 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Discrimination relating to your computer. Formerly just, "Macs suck ass". |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
||bass Administrator                    Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerActually if you spent half a nanosecond in any kind of logic course you would know that comments and opinions not relating to the topic at hand have no bearing whatsoever on credibility with regard to on-topic dicsussion. That's actually common sense if you think about it but that's apperantly too much to ask for.Originally posted by ||bassDepends what you have. With the iMac, no. Sexist comments kinda make your credibility moot though. (edited by ||bass on 08-18-06 02:22 AM) |
|||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass I like how you don't deny the sexist part, but suggest I take a logic course. However, I find it even more funny that you accuse Apple of being so proprietary. Why do you think 98% of the market use PC's? Because of proprietary software. Ahahahahaha. These debates end up with one side saying "well they both have strengths and weaknesses..." and one side says "GOD DAMNIT LISTEN TO ME I DON'T CARE IFYOU DON'T PLAY GAMES BECAUSE YOU HAVE A MAC AND WON'T NEED A HIGHER GRAPHICS CARD, I DON'T CARE IF ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THAT YOU USE SOMETHING LIKE A PODXT LIVE VIA USB TO INSTEAD OF ANOTHER SOUND CARD YOU NEED THESE THINGS YOU MAY NEVER USE." I have seen so many of these debates, which is funny because how can you have a debate about a matter of complete opinion? (edited by windwaker on 08-18-06 02:58 AM) |
|||
Tarale    2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata  Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I don't believe that Apple will open up OS X. For one, that will put them into direct competition with Microsoft and I doubt they want that.
But basically... they won't because Apple are a Hardware Company. They have always been a Hardware Company, since the 1970's. They do develop some software, but not a whole lot really. Their Operating System has always been one of the selling points of their Hardware. It's not in Apple's best interests to make Mac OS X available for all machines. Sure, there are advantages to them having things the way they are, which I prefer to focus on (cause they're not as cynical as the above) like the stability stuff and whatnot, but... that's pretty much it -- it makes no business sense for Apple to make OS X available in that way. And there are a lot of things I prefer about the user experience on the Macintosh over that which I get on Linux or Windows. A big part of it being that the Macintosh just... gets in my way a lot less. EDIT: And we've had two-button mice for a while now, just only recently ones made by Apple themselves  However, a nice advantage is if you have to use a 1 button one, there isn't anything hidden in a right-click context menu that you can't get at using regular left click menus  (edited by Tarale on 08-18-06 02:57 AM) (edited by Tarale on 08-18-06 03:00 AM) |
|||
|
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Tarale Don't you think that's kind of naive? Why would they write osx86 then? For the fun of it? (edited by windwaker on 08-18-06 03:00 AM) (edited by windwaker on 08-18-06 03:00 AM) |
|||
|
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by Tarale Because they needed to switch their hardware platform to the faster x86 platform after PowerPC stalled. |
|||
|
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TaraleOriginally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by Tarale If they really intended to stay a hardware company and continue with this fascist proprietary regime, they'd switch to 64-bit processing. I think they want to reach out to the x86 Windows running processors. |
|||
|
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by TaraleOriginally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by Tarale The Mac Pro is 64-bit. They have two dual-core Xeon 5100 Series ("Woodcrest" Core architecture with EM64T instruction set) processors at 2, 2.66 or 3 GHz. Honestly I don't think Apple make their money on their software. They make their money on their hardware. Their business focus is their hardware. They are a hardware company. They would be foolish to make OS X available to all x86 processors when its one of the primary things selling their Hardware.  |
|||
|
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TaraleOriginally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by TaraleOriginally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by Tarale Yeah, but I'm saying that they wouldn't have created OSx86 in the first place and had this whole process had they not wanted to at least have the option to reach out. Why on Earth would Apple not want to reach that part of the market? I think it's size would be significant, being as how most inept to beginner level PC users infected with spyware say "MAYBE I SHOULD BY A MAC". They obviously make enough money on software. Think of all the development that went into all of that stuff. Plus the backend of OSx, and stuff like the unix-esque command line system? I don't see why Apple would not want to be a software company too; I think both factions are comparable and perhaps both demand both of the same manpower. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerIt's not simply unix-esque. Anyone who actually takes the time to actually look would notice that the entire OS is copied almost verbatim from BSD source trees with a hacked to shit copy of OpenStep slapped on top. One of the reasons OSX probably still has limited hardware compatibility (i.e. designed not to install onto normal PC's) is because any kind of even remotely low-level work in every BSD OS is a royal freaking pain in the ass. Originally posted by windwakerAs for the alleged sexism, I don't see much of a point trying to deny something I already said was a misinterpretation. I shouldn't have to explain myself twice just because you can't seem to be able to read. You are right about one thing though. I shouldn't have suggested a logic course considering it won't help you much until AFTER you manage to learn basic reading skills. (edited by ||bass on 08-18-06 03:40 AM) (edited by ||bass on 08-18-06 03:41 AM) |
|||
|
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwaker I don't think a switch to Intel architecture from Power PC architecture is any indication at all that Apple are planning to release OS X for regular PC's. I really cannot emphasise this enough -- Apple is a Hardware Company. Selling computer hardware is how Apple makes most of its money. They develop software, which is used to sell their hardware -- this does not make them a software company. Besides, why would they want to sell somebody an OS for a few hundred dollars when they can sell somebody that OS and a computer for a few thousand dollars?
And while it might be easy to think that it would be simple for Apple to switch to a Microsoft-esque software company (selling an OS for regular PCs), it would be very financially risky for Apple to try to do so. I think that OS X will stay on Macintoshes for the forseeable future. Originally posted by ||bass I wouldn't say that it was "copied" from BSD... it's acknowledged that it's built upon UC Berkeley's implementation of BSD, and the Mach Microkernel. NEXTSTEP was an implementation of BSD-Mach. The next direction for the OS was to free the operating system libraries from being tied to UNIX and becoming more device independent. So, NeXT completed an implementation of OpenStep for NEXTSTEP and called it OPENSTEP (note capitalisation). When NeXT was purchased by Apple when Apple were trying to save their flagging OS, OPENSTEP was reworked into Rhapsody, which was more or less OPENSTEP with the "Classic" Mac OS interface. Rhapsody later became Mac OS X. Just in case you were wondering. |
|||
Zer0wned Koopa Since: 12-09-05 From: Torrance, ca Last post: 6453 days Last view: 6453 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Tarale First I'd like to note that this paragraph really damages your arguement. For "a few thousand dollars", I'm pretty sure I could buy a high end PC and all the software I could ever want, with a third-party security system that would keep me feeling warm and fuzzy. And from my own (admittedly low) experience with macs, you only get a couple of these programs, more than likely you're going to need more eventually. Since I'm assuming it's not exactly a cakewalk for the everyday user to find the extra software they need, guess who they go to first? Macintosh (from my observation) is a computer company, they sell hardware and software, bundled together, or seperately. I can guarantee that no one (in their right mind) would buy a software-less mac for its running price. Maybe they make the most money on hardware, but I'd be blown away if their after-the-"free"-software sales on software weren't significant as well. In other words, you're kidding if you think you can sell ~$600 in hardware for $2K, and say that you're not paying for the software, you're paying for the hardware! Oh, and look at all this ~free~ software we're gonna give you! Unbiasedly speaking however, Mac is one of the few middle grounds between the overall ease of use of windows, and the out of the box security of linux distributions. But back to the bias, I don't find the user interface to be intuitive at all, maybe because I was trying to treat it like a PC. But honestly, I found linux to be a little more intuitive (after the installation of needed software, that part's no cakewalk  ).
You could mass produce PCs with linux pre-installed and pre-configured with a significant amount of software already installed. Comes out to a similar bundling effect as a Mac, while retaining the maintainability and cost benefits of a PC tower, while preventing most users from having to deal with the lack of simplicity of linux. But granted about 85% of average computer users would probably be screwed if they wanted to add new software... But if I recall correctly, Debian based distributions have an .exe-ish handling of program installs for the .deb packages that would make for an easier transition for most windows users. And I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned-- Mac OSX can be run on a PC. It's been done, and is distributed on your friendly neighborhood bit torrent site (albeit illegally). "All those reasons you never bought a Mac? Not true anymore." that's on their website. that's pathetic. it's the equivalent of saying: "hey, remember how we've always sucked? we don't anymore!". Remember, I didn't say that, they said it, and that was the first thing that came to mind. Similar wording would have caused a cringe in pretty much anything. But really, I'm talking about minor and in the end pretty negligible differences here (except for the linux thing, it's ease of use factor is still out of reach of mainstream, even in its easiest form... not that I personally care =P). I'd take a Mac over no computer any day, but since I have a choice, my preferences lean strongly toward a windows/linux dual boot. |
|||
|
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Zer0wnedOriginally posted by Tarale Yes, but you can't get Mac OS X on it. You can ONLY get Mac OS X on a Macintosh. So if you want to run OS X you need to buy a Macintosh. You might not want to run OS X, but some people buy Macintoshes purely for Mac OS X or another Macintosh-only piece of software. See what I'm trying to say about using the OS/software to sell the hardware? Originally posted by Zer0wned You cannot buy a Macintosh without Mac OS X. If you buy one right now, you will also get iLife '06 (iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovieHD, GarageBand, iWeb) a copy of Quicken 2006, Comic Life, and even some board games as well. You also get a trial of iWork. I never said you get all that "free" nor did I say that they don't make money on software sales. They do. I'm saying that the company's focus isn't to sell software -- their focus is to sell you hardware, using their software. OS X, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, Garageband, iWeb, Pages, Keynote, Apeture, Final Cut Pro -- one thing they all have in common is that you need a Macintosh to use them. If they absolutely were not concerned at all with using any of these products to sell their hardware -- if they wanted to be a software company like Adobe, or Microsoft -- wouldn't they make these programs and operating systems available on computers besides Macintoshes? Surely they could sell more copies of these products if they were open to the whole PC market, right? The only reason I can think that iTunes is available in Windows is because Apple want to sell the iPod and the iTMS. Originally posted by Zer0wned Sure, but I hear it's very buggy when you try to do it that way too. If you want to run it reliably, you still need a Macintosh. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Zer0wnedI never saw what was so intuitive about the OSX interface myself either. I personally like an interface where all the buttons and menus stay the hell still rather than rolling and sliding all over the place (read: that bottom menu). I'm sure that can be disabled but it's still seriously anoying. Originally posted by Zer0wnedIt was mentioned already in this post. Also, as a general query not directed at anyone specific. I was asking a serious question when I said I wanted to know what was so wonderful about the Mac "user experiance". Seriously, what's the big deal? The only part I like about the "Mac experiance" is being able to maximize a copy of the BSD command line shell in an attempt to cover up everything else. Anoyingly though it won't run fullscreen. |
|||
|
Zer0wned Koopa Since: 12-09-05 From: Torrance, ca Last post: 6453 days Last view: 6453 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass In my defense that paragraph was a little too big for my liking and got skimmed, I gathered the Tiger part, and missed the thing about the hacked up installer  .
And I came to realize that Tarale's consistant mentioning of macintosh being a hardware company, but at the same time consistantly mentioning that the selling point is the software. They're not saying "use our fantastic hardware! oh, and here's the programs that run on it." as much as they seem to say "use our fantastic operating system and software! oh, and here's the equipment it runs on". Mac users buy the software because they want to. They buy the hardware because they have to. Granted the highest end macs are usually on par with the higher end PCs, it's still usually the software's advertised appeal that sells in the end, because you can get greater or equal easily and more cheaply expandable and upgradeable hardware for a PC. In business, your selling point is what you're selling. If the necessary peripherals are making you significantly more money, that doesn't change that. Say you sell phones, but make more money on accessories, and obviously sell more accessories as well. Are you a phone accessory salesperson? No! You're a phone salesperson, because that's what you advertise, and that's what people come in to buy. Just because you sold them 150% more in value in accessories because they had to buy them for the phone to work and/or because they wanted it also, doesn't change the fact that they came there for a phone. |
|||
|
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by windwakerAs for the alleged sexism, I don't see much of a point trying to deny something I already said was a misinterpretation. I shouldn't have to explain myself twice just because you can't seem to be able to read. You are right about one thing though. I shouldn't have suggested a logic course considering it won't help you much until AFTER you manage to learn basic reading skills. If I made posts like this consistently, I would've been banned more than once. This is a debate forum, not an "avoid the point and unwittingly insult someone you disagree with" forum. However, your argument is a contradiction. "I know a girl who made a great PC, she's a girl, so it can't be that hard! She made it for less than $700, I'd like to see you do that!" edit: why don't you respond to me destroying your "it's proprietary!!!" argument? Originally posted by ||bass Please cite an example. (edited by windwaker on 08-18-06 05:00 PM) (edited by windwaker on 08-18-06 05:01 PM) |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerBecause it's an asanine arguement. Take for example video editing software on the Mac (such as Final Cut Pro). We come to the same dilemmasame dilemma. My cousin David even ended up buying a Mac specifically for video and photo software that isn't available on the PC. The software is propriatary on both ends. The hardware is only propriatary with premade machines like Dells and Macs. Originally posted by windwakerOriginally posted by ||bassPlease cite an example. OK: http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200012/daemon-osx2.html Also similar low-level issues but not directly on topic: http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6105 Also for a semi-pro-Mac position on some low-level issues: http://www.dribin.org/dave/blog/archives/2006/04/28/os_x_passwords_2/ (edited by ||bass on 08-18-06 06:25 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Meh, as long as I can drink beer out of it when it breaks I'll use it.
Hence MAC and PC are good computers. |
|||
|
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| The specific reason I keep mentioning Apple being a Hardware company (ie, their aim is to sell hardware specifically not just software) is because that is why you won't see OS X on regular PC's. Putting OS X on regular PC's is incompatible with their business model.
Otherwise it doesn't really matter all that much. I'm just countering the Dvorak-like speculation here that "omg, Apple are making plans to release OS X for all computers, they want to challenge Microsoft directly". The switch to x86 from PowerPC is not an indicator that Apple are trying to position themselves to sell OS X for any PC. It was just the next step for the Macintosh series of computers, particularly as PowerPC was going nowhere. ||bass -- user experience is something that is hard to define, because it is a fairly personal thing. You mentioned your annoyance at having a Dock that magnifies when you hover over it with the mouse -- for some people that is helpful, for others it's annoying (and for your interest, by default it doesn't magnify -- somebody who uses that Macintosh turned that feature on). Apple would likely tell you that part of the user experience thing is that it "just works", which if I think about it is fairly vague too. Pretty much everything I've tried to do though on my Macintosh has "just worked" with minimal fuss from me though. I do find one aspect is user interface. Nothing is hidden away in a right click context menu on Mac OS X. And by hidden, I mean that you can only get to in that context menu. That's a good idea, that's good UI design -- because there are some people who don't use the right mouse button (a lot if my experience on help desk is an indicator, and some are even scared of it), and having things hidden away makes things harder for those people. Right mouse click menus are available, but instead of being the exclusive way to do something, they complement existing left click menus, providing faster ways to do things for "power users". Another UI thing I appreciate is that for the most part, all the applications -- be they from Apple or otherwise -- comply with certain UI guidelines. This means that there are some UI things you can always rely upon -- no matter what Application you are in, you can always close it by going up to the Menu Bar, selecting the name of the app and going to "Quit [whatever]". You can always find the Preferences in the same place too (where in Windows it can be under Tools, or Options or....even File or Edit?? ). Makes a new application less daunting to be able to rely on some familiarity every time. General consistency across the UI in a whole lot of other places too... there are lots of other UI things too, most of them are little things that I don't really think about in detail, but I find I appreciate when I'm on the Macintosh. Exposé for one. The fact that my Mac prompts me for a password before I do anything major. The security between users on the local machine -- unlike in Windows where logging in as one person you can still go to Documents and Settings and go through someone else's stuff... Just a whole lot of little bits and pieces. All these little things... consistency and attention to detail from Apple, I guess... overall mean I'm happier and more productive on my Macintosh. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Now things are getting interesting now that someone (in this case Tarale) has actually answered my question about why someone might like the "Mac experiance".
Two points Tarale mentioned interest me though: Originally posted by TaraleThis is interesting because I REALLY LIKE the right mouse button. I like to have as much of my GUI hidden away as possible. I keep a very minimalist LiteStep skin in XP running where everything is hidden away in context menus. I like that because I absoloutly canno't stand clutter in my enviroment. I keep my room spotless and my desk clean at all times. I just CANNOT work with unnecissary stuff in my face. I like my GUI's to have only what is absoloutly necissary for basic functionality. Everything else I like to have hidden away in menus and submenus that will not get in your face unless you specifically ask for them. It's interesting to me because what you describe as something you like about the general Mac look-and-feel is one of the things I hate the most about it. I love stark, barren, boring GUI's that are 110% function and ZERO asthetics. Square buttons and fixed-width fonts are great, the smaller the better. My desktop (click to enlarge):  Originally posted by TaraleThis is actually somewhat incorrect. I do blame MS somewhat for this too. It's their own fault that people have this mistaken belief. The problem is that the situation you describe is actually the default behavior. It shouldn't be but it is. I only call it the DEFAULT BEHAVIOR though because you CAN tell windows to block other users from going into your Documents and Settings. It takes about 4 seconds. The problem is that most people have absoloutly no idea that you can quickly and easily change this setting. You can though: ControlPanel->UserAccounts->[click your account]->[click 'Make Private'], it's that simple but a vast majority of users have no idea the option is there. Why it's off by default is anyone's guess. (edited by ||bass on 08-19-06 12:19 AM) (edited by ||bass on 08-19-06 12:20 AM) (edited by ||bass on 08-19-06 12:35 AM) |
|||
|
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| ||Bass -- you seem to have gotten the idea for some reason that the lack of right-click-only context menus means that there's more stuff on the screen. That's not true. The stuff is hidden away in the Menu Bar -- a regular menu instead.
However, I wasn't making the point about the right click thing from a look-and-feel point of view. I was making it from a usability point of view.
I right click a lot in Windows and on a Mac. Hell, I middle and side click and every other click in both. My experience of working on a Help Desk has given me the appreciation of the usability issue with right click context menus, not my own experience. And when it was discovered that if I Ctrl+Click (equivalent of right click on my iBook) enough it stirs up my RSI, it meant I could circumvent that RSI issue easily. It's also good when you're eating with one hand... (I know I could attach a mouse to my laptop, but I seldom use it on a desk...)
And both my Mac and workstation are kept very uncluttered. I only have the Recycle Bin on my desktop in Windows, and I have my HDD on the desktop on the Mac. I don't have much in my Dock except for what I use regularly, the rest I use Quicksilver to access. That brings up another fun thing... between Spotlight, Quicksilver and Exposé, I can switch between and open applications and files so much faster in this OS 
As for the security issue, I don't really care that you can turn it on, I am annoyed that it's off by default. And that that default then stays on all manner of corporate machines... |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Discrimination relating to your computer. Formerly just, "Macs suck ass". |
| |
