How good are Mac computers?

Gumby · 07/13/09 18:07

Sorry for the topic close earlier, I let stress get to me.

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 19:07

Alloc wrote:

I do neither ... as long as you know what to do you won't get any. The idea that viruses can install themselves in some magic way is just wrong

May be wrong…but i remember when i got some while installing the antivirus, just after having installed the os…:lol:

Paid antivirus (every year…norton, you know…:rolleyes:) and paid os, of course. On a friend computer, of course.

Even though such things *might* happen (and I don't assume that you told us wrong) it happens really rarely. Especially things with the bootloader ... Besides the time you install the OS it shouldn't happen at all, since there's just no reason an OS would fiddle with the BL. And never happened for me at least

The reset thing already happened twice to me (at school, on the same network of pcs). One time the exam day…:mad:

I had a bootloader problem twice too. The first time i just executed windows update, no explanation, it simply didn't boot up again. Reinstalled the bootloader from the cd…
The second time, a couple of years later, on another pc, it simply happened, without having done anything special at all.

Is that a prob with the OS or with the hardware vendors? I hope you know the right answer ...

Guess what? On OS X you have most drivers already included…:)
Not every one, of course, but most…
And surely any usb mouse will work out of the box!:lol:
(My logitech mouse doesn't work on "certain" xp installations…still doesn't know which ones…:/)

As stated above: As long as you know what you do you shouldn't get any reason to reinstall a M$ OS every month.

"As long as you know what you do you"…
what about people that doesn't want to worry about technology?

And i'm not saying "every month"…i think that in 20 and more years i had to reinstall os x once. when the hard drive died. but i may have forgot a couple of situations, btw, nothing is perfect and sometime reinstalling is a quick way out of the trouble.

So you are saying that keeping the licenses and stuff shipped with a machine (or the plain OS packet if you got it on its own) is wrong?

Not at all. But no codes means no need to keep them safe. And no need to call the vendor if you have reinstalled too many times…
Btw, just today my mom reinstalled tomb raider aod…with a pirated code, since she lost her original one…:rolleyes:

That's what was already stated earlier here: Don't just use your experiences with old OS. Allmost any software is improved over time. Even my XP machines crash rarely and if they do it's mostly related to software/hardware and not caused by the OS. And W7/Vista are doing a lot better here again.

Old os? I'm using XP today, i didn't have to touch any previous windows in recent years…like the majority of windows users. So far i had the luck to use vista very rarely. Yes, xp is old, of course, but is still used a lot.

Yup, Windows Wireless was just bad. *Please note the "was". Can't tell about W7/Vista*
But if you owned "good" hardware, in this case Intel WLAN chipsets, you've always got the option to use their WLAN stuff which works really good (also in the case of WPA2 Enterprise with RADIUS authentication or similar setups).

So they should use a third-party tool to connect?
But take care while using third-party tools because they may be unstable?
And yes, some of them are using vista. Got a fancy wireless setup gui, but it still does not connect…

"if it does not"... What the heck?

sometimes it does, often it does not…

Besides the fact, that this again would be a prob of SUN and *not* M$ Win this is really news to me ^^Downloading and installing a package: What's wrong here? Just because M$ doesn't provide a package manager? How should they anyway in a commercial product like theirs? (Don't think they could easily implement anything close to APT or such because they can't collect all programs out there and provide them in a repository).

It's not wrong, it's simply "simpler" on macs. And, in this situation, on linux too.

Where do you have to change BIOS settings in order to boot multiple OS?

Maybe when you're trying to boot from the cd and the pc still tries to boot from the hd and you find yourself trying to read (or guess) what silly combo you have to press to go to the bios setup and change the boot order?

What if I have more complex partitioning setups than what Bootcamp provides on a Mac?

Then you know what do you want to do. Open Disk Utility and do it, it's still a very simple partitioning tool.

Btw, they don't even implement standard UEFI afair ...

They do. Since 2006…
Although *some* could argue about the "standard".
I don't see many efi-based pcs still today, even since some started to come out in these last months…

Gumby wrote:

Sorry for the topic close earlier, I let stress get to me.

Gumby · 07/13/09 19:07

Don't feel like going through everything...

May be wrong…but i remember when i got some while installing the antivirus, just after having installed the os…:lol:
Paid antivirus (every year…norton, you know…:rolleyes:) and paid os, of course. On a friend computer, of course.

What year was this? And you are sure your friend didn't do something?

Guess what? On OS X you have most drivers already included…:)

Same with Windows.

Not at all. But no codes means no need to keep them safe. And no need to call the vendor if you have reinstalled too many times…
Btw, just today my mom reinstalled tomb raider aod…with a pirated code, since she lost her original one…:rolleyes:

So you prefer the Mac approach, which is to disallow their software to be installed anywhere else?

Maybe when you're trying to boot from the cd and the pc still tries to boot from the hd and you find yourself trying to read (or guess) what silly combo you have to press to go to the bios setup and change the boot order?

Which means you were poking around earlier and changing your BIOS settings. CD should always boot first unless you screwed something up.

So they should use a third-party tool to connect?
But take care while using third-party tools because they may be unstable?
And yes, some of them are using vista. Got a fancy wireless setup gui, but it still does not connect…

Has it occured to you that it might be an issue with your router?

Old os? I'm using XP today, i didn't have to touch any previous windows in recent years…like the majority of windows users. So far i had the luck to use vista very rarely. Yes, xp is old, of course, but is still used a lot.

XP is rock solid. I don't know what you're smoking, man.

"As long as you know what you do you"…
what about people that doesn't want to worry about technology?
And i'm not saying "every month"…i think that in 20 and more years i had to reinstall os x once. when the hard drive died. but i may have forgot a couple of situations, btw, nothing is perfect and sometime reinstalling is a quick way out of the trouble.

As long as you don't go around recklessly messing with system files. Or recklessly downloading. The last time I've had to reinstall Windows was back when I was a heavy Limewire user.

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 20:07

Gumby wrote:

What year was this?

2005. Quite some time, ago, right, but it was xp.

And you are sure your friend didn't do something?

My friend called me because the computer didn't boot anymore. I formatted and reinstalled everything.

Same with Windows.

Not to the same degree. At least on xp.

So you prefer the Mac approach, which is to disallow their software to be installed anywhere else?

well, since this means "less trouble", yes!
There is little point in pirating os x, since you'll be pirating it on a mac anyway, so you will be just upgrading from an older os. Of course this is not legal and shouldn't be done, but apple prefers to let these things happen for sake of simplicity, since there is virtually no harm to them.

Which means you were poking around earlier and changing your BIOS settings. CD should always boot first unless you screwed something up.

mmmh…no.
On several pcs it isn't.

Has it occured to you that it might be an issue with your router?

It is not "my" router: is the "secure" university wireless setup. Which causes no troubles to mac os x (even ipods!:lol:), little trouble to linux boxes (they usually have to get the certificate before being able to connect) and a lot of troubles to windows pcs…

XP is rock solid. I don't know what you're smoking, man.

Alloc said that i was using an old os, i replied that i'm using xp, like most windows users.
It *is* old (8 years…) but is still a current setup.

As long as you don't go around recklessly messing with system files. Or recklessly downloading. The last time I've had to reinstall Windows was back when I was a heavy Limewire user.

so you have to care for the computer, not doing certain things…

Gumby · 07/13/09 20:07

Just going to respond to one, for now.

so you have to care for the computer, not doing certain things…

Don't give me that BS. You can screw up a Mac, you can screw up Linux, you can screw up any OS. There are certain things you just don't want to do. (Accompanied by warnings, and/or hidden away where the normal user will not find)

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 20:07

Sure you can. It's simply more difficult to do so an a mac.

Gumby · 07/13/09 20:07

Proof?

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 20:07

Real world?:rolleyes:

What could i say? just try one.

Iritscen · 07/13/09 20:07

So Gumby, which antivirus program did you install on your computer? How often does it run? Are its definitions up to date, and do they require a subscription? Because my answers are "none", "never", and "N/A". And which platform is it that has millions of PCs forming global botnets despite constant security updates being automatically sent from the OS maker to home PCs? Apparently people shouldn't be relied upon to "know what they're doing".

Guess what? On OS X you have most drivers already included…:)
Same with Windows.

I think what jackoverfull is really getting at is that I can't remember the last time I thought about "drivers" while using my Mac. Besides built-in drivers for every printer under the sun and automatically understanding practically every HID I can plug in, I *don't have to update anything*. I won't say that it's impossible for this to become necessary in theory, only that in practice I never have this "update drivers" issue that seems to constantly come up on Windows (or haven't you noticed the #2 solution in our Troubleshooting forum besides "you need to download Daodan"? ). Once something works, it works, regardless of if I just upgraded from 10.1 to 10.5. Additionally, the concept of needing to worry about whether to take the drivers for my graphics card supplied by Windows Update or the copy on ATI's website is such a foreign concept that a Mac-only user would not even comprehend it.

Speaking of which, if updating from 10.x to 10.y is the equivalent of going from one Windows SKU to another, it's more seamless by a mile. And if installing a new Windows OS is not the equivalent of going from 10.x to 10.y, why is it so much more complicated, anyway? Perhaps upgrading to a new service pack is the equivalent of our Mac upgrades, but if so I fail to understand the need for new SKUs every few years (98, 2000, Me, XP, Vista, 7) if they can upgrade the current OS using SPs. Seems rather screwy to me.

So you prefer the Mac approach, which is to disallow their software to be installed anywhere else?

I don't get this point, can you explain what you mean?

CD should always boot first unless you screwed something up.

I don't know that all PCs are configured that way, but on Mac you don't even have to know the boot order. Just hold down 'c' for CD boot, 'option' to interactively choose among all disks, etc.

XP is rock solid. I don't know what you're smoking, man.

So you never get blue screens? Ever? For comparison's sake, I believe I have gotten two kernel panics since I started using OS X 5-6 years ago. Programs crash, of course, for reasons that are the fault of the programmers. That happens on any platform. I am wondering how often your OS hangs.

Proof?

[Earlier...]The last time I've had to reinstall Windows was back when I was a heavy Limewire user.

So, when was that? And you say the "last" time, indicating there's been more. Because I've only had to reinstall my OS only once in 16 years, after I did something bad with a hex editor while mucking about in my system files as a stupid kid about 15 years ago.

Gumby · 07/13/09 21:07

Iritscen wrote:

So Gumby, which antivirus program did you install on your computer? How often does it run? Are its definitions up to date, and do they require a subscription? Because my answers are "none", "never", and "N/A". And which platform is it that has millions of PCs forming global botnets despite constant security updates being automatically sent from the OS maker to home PCs? Apparently people shouldn't be relied upon to "know what they're doing".

None, never, N/A.
Which OS has too little market share to be usable as a botnet?
It doesn't help that many of these botnets are made mostly of pirated PCs.

Guess what? On OS X you have most drivers already included…:)
Same with Windows.
I think what jackoverfull is really getting at is that I can't remember the last time I thought about "drivers" while using my Mac. Besides built-in drivers for every printer under the sun and automatically understanding practically every HID I can plug in, I *don't have to update anything*. I won't say that it's impossible for this to become necessary in theory, only that in practice I never have this "update drivers" issue that seems to constantly come up on Windows (or haven't you noticed the #2 solution in our Troubleshooting forum besides "you need to download Daodan"? ). Once something works, it works, regardless of if I just upgraded from 10.1 to 10.5. Additionally, the concept of needing to worry about whether to take the drivers for my graphics card supplied by Windows Update or the copy on ATI's website is such a foreign concept that a Mac-only user would not even comprehend it.

I'm sorry, but how many issues are there with Mac binaries for Oni? You guys are on your third port. And the reason for the need to download the Daodan is an issue that has nothing to do with Microsoft and Windows, but with OpenGL and older applications not anticipating for the future.

On drivers: I never have issues with them. MS has gotten better about including them over the years, and (in Win7 at least) the ones in the update match the ones from ATI\NVIDIA's website.

Just curious, have you ever upgraded your video card?

Speaking of which, if updating from 10.x to 10.y is the equivalent of going from one Windows SKU to another, it's more seamless by a mile. And if installing a new Windows OS is not the equivalent of going from 10.x to 10.y, why is it so much more complicated, anyway? Perhaps upgrading to a new service pack is the equivalent of our Mac upgrades, but if so I fail to understand the need for new SKUs every few years (98, 2000, Me, XP, Vista, 7) if they can upgrade the current OS using SPs. Seems rather screwy to me.

Mac "Upgades" = SPs. When you change the underlying kernel to a large extent, you can't use an SP. It is like going from 9 to 10.

From what I can tell, whenever Macs go though a major upgrade, you have to buy new hardware. Go figure.

Also, I'm sorry waiting 7 years in between XP and Vista (which isn't bad, after SP1), and then almost three years for Windows 7 is too short for you.

So you prefer the Mac approach, which is to disallow their software to be installed anywhere else?
I don't get this point, can you explain what you mean?
CD should always boot first unless you screwed something up.
I don't know that all PCs are configured that way, but on Mac you don't even have to know the boot order. Just hold down 'c' for CD boot, 'option' to interactively choose among all disks, etc.

Meh. The advantage of a having the hardware builder also be the software builder.

XP is rock solid. I don't know what you're smoking, man.
So you never get blue screens? Ever? For comparison's sake, I believe I have gotten two kernel panics since I started using OS X 5-6 years ago. Programs crash, of course, for reasons that are the fault of the programmers. That happens on any platform. I am wondering how often your OS hangs.

I haven't gotten a bluescreen once in 7 (except when I accidentally killed a system process in an attempt to kill my hanging debugger ). Can't recall how many times in XP\Vista, but it is very rare.

Proof?
[Earlier...]The last time I've had to reinstall Windows was back when I was a heavy Limewire user.
So, when was that? And you say the "last" time, indicating there's been more. Because I've only had to reinstall my OS only once in 16 years, after I did something bad with a hex editor while mucking about in my system files as a stupid kid about 15 years ago.

I can only remember that one time, because I'm not _that_ old. It was...6 years ago, I'd say. There might have been one time before, I can't recall.

jackoverfull wrote:

Real world?:rolleyes:
What could i say? just try one.

Oh, I'm sorry, giving examples is below you now. Just stating an opinion without giving facts behind it is ok now. Forget I asked.

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 21:07

Gumby wrote:

None, never, N/A.

You're using windows without an antivirus? Really?:lol:

Which OS has too little market share to be usable as a botnet?

the same old point: "little marketshare". but it still keep growing and still macs are virtually untouched by these things.

It doesn't help that many of these botnets are made mostly of pirated PCs.

Sure.
Since most windows boxes around run pirated copies of windows!:lol:

I'm sorry, but how many issues are there with Mac binaries for Oni? You guys are on your third port. And the reason for the need to download the Daodan is an issue that has nothing to do with Microsoft and Windows, but with OpenGL and older applications not anticipating for the future.

That is the same with the original oni version. well, i don't think that someone can blame bungie for it: os x was so new! is still almost a miracle that omnigroup did a cocoa port on their own…
And the fact that someone is still interested to update it, too.:)

Just curious, have you ever upgraded your video card?

No. But most mac users don't.

Mac "Upgades" = SPs. When you change the underlying kernel to a large extent, you can't use an SP. It is like going from 9 to 10.

I don't see it that way…
Aren't SPs a sort of cumulative patches made up of patches created before to fix bugs/add small features?
If i'm right, the closest thing that we have to an SP is a combo update (that is, a big patch that update the system, eg, from 10.5. anything to 10.5.7, which is the current version).
2000->XP->vista->seven is more like 10.0->10.1->10.2 and so on, 98->2000/XP was more like OS 9 OS X (complete system architecture change).

Meh. The advantage of a having the hardware builder also be the software builder.

In fact it is an advantage.

Iritscen · 07/13/09 21:07

OK, in the interests of fairness, some concessions:

Which OS has too little market share to be usable as a botnet?

Granted. But hey, sometimes being the little guy is an advantage.

It doesn't help that many of these botnets are made mostly of pirated PCs.

I didn't think of that. I guess MS denying updates to non-genuine Windows copies is good for their business but bad for the world at large, eh?

On drivers: I never have issues with them. MS has gotten better about including them over the years, and (in Win7 at least) the ones in the update match the ones from ATI\NVIDIA's website.

Well, that's good, I suppose. But then why are so many user's PCs in need of driver updates?

I haven't gotten a bluescreen once in 7 (except when I accidentally killed a system process in an attempt to kill my hanging debugger ). Can't recall how many times in XP\Vista, but it is very rare.

Okay, well, that's something.

The last time I've had to reinstall Windows was back when I was a heavy Limewire user.
So, when was that? And you say the "last" time, indicating there's been more.
I can only remember that one time, because I'm not _that_ old. It was...6 years ago, I'd say. There might have been one time before, I can't recall.

Okay, you seem to be doing quite well for a Windows user

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

I can't remember the last time I thought about "drivers" while using my Mac. [...] Once something works, it works, regardless of if I just upgraded from 10.1 to 10.5.
I'm sorry, but how many issues are there with Mac binaries for Oni? You guys are on your third port.

And when was the last time Windows changed processor families (i.e., RISC -> CISC), or completely started over with a new OS from scratch? Apple and oranges.

And the reason for the need to download the Daodan is an issue that has nothing to do with Microsoft and Windows, but with OpenGL and older applications not anticipating for the future.

I wasn't trying to make a point about the Daodan thing, just mentioning that it's the #1 solution ahead of "update your drivers".

Just curious, have you ever upgraded your video card?

No. If it ever happens, it must be behind the scenes in Apple updates, because I've never heard the words "graphics card driver" or "sound card driver" in my life as a Mac user.

Perhaps upgrading to a new service pack is the equivalent of our Mac upgrades, but if so I fail to understand the need for new SKUs every few years (98, 2000, Me, XP, Vista, 7) if they can upgrade the current OS using SPs. Seems rather screwy to me.
Mac "Upgades" = SPs. When you change the underlying kernel to a large extent, you can't use an SP. It is like going from 9 to 10.

That doesn't explain why MS keeps changing the kernel, then :0)

From what I can tell, whenever Macs go though a major upgrade, you have to buy new hardware. Go figure.

Huh? Another statement that you'll need to explain to me, in addition to "the Mac approach, which is to disallow their software to be installed anywhere else".

Also, I'm sorry waiting 7 years in between XP and Vista (which isn't bad, after SP1), and then almost three years for Windows 7 is too short for you.

I didn't even try to list all the different kinds of each OS MS releases. Talk about confusing. Apple only has two versions of each OS upgrade: the home edition that most everyone buys, and the Server edition, which is self-explanatory.

Iritscen · 07/13/09 21:07

I feel bad about teaming up on Gumby. I would have thought at least one other Windows user would have chimed in to support him by now.

And more importantly, is Shade even still reading this? He's probably like, "tl;dr, these people are fanatical".

Gumby · 07/13/09 21:07

jackoverfull wrote:

Gumby wrote:
None, never, N/A.
You're using windows without an antivirus? Really?:lol:

Yes.

Which OS has too little market share to be usable as a botnet?
the same old point: "little marketshare". but it still keep growing and still macs are virtually untouched by these things.

If I were a botnet maker, and I had a choice between attacking 90% of the market and 10% of the market, I'm still going to go with the 90%.

It doesn't help that many of these botnets are made mostly of pirated PCs.
Sure.
Since most windows boxes around run pirated copies of windows!:lol:

In foreign countries, many do.

I'm sorry, but how many issues are there with Mac binaries for Oni? You guys are on your third port. And the reason for the need to download the Daodan is an issue that has nothing to do with Microsoft and Windows, but with OpenGL and older applications not anticipating for the future.
That is the same with the original oni version. well, i don't think that someone can blame bungie for it: os x was so new! is still almost a miracle that omnigroup did a cocoa port on their own…
And the fact that someone is still interested to update it, too.:)

All I was saying is that if you want to attack Windows for needing the Daodan to run Oni, I can attack Macs for needing a port to run Oni. It is pretty much a moot point.

No. But most mac users don't.
I don't see it that way…
Aren't SPs a sort of cumulative patches made up of patches created before to fix bugs/add small features?
If i'm right, the closest thing that we have to an SP is a combo update (that is, a big patch that update the system, eg, from 10.5. anything to 10.5.7, which is the current version).
2000->XP->vista->seven is more like 10.0->10.1->10.2 and so on, 98->2000/XP was more like OS 9 OS X (complete system architecture change).

Uhh, no. XP->Vista was definately a change. Vista->7 is also a big change. A large deal of the code was rewritten to be faster and less bloated.

In fact it is an advantage.

Indeed. I gave you that one.

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 21:07

Iritscen wrote:

I feel bad about teaming up on Gumby. I would have thought at least one other Windows user would have chimed in to support him by now.
And more importantly, is Shade even still reading this? He's probably like, "tl;dr, these people are fanatical".

Well, we probably *are* in some way maniacs…

So…I was not the only one to mess up with the system file…:lol:

Nostalgia…:rolleyes:

Gumby · 07/13/09 21:07

Ugh. I can't respond to both of you at once. -_-

Alloc did make a post or two on the last page, then he went to bed.

Iritscen · 07/13/09 21:07

jackoverfull wrote:

So…I was not the only one to mess up with the system file…:lol:
Nostalgia…:rolleyes:

Hahaha. The good ol' jack-in-a-box. I had many good times with it. The time when I tried to edit my startup message text... not one of those times. Re-installing the OS from like 25 floppy disks was my punishment for that one.

I can't respond to both of you at once.

Well, I'm going to bed, so there's your reprieve. But srsly, we only respond as fast as you do, and there's no need to rush in replying to us. The topic will still be here a week from now, even. Or we could just agree to disagree. I never really enjoy debates, whether I'm winning or losing (and usually it's not clear which is the case, I find).

Gumby · 07/13/09 21:07

Iritscen wrote:

OK, in the interests of fairness, some concessions:
Which OS has too little market share to be usable as a botnet?
Granted. But hey, sometimes being the little guy is an advantage.

I suppose.

It doesn't help that many of these botnets are made mostly of pirated PCs.
I didn't think of that. I guess MS denying updates to non-genuine Windows copies is good for their business but bad for the world at large, eh?

They have since regened on that practice. The damage was already done though.

On drivers: I never have issues with them. MS has gotten better about including them over the years, and (in Win7 at least) the ones in the update match the ones from ATI\NVIDIA's website.
Well, that's good, I suppose. But then why are so many user's PCs in need of driver updates?

Because nobody is using Windows 7.

I haven't gotten a bluescreen once in 7 (except when I accidentally killed a system process in an attempt to kill my hanging debugger ). Can't recall how many times in XP\Vista, but it is very rare.
Okay, well, that's something.
So, when was that? And you say the "last" time, indicating there's been more.
I can only remember that one time, because I'm not _that_ old. It was...6 years ago, I'd say. There might have been one time before, I can't recall.
Okay, you seem to be doing quite well for a Windows user
Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
I can't remember the last time I thought about "drivers" while using my Mac. [...] Once something works, it works, regardless of if I just upgraded from 10.1 to 10.5.
I'm sorry, but how many issues are there with Mac binaries for Oni? You guys are on your third port.
And when was the last time Windows changed processor families (i.e., RISC -> CISC), or completely started over with a new OS from scratch? Apple and oranges.

Because you don't ever upgrade your hardware. Drivers aren't really an issue anymore, regardless. 10.1->10.5 isn't that much of a change. Apples and oranges indeed.

And the reason for the need to download the Daodan is an issue that has nothing to do with Microsoft and Windows, but with OpenGL and older applications not anticipating for the future.
I wasn't trying to make a point about the Daodan thing, just mentioning that it's the #1 solution ahead of "update your drivers".
Just curious, have you ever upgraded your video card?
No. If it ever happens, it must be behind the scenes in Apple updates, because I've never heard the words "graphics card driver" or "sound card driver" in my life as a Mac user.

I meant a hardware update, not a software one...

Perhaps upgrading to a new service pack is the equivalent of our Mac upgrades, but if so I fail to understand the need for new SKUs every few years (98, 2000, Me, XP, Vista, 7) if they can upgrade the current OS using SPs. Seems rather screwy to me.
Mac "Upgades" = SPs. When you change the underlying kernel to a large extent, you can't use an SP. It is like going from 9 to 10.
That doesn't explain why MS keeps changing the kernel, then :0)

To add new features, increase performance, etc. You _can_ do inplace upgrades, you know. (7 years then 2.5 years isn't "often"!)

From what I can tell, whenever Macs go though a major upgrade, you have to buy new hardware. Go figure.
Huh? Another statement that you'll need to explain to me, in addition to "the Mac approach, which is to disallow their software to be installed anywhere else".

See above, with your statement of changing processor families.

Also, I'm sorry waiting 7 years in between XP and Vista (which isn't bad, after SP1), and then almost three years for Windows 7 is too short for you.
I didn't even try to list all the different kinds of each OS MS releases. Talk about confusing. Apple only has two versions of each OS upgrade: the home edition that most everyone buys, and the Server edition, which is self-explanatory.

What does that have anything to do with it? Generally speaking, the only difference between Home Standard and Premium is the inclusion of Windows Media Center, then you have Professional (not for consumers, duh) with more features oriented for buisnesses, then you have Enterprise\Utlimate (with more features that consumers dont need).

Iritscen wrote:

jackoverfull wrote:
So…I was not the only one to mess up with the system file…:lol:
Nostalgia…:rolleyes:
Hahaha. The good ol' jack-in-a-box. I had many good times with it. The time when I tried to edit my startup message text... not one of those times. Re-installing the OS from like 25 floppy disks was my punishment for that one.
I can't respond to both of you at once.
Well, I'm going to bed, so there's your reprieve. But srsly, we only respond as fast as you do, and there's no need to rush in replying to us. The topic will still be here a week from now, even. Or we could just agree to disagree. I never really enjoy debates, whether I'm winning or losing (and usually it's not clear which is the case, I find).

Yes, but there are two of you and one of me. I don't enjoy debates, per say, but I dislike blatant fanboyism and people who think their way is the only way.

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 22:07

Gumby wrote:

jackoverfull wrote:
You're using windows without an antivirus? Really?:lol:
Yes.

Well…i guess that seven is incompatible with current viruses!

In foreign countries, many do.

In the USA they don't?

All I was saying is that if you want to attack Windows for needing the Daodan to run Oni, I can attack Macs for needing a port to run Oni. It is pretty much a moot point.

mmmh…i'm sorry to write this, but i don't think that you got the situation as it is…

-Bungie did the Mac OS 8/9/Carbon version of oni. This is the "original" version of oni, it was dne with os 8 and 9 in mind and adapted to os x trough carbon, wich was the usual way to do things at the time. In bungie nobody was experienced with carbon (well, nobody was experienced with it at all at the time: it was new!), the carbon version (developed with 10.0 in mind, the oni read me even pointed out something about OS X public beta) had a few problems after a couple of os updates (wasn't playable on 10.2.5, was playable again on 10.2.8 but had mouse problems, don't know afterwards) and stopped to work some time ago. The classic (OS 8/9) version was playable on ppc macs through the Classic environment (a virtualization engine that came with the os that virtualized os 9).

-Bungie developed the windows port of oni (and the xbox one, i think).

-Omnigroup (one of the few companies that knew cocoa at the time) developed the cocoa one, from the same sources and with permission from bungie (they gave them the sources…).

Don't know which port appeared first, but they are all "ports". A "port" isn't a bad thing, is a way to port a software to a different platform. That's all.

Uhh, no. XP->Vista was definately a change. Vista->7 is also a big change. A large deal of the code was rewritten to be faster and less bloated.

Exactly. Just like Tiger (10.4)->Leopard (10.5) was a change. Since 2001 Apple used the digit after the first point for major releases (new oses, "big changes") and the ones after the second for the updates (patches/service packs).

Iritscen wrote:

Hahaha. The good ol' jack-in-a-box. I had many good times with it. The time when I tried to edit my startup message text... not one of those times. Re-installing the OS from like 25 floppy disks was my punishment for that one.

Guess what? My PowerBook 1400cs still boots up with my custom startup screen!

Well, it's probably a miracle that it still startups at all, given all the years that passed and everything that it has been through…

Well, I'm going to bed, so there's your reprieve. But srsly, we only respond as fast as you do, and there's no need to rush in replying to us. The topic will still be here a week from now, even.

I completely agree.

Or we could just agree to disagree. I never really enjoy debates, whether I'm winning or losing (and usually it's not clear which is the case, I find).

And on that too. And agreeing on disagreeing is always a sure way…

Gumby wrote:

Because nobody is using Windows 7.

Well, it still isn't out…

10.1->10.5 isn't that much of a change.

0_O
Seriously, you don't know what you're writing.
10.1 was a relatively small change from 10.0 (they even gave it for free);
10.2 (jaguar) was a relatively big change, with a lot of refined things, added services and applications. It had (in a special version) initial 64 bit compatibility.
10.3 (panther) completed the cycle, becoming a stable, mature, rounded up os, always introducing several new (end-user) features. 64 bit support improved.
10.4 (tiger) delivered a brand-new boot sequence, kernel apis, search system and started to remove some old parts of the system. It was then ported over to a new processor architecture while maintaining backward compatibility. This is something that was never done before by anyone. It was, of course, a full 64 bit os, albeit not yet in the gui.
10.5 (leopard) removed other old parts of the system (netinfo, the old installer format, the classic enviroment…), completed the intel transition, delivered a new virtual memory system (that i find quite resource intensive…:/) and several other features. It support 64 bits in every part of the os other than the kernel.
10.6 (snow leopard) will not be a big change from leopard, it is targeted to improve it in stability, reliability and velocity. The system will be completely build in 64 bit (even the kernel, although it is not yet sure that it will boot that way by default).

Those updates are not "bugfixes and small enhancements", they are full featured os major releases.

What does that have anything to do with it? Generally speaking, the only difference between Home Standard and Premium is the inclusion of Windows Media Center, then you have Professional (not for consumers, duh) with more features oriented for buisnesses, then you have Enterprise\Utlimate (with more features that consumers dont need).

It's just confusing. Why have 3 (4?5?6?7?) versions of an os when you can give one that "just works"?
Especially if you're deploying all versions on the same dvd…

Yes, but there are two of you and one of me. I don't enjoy debates, per say, but I dislike blatant fanboyism and people who think their way is the only way.

I don't think that my way is the only way (and, I guess that I can write the same for Iritscen), i just have an opinion.

And, as i may have said before, i think that the future lies in linux (or maybe something that we haven't seen yet…;)), not in os x. As long that Mac OS X will let me to work better than other oses i will continue to use it as my main os.

Gumby · 07/13/09 22:07

Gumby wrote:
jackoverfull wrote:
You're using windows without an antivirus? Really?:lol:
Yes.
Well…i guess that seven is incompatible with current viruses!

No, I'm just careful. A stupid computer user will end up screwing things over no matter what OS they use.

In foreign countries, many do.
In the USA they don't?

Most botnets are outside of the USA.

All I was saying is that if you want to attack Windows for needing the Daodan to run Oni, I can attack Macs for needing a port to run Oni. It is pretty much a moot point.
mmmh…i'm sorry to write this, but i don't think that you got the situation as it is…
-Bungie did the Mac OS 8/9/Carbon version of oni. This is the "original" version of oni, it was dne with os 8 and 9 in mind and adapted to os x trough carbon, wich was the usual way to do things at the time. In bungie nobody was experienced with carbon (well, nobody was experienced with it at all at the time: it was new!), the carbon version (developed with 10.0 in mind, the oni read me even pointed out something about OS X public beta) had a few problems after a couple of os updates (wasn't playable on 10.2.5, was playable again on 10.2.8 but had mouse problems, don't know afterwards) and stopped to work some time ago. The classic (OS 8/9) version was playable on ppc macs through the Classic environment (a virtualization engine that came with the os that virtualized os 9).
-Bungie developed the windows port of oni (and the xbox one, i think).
-Omnigroup (one of the few companies that knew cocoa at the time) developed the cocoa one, from the same sources and with permission from bungie (they gave them the sources…).
Don't know which port appeared first, but they are all "ports". A "port" isn't a bad thing, is a way to port a software to a different platform. That's all.

A patch isn't a bad thing either.

Uhh, no. XP->Vista was definately a change. Vista->7 is also a big change. A large deal of the code was rewritten to be faster and less bloated.
Exactly. Just like Tiger (10.4)->Leopard (10.5) was a change. Since 2001 Apple used the digit after the first point for major releases (new oses, "big changes") and the ones after the second for the updates (patches/service packs).

Something is telling me that there is no comparison between Mac and PC updates.

Iritscen wrote:
Hahaha. The good ol' jack-in-a-box. I had many good times with it. The time when I tried to edit my startup message text... not one of those times. Re-installing the OS from like 25 floppy disks was my punishment for that one.
Guess what? My PowerBook 1400cs still boots up with my custom startup screen!
Well, it's probably a miracle that it still startups at all, given all the years that passed and everything that it has been through…

Well, I'm going to bed, so there's your reprieve. But srsly, we only respond as fast as you do, and there's no need to rush in replying to us. The topic will still be here a week from now, even.
I completely agree.
Or we could just agree to disagree. I never really enjoy debates, whether I'm winning or losing (and usually it's not clear which is the case, I find).
And on that too. And agreeing on disagreeing is always a sure way…
Gumby wrote:
Because nobody is using Windows 7.
Well, it still isn't out…

Indeed.

10.1->10.5 isn't that much of a change.
0_O
Seriously, you don't know what you're writing.

Sorry, misunderstood Mac updating schema

10.1 was a relatively small change from 10.0 (they even gave it for free);
10.2 (jaguar) was a relatively big change, with a lot of refined things, added services and applications. It had (in a special version) initial 64 bit compatibility.

Ok.

10.3 (panther) completed the cycle, becoming a stable, mature, rounded up os, always introducing several new (end-user) features. 64 bit support improved.

Sounds like a service pack to me.

10.4 (tiger) delivered a brand-new boot sequence, kernel apis, search system and started to remove some old parts of the system. It was then ported over to a new processor architecture while maintaining backward compatibility. This is something that was never done before by anyone. It was, of course, a full 64 bit os, albeit not yet in the gui.

Sounds be akin to Vista->7. Debloating and everything.

10.5 (leopard) removed other old parts of the system (netinfo, the old installer format, the classic enviroment…), completed the intel transition, delivered a new virtual memory system (that i find quite resource intensive…:/) and several other features. It support 64 bits in every part of the os other than the kernel.

Another service pack.

10.6 (snow leopard) will not be a big change from leopard, it is targeted to improve it in stability, reliability and velocity. The system will be completely build in 64 bit (even the kernel, although it is not yet sure that it will boot that way by default).

Not sure, here.

Those updates are not "bugfixes and small enhancements", they are full featured os major releases.

Some of them yes, some of them no.

What does that have anything to do with it? Generally speaking, the only difference between Home Standard and Premium is the inclusion of Windows Media Center, then you have Professional (not for consumers, duh) with more features oriented for buisnesses, then you have Enterprise\Utlimate (with more features that consumers dont need).
It's just confusing. Why have 3 (4?5?6?7?) versions of an os when you can give one that "just works"?
Especially if you're deploying all versions on the same dvd…

I can't answer that.

Yes, but there are two of you and one of me. I don't enjoy debates, per say, but I dislike blatant fanboyism and people who think their way is the only way.
I don't think that my way is the only way (and, I guess that I can write the same for Iritscen), i just have an opinion.
And, as i may have said before, i think that the future lies in linux (or maybe something that we haven't seen yet…;)), not in os x. As long that Mac OS X will let me to work better than other oses i will continue to use it as my main os.

Ok. As Alloc said in the last page, each person has their own preference. That is my main point too, that each OS has its advantages and disadvantages.

jackoverfull · 07/13/09 22:07

Gumby wrote:

No, I'm just careful. A stupid computer user will end up screwing things over no matter what OS they use.

And why a lot of switchers have their windows pc/side of the mac full of malware and their os x systems clean as ever?:rolleyes:

Most botnets are outside of the USA.

So?

A patch isn't a bad thing either.

Sure. So?

is telling me that there is no comparison between Mac and PC updates.

Yes: there isn't an exact match.;)

Sounds like a service pack to me.

Even if we add exposé (new way of manage the desktop), videoconferencing, integrated word support, better file browsing, a revamped ide, a x server, a font manager and home folder encryption? I just wrote a couple of things that i remembered on the fly, look up wikipedia if you want a more throughout analysis…

Sounds be akin to Vista->7. Debloating and everything.

Maybe. Although I'd compare more 10.5->10.6 to that, at least in the basic idea…

Another service pack.

It was probably the most significative update so far, under the hood…:rolleyes:

Some of them yes, some of them no.

All of them, albeit not to the same degree. How can you judge something without knowing it?

Ok. As Alloc said in the last page, each person has their own preference. That is my main point too, that each OS has its advantages and disadvantages.

OK, let's list some windows advantages then!:lol:

I'll start…

-more games (but often the better ones get ported the mac as well).

Gumby · 07/13/09 23:07

I can't properly judge it, I know. But earlier Iritscen was complaining that MS released new SKUs so often, yet Macs seem to have more frequent major updates than that.

Advantages:
More selection of apps.
Good tools for large networks of em (domains and user control and whatnot, Mac might have it too, idk.)

Too tired to think of more atm. Maybe Alloc will help.

jackoverfull · 07/14/09 08:07

Gumby wrote:

I can't properly judge it, I know. But earlier Iritscen was complaining that MS released new SKUs so often, yet Macs seem to have more frequent major updates than that.

Mac OS X major updates are more frequent than windows new oses, these days.

More selection of apps.

But usually every single software has a mac equivalent.

Good tools for large networks of em (domains and user control and whatnot, Mac might have it too, idk.)

Mac os x server is there appositely…
And on the client version you have some control through a couple of graphical utilities, full control if you know how to use the command line unix tools.

Iritscen · 07/14/09 08:07

I'm pretty certain that this is the closest comparison with updates:

Decimal update (10.4 -> 10.5) = New Windows OS
Combo micro update (10.5.1 -> 10.5.5 using a combo updater) = Service Pack

We do in fact have more frequent micro updates. Because rolling out any updates (beyond security fixes, which have to be expedited) is such a massive endeavor when you're a massive company that MS takes the road of rolling large numbers of patches and updates into service packs. They are simply releasing multiple micro updates at once. SPs are free and micro updates are free.

We also do have new SKUs released more often, but they are not variations on the same OS for home users and professionals. They're each clearly delineated upgrades, and Apple's ads will point out what new features can be found in them. It's entirely up to the Mac user whether they want to upgrade or skip a version and catch up later.

My point is that Apple introduces new features without having to constantly retool the OS. It seems that MS loves to get people's attention with constant reinventions (3.11 -> 95 -> XP -> Vista -> 7). That's not something to be proud of; it indicates that MS has no sense of direction (which has always been true). Apple had the one major restart of the OS over the same time period, and since then has shown no interest in re-inventing anything. They simply improve steadily on the good foundation they laid by adopting a Unix-based OS. Because it is less dramatic than introducing a "whole new Windows", you think that our updates are no more than service packs. But the real question is, Why can't MS just lay a good foundation and run with it, like Apple did?

jackoverfull wrote:

i think that the future lies in linux

Really?? I think the future lies in OS X! It's my opinion that the introduction of OS X largely made Linux obsolete -- it has the power of Unix behind it but is actually user-friendly. I know that one is a paid product and one is not, and I know that Linux has gotten better, but it's always felt like an OS for propellerheads to me, not an OS for the common man. But perhaps I'm just skeptical about the whole idea of an open source OS. I'd much rather pay for OS X and use it to run GIMP in X11 and OOo natively than deal with an OS hobbled together by thousands of random people But Linux was a good answer to Windows at the time it was released.

jackoverfull · 07/14/09 08:07

Iritscen wrote:

Really?? I think the future lies in OS X! It's my opinion that the introduction of OS X largely made Linux obsolete -- it has the power of Unix behind it but is actually user-friendly. I know that one is a paid product and one is not, and I know that Linux has gotten better, but it's always felt like an OS for propellerheads to me, not an OS for the common man. But perhaps I'm just skeptical about the whole idea of an open source OS. I'd much rather pay for OS X and use it to run GIMP in X11 and OOo natively than deal with an OS hobbled together by thousands of random people But Linux was a good answer to Windows at the time it was released.

Linux kept improving a lot after the original os x release. Now the gap is smaller and it continues to get smaller, although is still big in certain sectors (user friendliness, for instance). Now that big companies (ibm, google) are interested in it it may even accelerate to fill up those gaps.
And the open source development way seem to work quite well when there is a lot of people working on a common goal without discussing between them on ideological positions. This doesn't happen often, but when it does the results are evident (just look and how was Xorg 2 years ago and how it is now).

Oni Central Forum

#51 07/13/09 18:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#52 07/13/09 19:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#53 07/13/09 19:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#54 07/13/09 20:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#55 07/13/09 20:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#56 07/13/09 20:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#57 07/13/09 20:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#58 07/13/09 20:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#59 07/13/09 20:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#60 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#61 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#62 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#63 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#64 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#65 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#66 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#67 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#68 07/13/09 21:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#69 07/13/09 22:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#70 07/13/09 22:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#71 07/13/09 22:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#72 07/13/09 23:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#73 07/14/09 08:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#74 07/14/09 08:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

#75 07/14/09 08:07

Re: How good are Mac computers?

Board footer