Why do people hate me for using a Mac...

[jonnyd]

I'll go one further and say that XP was never needed.

XP was basically window dressing on Windows 2000, which WAS sorely needed.

NT4, the first mainstream implementation of the NT kernel and was sorely lacking. It lacked plug-and-play support, power management, and even simple things like USB support.

When 2000 was released, it was a huge improvement. It had all the usability of Windows 9x, but the stability and robustness of NT4. In fact, Microsoft had originally planned to make a Home version of Windows 2000, but at the time, there was some concern about compatibility issues (many 16 bit applications didn't play ball with NT).

So, instead, they waited a couple of years, gussied up the UI of 2000 and threw in a few mostly useless apps like Windows Movie Maker and improved boot time and called it XP. That's not to belittle XP, as it was a fine OS in its own right, but it was mostly a minor revision to Windows 2000.

When Windows Vista was initially announced, there were some major initiatives that were supposed to substantiate the product. Palladium (a new security platform), WinFS (a new file system), and Aero (a much needed ground up rethinking of the GDI) were the whole reason for Vista to exist in the first place. When MS more or less dropped the first two, in an effort to get it out the door faster, that was the first nail in Vista's coffin.

I'm convinced that Windows has simply become so big, bloated and convoluted, that further development is like trying to turn the Titanic. I feel very strongly that it's time for Microsoft to rethink NT altogether... and the right decision (GASP) might even be to adopt a Linux kernel.

Of course pigs will fly first, but I do think that would be the best decision for MS at this point. They have no experience with building an OS from the ground-up (keep in mind that DOS was bought from another company and NT was co-developed with IBM), they might as well adopt someone else's.

Interesting. I seem to remember 2k being rather slow, but it might just be that I got XP when I bought a new, faster PC. Can't remember, was a while ago!

I get what you say about Linux (or something similar, at least with a bit of decent armour around the kernel). I have to somewhat disagree about MS's pedigree though - or at least point out that 'improving' upon others work isn't necessarily just an MS trait. They have done some genuinely innovative work over the years.

 

[cwa107]

Interesting. I seem to remember 2k being rather slow, but it might just be that I got XP when I bought a new, faster PC. Can't remember, was a while ago!

It was slow on older hardware. If you ran it on something that was sold around the time XP was released, it was quite fast and had a much smaller footprint (2000 ran quite well with 128MB of RAM on a P2 powered system).

I get what you say about Linux (or something similar, at least with a bit of decent armour around the kernel). I have to somewhat disagree about MS's pedigree though - or at least point out that 'improving' upon others work isn't necessarily just an MS trait. They have done some genuinely innovative work over the years.

Really? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that Microsoft has ever produced that has been truly innovative. All of their major product lines have been derivative.

Are you referring to Microsoft Bob?

 

[jonnyd]

It was slow on older hardware. If you ran it on something that was sold around the time XP was released, it was quite fast and had a much smaller footprint (2000 ran quite well with 128MB of RAM on a P2 powered system).



Really? I can't think of anything off the top of my head that Microsoft has ever produced that has been truly innovative. All of their major product lines have been derivative.

Are you referring to Microsoft Bob?

Well, I guess almost everything is derivative to some extent, but that doesn't mean it's development isn't innovative. OSX could be described as UNIX meets xerox parc, but that doesn't give much credit to the people who have brought it to where it is now.

I think MS have done some great work on Networking software. Maybe their marketing tactics were a part of it, but it's hard to just dismiss their server OS'es as someone elses work.

 

[apr910]

um...

Most people associate Mac users as yuppie's or treehuggers

i live in ny and i use both but i have never heard a person get called either of those things because they own a mac

 

[cwa107]

Well, I guess almost everything is derivative to some extent, but that doesn't mean it's development isn't innovative. OSX could be described as UNIX meets xerox parc, but that doesn't give much credit to the people who have brought it to where it is now.

I think MS have done some great work on Networking software. Maybe their marketing tactics were a part of it, but it's hard to just dismiss their server OS'es as someone elses work.

Perhaps it's because I had a healthy disdain for Microsoft as a die-hard Commodore/Amiga fan back in the day, but it's hard for me to see Microsoft as anything more than a talented marketing entity.

I agree that Microsoft's network infrastructure products are well done, and there are even parts of Windows that rival OS X in terms of functionality. But it's hard for me to think of Microsoft as innovative.

 

[dtravis7]

Another, more perfect example of this:


Windows ME

If I never agreed (Which I usually always do) with anything else you ever posted, I would have to say AMEN to that!

And CWA, Agreed completely on Windows 2k. I still use Windows 2k Server on my one old AMD server and it's never crashed. Never in many years of usage. Very stable OS. I found 2k quite fast even on the older hardware I was first running it on.

I liked XP and felt it did add even better Plug and Play and more polish to the interface, but the basic Kernel was very much the same as in 2k.

And as a fellow Amiga user I know where you are coming from also!

 

[EGGO]

A reasonably competent user can run it for years and never have a problem. (My trusty HP laptop has been going for 4 years on the original install).

MS needs to spit out a new OS every 3 years or so to generate revenue, whether or not it's needed.

As much as I wholeheartedly agree with Windows ME (I wonder how many babies I just killed saying that), I can very easily say the same thing about OS X.

 

[vansmith]

So, instead, they waited a couple of years, gussied up the UI of 2000 and threw in a few mostly useless apps like Windows Movie Maker and improved boot time and called it XP.

Useless? I'm pretty sure you could make a blockbuster out of Windows Movie Maker!

MS needs to spit out a new OS every 3 years or so to generate revenue, whether or not it's needed.

Shall I kindly remind you of the frequency of releases of OS X? In a five year period, Apple released 6 revisions of OS X (time between 10.0 and 10.1 - 6 months). In a six year period, Microsoft released 2 versions of Windows.

Perhaps it's because I had a healthy disdain for Microsoft as a die-hard Commodore/Amiga fan back in the day, but it's hard for me to see Microsoft as anything more than a talented marketing entity.

I think Apple has them beat .

I'm not trying to stick up for any one company here but it's always nice to play devil's advocate.

 

[cwa107]

I think Apple has them beat .

I'm not trying to stick up for any one company here but it's always nice to play devil's advocate.

I have often said that out of all the companies that died in the 80s during the infancy of home computing, Apple was one of the least deserving to survive.

But unlike Microsoft, Apple did produce a number of completely homegrown hardware platforms, operating systems, handheld computers and more recently, media players. The same can not be said of Microsoft.

 

[dtravis7]

I have often said that out of all the companies that died in the 80s during the infancy of home computing, Apple was one of the least deserving to survive.

Back before the Mac came out in 1984 I felt pretty much the same way. Unlike like a lot of long time Apple supporters, I really did not like the Apple II at all. I know Apple was one of the first to make a Personal Computer and really get it out to the market, but every time I messed with an Apple II I left very unimpressed. I was always a Commodore 64 person and just before the Amiga was into the Atari 8Bit. To this day I still really don't like the old Apple stuff. Just from the Mac on.

The early Macs had a nice GUI and I was impressed with that, but the Amiga won me over with it's multitasking performance with such a slow CPU. It blew everything away at the time.

And to Van, I also have seen some excellent Windows MovieMaker projects. It's not as bad as I used to think.

 

[vansmith]

And to Van, I also have seen some excellent Windows MovieMaker projects. It's not as bad as I used to think.

Given some proper time and artistic care, something decent probably could be put together. Just like this picture that was made in Paint.

 

[Chimpur]

I own 3 macs, a Black Macbook core duo(the original 2ghz), a 466mhz iBook with a G3 cpu and an original lime green iMac that I've modded to 400mhz. The later two both run 10.4.11 Tiger and the macbook running the newest Lopard. All machines are usable and a joy to use. People see the iMac and iBook and are amazed that both are 8 to 10 years old! Can you say that about a windows computer? I had windows Me on my first IBM computer and I didnt like it at all, at the time my schools had os 8 or 9. I installed win 2k fast!

 

[Derek McNelly]

Can you say that about a windows computer?

Actually, I had a 1.33GHz AMD Athlon box running XP that people couldn't believe was 7 years old.

I ran an nlited edition of Windows though, so it ran hyperfast.

 

[Chimpur]

With my windows ibm machine i replaced the ide bus (pci adaptor card), memory, cpu, hard drive, cd drive.

 

[dtravis7]

Actually, I had a 1.33GHz AMD Athlon box running XP that people couldn't believe was 7 years old.

I ran an nlited edition of Windows though, so it ran hyperfast.

I have an IBM Thinkpad 600x running XP Pro SP2 that gets many people asking how old it is because it seems very smooth for such an old laptop. Display still bright and crisp with no dead pixels. Machine works like brand new and is quite useable for day to day basic computing. Even Flash videos are smooth on You Tube.

 

[Dysfunction]

I have an IBM Thinkpad 600x running XP Pro SP2 that gets many people asking how old it is because it seems very smooth for such an old laptop. Display still bright and crisp with no dead pixels. Machine works like brand new and is quite useable for day to day basic computing. Even Flash videos are smooth on You Tube.

and yet the biggest complaint I hear about macs is cost


The T61p wasn't really any cheaper than the mbp

 

[dtravis7]

I purchased the 600x used at a Swap Meet. The hard drive was missing so he really could not demo the machine so I offered him $50. They were going on Ebay for $400 at the time! Slid in a hard drive and it's never missed a beat since.

 

[the8thark]

I think the OS and computer race has changed. In the 90's it was all about the fastest CPU's and the most FPS in a game. Those big numbers all wow people And they are big sellers. But these days when the massive speed increases are not happening anymore, the game has changed. Now it's all about who can use that they have to the best of it's ability. Basically optimisation on the OS to the nth degree. Squeezing every bit of juice from the processors.

We all know this already. But my point is sure bling is good. Nice to look at. It wows people. But in the end all this cutting edge technology of maxing how multi-cores can share the work load in an intensive app etc will one day be the norm. Every app one day will just require this technology. And most people will not know any difference. Their apps work before and they will then too.

But all this behind the scenes stuff is what snow leopared is preparing for the future where MS is just intent on flashy stuff to get more customers.

I always think of it like a restaurant. Sure you can have the best tables and nicest, best dressed fanciest waiters in the country. That's the bling OS's need to have to me marketable on the whole. But if the food (ie CPU efficiency) is not up to scratch or delivered fast enough, then no one goes to the restaurant anymore. And yes you have to cook more than one dish at one time (like having multi-cores on a die). Cause there is more then one process (or customer) waiting for you.

Sure you don't see the chef in a restaurant when you go. But you taste his/her efforts. And are know they are needed. And the same for Snow Leopards new features. Mostly unseen but very needed.

I know a weird way of looking at things and a little off topic. But I think this is MS's problem. They are having I'm a PC ads etc. But they don't make or directly sell computers or software. They should just stick to making their OS the best thing. By their standards Intel should make an ad saying go buy windows software. It's ludicrous I know.

I'm not saying Windows or OS X is better or worse then the other here. I'm just saying Apple's mindset is a little better for it's long term survival then MS's is at the moment.

And lastly sorry for such a long rant. Maybe one of you will find it at least ok.

 

[cwa107]

You're right. It goes back to what I said earlier. When Intel and AMD changed course and started to concentrate on massive parallelism, it was a game-changer for the industry.

Very few applications are able to take advantage of more than one CPU. This is why Apple's OpenCL and Grand Central are HUGE news. From what I understand, these are APIs that will essentially take the onus off the app developer to worry about addressing multiple CPUs because the OS does that already.

If this works the way I understand it to, Snow Leopard should make even older Intel machines (and multiprocessor PPC machines, assuming it still supports them) feel a lot faster.

 

[Village Idiot]

I think that if it wasn't for the game market in the first place, you'd not have the perception that PC's have to be upgraded every year to stay current.

I mean, the government mostly still uses XP Pro and Office 2003. I'm running on a 2.8ghz P4 and 512 of RAM. This computer is at least four years old. Granted, it gets hung up on occasion, but that's because of all the crap they have loaded on here for security and virus protection and other services.

But for normal computing it works fine.