in the long run than the 1000$. Avid DV Express is a pretty good solution, very similar to the avid but I still think FInal Cut Pro has the edge over Avid Express. That’s a personal preference I guess. Friends of mine in a post house in LA all use Final Cut Pro, as do a lot of their competitors. That doesn’t make me right in supporting Final Cut Pro, but they edit for large amounts of money. They use avids but see the need for such systems diminishing, and they thought that Final Cut Pro gave them everything they needed. If you’re more of a hobbyist, then cost really is a prohibiting factor, but for professionals, that’s probably a small enough difference in start up costs to almost be negligible. 2002-05-28 3:35 am The article has little to do with video editing. It’s a waste of space that the author chooses to fill with the basic differences between Macintosh and Wintel. 2002-05-28 4:49 am “”8. You’ve noticed that right-clicking and scrolling are more well-developed, contextual menus with right-clicks are more extensive — the system is designed for a mouse with more than just one button and no scroll wheel” ” “people would choose to buy a wintel computer over (i assume) a mac because of a friggin mouse? macs have right click ability and it works just fine, but it is easier to use 1 buttoned mouse and more straight forward for beginners. ” I think this kinda sums it up.. ppl explain one feature which is extremely obvious to pc users using osx or macos9.. yeah to mac users who simply cant understand how pc right click menus are in every program and form the basis of object editing. Left click /drag for normal editing right click for everything else and the object contextual properties menu. Macs hide stuff in menus all over the place.. all this stuff about them being easy to use compared to XP is a load of ermm.. ok sorry Why dont u measure it.. how obvious is it to right click on “network neighbourhood” and select properties then add a new protocol for networking by clicking ADD. Imean PLEASE this is one of the most advanced things a user might ever have to do .. and its plain obvious and 3 clicks away. Even mac users can understand how to do that. Glenn 2002-05-28 6:59 am The Mac is a hodge-podge of a user experience. There is no rhyme or reason to its design. Every part of the OS and every application has some little tweak of its own to make sure there is no common user experience. Most Mac apps don’t even understand that there is a keyboard attached to the Mac — the keyboard short-cuts for most apps either are very limited or do not exist. And let’s not start talking OS X. Sure there is UNIX at the core of OS X. But the new user interface is even worse that OS 9. Translucent menus? Scan lines? Colored lights that don’t correspond to anything in the real world? I think Apple won some awards for the user interface of Quicktime… when all they did was copy a VCR. The new OS X interface is definitely a case of Steve’s new clothes. Outside of the OS, just about every application on the PC is much easier to use. Both mouse buttons, menu items, keyboard, scroll wheel, etc., work in just about every app. Even in the Acrobat plug-in for Windows. Apple is years behind Windows in user interface for applications. As for hardware… my dual 1Ghz Pentium III system is over two years old. As Apple just got to 1Ghz, it is clear that Apple is 2+ years behind on hardware. And it’s twice as much money when you finally can get it. And all the software is more expensive as well. All in all, you just have to be plain stupid to use a Mac. Cogito ergo PC. Bill Bush 2002-05-28 7:18 am First of all let me say how refreshing it is to see someone disagree like a man! You make a good case, and do it without a trace of hubris or dishonesty. Bravo! Arthur, I wasn’t aware that Final cut Pro was actually being used in broadcast features. If that’s so, then I guess we have to say that it’s broadcast-ready, don’t we? My editing days were back when a couple of Sony 1″ machines and a Convergence edit controller was state of the art. We took reliability seriously back then. I’ve had too many Macs freeze up solid on me to take them seriously for broadcast TV. You appear to know what you’re talking about, so if you say that they’re using them, then I believe you. But in the broader context of the article, I don’t see the Mac being all that hot. If there was a Final Cut Pro for Windows, it would be no contest, right? 2002-05-28 12:49 pm This guy seems to pretend that the high end digital video boards are not available for the mac. That is plain BS. This article is ridiculously thin. Not worth a mention IMHO. The only reason you would want to work with a PC for editing is if you have to run on a non mac supported system (Discreet Edit, Avid finishing systems), trading off things like a quicktime workflow… 2002-05-28 2:09 pm your humor is never ending! 🙂 BeOS it is! 2002-05-28 2:21 pm >>Left click /drag for normal editing right click for everything else and the object contextual properties menu.<< That is why Mac users who don’t have multi-button mice use the control/click method… it also brings up our right click contextual menu items! I use the keyboard shortcuts mostly, and that probably has a lot to do with that I use a lot of keyboard shortcuts on Solaris as well, so it’s out of habit. And being a user of both systems, though at first it was culture shock going from Wintel to Mac… I can now say that things are easier on a Mac in my opinion, but like ‘rajan r’ said… it’s all personal preference! 2002-05-28 2:29 pm For me video editing is making Video CD’s of the kids with iMovie, So I cant comment on what the Pros should use. Glen Sweeny is a bit confused though. Why would you NEED to add a protocol to Network Neighborhood? I had to on my PC….I had to add TCP/IP in Windows 98, because for some wacked out reason there was a ton of garbage demoware on a default Dell install but TCP/IP networking was nowhere to be found. With OSX even SMB is there by default….total clicks to add it…zero. 2002-05-28 3:19 pm – Many points are written down in a very biased way: You might not know how to use any other OS, and all your software is Mac-based Why isn’t this listed in the PC section as well? You have a fear of the complexity of PCs, have never used one and maybe have a fear of the unknown Hmm, right. Apart from the ‘complexity’, this comment could just as well be put in the PC section. Why isn’t it there? Don’t tell me that no PC users have fear of the unknown (my aunt wants the same computer at home as the one she uses at work for instance, a PC). You like being a member of an exclusive club of Mac users who see themselves as “special,” “artistic” and “creative,” and see yourself as a rebel, a maverick, superior, and an original, although you may be just a poseur (the “SUV” syndrome). When you heard people saying that PCs are (uncool, difficult, trouble-prone, slow, whatever), you believed them So true. And Windows users are mindless drones who support the evil empire. Did I mention that all OSNews readers are BeOS lovers? Isn’t generalizing fun? Not! You realize that the fastest PC is faster than the fastest Mac This depends on the task you are using the computer for. Distributed.net is faster on the Mac. DVD Studio Pro is faster than any PC based DVD authoring app on similarly priced hardware. The software that Genentech uses runs much faster on G4’s. Note that this reason is made out to be an absolute fact. Compare that to: You like the way Mac cases, monitors, and OSs are designed. Why doesn’t that say: You realize that the Mac cases, monitors, and OSs are better designed. FUD? You’ve noticed there’s about ten times more software available for the PC Really? Does that include all the Unix-software that OS X can run? And does this have much to do with video editing? Is there (more and) better video-editing available for the PC? That question isn’t answered. You can build a powerful PC yourself and choose all your favorite components and case design, expressing your individuality […] Assume that the author would be biased against PC’s. This would read: “You like being a member of an exclusive club of PC users who see themselves as “special,” “l33t” and “cool” and see yourself as a hacker, a tweaker, superior, and an original, although you may be just a poseur (the script-kiddie syndrome).” You feel like getting more power for less money — PCs are less expensive than Macs Another one of the many highly debatable claims. The iMac, Xserve and iBook are usually considered quite competitive to offerings by other OEMs (like Dell). – Missing comments: What about DVD Studio Pro? I hear it’s the best DVD package around. Why isn’t it mentioned? Where does it mention that Macs are better designed (no IRQ conflicts, everything just works). I have build and upgraded quite a few PC’s, so I know what I’m talking about. – The most humorous part of the story: Above all, do your best to tune out all the half-truths and reality distortion that is so prevalent in the marketing of computers, particularly the quasi-religious fervor that constantly accompanies information concerning the Mac platform. At that point I stopped reading the editorial. 2002-05-28 4:25 pm ((UNIX + GUI) + Final Cut) = Thank you Lord! n/t 2002-05-28 5:59 pm FCP, is leading the DV revolution. just look at the number of Narrative film/Documentary film/commercial/Corporate/educational credits it has under it’s belt. A reminder. After Effects/ Premiere/ Photoshop/ Illustrator/ Quark/ Pagemaker/ Golive/ Flash/ Director/ Electric Image/ Commotion/ Paint&Effect(Combustion)/ Painter/ Debabilizer/ Pro Tools/ Avid Media Composer/ Media 100/ etc; All started on the Mac, not because it was faster, nor because it was more powerfull, nor because there was more compatible hardware or software for it; but because artists and programmers saw that they lacked tools to make their creations; and decided to make the tools they needed on the platform they where both comfortable in and the platform that gave them the tighest media services and integration. PC’s and SGI machines also have had important role in Media production, but they’ve never been able to push out the Mac, which has been always the low powered step child. When Avid tried to move away from the Mac in the mid 90’s it’s users told it that they would just move to another software vendor. This made no sense in economic and efficiency terms, but for Avid Media Composer users, it was a move that they didn’t see necessary. For Avid it would have meant some cash as they would have forced upgrades on people who only upgrade when significant advances are made. (a great number of studios still run their Composers on PM9600 and G3’s, even some 950’s) If you look at the past 15 years of Digital video, Avid has been both the founding father and the dominant player largely because this particular vertical industry moves really really slow –for example BetaSP still dominates the roost and people have been using the same Beta Decks for about 17 years, which in computer terms is prehistoric. What is happening to the industry now is a revolutionary change that has nothing to do with computers but with another aquisition format; DV tape. Apple caught on to the DV revolution early and quite frankly, despite claims to the contrary by the likes of Sony, FCP/iMovie are the dominating forces in the developing DV editing market, mostly because of their ease of use, professionalism and the tight media intergration of the Mac and Quicktime. Sure there are more DV editing solutions on the PC than on the MAC, sure a lot are selling, but for Professional use FCP is what people are talking about. Avid in 2000 put out XpressDV on NT to force Apple to back out of it’s FCP advances; only to find out that their major VARs, like B&H sell more FCP systems by double that of NT Xpress. (They also sell more Mac based Composers than NT composers) Now in 2002 Avid has back tracked and is offering Xpress DV for OSx. Just like in the 90’s it’s learning that it can’t play the platform card; because frankly artist are a lot less succeptible to (fickle) MS Marketing BS then business users. NT has had a place in the production pipeline since ’92 when Softimage was purchased by MS and ported to NT from Irix. But the Mac has a longer and more prolific relationship with the creative community. (if you look at most design awards and media awards notice how many winners have created their works on the Mac–you can just use ID design awards or Print or Communication Arts as a starting point) In the end the power of the Mac has nothing to do with MegaHurtz, and Spec10,000 benchmarks. Apple has been able to please this community for a very long time, and it is further pushing the enveloppe with FCP/DVD studio/ and soon a High End Compositor. The tight integration to the Os with Media services, Font Management, Color Management; Service Bureau compatibility, and relatively cheap price compared to other Workstations (please, where not talking Presario’s/Dimention here), makes them compatible with the crowd who does depend on elegant, simple and effective tools to do their work. 2002-05-28 6:16 pm >>The Mac is a hodge-podge of a user experience. There is no rhyme or reason to its design. Every part of the OS and every application has some little tweak of its own to make sure there is no common user experience.<< Actually that would be more fitting to Windows PCs! Apple has a standard UI guideline to reassure that common functionality goes across the board between applications, something even Windows lacks! >>Most Mac apps don’t even understand that there is a keyboard attached to the Mac — the keyboard short-cuts for most apps either are very limited or do not exist.<< Have you even used a Mac? There is keyboard shortcuts for almost everything imaginable. I can tell at this point you haven’t used a Mac thoroughly! >>And let’s not start talking OS X. Sure there is UNIX at the core of OS X. But the new user interface is even worse that OS 9. Translucent menus? Scan lines? Colored lights that don’t correspond to anything in the real world? I think Apple won some awards for the user interface of Quicktime… when all they did was copy a VCR. The new OS X interface is definitely a case of Steve’s new clothes.<< Yeah I guess you’re about to tell me that XP’s Fisher Price look is real world, right?! As for Quicktime, all Media Players have that VCR like functionality, it only makes sense because the average user can relate! >>Outside of the OS, just about every application on the PC is much easier to use. Both mouse buttons, menu items, keyboard, scroll wheel, etc., work in just about every app. Even in the Acrobat plug-in for Windows.<< Well since the mouse debate is a moot point since you can use all the above on the Mac, who cares! Acrobat (including the plugin) also available for Mac, what’s your point! >>Apple is years behind Windows in user interface for applications.<< Apple is more like years ahead, while Microsoft gets a lesson in GUI design! >>As for hardware… my dual 1Ghz Pentium III system is over two years old. As Apple just got to 1Ghz, it is clear that Apple is 2+ years behind on hardware. And it’s twice as much money when you finally can get it.<< You still haven’t learned… so I guess that Sun Microsystems, SGI, IBM, Transmeta and etc.. are all also behind 2+ years due to the MHz Myth?! Speaking of hardware, who still supports legacy peripherals and such like the floppy, serial, parallel and PS/2, but lack newer tech including things like FireWire? >>And all the software is more expensive as well.<< Well actually that is not true, the full version of Microsoft Office for Mac is cheaper than the Windows version by at least $20 or more. Microsoft’s Visual Basic is $225 REALbasic: Standard Edtion is $149 Professional Edition is $349 (includes compilers for both Mac and Windows platforms) Microsoft’s Visual C++ Standard Edition is $86 Microsoft’s Visual J++ is $490 Microsoft’s Visual Studio .NET is $725 Apple’s Development Tools for Objective C and Java (Cocoa) is a free download (There are other examples, but no need to stretch this post out any further!) All in all, you just have to be plain stupid to use a PC. My post (like yours) is based on opinions and being that opinions are like a$$holes… everybody has one (or two)! 2002-05-28 6:21 pm Thank you for the compliment. If there was a PC version of Final Cut Pro, the Mac would still be better just because Windowz SUX!!! WOOHOO!!! Micro$haft blowz!! Thought I would shatter any illusions that I would present my side intelligently. To be truthful, if there was a PC version of Final Cut Pro, I probably never would have bought a Mac (to run Final Cut Pro). I personally don’t care one way or another about the Mac experience, although I do like Mac OS X. And I really don’t subscribe to the megahertz myth. Mac’s are behind technologically, it’s that simple. Even if a Mac 1 gig chip could go toe to toe with a P4 2.4 gig (which I personally don’t think it can), the G4 chip still doesn’t have a DDR solution yet. Sure it will later this summer, well over a year after I got my athlon DDR chipset. My feeling is the problem with a PC Final Cut Pro would be the lack of standard firewire support. This isn’t as much of a problem for Macs. I had a Pinnacle DV200, hated it. Then I got a Canopus DV Raptor, loved it but Premiere 5.0/6.0 was a real hassle. Friends of mine got high end Matrox DV solutions, some loved it, some hated it. I believe that the DV card you have in the machine can’t be the determining factor in your DV editing experience, but that still is the case on the PC. Overall, though, if there was a Final Cut Pro version on the PC, I would definitely have gotten that instead of the Mac. Final Cut Pro 3.0 is really the first hard core professional version of Final Cut. The others were powerful, but 3.0 really brings some nice features to the table, a lot of them dealing with color correction. The Avid is great at that (had to color correct a lot of my thesis film), now 3.0 is just as good. 3.0 is also great with bins, clips, the whole project managing stuff. In my opinion, Avid’s are really only necessary if you shoot on film and then have to display your work on an answer print film copy. Avid’s handle editing 24FPS footage at 30FPS really well. A lot of 3-2 pulldown stuff to make 24=30, that’s all done well on the Avid. But now if George Lucas gets his way, movies will be shot on digital 24fps cameras (like Episode II), edited digitally (Final Cut Pro 3.0 could have handled editing picture on that film), and then projected digitally which some theaters can do right now. A full blown Avid system with its 75000-100000 dollar price tag (can be a lot higher), doesn’t really have much place in the new movie-making. And forget TV, you really don’t need all of the Avid’s bells and whistles for a tv show (my friends in LA do tv commercials for movies like The Rookie and Harrison Ford’s upcoming K19 and some other stuff). They’re starting to go Final Cut Pro for most stuff. One cool thing with the Avid is that in Hollywood, there’s this fiber optic network that people can request to use. So my friend’s firm signs up for a time on the network, then schedules a meeting with the studio execs. The execs sit in their meeting room, the editors at their Avids across town, and they teleconference. When footage gets played back on the Avid, the execs can watch the footage in their meeting room in real time, making suggestions which can then be made right there since the footage is playing off the Avid. I thought that was interesting. All of this is way off topic though. Sorry for the long ramble. For me, I vastly prefer the software on the Mac to the PC, therefore my hardware choice has to be the Mac. 2002-05-28 7:21 pm Whenever I try to do ANYTHING in Windows I feel like I am trying to do differential calculus on a cash register. Like I am in a Mad Max universe where, sure, you can put a car together and make it run, but it’s gonna take a lot or sweat and chickenwire. 2002-05-28 8:07 pm William Bush, you may be interested to learn that the hodgepodge doesn’t end at the UI. Not only is there no UNIX under the OSX hood (that was debunked in an earlier thread about the X-serve), but what is there is a hodgepodge of code that was swiped from several OS projects, including MkLinux, Lites, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. It’s not like it’s there for you to use either. The *BSD goodness has been paved over by a strip mall called “Aqua”. —– Shmegglefurt, maybe back in 1998 you could find a few vendors who didn’t ship their products with IP enabled, but right now (2002) you’ll find that the situation has changed since then. In fact, XP (the OS that Glenn Sweeney was talking about) does indeed use IP by default. So maybe you are less confused now… BTW, the whole “it takes less clicks to…” nonsense is another EvangeList talking point. The last time that some EvangeLista tried it on a message board that I was on, we tried it ourselves and counted the clicks. It turned out that none of the EvangeLista’s numbers were correct, and that Windows was actually more efficient than MacOS in that respect. Don’t believe the hype! —– Aapje: Does that include all the Unix-software that OS X can run? Really? Name some. What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue? Oops, you bluffed and you lost. Macs are better designed (no IRQ conflicts, everything just works). Riiiiiiiigggghhhtt. And the MacOS GUI is so much nicer than DOS. Sorry, but that claim to fame expired a long time ago. 2002-05-28 8:26 pm Speed, you are absolutely correct about the stability of Mac OS before OS X. To put it bluntly, it sucked, constantly crashing when I used FCP, Avid Media Composer, and Pro Tools. Now I haven’t used Avid or pro tools on OS X, but I can say everything else I’ve done with OS X has been rock solid (just like Windows has been rock solid for me with Win2000 and XP – a real leap in reliability). 2002-05-28 10:00 pm The Mac only has one button and no scroll wheel. How primitive ? This isn’t a flame it’s a statement. I couldn’t go back to use a mouse without a scroll wheel. Also, Mac’s are doing their gamers an injustice. RCTW has just come out for the Mac, but you can’t quickly scroll thru your weapons like you can on a Win box. 2002-05-28 10:15 pm Mac zealots are almost as bad as Linux zealots … They can’t even type two sentences without using the terms M$, Windoze, Micro$haft, Wintel, Pee See, etc. Of course, I suppose I can’t blame them .. what else are they supposed to spew when they’ve got a mouthful of Steve Jobs’s cock ??? 2002-05-28 10:19 pm “The Mac only has one button and no scroll wheel.” Actually, I think you buy mice for Macs with more than one button. As for me (PC user), I have a mouse with 5 buttons: Left and Right buttons perform their usual functions Wheel button maximizes windows Left thumb button closes windows Right thumb button is the Back button for browsers Would it even be possible to accomplish something like this in OSX? 2002-05-28 10:31 pm >>Actually, I think you buy mice for Macs with more than one button. As for me (PC user), I have a mouse with 5 buttons:<< Actually they do have some really crazy multi-button mice for Mac these days, here’s an example that I saw the other day: http://kensington.com/products/pro_mic_d1430.html It’s quite nifty… you could definitely play some mad centipede on that gadget! >>Left and Right buttons perform their usual functions Wheel button maximizes windows Left thumb button closes windows Right thumb button is the Back button for browsers Would it even be possible to accomplish something like this in OSX?<< yup! 2002-05-29 12:00 am “Actually they do have some really crazy multi-button mice for Mac these days, here’s an example that I saw the other day:” I kind of thought they might have something like this, but that trackball is way too big. Don’t they have any optical mutli-button mice ? 2002-05-29 12:14 am >>I kind of thought they might have something like this, but that trackball is way too big. Don’t they have any optical mutli-button mice ? << Here is some from Macally… http://www.macally.com/spec/usb/input_device/micromouse.html There are others, but I haven’t been looking into getting another mouse yet. I want to get a drawpad of some sort I think… trying to draw graphics with a mouse is a pain in the arse! 2002-05-29 12:55 am The shuttlepro from http://www.contourdesign.com/shuttlepro.htm is a great device, especially for DV editing. My Waacom tablet runs great under OS X also. Lotsa contextual menus, assignable keystrokes make it pretty effecient. 2002-05-29 1:55 am As i noted before the interfaces are pretty similar it takes a similar amount of clicks to get from one place to another. MS had ie integration first AND I CANT LIVE WITHOUT IT. Its the best thing added to windows.. and if your with th DOJ and claim this didnt add any functionality your wrong.. so so wrong. The dumbest thing about windows is that maximise is next to close.. whats even dumber is osx copied that! Are they trying to make osx more like windows? its a stupid stupid way I cant believe they then bother to waste cpu cycles so u cant see what button is what unless its the top app. Mac menus allways have dumb items in dumb places .. like the menus for terminal.. they also make it confusing to see whats running and whats a shortcut. Presumably the differece might confuse basic users so they hide it .. making it annoying for absolutly everyone. Mac osx broke a lot of os9 UI objectives set out by apple.. which is why now they kinda hide that document. Lets say microsoft pulled an “Apple” and bought a digital video app and gave it for free with windows. That would kill of the video editing app competition for windows.. that would be anticompetative. Apple bought iPhoto, iDvd, iTunes .. all of them Apple bought (oh for free!) unix. Can apple develop anythign good itself? NO They didnt develop most of the OS (they failed so many times to make os10 by themselves) they cant even make a simple program like iPhoto or iTunes so they have to buy it off someone else. Leading the industry? more like ripping it off then claiming to be a technological leader. IDE hard drives PCI AGP DDR LCD screens.. Anyone think that macs dont get technolgoical problems try installing a genertic roland usb midi device. That took all my pc knowledge .. and my leet skills from windows 3.1 to move all the files to the right places (hello dosent anyone think install and uninstall should be part of the os) and get around the constant freezes (some were due to the sound card not working after hibernation) and fix up the pathetic midi support in osx.. ws it free midi or oms i wanted? neither worked at first. How about inbuilt midi.. like what windows has had since windows 3.1 Its lucky my mac friend had me there to help fixup his brand new mac g4 to work with midi. (which is funny cause he spent ages telling me how pcs never work and its plug and play with mac) ahuh.. ive never crashed my pc that many times.. i dont think i could i dont even remember my last crash and i routinly move everything about and plug in new devices. The mac is all hype. Glenn 2002-05-29 2:45 am >>They didnt develop most of the OS (they failed so many times to make os10 by themselves) they cant even make a simple program like iPhoto or iTunes so they have to buy it off someone else.<< You act like Microsoft doesn’t buy bits and pieces to make it their own! So don’t be shoveling that bullcrap without being ready for the return smell! Lets take the programming languages Microsoft touts in its camp, other than their .NET, they pretty much extended on everything else. BASIC all the way down to J++, and then sell it for way more than it’s worth (though I am a big fan of Visual Basic myself)! Microsoft also contracts out for development of things they don’t do in-house! Over a year ago I just happened to be in business-class line at United Airlines terminal at Dulles waiting to check in my luggage and overheard 2 Microsoft contractors jibbering on some software development they were doing for Microsoft (nothing specific, just jibberish)! So your point is moot! Oh add AppleWorks to your FUD list, it was originally ClarisWorks, though Apple did have their own AppleWorks application back in the 80s! I could care less if Apple buys it, or builds it! As long as they deliver software/hardware that works great, that’s all I care about! 2002-05-29 4:28 am “and fix up the pathetic midi support in osx.. ws it free midi or oms i wanted? neither worked at first.” Answer—neither. No more OMS or free MIDI. Mac OS X integrates MIDI Services into the operating system . These services provide applications with the ability to manage MIDI and define a system-wide MIDI configuration that is available to all of your applications.The author of OMS, Doug Wyatt, is now on the Apple core audio team and helped incorporate MIDI into the core audio. NO more 3rd party MIDI.Mac OS X provides applications with Music Services, which are the fundamental functions of MIDI sequencers including cut, copy, paste, repeat and other common MIDI editing routines. Now the downside is that DP, Cubase, Nuendo and Reason are still beta testing X. However,Peak, Unity Sessions and Ableton Live are X native now and they rock! Core audio on Mac OS X– 24 bit, 96KHz. Glenn, your post was filled with a lot of mis information. BTW, I plug in all my midi devices right into OS X and they play right away, no problems. 2002-05-29 7:32 am …you may be interested to learn that the hodgepodge doesn’t end at the UI. Not only is there no UNIX under the OSX hood (that was debunked in an earlier thread about the X-serve) You stated that in the thread on the Xserve and didn’t prove your claim when someone called your bluff. And now you use your own statements in another thread as proof? How dumb do you think we are? The *BSD goodness has been paved over by a strip mall called “Aqua Then explain why I can use a terminal in OS X? Explain how OS X is different from KDE+Linux in this regard? Or do you think that Linux isn’t Unix? Really? Name some. What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue? Oops, you bluffed and you lost. Nice for you not to wait for me to answer. Let me give a few examples: – Mysql, Postgresql – Apache – Sendmail – XFree+KDE+Gnome – Python, Ruby, Perl, Jikes – emacs + vi for hackers Riiiiiiiigggghhhtt. And the MacOS GUI is so much nicer than DOS. Sorry, but that claim to fame expired a long time ago. I was talking about the hardware. I’ve had my share of hardware problems with PC’s. I’ve upgraded my Mac, but never seen any problems. If you don’t believe me, try to fill all six PCI-slots in a PC. Small chance it works. 2002-05-29 10:27 am But it doesn’t follow the UNIX 98 standard for workstations. But why would Apple want to use X11 and CDE? Also, BSD was based on UNIX. AT&T licensed UNIX to Berkeley, and after a long time, AT&T code starts dissapearing, being rewriten by various students. Than BSD 4.x came up, law suit, then BSDLite came up with no AT&T patented code. This is in a nutshell, go to one of the BSD history sites to know more in gory detail. – Mysql, Postgresql – Apache I don’t know about Postgre, but MySQL is not for UNIX only. – XFree+KDE+Gnome Must have some powerful system that you can run GNOME and KDE together. Especially if you meant GNOME 2 (not yet released) and KDE 3… Then explain why I can use a terminal in OS X? Explain how OS X is different from KDE+Linux in this regard? Or do you think that Linux isn’t Unix? Technical wise, if Linux is UNIX, I own this site. Linux was an implementation of Minix, which isn’t a pure UNIX. It hardly follows the Open Group’s standards, and not certified as an UNIX system. was talking about the hardware. I’ve had my share of hardware problems with PC’s. I’ve upgraded my Mac, but never seen any problems. If you don’t believe me, try to fill all six PCI-slots in a PC. Small chance it works. First PCI slot, sound card (SB Live!) Second, modem (56k) Third, ethernet (due to an accident, the NIC port on the MoBo was rendered useless. Fourth was a FireWire card (Don’t bash me, but if Macs MoBos don’t come with USB 2.0, PC Mobos don’t come with Firewire, but a waste of money, long story) There’s nothing on the fifth, and there’s not sixth. It works! Out of the box! But I had to download drivers for WIndows 2000 for the Firewire card, though. 2002-05-29 3:27 pm But it doesn’t follow the UNIX 98 standard for workstations. But why would Apple want to use X11 and CDE? Also, BSD was based on UNIX. AT&T licensed UNIX to Berkeley, and after a long time, AT&T code starts dissapearing, being rewriten by various students. Than BSD 4.x came up, law suit, then BSDLite came up with no AT&T patented code. This is in a nutshell, go to one of the BSD history sites to know more in gory detail. Currently the Open Group has the UNIX trademark. They consider Apple to be one of the “platform vendors supporting the Single UNIX Specification.”: http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification…. Linux tries to do the same thing. MacOS X and Linux are both not certified by the Open Group. I never claimed that they were Unix 98. Does that mean that legally I can’t call them Unix? Perhaps, although one might argue that Unix has already turned into a common name (evidenced by the lowercase usage of the word). How often do we mean the standards or the original UNIX, instead of the fact that a system runs a certain collection of software? Does not being certified mean that my Unix programs won’t run? No. Does being Unix 98 compliant mean that what we call Unix-programs will run on the system? No. So do I give a f**k? No. I’ll call them both Unix/Unix-like. I don’t know about Postgresql, but MySQL is not for UNIX only. It also runs on Windows using Cygwin, a Unix environment for Windows. So? Suppose I run a PC app in an emulator on a Mac, does that a Mac app make? Must have some powerful system that you can run GNOME and KDE together. Especially if you meant GNOME 2 (not yet released) and KDE 3… I run neither, but I can. That is the point. Technical wise, if Linux is UNIX, I own this site. Linux was an implementation of Minix, which isn’t a pure UNIX. It hardly follows the Open Group’s standards, and not certified as an UNIX system. Unix-like then. And Minix is already an implementation, you can’t have an implementation of an implementation. Currently Linux aims for POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance. BTW, what is pure UNIX? Is that a system that implements nothing more or less than the Unix 95 or 98 standards? I own this site if such a system exists. 2002-05-29 7:09 pm As I stated in other thread, there is a difference between being registered to use the UNIX trademark and having legacy Unix code (which Apple/NeXT licensed back in the day). Although, now it appears that the core of the OS is registered, but not to the current workstation spec (no built in X?). Here is a quote from the Open groups site (and the link): http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html “The Single UNIX Specification brand program has now achieved critical mass: vendors whose products have met the demanding criteria now account for the majority of UNIX systems by value.” Once again, since I haven’t heard an adequate response, how can the Open Group have the *majority* of UNIX systems registered, if the only valid Unix systems are by definition those registered by the Open Group? If we follow the definition of UNIX that some people want–namely only registered UNIX systems–then the Open Group itself would not recognize non-registered systems, and would therefore have *all* UNIX systems registered, not the majority. Face it, the code legacy of AT&T giving it away for two decades has produced Unix operating systems that aren’t registered with the current Open Group spec. It is not an oxymoron, illegal, or even disingenuous to say that a non-registered system is Unix-based. If this were such a major faux pau, then the Open Group would not have stated they *only* have a majority of UNIX systems registered. 2002-05-29 7:22 pm <<Does that include all the Unix-software that OS X can run?>> <Really? Name some. What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue? Oops, you bluffed and you lost. > I guess I’ll only list the programs I’ve actually run… vi tar gzip make jam nedit (Xtools demo installed under OS X PB) diff ssh telnet apache/tomcat perforce daemon I don’t have X installed right now, so I don’t run any X Window apps, but to do so would require not much more than pulling the packages down and recompiling for many of them, or getting the darwin packages directly. Either way, its the same as with all the other registered or unregistered versions–get the OS specific makefiles or binaries and then compile/install then run. That’s been my *personal* experience with Unix apps under OS X. Basically no big deal in comparison to any registered or unregistered Unix OS. 2002-05-29 9:59 pm Another good example is the guys at tweak films. Guys who do special effects for ILM, etc. They wrote their own real time wave (as in oceans) simulator in UNIX for films (perfect storm). They ported it to Mac OS X very quickly. Interesting presentation in Quicktime is on http://www.tweakfilms.com/tweak_mwsf2002.html go to the ‘click here’ link for about an 8 minute presentation. Real world UNIX to Mac OS X. 2002-05-30 2:43 am …. we are arguing whether OS X is an old OS? So what? It is stable, it is cool, live with it. 2002-05-30 5:37 am Yo maybe I’m stupid, bu’ isn’t this supposed to be about flim/video? What’s with the arguing about UNIX . Is it not an easily solved problem? This is one thing where it is easy to find real data. What about the real subjectif, almost unprovable issues? It all started with: 1) Some guy who pretends to know what he is talking about, writing in a pseudo industry journal, a highly flame loaded FUD editorial, a la John Dvorack (another “EXPERT”). 2) PC users trying to explain how all the extra power in their PC’s mean’s that Mac’s suck. (inductive reasoning) 3) MAC users trying to explain that power isn’t everything. (also somewhat inductive) 4) Everyone agreeing that FCP is very good. (Except for a few dissenters who don’t really know what a video editor does, and therefore shouldn’t be in the discution in the first place). 5) DV is revolutionary and is kicking old media companies (such as Avid) in the sacks. Other non previously talked about events in the media creation industry: 6) Pixar is converting all of their workstations, Renderers and servers, to OSx from Linux/Alpha, NT, and solaris machines, in the next 2-4 years. 7) LOTR; Star Wars; Spider Man; New Matrix; where are being composited with a couple of expensive ($15000+) software packages from a company called Nothing Real (Shake and Tremor). This software was used instead/in conjunction too Flame/Inferno (SGI) and Henry/Harry (Proprietary). Shake/Tremor ran on Irix and NT. Apple bought Nothing Real in January. Last month they anounced that the NT Versions of these products whould be end of lifed in 2003, and that the OSx/Linux versions would come to life/be improved ASAP. 8) Maya was brought to the Mac and since this port, the price was halfed from $7500$16000 to $1900/$6000, making it very competitive with 3DStudio Max/Lightwave 3D. The Mac versions sales are catching up to the NT version at blistering speed, even though by all accounts a Quad Processor Xeon based NT machine is so much better for the speed of this software then puny dual GHz G4’s. There have been consistent rumors of an empending APPLE high end 3D software Buy in the next 2 months. Guess who has been trying to make themselves more Sellable recently. Who has closed branche offices; cleaned up financials; and laid off extra staff, etc? could it be Alias/Wavefront? Anyone who has been watching the WHOLE Creative media industry for the past 10 years, should pay attention to who has gotten more and more out of the Media Production business since 95. Could it be Microsoft? Do they even care about Media Production tools? Isn’t the strangle hold of the Mac/Adobe/Macromedia/Avid/etc just to hard to crack? Don’t they mainly care about distribution and disemination of their content products? Why would they spend anytime making tools that could be used against their own media properties? Haven’t they gotten egg on their faces anytime they’ve tried to get on the non business side of things? (wether in the Desktop Publishing world, or in 3D(who owns softimage now? has microsoft ever divested itself of an ASSET?), or in Video production , or even in the Web production market (front page anyone)). How can anyone seriously make video projects with AVI? (please don’t say it’s been done; I can also buy a BMW Mini and fit 35 people in it, doesn’t mean I should). A lot of great things have happened to the PC/NT platform in media production; but right now the Linux/OSx tools in the market are capturing the attention of most producers, and cutting edge is what makes the news and what makes the news in the news making market makes the news. he he!! Don’t! Don’t! …… Don’t believe the Hype. Heeee!!!!YeaaaHaHaHA! (PE) 2002-05-30 7:51 am Hank, thank you for you support. Agree with you totally. I’ve heard a rumor that Apple doesn’t see the use in paying $$$ to be officially registered for the Single UNIX Specification, although OS X does support it. Not many people I know would care about being officially registered, they care about popular apps running. AFAIK the biggest issue in compiling apps for OS X is with the exact location of files. This requires the updating of makefiles by the authors (which seems to be happening at a rapid pace). UNIX 95/98 doesn’t mandate those locations, so being certified guarantees us absolutely nothing. I do want to point out that Tomcat is a Java program, it’s not Unix-specific in any way. The other examples were fine. BTW, where is Speed? I’ll bet he will be back in a new thread whining about having proven all kinds of nonsense in this thread. You scoundrel, come back and face us! 2002-05-30 11:33 am I watched the tweak films video and was very impressed with what they stated. I just wondered if they over stated it a bit however. First of all, I believe he said they ported from their Unix platform to OS X in less than a week (which even they admitted was pretty quick). That I find believable. Their GUI wasn’t so convoluted that it would have taken a long time to put an Objective-C/Cocoa front end on their C++ application. However, they said that going from OpenGL to QuicktimeVR allowed them to do all of these new, neat, realtime things. I’m not a 3D programmer of either OpenGL or QuicktimeVR, but is it really that easy to go from one 3D engine to another? Since their OpenGL version only drew the water surface, I guess that would be easy enough to carry over to Quicktime. Either way, I’m very very impressed. 2002-05-30 8:38 pm Just to add to your comment, Microsoft was actually the original author of BASIC. Before they bought DOS from some guy to sell to IBM, they wrote and sold BASIC to apple. Other than that, I think every MS technology is extended from some other. In fact, Windows NT wasn’t entirely written by MS either. It’s a combination of VMS and OS/2. 2002-05-30 8:49 pm Microsoft created BASIC interpreters, but didn’t come up with the original language: BASIC (standing for Beginner’s All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) is a system developed at Dartmouth College in 1964 under the directory of J. Kemeny and T. Kurtz. It was implemented for the G.E.225. It was meant to be a very simple language to learn and also one that would be easy to translate. Furthermore, the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students to learn on of the more powerful languages such as FORTRAN or ALGOL. From “Programming languages: History and fundamentals” by Jean E. Sammet. 2002-05-30 10:23 pm Aapje, please quit lying. I was the one who debunked the claim that OSX was (allegedly) UNIX. The proof is there for all to see at the Open Group website. About the stuff that OSX can run: The argument is that OSX can run UNIX software, now that I have debunked the first UNIX myth. So now it’s time to debunk the next myth. Here are some reasons why the “UNIX software” claim is false– 1. It’s not UNIX software. What’s being listed is a handful of small utilities and servers that are not UNIX software, but rather free software[/i]. (Notice no applications being mentioned?) This free software has been ported to many different platforms, including MacOS, BeOS and Windows. I’ve been running many of the utilities mentioned under OSes like MS-DOS and Windows for quite a while. 2. It’s not UNIX software. Free software is generally available as source code. That’s the key to porting to all the different hardware platforms and operating systems. A lot of different people write free software. None of this free software contains licensed UNIX code. 3. It’s not UNIX software. The binaries are OSX binaries, and don’t run under any UNIX system. For example, Compunix makes some filesystem utilities for AIX, and some versions of AIX can run on the PPC CPU. But I can’t use Compunix or any other AIX programs, or any UNIX binaries because OSX doesn’t support them. So the conclusion is obvious — OSX is not UNIX, and it doesn’t run UNIX software. BSD vs. UNIX: The liars here are still harping on the fallacy about BSD being (allegedly) UNIX. I covered this before. BSD != UNIX(/b]. BSD was a product that was developed and distributed by the University of California at Berkeley. BSD was made up of two distinct things: 1.) AT&T UNIX and 2.) Berkeley’s proprietary extensions, which replaced some UNIX utilities and supplemented some UNIX kernels. The “Lite” versions didn’t even have the UNIX part! To use the “Encumbered” BSD product, the user had to buy a UNIX license from AT&T. Why? Because AT&T owned UNIX, not Berkeley! Duh! What the Mac-heads are doing is taking a very specific event in history, and distorting it wildly, into a total lie. “I was in England once, therefore I am the Queen of England.” Anybody can see what’s wrong with that. Now on to Hank’s lies… For those who didn’t get the chance to read the comments in the Xserve thread, Hank was one of the people who claimed that OSX is a bona fide UNIX system. I set them straight. Now that the thread is gone, Hank is making the same claims. Hank knows better, and yet he still is hell-bent on saying things that aren’t true. Hank is claiming that something called “Apple/NeXT” bought the UNIX source code from AT&T, although the history books, many thousands of people who were around to witness the events (including myself) and several boxes of UnixWare from Novell, SCO and Caldera say something completely different. Hank goes on to claim that OSX is a registered UNIX system, although the group that does such registration say something completely different. The authorities have weighed in on this matter. Hank is wrong. Hank knows he’s wrong. Hank is a liar. Not the kind of person whose opinion I’d trust when buying anything. So when Hank says we should all buy Apple products, you might as well mark that brand off your list. This is what Mac ownership has turned into — a tangled web of lies. Mass-hypnosis, with a little help from the RDF. A pathetic life devoted to dishonest marketing of Apple products. What a waste! 2002-05-30 10:26 pm Hank… thanks for clearing that confusion up on BASIC. Microsoft did not invent BASIC, plain and simple! 2002-05-30 10:30 pm BSD falls under the single UNIX specification as noted by the Open Group themselves. OS X is based on BSD called Darwin, though OS X is not registered, does not take away the fact that OS X is UNIX (or UNIX-based)! Bottom line is that you’re blowing smoke and no one could care less about your personal vendetta against Apple and anything UNIX (based)! 2002-05-30 10:45 pm rajan r, you say that “OS X *is* based on UNIX, BSD *is* based on the original UNIX code”, which is rather vague, and could describe *any* operating system. Rather than using such weasel words as a crutch, why don’t you throw down your crutches and walk, free of the RDF? The truth is that OSX contains no licensed UNIX code, and has passed no tests that would prove it works like real UNIX systems do. It’s a cheap knock-off, just like the $25 Rohex watch that stops working after a week. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that you bought the knock-off. But fraud is morally, ethically and legally wrong. You’re incorrect about the history of BSD-Lite. The CSRG was planning on closing up shop in the late 80s, and started work then to come up with a vehicle to replace UNIX, so they could give away the fruits of their work without any strings attached. (Notice the similarity with GNU’s HURD project.) The plan all along was to have 4.4BSD-Lite be the last release, and for it to have no UNIX code. The lawsuit came about because 1.) the new UNIX owners (USL) were more interested in protecting UNIX than AT&T was, and 2.) CSRG hadn’t been completely successful at expunging UNIX from the release. Hope that clears it up! Why would Apple want to use X11 and CDE? To be compatible with UNIX systems and UNIX software, for one. But Apple is marketing their products to poseurs and phonies, who wouldn’t know a real UNIX system if they triped over it. BTW, “terminal” is another thing that is not definitive of UNIX. People have brains. Cows have brains. But are all cows people, just because they have brains? Of course not! 2002-05-30 10:54 pm ” Hank goes on to claim that OSX is a registered UNIX system” I think I’ve said in every post, that OS X is *not* a registered UNIX system. According to the Open Group link posted above, the Core is registered, but OS X doesn’t meet spec to qualify for the UNIX 98 label. Please keep track of everyone’s statements, and stop making up stories. About your lovely AIX programs however, I have a point of contention. Take your favorite program, copy it over to any other UNIX box, and try and run it. Let me know how many registered UNIX systems run that binary as well. 2002-05-30 10:58 pm Speed is stuck in a rut! I guess the real world of UNIX -type folks moving to Mac OS X (see tweak films ,etc) are living a lie. Speed better set em straight! LOL! 2002-05-30 11:13 pm Speed keeps bringing up this rhetoric of OS X not being UNIX, therefore it’s trash and everyone’s a liar and a cheat. Is the hyphen between ‘UNIX’ and ‘based’ what has set you off? If so, your tolerance threshold is mighty low. Darwin is an open source, UNIX-based operating system built on BSD 4.4 and Mach 3.0 which forms the core of Mac OS X. Pretty much the truth there, no lies, no RDF. 2002-05-31 4:57 am Sorry i was wrong in one of my previous posts about midi .. it wasnt in osx because none of his audio apps supported osx.. it was in os9 because os9 (believe it or not still requires those extentions that have been in windows since 3.1). Oh about the live program .. u can get it for pc and mac.. go check out the benchmarks from the user forum.. fastest Mac u can get 18% cpu.. normal PC 7% Why on earth would u want to use a mac for audio when its performance is so banal. Seems microsoft is pushing professional digital video … got a lot of backers 2.. http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/2002/Apr02/04-08ISVMomentu… OSX isnt a real unix.. its OSX .. it just uses unix because apple cant write the fundamental parts of an operating system. Scoff as u might its the truth .. every other attempt to update from os7 failed (os9 makes it sound like windows 95 or 98 which were still far more TECHNICALLY advanced than os9). Windows is the only alternative to unix.. unix is so frekkn old. Whats wrong with Apple whats wrong with the rest of the industry? your all rewriting unix because u cant write an OS. U wanna know why BECAUSE ITS HARD. MS IT rocks.. thats why windows rocks OSX .. just another unix.. but spends more time drawing scalable icons than running vi 2002-05-31 7:01 am Hank: “About your lovely AIX programs however, I have a point of contention. Take your favorite program, copy it over to any other UNIX box, and try and run it. Let me know how many registered UNIX systems run that binary as well.” Bravo Hank! Now you know why your claim about OSX being able to run UNIX applications is total bullshit. Willem: Speed’s strawman “Speed keeps bringing up this rhetoric of OS X not being UNIX, therefore it’s trash and everyone’s a liar and a cheat.” How ironic Willem! You’re the one making the straw man argument here! The “therefore it’s trash” part is not from me. Obviously you can’t find anything wrong with what I did say, LOL. As for lying and cheating, well you did yourself in all alone. And no, Darwin is not UNIX. Not the base, not the applications, not anything in-between. Since 4.4BSD couldn’t work with Mach, obviously it wasn’t used. 2002-05-31 7:46 am How many times? No one has said OS X is UNIX! UNIX-based, get it? That is the straw man arguement you keep bringing up. I wrote “Darwin is an open source, UNIX-based operating system built on BSD 4.4 and Mach 3.0 which forms the core of Mac OS X. ” And you replied “And no, Darwin is not UNIX. Not the base, not the applications, not anything in-between. Since 4.4BSD couldn’t work with Mach, obviously it wasn’t used.” Once again ‘UNIX -based’ is what I wrote. Is it the hyphen that bugs you, or? And your comment about 4.4 BSD can’t work with Mach,I got that straight from Darwins web site, so they must be liars (and cheaters–BTW–YOU are the one who keeps libeling people as liars and cheaters–effing troll). 2002-05-31 8:10 am Man, you shoulda wrote – MS rulez! Much better. Yeah, you were wrong about OMS and midi on OS X, kinda ruined your rant : ). Hate to break it to ya regarding your further misinfo on OS X and audio. Core audio on OS X has 1 ms throughput latency. MOTU’s DP is altivec aware and dual processer aware on a dual 1 gig G4 it can run 128 tracks audio- each with 8 bands of EQ and dynamics processing on every track. If you do any audio, you know thats pretty good. If Ableton live was altivec aware the CPU load might be lower, but I run it with max tracks, Unity Sessions open with absolute no problems. The problem with your posts is that the anti mac vigor is so strong and sometimes just wrong. MS is pushing video in the future, great. FCP on OS X is here and now. Adios, mac-haters. 2002-05-31 3:13 pm Hank: “About your lovely AIX programs however, I have a point of contention. Take your favorite program, copy it over to any other UNIX box, and try and run it. Let me know how many registered UNIX systems run that binary as well.” Speed:”Bravo Hank! Now you know why your claim about OSX being able to run UNIX applications is total bullshit. ” So the fact that you can’t copy your AIX program to another UNIX platform and run it, proves that OS X isn’t Unix-based? I guess I’m confused. It just proves that your litmus test will work equally poorly among registered UNIX platforms, as it will against OS X. I’ll do you one better, since your drop-in executable requirement for UNIX is total BS, lets look at a real world example. Please take a look at the Perforce server download site: http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html Now in a post above you state: “It’s not UNIX software. The binaries are OSX binaries, and don’t run under any UNIX system. For example, Compunix makes some filesystem utilities for AIX, and some versions of AIX can run on the PPC CPU. But I can’t use Compunix or any other AIX programs, or any UNIX binaries because OSX doesn’t support them.” “So the conclusion is obvious — OSX is not UNIX, and it doesn’t run UNIX software. ” By this statement, you are saying that any UNIX operating system on the same processor, should be able to run the same binary. Of course we couldn’t drop in a PPC binary on a MIPS or SPARC platform, so lets get rid of that issue. Look at the list of downloads on their website. Sure enough, on the x86 list: Linux, FreeBSD et cetera, all have separate downloads. But why would there be seperate downloads for SCO Unix and Solaris x86? Shouldn’t we be able to use the same executable for the same processor across these registered UNIX platforms? That’s what your litmus test suggests. Lets take it one step further! There are separate downloads for HP-UX 11.11 and HP-UX 10.20. Now we aren’t going across different UNIX implementations on a given processor architecture, we are going across different versions of the *same* operating system! So we can’t always drop in a binary for a previous version of a UNIX operating system into a later version of said operating system. Once again, your litmus test comes up short! Although, you’ll accuse me of lying and fabricating again, the facts show what I said before clearly. Even among registered UNIX operating systems, you can’t just drop in source code and makefiles and expect it to always “just work”. You definately can’t drop in executables and expect it to work. While I will state once again that OS X is Unix-based, not a registered UNIX operating system, your litmus test is bogus. Furthermore, accusing me of hiding behind message boards that don’t exist anymore is hilarious. They are still there and active, for all the world to see both of our previous statements. Here’s the link below, in case people want to check if your accusations about my previous statements are true: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1106 2002-06-01 12:55 am “Yeah, you were wrong about OMS and midi on OS X, kinda ruined your rant : ). ” Not really win2k came out with wdm support and midi straight away.. core audio was a later release and so far u have 0 sequencers for osx. How LONG has it been out? for ages.. no professional can even touch osx in the studio yet. Thats pretty pathetic. Os9 isnt as advanced as windows 3.1 in some parts.. and yet you still have to use os9 nativly NOT under osx to run all the audio software. Stuck in the past. ppl get 1.5 ms with > 20 tracks of audio and laods of soft synths and fx now under windows.. Thats right now.. u can set wdm latency to less than 1 ms right now. Does that suprise u ? it might because Mac ppl dont know anythign about pcs. PCs run sub ms audio latency NOW. Does that prove anything NO .. because its real world benchmarks.. When u finally get a sequencer for your fledgling operating system write onto the logic forum and post your results.(see results following) Mac ppl still cant run cubase or logic yet at all. Mac is pathetic for audio Logic runs SO much better on PC as can be seen here with many independant benchmarks http://www.digitalnaturalsound.com/logic_dsp/perform.shtml These benchmarks use SSE and altivec. Live dosent use either.. but do u hear me complaining? NO because the pc goes 3-4x as fast. No enable altivec 4x speed that makes it = the PC .. Enable SSE on the pc and the pc will go 2-3x as fast. Basically a Mac NEEDS altivec to catch up to a PC that isnt running SSE. This is what benchmarks say .. and its what I say having done VLSI desgin and transistor optimisation at uni in my IT degree. Mac = 1/4 speed of PC Mac + altivec = Speed of PC Mac + altivec = 1/2 speed of PC with SSE I used to run unity on a k6 200 with a seperate sequncer and audio programs.. Im glad your mac can keep up. OSX isnt here now .. its got few apps.. windows is here now and has been since even before the year 2000. Since it came out its been fully functional.. unlike OSX (oh please can we have a DVD player). As all the sites say XP and OSX are both equaliy good at video.. name the one that hasnt got many apps for it yet because they are still finialising some apis and finishing off the operating system ? that would be OSX If u dont mind waiting use a mac. Glenn 2002-06-01 3:04 am No one has said OS X is UNIX! Wrong — Hank and CattBeMac were claiming that before. You would know that if you had bothered to read or ask. UNIX-based, get it? 1. OSX is not UNIX-based. It contains no UNIX! 2. The Open Group speaks against using misleading language like that. In fact, it mentions “UNIX-based” specifically, using a big red “X” (“X” as in “NO”, not “10”) to drive the point home. That is the straw man arguement you keep bringing up. Where? Prove your allegation! I’m not holding my breath for an answer, LOL! Once again ‘UNIX -based’ is what I wrote. So it’s your straw man argument then! Is it the hyphen that bugs you, or? What bugs me is the disingenuous nature of the statement, not the grammar. I want to make that clear, and head off another straw man argument from you. I don’t like the dishonesty, period. I don’t care if it’s being done to make money, to feed a sick ego, or if it’s some cult member mindlessly repeating words that have no meaning to himself. And your comment about 4.4 BSD can’t work with Mach,I got that straight from Darwins web site… So if I post anything on the Web, you’ll obey it without question? I guess I know which type out of the three above that you are! I omitted the personal attack part of your statement, but you are correct that Apple lies. If you ever decide to leave the cult and think for yourself, you can grab 4.4BSD-Lite, try to run it unmodified as a Mach server, and find out who is correct. Or you can read other Apple claims that contradict this one, and see that one of them has to be wrong. No matter which way you go, a little critical thinking will illuminate many Apple fallacies. 2002-06-01 3:28 am So the fact that you can’t copy your AIX program to another UNIX platform and run it, proves that OS X isn’t Unix-based? Did I say that? No. Hank, why don’t you confine yourself to things that I did say? Hank, you lied when you claimed that OSX can run UNIX programs. First you tried to pass off free software, and now you’re just stalling for time. You failed to substantiate your claim. It was a lie. Case closed. As for your accusation of an alleged accusation that I never made (why are you always so convoluted?), the story was not on the list when I made my statement. Big deal. The larger issue here is that your conduct is lousy. You are an asshole. Why are you so hostile towards me? Because I found errors in your work? Well, if you can’t handle criticsm of your writing, don’t publish your work. If you just want to be a bully, don’t expect any empathy from me. 2002-06-01 5:49 am You so graciously leave the personal out of it—- after calling people liars and cheats. Passive aggresive. the arguement you foist is a a false one, and the folks you libeled have not wrote what you said they wrote. Glenn-audio dude. Have a fun time composing on PC’s. they rule, right? I could give a shiite what you wrote about your beloved windows music machine. 2002-06-01 10:22 am >>Basically a Mac NEEDS altivec to catch up to a PC that isnt running SSE. This is what benchmarks say .. and its what I say having done VLSI desgin and transistor optimisation at uni in my IT degree. Mac = 1/4 speed of PC Mac + altivec = Speed of PC Mac + altivec = 1/2 speed of PC with SSE<< SSE can’t even sneeze in Altivec’s direction when comes to performance… and how do you come up with this flawed formula? Bottomline here is you’re an idiot!!! ’nuff said 2002-06-01 3:14 pm Speed:”Did I say that? No. Hank, why don’t you confine yourself to things that I did say? Hank, you lied when you claimed that OSX can run UNIX programs. First you tried to pass off free software, and now you’re just stalling for time. You failed to substantiate your claim. It was a lie. Case closed.” a. You did say it, I even quoted you directly in the post with which you responded. Here is your quote once again: “It’s not UNIX software. The binaries are OSX binaries, and don’t run under any UNIX system. For example, Compunix makes some filesystem utilities for AIX, and some versions of AIX can run on the PPC CPU. But I can’t use Compunix or any other AIX programs, or any UNIX binaries because OSX doesn’t support them.” b. I substantiated that “running” “UNIX” software on OS X is just about the same as on any registered UNIX operating system. I even showed you why your “running UNIX software” litmus test fails, by showing an actual shipping multi-UNIX platform program needing multilpe installs for multiple *registered* UNIX operating systems on the same processor and multiple *versions* of the same *registered* UNIX operating system on the same processor. OS X *is not UNIX*, but it can run UNIX software with about the same ease as any registered UNIX can. I *have* proved that point above. Speed:”As for your accusation of an alleged accusation that I never made (why are you always so convoluted?), the story was not on the list when I made my statement. Big deal. The larger issue here is that your conduct is lousy. You are an asshole.” You *did* accuse me of lying and hiding behind what you believed was a dead message board. Once again, I’ll quote you directly:” For those who didn’t get the chance to read the comments in the Xserve thread, Hank was one of the people who claimed that OSX is a bona fide UNIX system. I set them straight. Now that the thread is gone, Hank is making the same claims. Hank knows better, and yet he still is hell-bent on saying things that aren’t true. ” Along those lines, once again, OS X is UNIX based not a *registered* UNIX platform–since that was the definition of a *real* UNIX platform that you setup in that message board above. I never said it. The closest thing to that was when I went through the chronology of OS X development and asked you why OS X wasn’t UNIX *by code heritage*. In other words, “Why isn’t OS X UNIX-based by heritage.” Speed:”Why are you so hostile towards me? Because I found errors in your work? Well, if you can’t handle criticsm of your writing, don’t publish your work. If you just want to be a bully, don’t expect any empathy from me.” I am no more hostile to you than I would be with anyone else I am debating. What is hostile? You make a statement, I make a counter statement, and we move on from there. From both sides, we’ve added personal comments, which were unwarrented from both sides. However, for the most part, all of recent posts have been to point out errors in your statements in trying to define what a true Unix-*based* operating system is–now that everyone agrees that OS X isn’t a *registered* Unix operating system. Am I being hostile to criticism, or are you? Furthermore, I am far from above criticism. After writing that article, I was criticized by many people in both the message boards and in e-mails. I was critiqued on some conclusions I made, lack of comparison to some other systems, and even on grammatical errors (which unfortunately abound in my article–better next time). I had no problem correcting statements of error directly in both cases. Read the message board and see if I became *hostile* towards any critics of my article. I addressed their criticism with the same level of hostility as I do here–none. If anyone who e-mailed me thought I was *hostile*, please let me and Speed know. I had no intention of being so. I will apologize for any ad homenin attacks that I made in previous message boards, but that doesn’t reduce the validity of all of my posts on this board, which have been free from personal attacks as far as I remember. Please set me straight if this isn’t true, so I may correct it. 2002-06-01 9:01 pm willem, when you lie and cheat, that does make you a liar and a cheat, whether or not I comment on it. I have been attacking the lies, not the people. All I do is show the wrong, but you are still the source of the dishonesty. I have also shown proof to justify my position, while you have been name-calling and nothing more. See the difference? Hank, if you want to rehash the same stuff that has been debunked time and time again, then go and argue at the text on your screen. The reasons why your falsehoods are wrong have not changed. And since you have shown that you have no trouble finding the old thread, then you know where to find the answers. 2002-06-01 11:14 pm “willem, when you lie and cheat, that does make you a liar and a cheat, whether or not I comment on it. I have been attacking the lies, not the people. All I do is show the wrong, but you are still the source of the dishonesty.” Wrong em boyo. I was quoting one of your various flames. You haven’t “proved” a darn thing. What you have shown is a little thing called projection. 2002-06-01 11:52 pm willem, you still haven’t gotten around to proving your old allegations. We both know why. I also notice that you have nothing to say about the topic. Your trolls bore me, go away. 2002-06-02 4:08 am Speed::”Hank, if you want to rehash the same stuff that has been debunked time and time again, then go and argue at the text on your screen. The reasons why your falsehoods are wrong have not changed. And since you have shown that you have no trouble finding the old thread, then you know where to find the answers.” The fact that you refuse to directly address the allegations alleged against you prove your guilt. Deflecting critcism to the accusing party does nothing to prove your case nor does it add credibilty to your agruments. Providing counter arguments and evidence against my statements would add to your case. The fact that you consistently fail to do so, adds to the credance of my arguments. Would you please directly address my lucid and factual arguments, rather than provide even more general and unsubstatiated statements. 2002-06-02 6:51 pm nothing to say? You typed nonsense about Apple and Final Cut Pro being useless for pros, I gave you info that bsdiclly called your flame bait to task. I also gave you an interesting link about a real world (Pro) guy who wrote his efx app in UNIX , ported it to MAC OS X, and now is a mac user. Wrong em boyo ,again. Also again, in the real world (where folks make a living), the mac is a viable, work generating (and revenue generating), professional machine with a solid operating system, that a huge portion of the creative community uses. Nothing you write or will write in the future will change that. 2002-06-03 5:44 am Looks like two Mac-heads have blown their fuses! Stick a fork in ’em, they’re done! Talk about obsessive — what does “bsdiclly” mean? Later, losers. 2002-06-03 4:08 pm Your last lil post is the classic troll post. Classic. 2002-06-05 3:33 pm Speed:”Looks like two Mac-heads have blown their fuses! Stick a fork in ’em, they’re done! ” Nope, no blown fuses, but I am done. You are certainly proficient at arguing with yourself. I’m not wasting any more time bringing up valid points, to have you ignore, chastise and continue ignorant of the arguments posed against you. You’re failure to address valid criticisms proves my point. Address even one. It won’t matter to me though, I am “done”. Done wasting my time. I’ll spend my precious time on more productive pursuits. That doesn’t make you right however, but I’m sure you’ll claim that anyway.