Macintosh Forums

[bradman]

Originally posted by Asher What's wrong with instant switching?
I don't really care if it fades and looks nice, because my Monitor flickers and snaps anyway.

Nothing is wrong with it. If you like instant switching, more power to you. If you like the aesthetics of the gamma fade, you're probably one of those types that prefers most of the other aesthetic things that the MacOS does.

You're telling me you can port a DirectX 8.1 game to Mac with ease?
I wasn't aware that was possible, let alone easy?
If so, someone should try to port Max Payne.

Yes, with ease, at least for 8.0a. I have no idea what you mean when you talk about DX 8.1 - it's certainly not a library available to end-users yet. Someone is porting Max Payne. I wonder which company that could be...Hmm...

I wouldn't mind at all if those same Mac users don't call the Mac the "superior" platform (see above) and all that.

Perhaps they are defensive because this topic was thrust into the Mac forum. One can't walk into a Jewish synagogue, try to convert people to Christ and expect no harsh words directed one's way. However, as you indicated, it did start in the Off-Topic section, so there's blame plenty to go around.

The hardware is lacking, and until now the OS was just pathetic.
Couple that with very limited selection and overpriced systems and you've got yourself a pretty weak system.

For starters, I don't consider the hardware to be lacking. What exactly is missing? As you indicated above, it's hard - very hard - to find anything to stress a modern CPU. And if you manage to do so, what percentage of people do you figure _need_ that kind of power?

Secondly, consider how much technology - useful technology - makes it into Apple products first. They have a track record that includes the mouse, the laser printer, the removal of the floppy, IEEE1394 (Firewire) and most recently Airport (802.11). As a company, they tend to put their balls on the line with new tech and I greatly admire them for that.

Also, if you judge the Mac on price and software selection, you are missing valid reasons why someone would use a Mac. Not everyone loves Windows, the x86 design or the magnitude of selection that goes along with choosing a PC. For a number of users, a computer can be a very overwhelming thing. As much as I didn't personally care for the iMac when it first came out, it's success underscores this point.

And I must admit, the Apple marketing bullsh*t really gets to me too. That's where my dislike for Macs comes from, mostly.

No company is perfect in that regard. I've never really been a fan of Apple's marketing either. They tend to underscore the exact opposite points that I would, and do it in a very benign, touchy-feely way.

Brad

[Wiglaf]

And which article says WinXP isn't stable?

Time, first few pages, probably last week's or this week's, can't remember. they said "it's possible to go 3-5 days without crashing" - hardly encouraging.

LOL!
You can get a Duron 600MHz for $27 alone. (www.pricewatch.com)
128MB RAM is ~$10 now
Motherboard for the Duron: $38
Power supply for Duron: $8
Fan: $1-2
etc.
As you can see, you can get a pretty speedy PC for $200.
Wouldn't want to, but you could.

you'd have to build it with internet ordered parts, and besides that, your price isn't accurate. a monitor is $100-200 depending on quality, the OS is another $100 (200?), etc. You can't buy a 600MHz PC for anywhere near $200, and if you could it'd be full of cheap parts anyway.

as for winXP, you're probably right that it isn't 'spyware'. but it does monitor the user by preventing certain actions - although they are in most cases illegal, it does set off some red flags about the average user's privacy in the months and years to come.

If you would bother to check the sysreqs for Max Payne, and compare that to what you can build on the Dell site for cheap.
Of course not everybody buys for Max Payne.
But again: You don't need an iMac to surf the net or use word processing (you make it sound like it's okay because it CAN do that). You can do all of that on a PC, PLUS play games like Max Payne...

Dell 256RAM Geforce ti200 P4 1.7 GHz = $2000. that ain't 'cheap'. anything below that might be able to run max, but not as well as some say it should and the system would still come out fairly costly.

Macs are stable, the OS is awesome and very resistant to reboots, the software is generally improved (ranging from SMAC to OfficeX), everything is easy to set up (forget that on your PC scenario earlier), and especially in college, the reliability is a must.

Do we get Half-Life? Do we get civ3 earlier? no, but software availability isn't everything. some of us want support, a rock solid setup, and something you can actually trust to work most of the time over games and stuff like that.

if you love to play the latest and greatest software, obviously macs come out far behind. the strength apple has is in other areas - namely stability, reliability, and ease of use.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Time, first few pages, probably last week's or this week's, can't remember. they said "it's possible to go 3-5 days without crashing" - hardly encouraging.

Sorry, I've never seen it.
Point to some online.
Every single on I've read online glowed about stability.

you'd have to build it with internet ordered parts, and besides that, your price isn't accurate. a monitor is $100-200 depending on quality, the OS is another $100 (200?), etc. You can't buy a 600MHz PC for anywhere near $200, and if you could it'd be full of cheap parts anyway.

Fair enough, $500 sounds about right.
And even then, a 600MHz Duron is quite a bit faster than a 333MHz G3 (That's what's in those cheap iMacs, right?)

Dell 256RAM Geforce ti200 P4 1.7 GHz = $2000. that ain't 'cheap'. anything below that might be able to run max, but not as well as some say it should and the system would still come out fairly costly.

My price came out differently: $1507.
And even then, you don't need a P4 1.7GHz to play Max Payne.
You can get away with a Celeron 800MHz easily, which is much much cheaper.

Macs are stable, the OS is awesome and very resistant to reboots, the software is generally improved (ranging from SMAC to OfficeX), everything is easy to set up (forget that on your PC scenario earlier), and especially in college, the reliability is a must.

You keep rehashing unfounded arguments.
1) OS X's stability is on par with XP's, there is no extra inherent stability.
2) The "generally improved" software obviously doesn't extend to the selection and choice, but even then, your examples are fairly weak (Mac's Office is certainly not better. If anything, they're equal, but the PC version has more features).

Do we get Half-Life? Do we get civ3 earlier? no, but software availability isn't everything. some of us want support, a rock solid setup, and something you can actually trust to work most of the time over games and stuff like that.

So buy Dell or Alienware or Voodoo or some other good company.

if you love to play the latest and greatest software, obviously macs come out far behind. the strength apple has is in other areas - namely stability, reliability, and ease of use.

Stability?!
Until now, there was not ONE mainstream OS that was considered remarkably stable on the Mac. OS X is the first. But it's too bad the PC has a similar OS with stability and ease of use, now.
Reliability: All of my PCs are entirely reliable, you make it sound as if they all die after 1 or 2 years.
Ease of use: You've obviously not used WinXP much (if at all).

[Asher]

Originally posted by bradman
Yes, with ease, at least for 8.0a. I have no idea what you mean when you talk about DX 8.1 - it's certainly not a library available to end-users yet. Someone is porting Max Payne. I wonder which company that could be...Hmm...

DirectX 8.1 is a minor update to support new pixel/vertex shader programs to support the new ATi Radeon 8500.

I was completely unaware you could port heavy DirectX games 'with ease' to the Mac. Can you give some examples of some Direct3D games ported to the Mac?
Are you saying Max Payne is coming to the Mac ala Westlake?

For starters, I don't consider the hardware to be lacking. What exactly is missing? As you indicated above, it's hard - very hard - to find anything to stress a modern CPU. And if you manage to do so, what percentage of people do you figure _need_ that kind of power?

That argument would be much better if you aren't paying the same for a G4 (weaker CPU) as a P4 (much stronger CPU).
While it is true most people don't even come close to needing that power, why would you pay the same, or more, for a chip that will do less for you? What if you wanted to convert your DVDs into 600MB MPEG-4s for your own personal media collection? What if you wanted to play Max Payne decently when it comes out?

Secondly, consider how much technology - useful technology - makes it into Apple products first. They have a track record that includes the mouse, the laser printer, the removal of the floppy, IEEE1394 (Firewire) and most recently Airport (802.11). As a company, they tend to put their balls on the line with new tech and I greatly admire them for that.

Mouse: Sorry, didn't Xerox do that?
Laser printer: Sorry, didn't Xerox do that?
Removal of floppy: Intel decided to do this starting 2002, but they're reconsidering it because of a huge backlash of PC users who still want to use a floppy drive.
IEEE1394: I've never once used FireWire, even though I've got a FireWire port on the back of my SoundCard. I'm looking forward to USB2, though.

Also, if you judge the Mac on price and software selection, you are missing valid reasons why someone would use a Mac. Not everyone loves Windows, the x86 design or the magnitude of selection that goes along with choosing a PC. For a number of users, a computer can be a very overwhelming thing. As much as I didn't personally care for the iMac when it first came out, it's success underscores this point.

If the computer is an overwhelming thing, why would they "not love x86"? They wouldn't even know what that is.
I urge you try become acquanted with Windows XP and then judge how "hard" it is to use Windows now.

No company is perfect in that regard. I've never really been a fan of Apple's marketing either. They tend to underscore the exact opposite points that I would, and do it in a very benign, touchy-feely way.

Where would Apple Marketing be today without Photoshop?

[Wiglaf]

And even then, a 600MHz Duron is quite a bit faster than a 333MHz G3 (That's what's in those cheap iMacs, right?)

500MHz G3

My price came out differently: $1507.
And even then, you don't need a P4 1.7GHz to play Max Payne.
You can get away with a Celeron 800MHz easily, which is much much cheaper.

I take it that system doesn't include a DVDROM, CDRW, any sort of useable warranty, hard drive, or operating system? that's the only way it comes out to be around $1500.

(Mac's Office is certainly not better. If anything, they're equal, but the PC version has more features).

and how exactly do you know that?

Ease of use: You've obviously not used WinXP much (if at all).

mac products are generally very easy to set up and run - the OS isn't all there is to it.

[Asher]

dp

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I take it that system doesn't include a DVDROM, CDRW, any sort of useable warranty, hard drive, or operating system? that's the only way it comes out to be around $1500.

Okay then.
A P4 1.7GHz, 256mb RAM, DVDROM (16x), a warranty (1 year -- you dont need any more w/ Dell), a 40GB (7200 rpm, UltraATA/100) hard drive, 17" monitor, 16x/10x/32x CD-RW, and Windows XP:
$1,507.00
Try it out for yourself.

and how exactly do you know that?

Compare the feature lists yourself.

mac products are generally very easy to set up and run - the OS isn't all there is to it.

And PC products are hard to install and run?
Windows Installer/InstallShield are as easy as it can get.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Asher
And PC products are hard to install and run?
Windows Installer/InstallShield are as easy as it can get.

Until you try to uninstall a program....

[Asher]

Hrm.
Let's see...
Most programs have a thing on the start menu labeled 'Uninstall (program name)'.
It asks if you're sure, and then you hit 'Okay' and it works.

If the program doesn't have an uninstall program, you just go into "Add/Remove Programs" (oh how cryptic, eh?) and select the program you want to remove, and click 'Remove'.

The following image was shrunk a bit to fit on the board.

[Drake Tungsten]

You should go to C-Net, Asher. The public is ripping XP apart. It seems that many others are worried about Microsoft's "Big Brother" approach, not just Mac users. Here's my favorite quote...

I think my wife summed it up best when after looking at my monitor and seeing Windows XP running, she said, "Is that a Macintosh you are using?"

But Luna isn't an attempt to copy OS X's Aqua interface.....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You should go to C-Net, Asher. The public is ripping XP apart. It seems that many others are worried about Microsoft's "Big Brother" approach, not just Mac users. Here's my favorite quote...

Let's see some of the CNet comments ripping XP apart:

• Streamlined interface; better performance on many systems; easier and more capable networking; integrated CD-R/RW playback and burn features; Pro version's Remote Assistance tool aids troubleshooting and control of remote PCs.
  
• XP is a worthwhile upgrade. And unless you need corporate administration tools, XP Home Edition should suffice for most--even for small businesses.
  
• So is XP worth all the hype? Grudgingly, we say yes. This major upgrade at long last ends the distinction between the corporate (and more stable) NT/2000 Windows and the consumer-oriented Windows 95/98/Millennium. XP provides similar variations of the same OS for both home and business: XP Home and XP Professional editions. On the outside, XP looks radically different from any previous Windows version. It's spiffier, with both aesthetic and functional redesigns, and features login screens for home and corporate systems alike--something many Windows 95/98 users have never seen.
  
• Like any radical overhaul, XP takes some getting used to--we often lost patience with it--but, after time, it's hard not to like the new design. While its new, hand-holding "task-oriented" design may annoy experienced users, Microsoft nevertheless managed to create an OS that works equally well for novices, corporate users, and enthusiasts.
  

The review continues to rave about it more. Of course most people don't like activating it, it stops them from pirating! Duh.

But Luna isn't an attempt to copy OS X's Aqua interface.....

Have you USED Aqua and then USED Luna?
The ONLY thing they have in common is the default 'blue' look! And 'Silver' looks much better, anyway.
Quite honestly, she probably assumed it was a Mac because Windows has looked the same for over 6 years, and XP looks much more colorful. Apple is known for being colorful, so she assumed it was a Macintosh. Are you saying that Apple can make the only colorful GUI now?

ps: very slick how you dropped the 'uninstall' issue.

[Drake Tungsten]

I was referring to the reader reviews (only 47% think it's worth the upgrade), not the Cnet review itself. Even so, were those the best things they had to say?

So is XP worth all the hype? Grudgingly, we say yes.

That isn't a "rave" review, at least in my understanding of the term. They also criticized the activation process and the privacy invasions in XP, like many other people.

Why can't you just admit that XP, while good for a Windows OS, is still just another attempt by Microsoft to catch up to Apple? Are you so brain-washed by Bill and Co. that you can't see the obivous asthetic similarities between OS X and XP? How can you defend a company that only allows you to install their OS on one computer? A company that makes you pay near full price for a second installation? Microsoft's behavior is getting out of control and Mac users aren't the only ones who think so. Wake up and realize that just because Windows is the most popular OS, that doesn't make it the best. I'm getting sick of your trolling in the Mac forums.... go somewhere else if you want to spout your pro-M$ rhetoric.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I was referring to the reader reviews (only 47% think it's worth the upgrade), not the Cnet review itself. Even so, were those the best things they had to say?

Most of those users don't even have it.
I mean, really: How many people would actually have Windows XP on its release?
Much of them are probably anti-MS Linux zealots.
Ask anyone who has used it: It's awesome.
Everyone I know who uses it loves it.

That isn't a "rave" review, at least in my understanding of the term. They also criticized the activation process and the privacy invasions in XP, like many other people.

What 'privacy invasions'?
First of all, never once are you required to give it your name or anything like that.
Second of all, the only "data" they receive from your computer is a hash value consisting of model numbers and the serial number on your drive, etc. Completely useless to anyone but them to see if you're using the software legally.

Why can't you just admit that XP, while good for a Windows OS, is still just another attempt by Microsoft to catch up to Apple?

ROFLMAO!
That's great stuff!

Are you so brain-washed by Bill and Co. that you can't see the obivous asthetic similarities between OS X and XP?

Describe these to me, please.
I'd like to know how they look so very similar!

How can you defend a company that only allows you to install their OS on one computer? A company that makes you pay near full price for a second installation? Microsoft's behavior is getting out of control and Mac users aren't the only ones who think so. Wake up and realize that just because Windows is the most popular OS, that doesn't make it the best. I'm getting sick of your trolling in the Mac forums.... go somewhere else if you want to spout your pro-M$ rhetoric.

I didn't troll in the Mac forum, I trolled in the Off-Topic forum.
It was moved here.
Second of all, you should wake up.
EVERY MacOS prior to X was a complete pile of crap.
So were Windows 9x.
But NT, 2000, and XP are amazing OSes.
OS X ain't bad either, but it's not better than XP.
XP may not be better than OS X either.

But you're a damn fool if you think XP is Microsoft trying to catch up to Apple.
Apple is the one trying to play catchup.
They couldn't design their own real OS kernel in time to compete with Microsoft's, so they took a BSD one and kludged on an flashy, but not very functional interface. They rushed OS X out the door before it was even finished.
I mean, until recently you couldn't even burn with OS X!
OS X still lacks the sweet built in libraries like DirectX 8.1.
The list goes on.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, it's obvious that I'm never going to be able to show you the light...not that I really care. If you want to continue to believe that Bill Gates is the Messiah and Microsoft is the greatest corporation in the world, go right ahead. I'm comfortable with my decision to buy a Mac and don't really care what you think. I leave you with this little snippet....

Users trying to access Microsoft's MSN.com with a non-Microsoft browser are finding themselves locked out.

While the software leviathan's Internet Explorer easily reaches MSN, other browsers--such as Netscape Navigator, Opera and Mozilla--run into trouble.

Using the most recent browser from Mozilla.org to reach MSN brings a message from Microsoft saying it has "detected that the browser that you are using will not render MSN.com correctly." Mozilla.org does open-source browser development for AOL Time Warner's Netscape Communications unit.

"Additionally, you'll see the most advanced functionality of MSN.com only with the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer or MSN Explorer," the message continues.

The page then provides several links for users to download versions of Internet Explorer for Windows, Macintosh and MSN Explorer.

They sure are a great company, aren't they? You would think that M$ would show a little mercy after destroying Netscape, but I guess Bill is against that. And .NET is a perfectly innocent plan.....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well, it's obvious that I'm never going to be able to show you the light...not that I really care. If you want to continue to believe that Bill Gates is the Messiah and Microsoft is the greatest corporation in the world, go right ahead. I'm comfortable with my decision to buy a Mac and don't really care what you think. I leave you with this little snippet....

I'm glad you're comfortable with it.
Keep buying Mac.

They sure are a great company, aren't they? You would think that M$ would show a little mercy after destroying Netscape, but I guess Bill is against that. And .NET is a perfectly innocent plan.....

MS is a pretty nasty company to compete with. No one will never deny that.
But they did not destroy netscape: Netscape still exists, and they keep making crap products.

And you apparently know nothing about .NET.
.NET will be able to run on things like Linux (And Apple too if somebody makes a client thingie).
Ximian is already making an official .NET interface for Linux.