silly smug apple users

what will you guys do when everyone has switched and you aren't special?

 

I don't have nearly as much faith in MS as you have in Apple but I don't think people will put up with that crap indefinitely, hence my bet. I'll be getting you a subscription to windows IT pro magazine with your 20$

 

Complain about the rampant increase in Apple security flaws

 

Rejoice that people looking at my websites aren't getting "jaggy text" and jump for joy because I'll be able to video chat with just about everyone on my iChat list

 

 

^ yeah that too , but it'll be worth it!

 

I actually know exactly what I'm talking about. OS X was built on the OpenStep operating system, which developed from the NeXT OS. NeXT and OS X are both BSD-based systems built on a Mach microkernel. What made OS X 10.0 slow and buggy was the switch from Display Postscript to Display PDF (a.k.a. Quartz). The extra computing and memory required caused most of the bugs seen in 10.0.

I'm not saying that Vista isn't a large upgrade. But it's nothing new. The display optimization using 3D cards is nothing new: OS X has had it for the past 3-4 years. The one really new thing that they were going to add ended up getting axed because they couldn't get it out on time: their database filesystem.

IMO, the biggest thing that needs to happen in ALL OSes is to do what the BeOS did a long time ago: pervasive multithreading. This makes the whole OS much more responsive, and much more capable of handling multiple processors. OS X does a decent job, Windows XP could do better, but the best I've ever seen was the (now defunct) BeOS. For more information, look it up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS).

 

* note to self: don't get into a nerdgument with Hojo. he goes for the throat.

 

Meh...it's not about being special. It's about liking what you work on. And more than that, it's about actually working on an OS that's leading the technology charge. As a computer science guy, that's important to me...thus why I dual-boot OS X and Linux.

 

If he wants to get into a tech argument, fine. But I'll win.

EDIT: Though, really, I should get that picture I posted a few days ago about arguing on the internet and apply it to myself.

 

congrats on knowing how to use google and providing all sorts of useless info that I did not ask for to prove your 'tech prowess' . as for you winning any tech argument we get in, i started in corporate IT support when you were sprouting your first pubic hair. my resume>yours.

 

In my field, EVERYONE owns a Powerbook/MacBook... so you really can't feel "special" at all.

At the last conference I attended, there was 1 PC in a room of 100 people. The PC guy felt special.

At SXSW Interactive last month, my friend was announced as "PC User Chris ----" before his speech. At a conference of tens of thousands, PC users were that rare.


Owning an Apple product, or at least an Apple computer, is about anything but feeling special... especially if you're any kind of designer or technologist. Apple owners are the majority in these circles.


On my iChat, most non-Apple users are confined to my "Friends from High School" list. People who wouldn't know a MacBook from a VAIO.


I try to encourage Apple ownership because it allows me to provide a greater experience to a broader base of users on my websites. Every browser on OSX is standards compliant, the OSX UI doesn't constrain your design with high contrast over bearing system themes, and type is just a pleasure to see and read. OSX/Quartz makes for a better online experience. As a web developer, it's my job to make my users experience as enjoyable as possible... OSX removes the constraints. OSX makes me and my customers happy.

 

Dinosaur.

 

You questioned my knowledge, I provided reasoning for my argument to you. Google provided nothing for my argument.

And that just proves you're older, not that you know anything--just like I can't prove that I didn't use Google. If anything most corporate IT people know very little except the very narrow area that they actually manage. I'll assume that you don't fall into this category, but lets just agree that we both know what we're talking about.

 

^ Shit, he's good!

 

thats exactly what i was thinking when i read his post haha

 

Say it with me..... BETA!!!

 

Yeah, a BETA that was originally slated to be released THREE YEARS AGO.

 

Well, I'll take back a little of what I said about not much changing. Having looked at the Wikipedia page, it appears that Microsoft is changing much of the scheduling and memory management portions of the OS. Whether or not we'll actually see improvements stands to be seen, but at least it appears they're making an effort to change the key performance aspects of the OS.

EDIT: Another thing that must be remembered is that when OS X came out, it was a long process (probably something like a 4-5 year process) for it to come out. So Apple was doing some sort of mutual development of OS X and OS 9. And since Apple has a shorter development cycle than MS, it hid most of that development time. I guess the question remains as to why MS insists on having longer release cycles (it may be better for business marketing...).

 

sorry, wikipedia then, not google.

and no, i am not one of 'those' people thanks. in my profession i am required to be informed to some degree on all levels of mainstream IT. i'm Solaris 10 and apple certified btw, are you? (granted that apple cert was back when os8 was being released :killer: )

 

When all is said and done I think the difference between Apple's operating systems and Microsoft's boils down to their respective market shares. Even if Microsoft had the exact same management team and coders as Apple, they couldn't have churned out an OS X no matter how much they wanted to. Their dominance on the desktop has necessitated legacy software support over and over and over again. IMO, legacy software support will always result in fragile, bloated operating systems.

On the flip side, I think Apple's smaller market share enabled them to have more intimate relationships with their core application developers. This in turn allowed them to have the "maneuverability" that was required to pull off the major platform transitions they've done (PPC, OS X, Intel). If Apple had to support the same legacy code base that Microsoft did, then I'm pretty damn sure their current products would be no where near as good as they are now.

Yeah I know, this has all been said before but someone had to say it in this thread.

 

Oh no, he pulled the certification card!

That's like a professional swimmer saying she passed her swimming lessons at the Y.

 

Hehe...you insist on being so combative! I provided the link...sorry. I'll make people search next time.

Anyhoo. It's been fun providing my reasoning for why I like Apple's stuff. If people can provide the same kind of reasoning for liking Microsoft's stuff, more power to them. I'm no Apple shill, I just speak to what I like.

 

 

This is all very true.

However, I think it should be noted that Apple's execution of legacy support is far more elegant than Microsoft's. Do you think Microsoft could have ever pulled off Rosetta?

Also, Microsoft has time and time again tried to fork Windows into market specific implementations. There's no reason they couldn't do this again, and do it right.

You know, a Windows X for the enterprises and a Windows Y as the next windows.

Instead, they're wrapping everything up into Vista, and then forking Vista into Home/Enterprise/etc versions.

 

huh?

 

better than not having one, no? proves you at least know 'something' ; ie no search engines available to you while you take the tests

 

Heh, maaaybe. However, there's something to be said about being WRONG even when you DID have search engines available too you

 

i'm hardly being combative about this subject. If you do some searching on my past posts you'll notice that I actually like Apple products very much. Apple fanboys however that will argue subjectively with you all day long on the internet if you don't comply with their train of thought, they get the

 

Yeah, yeah... I didn't use 'em, but whatever.

However, on another topic, isn't being able to find pertinent information through search engines valuable since you can't know everything there is to know? I prefer to save space in my brain for knowing important stuff, like stats for my favorite sports teams.

 

oh i must have missed the part where i was wrong...please refresh my memory.

 

search engines are a tool not a crutch.

 

You guys are nuts..

 

wait... i forgot what we're arguing about now.

 

Fair enough. :gheyhug:

Fanboys get me too...

However, one cool thing you might like is the new Windows PowerShell (a.k.a. Monad or MSH--I think it's coming out with Vista, but is available now in beta). It looks very neat as it's tightly integrated with .NET.

 

no, nuts is when soopa finds a severed horse head on his porch with a copy of windows ME in its mouth.

 

We need a geek subforum...with no robot posts.

 

I think the few of us who love to argue should dedicate this thread to finding something we all agree on...

I mean... our powers combined... we could convince surely the world about SOMETHING.

Let's pick an ideology. Fascism anyone?

 

 

If you consider the respective applications out there for the two platforms, I've always been under the impression that Apple's base of installed apps was mostly comprised of boxed software whereas Microsoft's was mostly comprised of home grown code from its customers. This is what enabled Apple to work closely with the key devlopers to pull off things like Rosetta. If Microsoft's installed base of applications was just Office and CAD programs, then yes I think they might have been able to pull off Rosetta. Well... under different management they might have.