Discussion:
XP vs Mac OS
(too old to reply)
Martik
2003-11-01 04:38:20 UTC
Permalink
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.

I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC. Hardware and software
for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run XP on a old Pentium
200 with no problems.

I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa. Everyone is
entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed because of
it. Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used these as
well). Let's all try to get along!
George Graves
2003-11-01 05:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC. Hardware and software
for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run XP on a old Pentium
200 with no problems.
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa. Everyone is
entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed because of
it. Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used these as
well). Let's all try to get along!
Why? This would be a boring place indeed if we all "just got along."
--
George Graves
NFish
2003-11-01 06:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
[...]

What's even funnier is how every so often someone comes along and tries
to give a sort of definitive resolution of whatever problem he or she
sees in this newsgroup.
Snit
2003-11-01 07:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
True, *especially* when people do not rarely talk about facts...
Post by Martik
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC.
Ok, being nit-picky here, but if you call a Mac a "MAC" you probably do not
know them well. Still, people can prefer whatever makes them happy... No
problem with that from me.
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run
XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
While you can get cheaper hardware to run Windows, buying a PC from a major
vender that is equipped like a Mac usually comes to about the same. There
was a recent debate on here, and in most cases the Mac was even cheaper. Of
course, it depends on what you call "equal", so I am happy to just say they
are pretty close.
Post by Martik
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa.
Yup. I have put a page together to looks at the pros and cons of each:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html

While a few fanatics on either side will debate a point here or there, for
the most part it stands fairly uncontested.
Post by Martik
Everyone is entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed
because of it.
Exactly.
Post by Martik
Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used
these as well). Let's all try to get along!
But where would this group be without our resident wintrolls to make things
fun? Damn. I think I just admitted that I sometimes enjoy their silliness.
Martik
2003-11-01 07:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Good webpage but Mac OS X biased - 4 Mac disadvantages and 30 XP seems
somewhat unfair.
In my case, a Mac will never be cheaper because I always build or purchase
no-name computers. You can buy a complete system (1.8Ghz AMD, 40 GB, 128MB
ddr) w/o monitor for under $200 now. I can upgrade a Duron 700 to a Barton
2500 in 10 mins for $80. Try upgrading a monitor built in to the case?
Major vendor PC's all use proprietory MB's, cases, PS's so you cannot
upgrade or repair without their overpriced parts.

TCO may apply to a corporation with high priced service contracts and staff
but to the average PC user is meaningless.

I must agree the wintrolls are mucho entertaining!
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
True, *especially* when people do not rarely talk about facts...
Post by Martik
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC.
Ok, being nit-picky here, but if you call a Mac a "MAC" you probably do not
know them well. Still, people can prefer whatever makes them happy... No
problem with that from me.
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run
XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
While you can get cheaper hardware to run Windows, buying a PC from a major
vender that is equipped like a Mac usually comes to about the same. There
was a recent debate on here, and in most cases the Mac was even cheaper.
Of
Post by Snit
course, it depends on what you call "equal", so I am happy to just say they
are pretty close.
Post by Martik
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
While a few fanatics on either side will debate a point here or there, for
the most part it stands fairly uncontested.
Post by Martik
Everyone is entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed
because of it.
Exactly.
Post by Martik
Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used
these as well). Let's all try to get along!
But where would this group be without our resident wintrolls to make things
fun? Damn. I think I just admitted that I sometimes enjoy their silliness.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-01 09:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Good webpage but Mac OS X biased - 4 Mac disadvantages and 30 XP seems
somewhat unfair.
In my case, a Mac will never be cheaper because I always build or purchase
no-name computers. You can buy a complete system (1.8Ghz AMD, 40 GB, 128MB
ddr) w/o monitor for under $200 now. I can upgrade a Duron 700 to a Barton
2500 in 10 mins for $80.
IME you get what you pay for. Especially with Macs.

I've got a 2.6Ghz 1G PC-3200 DDR P4 machine (totally homebuilt)
upstairs, but am typing this on my 800Mhz PBG4 sitting on my couch
connected via 802.11b.
Post by Martik
Try upgrading a monitor built in to the case?
Try buying a G5 tower (or PowerBook) then. Problem solved.
Post by Martik
Major vendor PC's all use proprietory MB's, cases, PS's so you cannot
upgrade or repair without their overpriced parts.
I build from parts too, and I agree it is x86's greatest strength, but
nothing available from x86 parts vendors like newegg or pricewatch can
match the build quality of the new G5 tower.
Post by Martik
TCO may apply to a corporation with high priced service contracts and staff
but to the average PC user is meaningless.
No, TCO applies to everyone whose time is not worthless.
Snit
2003-11-01 11:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Good webpage but Mac OS X biased - 4 Mac disadvantages and 30 XP seems
somewhat unfair.
I am open to suggestions for improvement. Do you have specific points which
you feel are inaccurate or missing?
Post by Martik
In my case, a Mac will never be cheaper because I always build or purchase
no-name computers. You can buy a complete system (1.8Ghz AMD, 40 GB, 128MB
ddr) w/o monitor for under $200 now. I can upgrade a Duron 700 to a Barton
2500 in 10 mins for $80. Try upgrading a monitor built in to the case?
Major vendor PC's all use proprietory MB's, cases, PS's so you cannot
upgrade or repair without their overpriced parts.
TCO may apply to a corporation with high priced service contracts and staff
but to the average PC user is meaningless.
I must agree the wintrolls are mucho entertaining!
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
True, *especially* when people do not rarely talk about facts...
Post by Martik
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel
more
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC.
Ok, being nit-picky here, but if you call a Mac a "MAC" you probably do
not
Post by Snit
know them well. Still, people can prefer whatever makes them happy... No
problem with that from me.
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I
even run
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
While you can get cheaper hardware to run Windows, buying a PC from a
major
Post by Snit
vender that is equipped like a Mac usually comes to about the same. There
was a recent debate on here, and in most cases the Mac was even cheaper.
Of
Post by Snit
course, it depends on what you call "equal", so I am happy to just say
they
Post by Snit
are pretty close.
Post by Martik
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
While a few fanatics on either side will debate a point here or there, for
the most part it stands fairly uncontested.
Post by Martik
Everyone is entitled to their preferences and they should not be
ridiculed
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
because of it.
Exactly.
Post by Martik
Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used
these as well). Let's all try to get along!
But where would this group be without our resident wintrolls to make
things
Post by Snit
fun? Damn. I think I just admitted that I sometimes enjoy their
silliness.
Martik
2003-11-01 22:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Ok, I will comment on each. I think many of these are differences between the 2 OS's rather than disadvantages.


Win XP Disadvantages
Silly or almost inexcusable bug / missing feature common on XP systems
1.. Big Brotherish registration restrictions Agree (Use a 'pre-activated' version from Kazaa)
2.. Child window oddities (MDI: Multiple Document Interface) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
3.. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
4.. DLL hell (MS does claim that XP "helps to address [this]" Have not had a problem with XP in 2 years
5.. Dragged files follow weird rules Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
6.. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are checked Agreed
7.. Drive types handled differently (floppy vs CD vs Zip) Because they have diff properties
8.. FAT (8.3) legacy file names Invisible to most users
9.. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this necessary?
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
11.. Files in use can not be moved or renamed This is an advantage!
12.. Font folder oddities (have to rebuild, names change when fonts moved) There are too many dam fonts
13.. Greater need to get new drivers It is amazing how many types of HW XP does detect. I would call this a significant advantage
14.. Greater reliance on paths YES
15.. Hardware compatibility errors are common Disagree, see 13.
16.. Inconsistent close boxes (saves, cancels, or warns) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
17.. Inconsistent quick keys (example: Control-C does not copy in Telnet) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
18.. Install/uninstall; spews all over hard drive Agreed, but most modern programs have an uninstall and XP tracks this fairly well.
19.. Left/right handed mice This is an advantage,
20.. Menu inconstancies (example: start button / menu / thingy) Why?
21.. Multiple pull-downs (easily overshot or confused) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
22.. OS installation is time consuming Takes me 30 mins to repartition and install XP on a AMD 2.1GHz
23.. Pop up balloon"help" that gets in the way of working with the computer That's like saying an instruction manual gets in the way configuring your cell phone.
24.. Registry What's wrong with it How does Mac OS do this?
25.. Special folders with inconsistent rules (My Computer, Fonts, etc.) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
26.. Taskbar oddities (items are not tasks) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
27.. Viruses - lots and lots of'm! Agreed, but why make a virus for Macs with such a small market share
28.. Vulnerabilities keep popping up Vague
29.. Wildcard inconsistencies Such as?
30.. Window view oddities (no folder sizes) Right click on properties
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Good webpage but Mac OS X biased - 4 Mac disadvantages and 30 XP seems
somewhat unfair.
I am open to suggestions for improvement. Do you have specific points which
you feel are inaccurate or missing?
Post by Martik
In my case, a Mac will never be cheaper because I always build or purchase
no-name computers. You can buy a complete system (1.8Ghz AMD, 40 GB, 128MB
ddr) w/o monitor for under $200 now. I can upgrade a Duron 700 to a Barton
2500 in 10 mins for $80. Try upgrading a monitor built in to the case?
Major vendor PC's all use proprietory MB's, cases, PS's so you cannot
upgrade or repair without their overpriced parts.
TCO may apply to a corporation with high priced service contracts and staff
but to the average PC user is meaningless.
I must agree the wintrolls are mucho entertaining!
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
True, *especially* when people do not rarely talk about facts...
Post by Martik
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel
more
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC.
Ok, being nit-picky here, but if you call a Mac a "MAC" you probably do
not
Post by Snit
know them well. Still, people can prefer whatever makes them happy... No
problem with that from me.
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I
even run
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
While you can get cheaper hardware to run Windows, buying a PC from a
major
Post by Snit
vender that is equipped like a Mac usually comes to about the same. There
was a recent debate on here, and in most cases the Mac was even cheaper.
Of
Post by Snit
course, it depends on what you call "equal", so I am happy to just say
they
Post by Snit
are pretty close.
Post by Martik
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win.html
While a few fanatics on either side will debate a point here or there, for
the most part it stands fairly uncontested.
Post by Martik
Everyone is entitled to their preferences and they should not be
ridiculed
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
because of it.
Exactly.
Post by Martik
Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used
these as well). Let's all try to get along!
But where would this group be without our resident wintrolls to make
things
Post by Snit
fun? Damn. I think I just admitted that I sometimes enjoy their
silliness.
Snit
2003-11-02 07:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Ok, I will comment on each. I think many of these are differences between the
2 OS's rather than disadvantages.
First, let me thank you for the time you have spent looking at / reviewing
my site. Even where I disagree with you, you seem sincere in your critique,
and not just having a knee-jerk reaction as is common in here.
Post by Martik
Win XP Disadvantages
Silly or almost inexcusable bug / missing feature common on XP systems
1. Big Brotherish registration restrictions Agree (Use a 'pre-activated'
version from Kazaa)
2. Child window oddities (MDI: Multiple Document Interface) Not significant
enough to be a disadvantage
This may not be particularly significant to someone who knows how to work
around it, but for new (or non techy) users it is a confusion and a pain.
For anyone, it often breaks the metaphor created by the "task bar". With
child windows, what is a task.
Post by Martik
3. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
Where is the question here? When control panels are added by programs,
there is no easy way to remove them. For that matter, there is no easy way
to remove or replace them. While Classic Mac was even easier than OS X, OS
X makes that much easier. That and other customizations, really (except for
skinning, which is easier on Windows).
Post by Martik
4. DLL hell (MS does claim
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/features.asp> that XP
"helps to address [this]" Have not had a problem with XP in 2 years
Does not change the fact that DLL hell has gotten so bad that MS has adopted
the term
Post by Martik
5. Dragged files follow weird rules
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win_detail.html#dragrules> Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
Inconsistencies with common features makes a BIG difference.
Post by Martik
6. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are checked Agreed
7. Drive types handled differently (floppy vs CD vs Zip) Because they have
diff properties
Why should they?
Post by Martik
8. FAT (8.3) legacy file names
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win_detail.html#eight3> Invisible to most
users
Look at the additional info on my page. Even now XP uses 8.3 names.
Post by Martik
9. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this
necessary?
On my Mac, PDF's are generally opened by Preview. Some I want opened by
Acrobat Reader. On Windows, there is no way to set this.
Post by Martik
10. File name limitations What limitations?
?\/!* and many others.
Post by Martik
11. Files in use can not be moved or renamed This is an advantage!
At times it is. Look at the Mac disadvantages. I want the best of both
worlds, and there is no technical reason this could not happen.
Post by Martik
12. Font folder oddities (have to rebuild, names change when fonts moved)
There are too many dam fonts
That is not relevant to the font folder not working as it should. Is true
even if you just have a few fonts.
Post by Martik
13. Greater need to get new drivers It is amazing how many types of HW XP does
detect. I would call this a significant advantage
A tools need for greater maintenance is not an advantage.
Post by Martik
14. Greater reliance on paths YES
15. Hardware compatibility errors are common Disagree, see 13.
16. Inconsistent close boxes (saves, cancels, or warns) Not significant enough
to be a disadvantage
Inconsistencies with common features makes a BIG difference. Perhaps I
should add that some Mac progs can stay open with no Windows and some can
not. That is sort of the Mac weakness that is comparable... Hmmm... Added.
:)
Post by Martik
17. Inconsistent quick keys (example: Control-C does not copy in Telnet) Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
Becoming less so than earlier versions of Windows. I will examine this one.
Post by Martik
18. Install/uninstall; spews all over hard drive Agreed, but most modern
programs have an uninstall and XP tracks this fairly well.
Fairly well... To me not well enough. I have seen it fail on many systems
with many configs.
Post by Martik
19. Left/right handed mice This is an advantage,
Having a choice is an advantage, one that is shared by Mac and Win.
Insisting on having mice which are set for left OR right handed people is
not. On a Mac, the default is to have a mouse that works for left handed
people as well as right. Esp in lab situations, this makes a big
difference.
Post by Martik
20. Menu inconstancies (example: start button / menu / thingy) Why?
Poor design? Hard to say. Oh... Why is this a disadvantage? Harder to
predict behavior. Mackido.com used to have a great article on this one.
Post by Martik
21. Multiple pull-downs (easily overshot or confused
<http://www.mackido.com/Interface/menu_target.html#Target%20Size> ) Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
Slows down work, makes it hard to get to the File Menu (perhaps the most
common menu) without hitting the menu above it. Very annoying.
Post by Martik
22. OS installation is time consuming Takes me 30 mins to repartition and
install XP on a AMD 2.1GHz
Still takes longer and requires more baby sitting than OS X.
Post by Martik
23. Pop up balloon"help" that gets in the way of working with the computer
That's like saying an instruction manual gets in the way configuring your cell
phone.
The damned pop ups have popped up to tell me that they are configured to not
pop something up. Wish I had taken a screen shot. They are absurd. You can
close a manual easily. The balloons get in the way.
Post by Martik
24. Registry What's wrong with it How does Mac OS do this?
One set of files that are touched by almost every program; when they go
corrupt you must depend on a backup or essentially start from scratch. Poor
design in too many ways to name. The Mac does not have anything like that.
Post by Martik
25. Special folders with inconsistent rules (My Computer, Fonts, etc.) Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
Disagree. Again, different rules in different places for no reason and/or
poor indication is a bad idea.
Post by Martik
26. Taskbar oddities (items are not tasks) Not significant enough to be a
disadvantage
Makes it hard to work with programs. That is significant.
Post by Martik
27. Viruses - lots and lots of'm! Agreed, but why make a virus for Macs with
such a small market share
Why use an OS that is so open to attack?
Post by Martik
28. Vulnerabilities keep popping up Vague
Look at all the fixes from MS in the last year. Seems to be a new one every
other day.
Post by Martik
29. Wildcard inconsistencies Such as?
What does * mean in different commands? How about "?"? It is not
consistent.
Post by Martik
30. Window view oddities (no folder sizes) Right click on properties
How do I sort by size, INCLUDING folder sizes. Very useful for finding
wasted space.


Again... Thanks or the input. I do appreciate it.
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-09 13:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
3. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
Where is the question here? When control panels are added by programs,
there is no easy way to remove them. For that matter, there is no easy way
to remove or replace them. While Classic Mac was even easier than OS X, OS
X makes that much easier. That and other customizations, really (except for
skinning, which is easier on Windows).
If You download Microsoft's free Power Toys app you can easily do this
and many other things.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
5. Dragged files follow weird rules
If you right click and drag in Windows it eliminates this problem and
gives you a whole list of new opyions to boot.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
6. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are checked Agreed
Drives ARE handled better in OSX. That I will agree with.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
8. FAT (8.3) legacy file names
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win_detail.html#eight3> Invisible to most
users
Look at the additional info on my page. Even now XP uses 8.3 names.
This is simply for backward compatability and is not an issue unless
you are using ancient 16 bit apps. The examples given on your web site
are noy Microsoft's fault. They are names given by the software
companies. Why they do this is beyond me. Maybe it's old habits. Maybe
they're lazy. It is not necessary. They could name them anything they
want. As an experiment I have downloaded many installation programs
with names like that, changed the name to something else and the
program installed just fine.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
9. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this
necessary?
On my Mac, PDF's are generally opened by Preview. Some I want opened by
Acrobat Reader. On Windows, there is no way to set this.
By using the right mouse button I get a list of things to do including
the ability to choose any program I want.
Many of your points are valid but not enough to convince me to switch
to an OS I am very happy with.

Tom
Snit
2003-11-09 18:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
3. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
Where is the question here? When control panels are added by programs,
there is no easy way to remove them. For that matter, there is no easy way
to remove or replace them. While Classic Mac was even easier than OS X, OS
X makes that much easier. That and other customizations, really (except for
skinning, which is easier on Windows).
If You download Microsoft's free Power Toys app you can easily do this
and many other things.
So you have to download an unsupported hack made by the company that made
the OS. Fair enough... I will investigate and add an <xp can get> if
appropriate.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
5. Dragged files follow weird rules
If you right click and drag in Windows it eliminates this problem and
gives you a whole list of new opyions to boot.
Yes, there is a work around for the bug. That does not make the bug go
away.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
6. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are checked Agreed
Drives ARE handled better in OSX. That I will agree with.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
8. FAT (8.3) legacy file names
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win_detail.html#eight3> Invisible to
most users
Look at the additional info on my page. Even now XP uses 8.3 names.
This is simply for backward compatability and is not an issue unless
you are using ancient 16 bit apps.
Or are looking at file names
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The examples given on your web site are noy Microsoft's fault. They are names
given by the software companies.
I use apps from both MS and other companies.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Why they do this is beyond me. Maybe it's old habits. Maybe
they're lazy. It is not necessary. They could name them anything they
want.
So this weakness COULD be reduced or removed from Windows. When or if it
is, I will update the site to reflect that.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
As an experiment I have downloaded many installation programs
with names like that, changed the name to something else and the
program installed just fine.
Installed, perhaps. But many do not run well - or they are not recognized
by other programs. In any case, it is not reasonable to expect a user to
know that msimn.exe is Outlook Express and then rename it (for example).
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
9. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this
necessary?
On my Mac, PDF's are generally opened by Preview. Some I want opened by
Acrobat Reader. On Windows, there is no way to set this.
By using the right mouse button I get a list of things to do including
the ability to choose any program I want.
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Many of your points are valid but not enough to convince me to switch
to an OS I am very happy with.
Fair enough. Never claimed to be trying to get anyone to switch - just to
educate others (and myself) and to help people make informed choices.
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-09 23:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
So this weakness COULD be reduced or removed from Windows. When or if it
is, I will update the site to reflect that.
It is not a weakness. It is a choice. The examples you give could have
been given better names If the programmers had chosen to do so. They
are not "required to do so. I have no answer as to why such cryptic
names are used. I only know it is not necessary.
Post by Snit
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Mac's don't come with a 3 button mouse do they or is this something
new?

The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.

1: Open a folder window

2: Choose "Tools"

3: In the dropdown window choose "Folder Options"

4: Choose the "File Types" Tab

5: Scroll down to the file type you want to change ie: JPG

6: Click on "change"

7: A list of recommended programs is there along with some others. If
none of these suit you you may "browse" for others. It is also
possible to set up multiple possibilities under advanced so when you
right click here such as "edit", "view" etc and choose a different
program for each choice. It isn't very intuitive but is potentially
very powerful depending on how you want to set it up. Windows has
always been this way. With work it can be customized to suit each
individual to work the way you want it. When I right click on a JPG
file I have a choice of previewing in a windows folder, open with
Irfanview picture viewer, edit with Photoshop or edit 2 with Paint
Shop Pro.

Tom
Kevin
2003-11-09 23:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
It is not a weakness. It is a choice. The examples you give could have
been given better names If the programmers had chosen to do so. They
are not "required to do so. I have no answer as to why such cryptic
names are used. I only know it is not necessary.
And the point is really moot, for all practical purposes. Why should a
Windows user care that the executable for Outlook Express is called
msintn.exe or whatever it was Snit quoted? Nobody goes looking into the
C:\Program Files\Outlook Express folder (or wherever it is). Instead, they
click on a desktop icon, or a quick-launch icon, or the Start Menu icon,
each of which are labelled "Outlook Express".

Snit seems to be coming to this conclusion by applying the Mac paradigm
(find applications by rooting through the hard drive folders) to Windows
(where the paradigm is to start applications by using the shortcuts, you
never touch the original folders). ONLY if you were rooting around in the
C:\Program Files\Outlook Express folder would you ever even notice the
oddly named file. And chances are any user smart enough to find that folder
(and disregard Windows' default "YOU SHOULD NOT MESS AROUND IN THESE FOLDERS!"
warning) is probably smart enough to figure out which is the executable,
despite it's stupid name. The icon, for example, ought to give it away.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Mac's don't come with a 3 button mouse do they or is this something
new?
They do not (and probably never will) but it is very possible to use any
third-party USB mouse, with as many buttons as you care to have.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
Snit is talking about per-file preferences, not per type. Using the right-
click menu to choose an application is the closest thing that Windows offers
(and the Mac offers this same feature as well). But Snit was asking if
Windows has any way of representing "open every JPEG image file with
Photoshop, except for C:\Temp\myImage.jpg, which should always be opened
by Internet Explorer instead". To my knowledge there is no way to do this.
Snit
2003-11-09 23:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Post by - ILUVJazz -
It is not a weakness. It is a choice. The examples you give could have
been given better names If the programmers had chosen to do so. They
are not "required to do so. I have no answer as to why such cryptic
names are used. I only know it is not necessary.
And the point is really moot, for all practical purposes. Why should a
Windows user care that the executable for Outlook Express is called
msintn.exe or whatever it was Snit quoted? Nobody goes looking into the
C:\Program Files\Outlook Express folder (or wherever it is). Instead, they
click on a desktop icon, or a quick-launch icon, or the Start Menu icon,
each of which are labelled "Outlook Express".
Snit seems to be coming to this conclusion by applying the Mac paradigm
(find applications by rooting through the hard drive folders) to Windows
(where the paradigm is to start applications by using the shortcuts, you
never touch the original folders). ONLY if you were rooting around in the
C:\Program Files\Outlook Express folder would you ever even notice the
oddly named file. And chances are any user smart enough to find that folder
(and disregard Windows' default "YOU SHOULD NOT MESS AROUND IN THESE FOLDERS!"
warning) is probably smart enough to figure out which is the executable,
despite it's stupid name. The icon, for example, ought to give it away.
So giving the files stupid names is a method of keeping beginners from
looking in folders they should avoid? If a shortcut is erased, a user
should not be hindered in their attempt to re-create it.
Post by Kevin
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Mac's don't come with a 3 button mouse do they or is this something
new?
They do not (and probably never will) but it is very possible to use any
third-party USB mouse, with as many buttons as you care to have.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
Snit is talking about per-file preferences, not per type. Using the right-
click menu to choose an application is the closest thing that Windows offers
(and the Mac offers this same feature as well). But Snit was asking if
Windows has any way of representing "open every JPEG image file with
Photoshop, except for C:\Temp\myImage.jpg, which should always be opened
by Internet Explorer instead". To my knowledge there is no way to do this.
Snit
2003-11-09 23:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
So this weakness COULD be reduced or removed from Windows. When or if it
is, I will update the site to reflect that.
It is not a weakness. It is a choice. The examples you give could have
been given better names If the programmers had chosen to do so. They
are not "required to do so. I have no answer as to why such cryptic
names are used. I only know it is not necessary.
Of course it is a choice. If they had wanted to make a better system they
could have. For some reason MS has continued to use these absurd cryptic
names. So have many 3rd party developers.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Mac's don't come with a 3 button mouse do they or is this something
new?
They do not. Macs are built to work with the "standard" one button mouse,
but they also work, with no added drivers, with multi-button mice. While I
would like to see Apple offer a build to order option of multi-button mice,
it makes a lot of sense to have the standard be single button. That way
programs are designed to be easier to use (in general). Advanced users,
however, who prefer shortcuts can use the more advanced mice: I prefer the
three button scroll wheel mouse from Logitech, but there are many good ones
out there.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
<SNIP>

You can, as you describe, set up a specific program to open, say, all PDF
files. But what if I want most PDF's to be opened by Acrobat, but a few to
be opened by Acrobat Reader, and some others to be opened by PhotoShop?
Similar case with HTML files or JPEGs or... Well, almost any type where
multiple programs can open the file.
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-11 11:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
<SNIP>
You can, as you describe, set up a specific program to open, say, all PDF
files. But what if I want most PDF's to be opened by Acrobat, but a few to
be opened by Acrobat Reader, and some others to be opened by PhotoShop?
Similar case with HTML files or JPEGs or... Well, almost any type where
multiple programs can open the file.
Interesting. It never occured to me to do such a thing. I know of no
way to default separate files of the same type to open in different
programs. Right clicking on the files and choosing properties allows
an easier way to associate all files of the same type than I
previously described but it is still global for all files of the same
type. I guess the closest you can come is to right click and choose a
program from the list.

Tom
Snit
2003-11-11 14:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
<SNIP>
You can, as you describe, set up a specific program to open, say, all PDF
files. But what if I want most PDF's to be opened by Acrobat, but a few to
be opened by Acrobat Reader, and some others to be opened by PhotoShop?
Similar case with HTML files or JPEGs or... Well, almost any type where
multiple programs can open the file.
Interesting. It never occured to me to do such a thing.
Which makes sense; working with Windows you are used to accepting the
limitations of your OS. People who work with Mac are more likely to also
work with other OS's (well, at least Windows) so the shortcomings of the Mac
jump out to them more. They write to Apple, and, at least in recent years,
Apple often responds.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
I know of no way to default separate files of the same type to open in
different programs. Right clicking on the files and choosing properties allows
an easier way to associate all files of the same type than I previously
described but it is still global for all files of the same type. I guess the
closest you can come is to right click and choose a program from the list.
For many cases that works fairly well. When you have a lab of computers or
are setting up a computer for a new user where you want someone to be able
to simply double click on files and get the desired result, it can be a
pain.
MR_ED_of_Course
2003-11-09 23:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
So this weakness COULD be reduced or removed from Windows. When or if it
is, I will update the site to reflect that.
It is not a weakness. It is a choice. The examples you give could have
been given better names If the programmers had chosen to do so. They
are not "required to do so. I have no answer as to why such cryptic
names are used. I only know it is not necessary.
Post by Snit
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Mac's don't come with a 3 button mouse do they or is this something
new?
Actually, I have seen stores that sold Macs with your choice of accessories
included in the price. These have included multi-button mice. Ripping
Apple for only bundling a 1 button mouse is such a lame argument. You can
find your average bundled multi-button mouse for under $20. I have never
once kept the mouse that was bundled with any PC I ever owned, so what's the
difference?

Also, this comes up time and time again, but studies have shown that using a
single button mouse has advantages...not that everyone would benefit from
them, but users do learn faster, children find it easier, etc...

The reality is that it's tough to go from using one button to being forced
to use multi-button, or to go from using multi-button to single button.
With a Mac, you have the option, because the single button mouse is what is
bundled.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
[snip]
Post by - ILUVJazz -
It isn't very intuitive but is potentially
very powerful depending on how you want to set it up. Windows has
always been this way. With work it can be customized to suit each
individual to work the way you want it. When I right click on a JPG
file I have a choice of previewing in a windows folder, open with
Irfanview picture viewer, edit with Photoshop or edit 2 with Paint
Shop Pro.
You're right, it isn't intuitive. Furthermore, it's not powerful at all.

I have several types of jpegs. The files are all jpegs, no difference in
the format of the file. Some jpegs are used for DVDs. Some are used in
Word documents. Some I'm working on in Photoshop. Some I'm creating albums
in iView Media Pro. Some I'm using for Web development. I could go on and
on. Hell, I have a list of 20 common apps that I would want to open jpegs
in on a regular basis. I have another 20 apps that could open jpegs, but
are rarely used. And I have some apps that aren't really able to view
jpegs, but could be used to read header information in the files.

What I can do in OSX, but I can't do in Windows is...
Assign each jpeg to a default application of my choosing. So I can simply
right click on a file go to "Get Info" and choose the application that the
specific file belongs to, or make all jpegs belong to that application.

This allows me to have all jpegs belong to the same app or separate apps
that I choose.

This then allows me to simply open the file and it automatically opens in
the app that I've assigned it. No need to select a file and then select an
app each and every time.

I can always right click and select from a list of common apps for the file
format, or I can choose "other" and then browse for a new app. The new app
could be from a list of apps appropriate for jpegs, or from a list of all
apps...like text editors.

This is a hell of a lot more powerful than Windows, and yet extremely
intuitive. At least a hell of a lot more intuitive than my description of
it!
Snit
2003-11-09 23:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
So this weakness COULD be reduced or removed from Windows. When or if it
is, I will update the site to reflect that.
It is not a weakness. It is a choice. The examples you give could have
been given better names If the programmers had chosen to do so. They
are not "required to do so. I have no answer as to why such cryptic
names are used. I only know it is not necessary.
Post by Snit
As I do on the Mac. How do you change the default program to open a single
file?
Mac's don't come with a 3 button mouse do they or is this something
new?
Actually, I have seen stores that sold Macs with your choice of accessories
included in the price. These have included multi-button mice. Ripping
Apple for only bundling a 1 button mouse is such a lame argument. You can
find your average bundled multi-button mouse for under $20. I have never
once kept the mouse that was bundled with any PC I ever owned, so what's the
difference?
Also, this comes up time and time again, but studies have shown that using a
single button mouse has advantages...not that everyone would benefit from
them, but users do learn faster, children find it easier, etc...
The reality is that it's tough to go from using one button to being forced
to use multi-button, or to go from using multi-button to single button.
With a Mac, you have the option, because the single button mouse is what is
bundled.
Adding to that: for computers with multiple uses, having Mice that are
EITHER left OR right handed creates headaches for all involved. As far as I
know, there is NO Windows machine from any major vender that ships with a
mouse that works well for left and right handed people without
re-configuring software.
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Post by - ILUVJazz -
The way you change the default program is not well documented but here
it is.
[snip]
Post by - ILUVJazz -
It isn't very intuitive but is potentially
very powerful depending on how you want to set it up. Windows has
always been this way. With work it can be customized to suit each
individual to work the way you want it. When I right click on a JPG
file I have a choice of previewing in a windows folder, open with
Irfanview picture viewer, edit with Photoshop or edit 2 with Paint
Shop Pro.
You're right, it isn't intuitive. Furthermore, it's not powerful at all.
I have several types of jpegs. The files are all jpegs, no difference in
the format of the file. Some jpegs are used for DVDs. Some are used in
Word documents. Some I'm working on in Photoshop. Some I'm creating albums
in iView Media Pro. Some I'm using for Web development. I could go on and
on. Hell, I have a list of 20 common apps that I would want to open jpegs
in on a regular basis. I have another 20 apps that could open jpegs, but
are rarely used. And I have some apps that aren't really able to view
jpegs, but could be used to read header information in the files.
What I can do in OSX, but I can't do in Windows is...
Assign each jpeg to a default application of my choosing. So I can simply
right click on a file go to "Get Info" and choose the application that the
specific file belongs to, or make all jpegs belong to that application.
Right-click, then hold option. Select Always Open With. Not intuitive, but
VERY handy when setting a single file to open with a different application.
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
This allows me to have all jpegs belong to the same app or separate apps
that I choose.
This then allows me to simply open the file and it automatically opens in
the app that I've assigned it. No need to select a file and then select an
app each and every time.
I can always right click and select from a list of common apps for the file
format, or I can choose "other" and then browse for a new app. The new app
could be from a list of apps appropriate for jpegs, or from a list of all
apps...like text editors.
This is a hell of a lot more powerful than Windows, and yet extremely
intuitive. At least a hell of a lot more intuitive than my description of
it!
Even the way I describe, for a decently experienced user, is not so bad.
Forget showing most newbies. :) Once you learn the shortcut method,
though, it is very quick and easy. On a Mac. On XP I do not believe it is
possible.
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-11 11:14:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:30:47 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
I can always right click and select from a list of common apps for the file
format, or I can choose "other" and then browse for a new app. The new app
could be from a list of apps appropriate for jpegs, or from a list of all
apps...like text editors.
What you describe here is also the way it's done in Windows
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
This is a hell of a lot more powerful than Windows, and yet extremely
intuitive. At least a hell of a lot more intuitive than my description of
it!
MR_ED_of_Course
2003-11-11 23:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:30:47 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
I can always right click and select from a list of common apps for the file
format, or I can choose "other" and then browse for a new app. The new app
could be from a list of apps appropriate for jpegs, or from a list of all
apps...like text editors.
What you describe here is also the way it's done in Windows
Of course it is...YOU CUT OUT the stuff I described that makes the following
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
This is a hell of a lot more powerful than Windows, and yet extremely
intuitive. At least a hell of a lot more intuitive than my description of
it!
What I can do in OSX, but I can't do in Windows is...
Assign each jpeg to a default application of my choosing. So I can simply
right click on a file go to "Get Info" and choose the application that the
specific file belongs to, or make all jpegs belong to that application.
This allows me to have all jpegs belong to the same app or separate apps
that I choose.
This then allows me to simply open the file and it automatically opens in
the app that I've assigned it. No need to select a file and then select an
app each and every time.
Now if you want to make Windows XP seem as powerful as OSX, feel free to
delete whatever features you want from *descriptions* of OSX, but they still
will exist. Denial will get you nowhere.
Snit
2003-11-11 23:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Post by - ILUVJazz -
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:30:47 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
I can always right click and select from a list of common apps for the file
format, or I can choose "other" and then browse for a new app. The new app
could be from a list of apps appropriate for jpegs, or from a list of all
apps...like text editors.
What you describe here is also the way it's done in Windows
Of course it is...YOU CUT OUT the stuff I described that makes the following
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
This is a hell of a lot more powerful than Windows, and yet extremely
intuitive. At least a hell of a lot more intuitive than my description of
it!
What I can do in OSX, but I can't do in Windows is...
Assign each jpeg to a default application of my choosing. So I can simply
right click on a file go to "Get Info" and choose the application that the
specific file belongs to, or make all jpegs belong to that application.
This allows me to have all jpegs belong to the same app or separate apps
that I choose.
This then allows me to simply open the file and it automatically opens in
the app that I've assigned it. No need to select a file and then select an
app each and every time.
Now if you want to make Windows XP seem as powerful as OSX, feel free to
delete whatever features you want from *descriptions* of OSX, but they still
will exist. Denial will get you nowhere.
Not true - denial is very likely what got him to the sad place he is now.
:)
Martik
2003-11-10 03:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Most of these issues are just nit picking and of little consequence to most
users.

One reason I NEED the 2nd mouse button is because I do alot of work from my
easy chair where it is not easy to access to my keyboard. I can do alot more
with one hand on a PC vs a Mac. Probably more useful for a handicapped
person as well.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
3. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
Where is the question here? When control panels are added by programs,
there is no easy way to remove them. For that matter, there is no easy way
to remove or replace them. While Classic Mac was even easier than OS X, OS
X makes that much easier. That and other customizations, really (except for
skinning, which is easier on Windows).
If You download Microsoft's free Power Toys app you can easily do this
and many other things.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
5. Dragged files follow weird rules
If you right click and drag in Windows it eliminates this problem and
gives you a whole list of new opyions to boot.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
6. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are checked Agreed
Drives ARE handled better in OSX. That I will agree with.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
8. FAT (8.3) legacy file names
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win_detail.html#eight3> Invisible to most
users
Look at the additional info on my page. Even now XP uses 8.3 names.
This is simply for backward compatability and is not an issue unless
you are using ancient 16 bit apps. The examples given on your web site
are noy Microsoft's fault. They are names given by the software
companies. Why they do this is beyond me. Maybe it's old habits. Maybe
they're lazy. It is not necessary. They could name them anything they
want. As an experiment I have downloaded many installation programs
with names like that, changed the name to something else and the
program installed just fine.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
9. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this
necessary?
On my Mac, PDF's are generally opened by Preview. Some I want opened by
Acrobat Reader. On Windows, there is no way to set this.
By using the right mouse button I get a list of things to do including
the ability to choose any program I want.
Many of your points are valid but not enough to convince me to switch
to an OS I am very happy with.
Tom
Snit
2003-11-10 03:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Most of these issues are just nit picking and of little consequence to most
users.
Such as? I find that the inconsistent drag rules, poor naming conventions,
and lesser ability to associate files with programs effects many people.
Still, we each use the computer in a different way, so if these do not
effect you, then ignore those points on my site.
Post by Martik
One reason I NEED the 2nd mouse button is because I do alot of work from my
easy chair where it is not easy to access to my keyboard. I can do alot more
with one hand on a PC vs a Mac. Probably more useful for a handicapped
person as well.
Suppose it depends on the handicap. I have worked with several handicapped
people who selected the Mac based on the single mouse button and / or the
sticky key settings.

What two button feature do you prefer in Windows that OS X does not do by
default with a 2 button mouse? They are pretty similar for most things
here.
Post by Martik
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
3. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
Where is the question here? When control panels are added by programs,
there is no easy way to remove them. For that matter, there is no easy way
to remove or replace them. While Classic Mac was even easier than OS X, OS
X makes that much easier. That and other customizations, really (except for
skinning, which is easier on Windows).
If You download Microsoft's free Power Toys app you can easily do this
and many other things.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
5. Dragged files follow weird rules
If you right click and drag in Windows it eliminates this problem and
gives you a whole list of new opyions to boot.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
6. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are checked
Agreed
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Drives ARE handled better in OSX. That I will agree with.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
8. FAT (8.3) legacy file names
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win_detail.html#eight3> Invisible
to most
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
users
Look at the additional info on my page. Even now XP uses 8.3 names.
This is simply for backward compatability and is not an issue unless
you are using ancient 16 bit apps. The examples given on your web site
are noy Microsoft's fault. They are names given by the software
companies. Why they do this is beyond me. Maybe it's old habits. Maybe
they're lazy. It is not necessary. They could name them anything they
want. As an experiment I have downloaded many installation programs
with names like that, changed the name to something else and the
program installed just fine.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
9. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this
necessary?
On my Mac, PDF's are generally opened by Preview. Some I want opened by
Acrobat Reader. On Windows, there is no way to set this.
By using the right mouse button I get a list of things to do including
the ability to choose any program I want.
Many of your points are valid but not enough to convince me to switch
to an OS I am very happy with.
Tom
MR_ED_of_Course
2003-11-10 04:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Most of these issues are just nit picking and of little consequence to most
users.
One reason I NEED the 2nd mouse button is because I do alot of work from my
easy chair where it is not easy to access to my keyboard. I can do alot more
with one hand on a PC vs a Mac. Probably more useful for a handicapped
person as well.
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one button
mouse...

1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.

2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replacement
mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to operate multiple button
mice don't count.
Martik
2003-11-10 07:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one button
mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace my
mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to press a key
in combination with a left click. That's how I understand the Mac works or
has this changed with OS X?
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replacement
mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to operate multiple button
mice don't count.
If you have only one arm, it's pretty hard to click and press a key at the
same time.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-10 10:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one
button
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace my
mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to press a key
in combination with a left click. That's how I understand the Mac works or
has this changed with OS X?
just buy a fucking two-button mouse. The only difference between OS X
and XP I've seen is that IE doesn't allow paste operations into the
URL text entry field via the context menu, so you have to go up to
Edit->Paste to do that particular operation one-handed.
Snit
2003-11-10 22:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one
button
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace my
mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to press a key
in combination with a left click. That's how I understand the Mac works or
has this changed with OS X?
just buy a fucking two-button mouse. The only difference between OS X
and XP I've seen is that IE doesn't allow paste operations into the
URL text entry field via the context menu, so you have to go up to
Edit->Paste to do that particular operation one-handed.
That and Safari can be set to open a new tab when you press the middle
button on a link. I *love* that feature, much more than the scroll thingy
on Windows.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-11 11:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
That and Safari can be set to open a new tab when you press the middle
button on a link. I *love* that feature, much more than the scroll thingy
on Windows.
damn, my wheel button is assigned to Exposé's "blow away all windows"
function.

Imagine, OS X 10.3 ships with support to explicitly configure a 3rd
mouse button. The wintellians' heads must be exploding now.

mebbe it's time to upgrade to those 4-button MS mice...
Snit
2003-11-11 14:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Snit
That and Safari can be set to open a new tab when you press the middle
button on a link. I *love* that feature, much more than the scroll thingy
on Windows.
damn, my wheel button is assigned to Exposé's "blow away all windows"
function.
I have yet to get 10.3 at home, but I have already thought about running
into that same problem. I guess I will have to play with exposé more to see
how I want to set it up.
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Imagine, OS X 10.3 ships with support to explicitly configure a 3rd
mouse button. The wintellians' heads must be exploding now.
mebbe it's time to upgrade to those 4-button MS mice...
Sandman
2003-11-11 20:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Snit
That and Safari can be set to open a new tab when you press the middle
button on a link. I *love* that feature, much more than the scroll thingy
on Windows.
damn, my wheel button is assigned to Exposé's "blow away all windows"
function.
Imagine, OS X 10.3 ships with support to explicitly configure a 3rd
mouse button. The wintellians' heads must be exploding now.
mebbe it's time to upgrade to those 4-button MS mice...
I recommend Logitech cordless Desktop MX. Works like a charm.
--
Sandman[.net]
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-11 23:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Snit
That and Safari can be set to open a new tab when you press the middle
button on a link. I *love* that feature, much more than the scroll thingy
on Windows.
damn, my wheel button is assigned to Exposé's "blow away all windows"
function.
Imagine, OS X 10.3 ships with support to explicitly configure a 3rd
mouse button. The wintellians' heads must be exploding now.
mebbe it's time to upgrade to those 4-button MS mice...
I use a MS 5 button mouse but I haven't bothered to program the 2
extra buttons.

Tom
MR_ED_of_Course
2003-11-10 10:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one
button
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace my
mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to press a key
in combination with a left click. That's how I understand the Mac works or
has this changed with OS X?
This changed like ages ago. The Mac that I have has a Microsoft optical
scroll wheel mouse with multiple buttons. Pretty much any USB mouse,
trackball or tablet will work with a Mac. I've seen multi-button mice that
are better than your average bundled PC mouse go fro as little as $12
including shipping. I've seen 3rd party mice bundled as optional
accessories with Macs.

So the point of my response was that if you don't like the default one
button mouse that ships with the Mac, then simply point, click and have a
mouse to your liking shipped to you.

So unless you are too lazy get up from your easy chair to plug the other
mouse into you Mac, or can not afford the $12, this really shouldn't be an
issue.
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replacement
mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to operate multiple
button
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
mice don't count.
If you have only one arm, it's pretty hard to click and press a key at the
same time.
Which is why on the Mac, you have options:

1) Control-click
2) Hold the single button down
3) Right-click using a multi-button mouse

In addition to using menu commands, sticky keys, application pallets, etc...

Being critical of a single-button mouse is a valid argument. Every test
that I've seen has shown benefits to single button mice for some users. I
can understand there being individual preferences here.

But...

Being critical of Macs for single button mice is not a valid argument since
clearly some or most people prefer single button mice on Macs, and it is an
option to use almost any mouse on the market with your Mac.
Snit
2003-11-10 22:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one button
mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace my
mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to press a key
in combination with a left click. That's how I understand the Mac works or
has this changed with OS X?
Changed with OS X - well, actually you could do this with 3rd party software
on OS 9. In any case, OS X supports most 3 button scroll wheel mice right
out of the box. I prefer the Logitech ones, but there are many options.
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replacement
mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to operate multiple button
mice don't count.
If you have only one arm, it's pretty hard to click and press a key at the
same time.
So turn on sticky keys. If you need to know how, I would be happy to post
more info.
Woofbert
2003-11-11 03:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the
one button mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace
their mouse while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace
my mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to
press a key in combination with a left click. That's how I
understand the Mac works or has this changed with OS X?
Changed with OS X - well, actually you could do this with 3rd party
software on OS 9. In any case, OS X supports most 3 button scroll
wheel mice right out of the box. I prefer the Logitech ones, but
there are many options.
Save your breath. Not a single Windiot will take notice of your post.
Within three days, some Windiot will complain again about Apple's
one-button mouse.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or
replacement mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to
operate multiple button mice don't count.
If you have only one arm, it's pretty hard to click and press a key
at the same time.
So turn on sticky keys. If you need to know how, I would be happy to
post more info.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Snit
2003-11-11 03:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woofbert
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the
one button mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace
their mouse while lounging in their easy chairs.
This statement makes no sense, I do not need two mice or to replace
my mouse. It is easier to right click than to use your left hand to
press a key in combination with a left click. That's how I
understand the Mac works or has this changed with OS X?
Changed with OS X - well, actually you could do this with 3rd party
software on OS 9. In any case, OS X supports most 3 button scroll
wheel mice right out of the box. I prefer the Logitech ones, but
there are many options.
Save your breath. Not a single Windiot will take notice of your post.
Within three days, some Windiot will complain again about Apple's
one-button mouse.
WHAT? OS X *still* only supports one button mice. What garbage. :)
Post by Woofbert
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or
replacement mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to
operate multiple button mice don't count.
If you have only one arm, it's pretty hard to click and press a key
at the same time.
So turn on sticky keys. If you need to know how, I would be happy to
post more info.
Snit
2003-11-10 05:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MR_ED_of_Course
Post by Martik
Most of these issues are just nit picking and of little consequence to most
users.
One reason I NEED the 2nd mouse button is because I do alot of work from my
easy chair where it is not easy to access to my keyboard. I can do alot more
with one hand on a PC vs a Mac. Probably more useful for a handicapped
person as well.
Finally, we have the ultimate argument against Mac regarding the one button
mouse...
1) Lazy people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replace their mouse
while lounging in their easy chairs.
2) Handicapped people are unable to plug in a second mouse or replacement
mouse. Handicapped people who lack the dexterity to operate multiple button
mice don't count.
The scary thing is that the original poster seemed to be serious in his
critique. Really.

forge
2003-11-10 12:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
One reason I NEED the 2nd mouse button is because I do alot of work from my
easy chair where it is not easy to access to my keyboard. I can do alot more
with one hand on a PC vs a Mac. Probably more useful for a handicapped
person as well.
I have a dual G4 with a Kensington trackball at the office, the
trackball has five buttons and a scroll wheel. You can also chord the
top two and bottom two buttons. I can do more on that computer with my
right hand than most people could do with both hands, their nose,
their tongue and their feet. = )
Woofbert
2003-11-02 23:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Ok, I will comment on each. I think many of these are differences between the
2 OS's rather than disadvantages.
Win XP Disadvantages
Silly or almost inexcusable bug / missing feature common on XP systems
1.. Big Brotherish registration restrictions Agree (Use a
'pre-activated' version from Kazaa)
What about everything else?
Post by Martik
2.. Child window oddities (MDI: Multiple Document Interface) Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
MDI is a friggin PITA. I keep killing Paint Shop Pro instead of the
document it has open, at the expense of sitting rhough the long startup
sequence the next time.
Post by Martik
3.. Control panels can not be easily added or removed ???
Their arrangement and organization is almost as baffling as those of
RedHat Linux 8.
Post by Martik
4.. DLL hell (MS does claim that XP "helps to address [this]" Have
not had a problem with XP in 2 years
My solution is to install applications I need, and let the installers
install them wherever they please, and never ever uninstall anything.
Post by Martik
5.. Dragged files follow weird rules Not significant enough to be a
disadvantage
PITA is a disadvantage.
Post by Martik
6.. Drives show up even when there is no disk in them, and are
checked Agreed
Drives don't show up on the desktop, and putting an alias there is a
cheap substitute.
Post by Martik
7.. Drive types handled differently (floppy vs CD vs Zip) Because
they have diff properties
The properties are not sifficiently different to justify their different
handling. Add to that how SD cards are handled. You can eject a floppy
disk any time you want, but if you just pull an SD card out, it freezes
the system for a few minutes, and then it bitches you out for it.
Post by Martik
8.. FAT (8.3) legacy file names Invisible to most users
9.. File associations can not be assigned to single files Why is this
necessary?
Sometimes you want this particular set of JPEGs to be opened by this
application and that particular set by some other app.
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
Post by Martik
11.. Files in use can not be moved or renamed This is an advantage!
"It's not a bug; it's a feature!"
Post by Martik
12.. Font folder oddities (have to rebuild, names change when fonts
moved) There are too many dam fonts
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many foints
everyone needs.
Post by Martik
13.. Greater need to get new drivers It is amazing how many types of
HW XP does detect. I would call this a significant advantage
14.. Greater reliance on paths YES
15.. Hardware compatibility errors are common Disagree, see 13.
16.. Inconsistent close boxes (saves, cancels, or warns) Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Post by Martik
17.. Inconsistent quick keys (example: Control-C does not copy in
Telnet) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Post by Martik
18.. Install/uninstall; spews all over hard drive Agreed, but most
modern programs have an uninstall and XP tracks this fairly well.
19.. Left/right handed mice This is an advantage,
Of course. You're right-handed and no one left-handed nees to use a
two-buton mouse.
Post by Martik
20.. Menu inconstancies (example: start button / menu / thingy) Why?
21.. Multiple pull-downs (easily overshot or confused) Not
significant enough to be a disadvantage
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Post by Martik
22.. OS installation is time consuming Takes me 30 mins to
repartition and install XP on a AMD 2.1GHz
Of course. You've had lots of practice installing XP. We understand.
Post by Martik
23.. Pop up balloon"help" that gets in the way of working with the
computer That's like saying an instruction manual gets in the way
configuring your cell phone.
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Post by Martik
24.. Registry What's wrong with it How does Mac OS do this?
The Registry is a single point of failure. If the registry file gets
clobbered, many applications can fail horribly. The only fix is to wipe
the HD and reinstall all the aps from scratch.
Post by Martik
25.. Special folders with inconsistent rules (My Computer, Fonts,
etc.) Not significant enough to be a disadvantage
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Post by Martik
26.. Taskbar oddities (items are not tasks) Not significant enough to
be a disadvantage
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Post by Martik
27.. Viruses - lots and lots of'm! Agreed, but why make a virus for
Macs with such a small market share
That does not excuse the number of viruses on Windows.
Post by Martik
28.. Vulnerabilities keep popping up Vague
29.. Wildcard inconsistencies Such as?
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if you
happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just one important
word or character sequence in it, you can't search on just that.
Post by Martik
30.. Window view oddities (no folder sizes) Right click on properties
IOW, you have to find the enclosing folder, then the icon, then right
click on it. Why can'tthe window just tell me what's in it?
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Martik
2003-11-03 00:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many foints
everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and appreciated. I did
not say anyone was wrong.
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if you
happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just one important
word or character sequence in it, you can't search on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN the string
you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will find notepad wordpad
paddle, xyz.pad.
Or you can search for a string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
22.. OS installation is time consuming Takes me 30 mins to
repartition and install XP on a AMD 2.1GHz
Of course. You've had lots of practice installing XP. We understand.
Just for friends upgrading their Mac's

Sorry I couldn't resist!
Snit
2003-11-03 00:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many foints
everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and appreciated. I did
not say anyone was wrong.
For the record, I did not take it that way. :)
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if you
happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just one important
word or character sequence in it, you can't search on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN the string
you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will find notepad wordpad
paddle, xyz.pad.
Or you can search for a string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
When working with different OS's it does become a big deal. Needed to write
special scripts to convert files to Win friendly names for all my PDF
services. My employer had to pay for that time.
Martik
2003-11-03 01:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Good point.

It would be a good idea to implement file naming conventions in a multi OS
environment. We had similar problems with Unix, windows. Oracle etc.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many foints
everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and appreciated. I did
not say anyone was wrong.
For the record, I did not take it that way. :)
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if you
happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just one important
word or character sequence in it, you can't search on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN the string
you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will find notepad wordpad
paddle, xyz.pad.
Or you can search for a string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
When working with different OS's it does become a big deal. Needed to write
special scripts to convert files to Win friendly names for all my PDF
services. My employer had to pay for that time.
Snit
2003-11-03 01:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Good point.
It would be a good idea to implement file naming conventions in a multi OS
environment. We had similar problems with Unix, windows. Oracle etc.
Good idea, in theory, but does not work for what I needed. We had a need to
be able to save files as PDF's directly to a Win machine over the network.
OS X's networking and PDF Services worked fine; with one problem, if the
file had a non-DOS-compatable name XP would not accept it. Web pages were
named after either their title, if they had one, or the URL, if they did
not. Since URL's contain illegal DOS characters (: and / at the very
least), XP choked.

I had to write an Apple Script to save the file as a DOS legal name and then
copy it to XP over a network. Not a huge deal, but absurd that I had to go
through such lengths to save files with such common names. With Apple
working so hard to get XP compatibility, perhaps they will add this to the
OS some day? Who knows.
Post by Martik
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many foints
everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and appreciated. I
did
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
not say anyone was wrong.
For the record, I did not take it that way. :)
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if you
happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just one
important
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
word or character sequence in it, you can't search on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN the
string
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will find notepad
wordpad
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
paddle, xyz.pad.
Or you can search for a string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
When working with different OS's it does become a big deal. Needed to
write
Post by Snit
special scripts to convert files to Win friendly names for all my PDF
services. My employer had to pay for that time.
Woofbert
2003-11-03 03:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Good point.
It would be a good idea to implement file naming conventions in a
multi OS environment. We had similar problems with Unix, windows.
Oracle etc.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many
foints everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and
appreciated. I did not say anyone was wrong.
For the record, I did not take it that way. :)
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if
you happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just
one important word or character sequence in it, you can't search
on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN
the string you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will
find notepad wordpad paddle, xyz.pad. Or you can search for a
string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
When working with different OS's it does become a big deal. Needed
to write special scripts to convert files to Win friendly names for
all my PDF services. My employer had to pay for that time.
Posting conventions have been implemented in this newsgroup.
Specifically, we prefer posting at the bottom.

Multi-OS file naming ocnventions have to cater to the weakest link:
Windows. DOS is the source of such abominations as .jpg and .htm when
the correct extensions supported by REAL operating systems are .jpeg and
.html.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Snit
2003-11-03 04:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, did not know the conventions. :)

On 11/2/03 8:50 PM, in article
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
Good point.
It would be a good idea to implement file naming conventions in a
multi OS environment. We had similar problems with Unix, windows.
Oracle etc.
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many
foints everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and
appreciated. I did not say anyone was wrong.
For the record, I did not take it that way. :)
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if
you happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just
one important word or character sequence in it, you can't search
on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN
the string you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will
find notepad wordpad paddle, xyz.pad. Or you can search for a
string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
When working with different OS's it does become a big deal. Needed
to write special scripts to convert files to Win friendly names for
all my PDF services. My employer had to pay for that time.
Posting conventions have been implemented in this newsgroup.
Specifically, we prefer posting at the bottom.
I just posted under the text I wanted to respond to. Did not see it as a
big deal.
Post by Woofbert
Windows. DOS is the source of such abominations as .jpg and .htm when
the correct extensions supported by REAL operating systems are .jpeg and
.html.
And XP *still* uses the same limitations! Wonder if Longhorn will? Any
bets?
Woofbert
2003-11-03 03:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Gotcha. And you are the final determining vocie in how many foints
everyone needs.
Can't you take a joke?
Post by Woofbert
Of course. We're all wrong in what makes a good UI and you're right.
Those were my personal opinions which Snit solicited and appreciated. I did
not say anyone was wrong.
Post by Woofbert
The whole search system is stupid. You can search for a file if you
happen to know its complete correct name. If you know just one important
word or character sequence in it, you can't search on just that.
This is completely false, it will locate all files that CONTAIN the string
you type in, no wildcards are necessary. ie: pad will find notepad wordpad
paddle, xyz.pad.
Or you can search for a string within the file
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
10.. File name limitations What limitations?
There's a whole herd of characters you're not allowed to use.
So you can't use a 9 special chars BIG DEAL!
Yes, it is a big deal. Those characters exist for a reason.
Post by Martik
Post by Woofbert
Post by Martik
22.. OS installation is time consuming Takes me 30 mins to
repartition and install XP on a AMD 2.1GHz
Of course. You've had lots of practice installing XP. We understand.
Just for friends upgrading their Mac's
... upgrading their Mac's what?
Post by Martik
Sorry I couldn't resist!
I'm sorry, too.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-08 16:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Your web site seems to have picked those things you think makes OSX
better. You have proved nothing.
Snit
2003-11-08 21:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Your web site seems to have picked those things you think makes OSX
better. You have proved nothing.
Are you in reference to my site? If so -

- it lists advantages for Mac OS X AND Windows XP
- it list disadvantages for Mac OS X AND Windows XP
- I am open to reasonable suggestions for additions or changes
- I am open to unreasonable suggestions for additions and changes - just
don't expect me to change anything. :)
- ILUVJazz -
2003-11-09 12:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Your web site seems to have picked those things you think makes OSX
better. You have proved nothing.
Are you in reference to my site? If so -
- it lists advantages for Mac OS X AND Windows XP
- it list disadvantages for Mac OS X AND Windows XP
- I am open to reasonable suggestions for additions or changes
- I am open to unreasonable suggestions for additions and changes - just
don't expect me to change anything. :)
Notice I said "YouThink", ie. YOUR opinion. I find many of your stated
advantages useless to me. When I have used OSX, which I admit isn't
very much, I find I just don't like the way it works. Maybe it's
because I've been using Windows for so long and have gotten used to
it. What I really miss is the two extra mouse buttons and the wheel
which are features I use constantly. I can do some of the same things
using the keyboard on OSX but I find that awkward. If your going to
talk about the advantages of OSX concentrate on the fact that there
isn't an army of idiots out there writing viruses for and trying to
hack into OSX computers. To keep my computer safe I find it necessary
to use an anti virus program and a firewall. This is unnecessary with
OSX.

Tom
Snit
2003-11-09 18:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Post by Snit
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Your web site seems to have picked those things you think makes OSX
better. You have proved nothing.
Are you in reference to my site? If so -
- it lists advantages for Mac OS X AND Windows XP
- it list disadvantages for Mac OS X AND Windows XP
- I am open to reasonable suggestions for additions or changes
- I am open to unreasonable suggestions for additions and changes - just
don't expect me to change anything. :)
Notice I said "YouThink", ie. YOUR opinion. I find many of your stated
advantages useless to me.
Never claimed all points on the site apply to everyone. I, for example, am
not a gamer, yet I include games as an XP advantage.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
When I have used OSX, which I admit isn't very much, I find I just don't like
the way it works.
Is this based on any objective criteria? If so, I would love to hear why
and perhaps add more info to my site...
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Maybe it's because I've been using Windows for so long and have gotten used to
it.
Sorry to hear that. :)
Post by - ILUVJazz -
What I really miss is the two extra mouse buttons and the wheel which are
features I use constantly. I can do some of the same things using the keyboard
on OSX but I find that awkward.
No argument here. I use a Logitech mouse, works flawlessly on OS X. In my
browser the middle button opens links in new tabs - which I prefer to the
scroll thing in IE Windows. But that is just a personal preference I
suppose.
Post by - ILUVJazz -
If your going to talk about the advantages of OSX concentrate on the fact that
there isn't an army of idiots out there writing viruses for and trying to hack
into OSX computers. To keep my computer safe I find it necessary to use an
anti virus program and a firewall. This is unnecessary with OSX.
I do not word it so well, but that is on my site - look at the XP
disadvantages.
forge
2003-11-10 12:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
What I really miss is the two extra mouse buttons and the wheel
which are features I use constantly.
...so go to kensington.com or Logitech and GET a multi-button mouse.
Duh?
Woofbert
2003-11-11 03:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by forge
Post by - ILUVJazz -
What I really miss is the two extra mouse buttons and the wheel
which are features I use constantly.
...so go to kensington.com or Logitech and GET a multi-button mouse.
Duh?
I think that Windiots suddenly but temporarily lose the ability to read
after they start reading a response to the mouse question. The fact that
Mac OS can use a multibutton mouse has been repeated over and over a
lot, but the fact seems never to be able to sink in to the Windiots.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Snit
2003-11-11 03:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woofbert
Post by forge
Post by - ILUVJazz -
What I really miss is the two extra mouse buttons and the wheel
which are features I use constantly.
...so go to kensington.com or Logitech and GET a multi-button mouse.
Duh?
I think that Windiots suddenly but temporarily lose the ability to read
after they start reading a response to the mouse question. The fact that
Mac OS can use a multibutton mouse has been repeated over and over a
lot, but the fact seems never to be able to sink in to the Windiots.
It also amazes me how many PC fans find 3rd party hardware to be such a
benefit, EXCEPT when it comes to Mac mice.
Woofbert
2003-11-11 08:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Woofbert
Post by forge
Post by - ILUVJazz -
What I really miss is the two extra mouse buttons and the wheel
which are features I use constantly.
...so go to kensington.com or Logitech and GET a multi-button mouse.
Duh?
I think that Windiots suddenly but temporarily lose the ability to read
after they start reading a response to the mouse question. The fact that
Mac OS can use a multibutton mouse has been repeated over and over a
lot, but the fact seems never to be able to sink in to the Windiots.
It also amazes me how many PC fans find 3rd party hardware to be such a
benefit, EXCEPT when it comes to Mac mice.
That's yet another example of the well-cocumented Mac/Windows
Double-Standard.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
StormDrain
2003-11-08 23:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ILUVJazz -
Your web site seems to have picked those things you think makes OSX
better. You have proved nothing.
Microsoft has alredy admitted XP ain't to good, they are busy redoing it
from the "ground up." Have you heard about Longboat or whatever they're
calling it? I know I can't wait...yawn.
Sandman
2003-11-01 07:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC. Hardware and software
for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run XP on a old Pentium
200 with no problems.
Congratulations! Isn't it wonderful when you're just pleased with the way your
computer works, regardless of operating system. I feel the exact same way about
my Mac.
Post by Martik
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa. Everyone is
entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed because of
it. Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used these as
well). Let's all try to get along!
I have no problem getting along with people just because they use Windows. But
I'm sure you realise that this group attracts more than just the casual Windows
users. Most Windows users are here to tell us we've made a wrong choice - and
we think that's really funny. Especially in the cases of Edwin and John, who
knows absolutely NOTHING about computers, let alone Macs.
--
Sandman[.net]
Jim Lee Jr.
2003-11-01 09:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than Mac. Hardware and software
for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run XP on a old Pentium
200 with no problems.
Are you related to Jack Benny? Cheap hardware came up in the conversation.
Cheap does not mean better.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-01 09:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC.
examples????????????
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper
not significantly
Post by Martik
and more readily available.
so, any alternative to the monopoly desktop OS will have this demerit.
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
Post by Martik
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa. Everyone is
entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed because of
it. Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used these as
well). Let's all try to get along!
We'd like to, but supporting the beast of Redmond has proven time &
again to not be in computing's best long-term interests.
Martik
2003-11-01 23:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???

I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house. To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.

Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
Lloyd Parsons
2003-11-01 23:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house. To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
You would be wrong about the iMac -- here's the link of what OSX
Panther runs on :

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html

Your 9 year old PC is built much better than the majority of today's
PCs. The pricing of today's pcs has gotten there for many reasons,
building them cheaper is one of them.

Lloyd
Martik
2003-11-02 05:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Your 9 year old PC is built much better than the majority of today's
PCs. The pricing of today's pcs has gotten there for many reasons,
building them cheaper is one of them.
They are also cheaper (less expensive) because of technology and
competition. My MB is 1/3 size of older MB's and has onboard LAN, Video,
Sound etc which all req'd add-on cards a few years ago. Many functions are
now combined on a single chip.The HD's are so much smaller, quieter and
faster now. The CD drives are definitely cheaply built. Todays CPUs are rock
solid and almost free with Intel and AMD battling it out. Memory is more
reliable and cost per MB is a fraction of what it used to.

Quality and reliability have actually improved in the 20+ years I have been
involved with PC's. My first PC was a 10mhz 286 with 640k which req'd
something like 20 or 30 separate memory chips inserted into the MB and
frequently needed reseating. It cost $300 to upgrade from 640K to 1MB! The
20MB HD was 2-3 lbs and unreliable as hell. VGA card was another $200 and
almost as big as a MB today. Now u can get twice the resolution on a 35cent
chip.
George Graves
2003-11-01 23:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house. To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
There was no iMac 9 years ago. The iMac came out in 1998 IIRC. And yes,
The original iMac will, indeed run OSX, and no too badly either.
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
What's Adobe5?
--
George Graves
Martik
2003-11-02 01:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Adobe 5 pdf reader 6 is too slow on P200.

It was not the Imac he has but the Power Macintosh 8100 that is approx 9
years old. I get the models confused. The 8100 is closer to the speed of a
P200 I think?
Post by George Graves
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house. To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
There was no iMac 9 years ago. The iMac came out in 1998 IIRC. And yes,
The original iMac will, indeed run OSX, and no too badly either.
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
What's Adobe5?
--
George Graves
NFish
2003-11-02 00:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu
Err, the 200 MHz Pentium wasn't released until late 1996. There's no
way it's nine years old.
Post by Martik
and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house. To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Not true; every version of Mac OS X can run on every model of iMac,
including Panther.
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word,
I couldn't find prices on Microsoft's site, but from amazon.com

Microsoft Office 2003 (Windows):
$359.99 full version

Microsoft Office v. X (Mac):
$359.99
Post by Martik
IE6,
IE on Windows: free
IE on Mac: free
Post by Martik
Outlook express,
Outlook Express on Windows: free
Outlook Express on Mac: free
Post by Martik
Pan.
Huh?
Post by Martik
Irfanview,
Looks roughly comparable to Preview in power; both are free.
Post by Martik
Neatimage (photoeditting)
Not enough experience with this to offer something comparable to this
$30 tool, which looks like it mostly eliminates noise in photos. iPhoto
can do this, of course; maybe GraphicConverter (also $30)?
Post by Martik
Kazaa,
Macs can access the Kazaa network for free (and without the spyware), if
that sort of thing is important to you.
Post by Martik
Adobe5.
Huh?
Post by Martik
I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop,
From adobe.com:

Photoshop 7.0 (Windows): $649.99
Photoshop 7.0 (Mac) $649.99
Post by Martik
Gaming
I picked a fairly recent game at random which I know has a Mac and a PC
version: UT 2003.

$19.99 for the Mac, $18.99 for Windows.
Post by Martik
and Video editting.
iMovie is free. Whatcha got instead? Windows Movie Maker? *scoff*

So much for Mac software being more expensive; all the software you use
is apparently the same price, or within $1.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-02 01:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu
hmmm, 2003-9 = 1994... you had some pretty good Intel chip sources I
see, given that the Pentium II wasn't released until 1997.
Post by Martik
and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house.
IME Computers either fail in the first 18 months or they last forever.
I admit a great advantage of x86 is the ability to choose your own
manufacturers (except I got bit on the ass with the cap leak issue
like many BYO people a couple of years ago).

Apple generally does pretty well though -- especially with their
PowerBooks and the new G5. Again, I defy you to build an Opteron or
Xeon system that can touch the build quality, performance, *and* price
of the $3000 G5 dual. It's simply the best PC yet made.
Post by Martik
To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Not surprising, Apple fully supports the original iMac, even though it
doesn't have very good 2D acceleration (just 2MB video RAM).
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
yeah, the same crap apps that were available in 1997 that ran fine, if
not better, on NT4. I gave away my 933Mhz PIII because I needed more
oomph for the wintel apps I use. I run XP only because I need the new
features (USB, 802.11, DirectX 9) that NT4 and Win2k don't provide --
the first thing I set on a new XP install is the "Windows Classic" UI
theme.

Like I said, XP's support for Pentium II's is a big "bfd", unless you
live in such grinding poverty that you can't afford the $200-300 for a
new mb and DIMM pair every 2-3 years.

Plus, NT6 is going to totally obsolete anything less than AGP 8x
anyway.
Martik
2003-11-02 03:22:44 UTC
Permalink
It's a Pentium 1 (one), so I'm off a year or two. I just use them for
browsing and email so no need to upgrade. Regarding the G5, AMD opteron, P4
or even the Athlon XP cpu's are faster and one could build a system for
less than half the price of the G5. It's just marketing hype.

Read these and check the benchmarks:
http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu
hmmm, 2003-9 = 1994... you had some pretty good Intel chip sources I
see, given that the Pentium II wasn't released until 1997.
Post by Martik
and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem as
have 2 others I have in the house.
IME Computers either fail in the first 18 months or they last forever.
I admit a great advantage of x86 is the ability to choose your own
manufacturers (except I got bit on the ass with the cap leak issue
like many BYO people a couple of years ago).
Apple generally does pretty well though -- especially with their
PowerBooks and the new G5. Again, I defy you to build an Opteron or
Xeon system that can touch the build quality, performance, *and* price
of the $3000 G5 dual. It's simply the best PC yet made.
Post by Martik
To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Not surprising, Apple fully supports the original iMac, even though it
doesn't have very good 2D acceleration (just 2MB video RAM).
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC for
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
yeah, the same crap apps that were available in 1997 that ran fine, if
not better, on NT4. I gave away my 933Mhz PIII because I needed more
oomph for the wintel apps I use. I run XP only because I need the new
features (USB, 802.11, DirectX 9) that NT4 and Win2k don't provide --
the first thing I set on a new XP install is the "Windows Classic" UI
theme.
Like I said, XP's support for Pentium II's is a big "bfd", unless you
live in such grinding poverty that you can't afford the $200-300 for a
new mb and DIMM pair every 2-3 years.
Plus, NT6 is going to totally obsolete anything less than AGP 8x
anyway.
Lloyd Parsons
2003-11-02 03:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
It's a Pentium 1 (one), so I'm off a year or two. I just use them for
browsing and email so no need to upgrade. Regarding the G5, AMD opteron, P4
or even the Athlon XP cpu's are faster and one could build a system for
less than half the price of the G5. It's just marketing hype.
http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
Yes, you could build one for less than half the price, but not one with
all the things that come standard with the G5, and THAT is the only
completely legitimate way to compare.

And when you get done building that one, and something breaks you get
to do all the tech stuff and the parts replacement yourself.

That is one of the advantages of the Tier 1 computers, someone is
actually on the other end of the line that will take care of it for
you.

If you enjoy futzing around in the innards of the computer, fine. But
I for one, don't care to do that. I want to plug it in and actually
use it for the reason I bought it. When it breaks I don't want to dick
around with it. I want to make one call and have it fixed!

Lloyd
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu
hmmm, 2003-9 = 1994... you had some pretty good Intel chip sources I
see, given that the Pentium II wasn't released until 1997.
Post by Martik
and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem
as
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
have 2 others I have in the house.
IME Computers either fail in the first 18 months or they last forever.
I admit a great advantage of x86 is the ability to choose your own
manufacturers (except I got bit on the ass with the cap leak issue
like many BYO people a couple of years ago).
Apple generally does pretty well though -- especially with their
PowerBooks and the new G5. Again, I defy you to build an Opteron or
Xeon system that can touch the build quality, performance, *and* price
of the $3000 G5 dual. It's simply the best PC yet made.
Post by Martik
To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Not surprising, Apple fully supports the original iMac, even though it
doesn't have very good 2D acceleration (just 2MB video RAM).
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC
for
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
yeah, the same crap apps that were available in 1997 that ran fine, if
not better, on NT4. I gave away my 933Mhz PIII because I needed more
oomph for the wintel apps I use. I run XP only because I need the new
features (USB, 802.11, DirectX 9) that NT4 and Win2k don't provide --
the first thing I set on a new XP install is the "Windows Classic" UI
theme.
Like I said, XP's support for Pentium II's is a big "bfd", unless you
live in such grinding poverty that you can't afford the $200-300 for a
new mb and DIMM pair every 2-3 years.
Plus, NT6 is going to totally obsolete anything less than AGP 8x
anyway.
Martik
2003-11-02 03:57:12 UTC
Permalink
You're correct, some people will pay for that assurance.
I am a tech type who enjoys tweaking H/W overclocking etc.
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Post by Martik
It's a Pentium 1 (one), so I'm off a year or two. I just use them for
browsing and email so no need to upgrade. Regarding the G5, AMD opteron, P4
or even the Athlon XP cpu's are faster and one could build a system for
less than half the price of the G5. It's just marketing hype.
http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
Yes, you could build one for less than half the price, but not one with
all the things that come standard with the G5, and THAT is the only
completely legitimate way to compare.
And when you get done building that one, and something breaks you get
to do all the tech stuff and the parts replacement yourself.
That is one of the advantages of the Tier 1 computers, someone is
actually on the other end of the line that will take care of it for
you.
If you enjoy futzing around in the innards of the computer, fine. But
I for one, don't care to do that. I want to plug it in and actually
use it for the reason I bought it. When it breaks I don't want to dick
around with it. I want to make one call and have it fixed!
Lloyd
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu
hmmm, 2003-9 = 1994... you had some pretty good Intel chip sources I
see, given that the Pentium II wasn't released until 1997.
Post by Martik
and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a problem
as
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
have 2 others I have in the house.
IME Computers either fail in the first 18 months or they last forever.
I admit a great advantage of x86 is the ability to choose your own
manufacturers (except I got bit on the ass with the cap leak issue
like many BYO people a couple of years ago).
Apple generally does pretty well though -- especially with their
PowerBooks and the new G5. Again, I defy you to build an Opteron or
Xeon system that can touch the build quality, performance, *and* price
of the $3000 G5 dual. It's simply the best PC yet made.
Post by Martik
To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Not surprising, Apple fully supports the original iMac, even though it
doesn't have very good 2D acceleration (just 2MB video RAM).
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express, Pan.
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz PC
for
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
yeah, the same crap apps that were available in 1997 that ran fine, if
not better, on NT4. I gave away my 933Mhz PIII because I needed more
oomph for the wintel apps I use. I run XP only because I need the new
features (USB, 802.11, DirectX 9) that NT4 and Win2k don't provide --
the first thing I set on a new XP install is the "Windows Classic" UI
theme.
Like I said, XP's support for Pentium II's is a big "bfd", unless you
live in such grinding poverty that you can't afford the $200-300 for a
new mb and DIMM pair every 2-3 years.
Plus, NT6 is going to totally obsolete anything less than AGP 8x
anyway.
Lloyd Parsons
2003-11-02 04:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
You're correct, some people will pay for that assurance.
I am a tech type who enjoys tweaking H/W overclocking etc.
I used to be one of those, so I understand! <G>

But now I actually want to use the computer and have it almost all
there when I pull it out of the box. I don't want to turn so much as
one screw.

As I've aged the computer has become more of a business tool for my
sales and a toy for the internet. I have other interests that have
replaced the tinkering with the innards.

Lloyd
Post by Martik
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Post by Martik
It's a Pentium 1 (one), so I'm off a year or two. I just use them for
browsing and email so no need to upgrade. Regarding the G5, AMD opteron,
P4
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Post by Martik
or even the Athlon XP cpu's are faster and one could build a system for
less than half the price of the G5. It's just marketing hype.
http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
Yes, you could build one for less than half the price, but not one with
all the things that come standard with the G5, and THAT is the only
completely legitimate way to compare.
And when you get done building that one, and something breaks you get
to do all the tech stuff and the parts replacement yourself.
That is one of the advantages of the Tier 1 computers, someone is
actually on the other end of the line that will take care of it for
you.
If you enjoy futzing around in the innards of the computer, fine. But
I for one, don't care to do that. I want to plug it in and actually
use it for the reason I bought it. When it breaks I don't want to dick
around with it. I want to make one call and have it fixed!
Lloyd
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
I even run XP on a old Pentium 200 with no problems.
bfd -- today's useful applications require more oomph.
bfd???
I think it is incredible that XP runs on a 9 year old cpu
hmmm, 2003-9 = 1994... you had some pretty good Intel chip sources I
see, given that the Pentium II wasn't released until 1997.
Post by Martik
and talk about
quality - this 9 year old computer has been used daily without a
problem
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Post by Martik
as
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
have 2 others I have in the house.
IME Computers either fail in the first 18 months or they last forever.
I admit a great advantage of x86 is the ability to choose your own
manufacturers (except I got bit on the ass with the cap leak issue
like many BYO people a couple of years ago).
Apple generally does pretty well though -- especially with their
PowerBooks and the new G5. Again, I defy you to build an Opteron or
Xeon system that can touch the build quality, performance, *and* price
of the $3000 G5 dual. It's simply the best PC yet made.
Post by Martik
To be fair my friends original Imac has
survived just as long but I doubt you could run Mac OS X 10 on it.
Not surprising, Apple fully supports the original iMac, even though it
doesn't have very good 2D acceleration (just 2MB video RAM).
Post by Martik
Useful apps I use on the P200: Excel, Word, IE6, Outlook express,
Pan.
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Irfanview, Neatimage (photoeditting) Kazaa, Adobe5. I save my 2.1Ghz
PC
Post by Lloyd Parsons
Post by Martik
for
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
Photoshop, Gaming and Video editting.
yeah, the same crap apps that were available in 1997 that ran fine, if
not better, on NT4. I gave away my 933Mhz PIII because I needed more
oomph for the wintel apps I use. I run XP only because I need the new
features (USB, 802.11, DirectX 9) that NT4 and Win2k don't provide --
the first thing I set on a new XP install is the "Windows Classic" UI
theme.
Like I said, XP's support for Pentium II's is a big "bfd", unless you
live in such grinding poverty that you can't afford the $200-300 for a
new mb and DIMM pair every 2-3 years.
Plus, NT6 is going to totally obsolete anything less than AGP 8x
anyway.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-02 10:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
It's a Pentium 1 (one), so I'm off a year or two. I just use them for
browsing and email so no need to upgrade.
Precisely. That sort of shoots down your "XP is great -- it runs on
crap PC's!" 'argument'. XP isn't giving you anything Win98 or NT4 can.
Post by Martik
Regarding the G5, AMD opteron, P4
or even the Athlon XP cpu's are faster
First off, Opterons are not faster. P4 is faster, but not in MP
testing, because the Xeon MP bus is crippled (it is a shared 533Mhz
bus). The 3200+ XP chip is across-the-board slower than the P4, so I
fail to see how it is relevant to this discussion about speeds.
Post by Martik
and one could build a system for less than half the price of the G5.
True enough. In fact I'm typing on one right now. However, one cannot
build a *faster* AND *cheaper* x86 machine than the dual G5.
Post by Martik
It's just marketing hype.
Wrong; the dual G5's 1.0GHz FSB is not marketing hype -- it utterly
destroys the crappy Xeon MP FSB. AMD's on-die memory controller evens
things out somewhat, but I'm not convinced its UMA is best for MP
applications.

For pricing from a reputable builder (boxxtech) I get the following:

512MB 3.2Ghz P4 system: $3200
1GB Athlon FX-51 system: $3500
1GB Dual 2.66Ghz Xeon system: $ 3771
1GB Dual 2.0Ghz Opteron system: $4428

Feel free to find online an x86 machine that is a) cheaper than the
$2999 dual G5 and b) across-the-board faster.
SPEC benchmarking is like road-testing cars in a convenience store
parking lot.

Real benchmarks with actual applications shows the G5 nearly twice as
fast as a 3.0 P4 in some apps:

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

and Q3 performance, a good test of SMP and OpenGL:

http://www.barefeats.com/p4game.html

shows the dual G5 beating the P4 (not such a great win though, since
the dual G5 costs twice as much).
Post by Martik
http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
your tests are very dated.
Martik
2003-11-02 23:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Precisely. That sort of shoots down your "XP is great -- it runs on
crap PC's!" 'argument'. XP isn't giving you anything Win98 or NT4 can.
What's crappy about a 8 year old PC that runs a current OS? I would call it
backward compatibility and maximizing value of old HW. Over Win98, XP gives
me better stability, memory mgmt, task mgmt and USB support for my digicam,
bootup times of <15secs with hibernate. I love it!

This Athlon MP 2800 $900 system will perform as well as or better than a G5
dual: (based on your reference http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html )
which benchmarks an Athlon MP 2100. I could even build this system for $700
and a little tweaking if I used XP2800's instead of MP2800's

From pricewatch.com

TYAN dual MP MB with AMD MP 2800 CPU $420
Second MP2800 cpu $221
1 GB PC3200 DDR $135
Case and P/S approx $150
Video approx $200
SATA 120GB HD $102
CDRW, mouse,KB, etc $100
------------------------------
Total approx $900

Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like a G5 but it's close enough to
illustrate my point.
Snit
2003-11-02 23:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Precisely. That sort of shoots down your "XP is great -- it runs on
crap PC's!" 'argument'. XP isn't giving you anything Win98 or NT4 can.
What's crappy about a 8 year old PC that runs a current OS? I would call it
backward compatibility and maximizing value of old HW. Over Win98, XP gives
me better stability, memory mgmt, task mgmt and USB support for my digicam,
bootup times of <15secs with hibernate. I love it!
This Athlon MP 2800 $900 system will perform as well as or better than a G5
dual: (based on your reference http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html )
which benchmarks an Athlon MP 2100. I could even build this system for $700
and a little tweaking if I used XP2800's instead of MP2800's
From pricewatch.com
TYAN dual MP MB with AMD MP 2800 CPU $420
Second MP2800 cpu $221
1 GB PC3200 DDR $135
Case and P/S approx $150
Video approx $200
SATA 120GB HD $102
CDRW, mouse,KB, etc $100
------------------------------
Total approx $900
Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like a G5 but it's close enough to
illustrate my point.
I could paint a cardboard box to look a little like a PC. Bet you I could
do that for under $10. Maybe under $5. So I guess the PC is over priced.
Snit
2003-11-03 00:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Precisely. That sort of shoots down your "XP is great -- it runs on
crap PC's!" 'argument'. XP isn't giving you anything Win98 or NT4 can.
What's crappy about a 8 year old PC that runs a current OS? I would call it
backward compatibility and maximizing value of old HW. Over Win98, XP gives
me better stability, memory mgmt, task mgmt and USB support for my digicam,
bootup times of <15secs with hibernate. I love it!
This Athlon MP 2800 $900 system will perform as well as or better than a G5
dual: (based on your reference http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html )
which benchmarks an Athlon MP 2100. I could even build this system for $700
and a little tweaking if I used XP2800's instead of MP2800's
From pricewatch.com
TYAN dual MP MB with AMD MP 2800 CPU $420
Second MP2800 cpu $221
1 GB PC3200 DDR $135
Case and P/S approx $150
Video approx $200
SATA 120GB HD $102
CDRW, mouse,KB, etc $100
------------------------------
Total approx $900
Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like a G5 but it's close enough to
illustrate my point.
I could paint a cardboard box to look a little like a PC. Bet you I could
do that for under $10. Maybe under $5. So I guess the PC is over priced.
After extensive research I found some prices:
Cardboard box from dumpster: free
Crayons from local Red Robin: free
My time to draw on box: priceless :)

Ok, my new computer:
- never crashes
- can be loaded with any software (I found a pretty big box)
- has no issues with waking from sleep
- can be easily upgraded (just draw a new drive or whatever on it)
- has no reported bugs or virus's
- is quiet
- uses NO power
- generates NO heat
- requires little training
- even after hours of non-use, is fully functional is less than one second
- uses time-tested, standards-based technology

Sounds like the stats on my new computer are better than any PC, AND it is
cheaper!

Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like the PC, but it's close enough
to illustrate my point.
Martik
2003-11-03 00:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Too funny!
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Precisely. That sort of shoots down your "XP is great -- it runs on
crap PC's!" 'argument'. XP isn't giving you anything Win98 or NT4 can.
What's crappy about a 8 year old PC that runs a current OS? I would call it
backward compatibility and maximizing value of old HW. Over Win98, XP gives
me better stability, memory mgmt, task mgmt and USB support for my digicam,
bootup times of <15secs with hibernate. I love it!
This Athlon MP 2800 $900 system will perform as well as or better than a G5
dual: (based on your reference http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html )
which benchmarks an Athlon MP 2100. I could even build this system for $700
and a little tweaking if I used XP2800's instead of MP2800's
From pricewatch.com
TYAN dual MP MB with AMD MP 2800 CPU $420
Second MP2800 cpu $221
1 GB PC3200 DDR $135
Case and P/S approx $150
Video approx $200
SATA 120GB HD $102
CDRW, mouse,KB, etc $100
------------------------------
Total approx $900
Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like a G5 but it's close enough to
illustrate my point.
I could paint a cardboard box to look a little like a PC. Bet you I could
do that for under $10. Maybe under $5. So I guess the PC is over priced.
Cardboard box from dumpster: free
Crayons from local Red Robin: free
My time to draw on box: priceless :)
- never crashes
- can be loaded with any software (I found a pretty big box)
- has no issues with waking from sleep
- can be easily upgraded (just draw a new drive or whatever on it)
- has no reported bugs or virus's
- is quiet
- uses NO power
- generates NO heat
- requires little training
- even after hours of non-use, is fully functional is less than one second
- uses time-tested, standards-based technology
Sounds like the stats on my new computer are better than any PC, AND it is
cheaper!
Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like the PC, but it's close enough
to illustrate my point.
Martik
2003-11-03 01:18:55 UTC
Permalink
This MP vs G5 comparison reminds me of the time I went to the pharmacist
with a bottle of 100 500mg Tylenol for 8$ and a bottle of 100 500mg Generic
Acetaminophen for $3 and asked him what the difference was. He replied.
'Five bucks'.
Woofbert
2003-11-03 03:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
This MP vs G5 comparison reminds me of the time I went to the pharmacist
with a bottle of 100 500mg Tylenol for 8$ and a bottle of 100 500mg Generic
Acetaminophen for $3 and asked him what the difference was. He replied.
'Five bucks'.
The problem with this analogy is that Tylenol is a fancy name for
Acetaminophen. OS X is not a fancy name for Windows XP. The difference
is more like Valerian and Versed.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-03 03:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
This Athlon MP 2800 $900 system will perform as well as or better than a G5
dual: (based on your reference http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html )
which benchmarks an Athlon MP 2100.
wrong. Barefeets benchmarks the dual 2.1 *Ghz*, the fastest Athlon MP
AMD currently sells, and which is marketed as "2800+". Try again.
Post by Martik
I could even build this system for $700
and a little tweaking if I used XP2800's instead of MP2800's
From pricewatch.com
TYAN dual MP MB with AMD MP 2800 CPU $420
I don't see dual MP Tyan board up on pricewatch.com, nor can I find a
dual MP motherboard with AGP Pro, but I'll assume it's there ($200 for
a MP motherboard is on the high-side anyway)
Post by Martik
Second MP2800 cpu $221
1 GB PC3200 DDR $135
Case and P/S approx $150
non-crappy case and power supply: add $200
Post by Martik
Video approx $200
Good luck finding a Radeon 9800Pro for $200. The cheapest at
newegg.com is $360.
Post by Martik
SATA 120GB HD $102
CDRW, mouse,KB, etc $100
------------------------------
Total approx $900
Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like a G5 but it's close enough to
illustrate my point.
DVD-R, add $100.
XP license, add $150

getting a dual MP box closer to the G5 spec runs up the price to $1500
or so.

I don't want to move the goalposts though, all I want to see is a
faster x86 box than the dual G5 that's also cheaper. So far, I haven't
seen any.
Martik
2003-11-03 04:02:01 UTC
Permalink
You are really spliting hairs here. The benchmark diffs, except for After
Effects. are not significant.

Barefeats footnote indicates a 2600 was used not 2800.
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
This Athlon MP 2800 $900 system will perform as well as or better than a G5
dual: (based on your reference http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html )
which benchmarks an Athlon MP 2100.
wrong. Barefeets benchmarks the dual 2.1 *Ghz*, the fastest Athlon MP
AMD currently sells, and which is marketed as "2800+". Try again.
Post by Martik
I could even build this system for $700
and a little tweaking if I used XP2800's instead of MP2800's
From pricewatch.com
TYAN dual MP MB with AMD MP 2800 CPU $420
I don't see dual MP Tyan board up on pricewatch.com, nor can I find a
dual MP motherboard with AGP Pro, but I'll assume it's there ($200 for
a MP motherboard is on the high-side anyway)
Post by Martik
Second MP2800 cpu $221
1 GB PC3200 DDR $135
Case and P/S approx $150
non-crappy case and power supply: add $200
Post by Martik
Video approx $200
Good luck finding a Radeon 9800Pro for $200. The cheapest at
newegg.com is $360.
Post by Martik
SATA 120GB HD $102
CDRW, mouse,KB, etc $100
------------------------------
Total approx $900
Yes, I know it is not configured exactly like a G5 but it's close enough to
illustrate my point.
DVD-R, add $100.
XP license, add $150
getting a dual MP box closer to the G5 spec runs up the price to $1500
or so.
I don't want to move the goalposts though, all I want to see is a
faster x86 box than the dual G5 that's also cheaper. So far, I haven't
seen any.
zurg
2003-11-01 11:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper
Ain't that the truth! That's why I use Macs.

Oh... you meant less expensive. Freudian slip, perhaps?
Martik
2003-11-01 22:31:07 UTC
Permalink
No I meant cheaper and sometimes better quality. (and worse) 'Economies of
scale' comes to mind here.
Post by zurg
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper
Ain't that the truth! That's why I use Macs.
Oh... you meant less expensive. Freudian slip, perhaps?
Lloyd Parsons
2003-11-01 23:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
No I meant cheaper and sometimes better quality. (and worse) 'Economies of
scale' comes to mind here.
While there are very good pcs built, most of what you see is really
crap. Every possible corner has been cut to drop the cost of
production.

And yes, 'economy of scale' has played a part too.

Lloyd
Post by Martik
Post by zurg
Post by Martik
Hardware and software for XP is cheaper
Ain't that the truth! That's why I use Macs.
Oh... you meant less expensive. Freudian slip, perhaps?
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-02 02:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
No I meant cheaper and sometimes better quality. (and worse) 'Economies of
scale' comes to mind here.
Apple gets the same quantity discounts on components as any other
major computer manufacturer. They *do* ship over 3M PC's a year, you
know.

The only economy of scale Wintel benefits from is a) Intel CPU's and
b) Windows, which, you guessed it, are both monopoly products.

The Apple G5's commodity parts list:

IBM G5 (built in its new fab in NY, which also fabs Sony and Toshiba
parts)
Industry Standard PC-3200 DDR ram
Industry Standard Serial-ATA
Industry Standard ATA optical drive (Pioneer DVR-A06 or Sony DVD-R)
Industry Standard PCI-X
Industry Standard AGP 8x video (Radeon or NVIDIA)
Industry Standard 802.11b/g
Industry Standard Bluetooth
Industry Standard 802.3x (Ethernet)

And I'll argue that the other parts that aren't standard:
1.0GHZ FSB
570W PS
Ducted, intelligent cooling system
Aluminum case
onboard 5.1 sound / optical out
are of higher quality than anything you can find on the x86 market
today.
Martik
2003-11-02 03:39:34 UTC
Permalink
So why is there such a huge markup with all those industry standard
components?

I agree it is an impressive looking WS and I am sure the build quality is
excellent. I just would not pay that much when I know I could get similar
performance and reasonable reliability elsewhere.
Post by Heywood Mogroot
The only economy of scale Wintel benefits from is a) Intel CPU's
Other cpu's for Wintel are AMD or Cyrix. I stopped using Intel years ago -
too expensive!
Post by Heywood Mogroot
Post by Martik
No I meant cheaper and sometimes better quality. (and worse) 'Economies of
scale' comes to mind here.
Apple gets the same quantity discounts on components as any other
major computer manufacturer. They *do* ship over 3M PC's a year, you
know.
The only economy of scale Wintel benefits from is a) Intel CPU's and
b) Windows, which, you guessed it, are both monopoly products.
IBM G5 (built in its new fab in NY, which also fabs Sony and Toshiba
parts)
Industry Standard PC-3200 DDR ram
Industry Standard Serial-ATA
Industry Standard ATA optical drive (Pioneer DVR-A06 or Sony DVD-R)
Industry Standard PCI-X
Industry Standard AGP 8x video (Radeon or NVIDIA)
Industry Standard 802.11b/g
Industry Standard Bluetooth
Industry Standard 802.3x (Ethernet)
1.0GHZ FSB
570W PS
Ducted, intelligent cooling system
Aluminum case
onboard 5.1 sound / optical out
are of higher quality than anything you can find on the x86 market
today.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-02 07:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
So why is there such a huge markup with all those industry standard
components?
short answer... Apple is charging $200-300 per unit for OS X, instead
of Dell's $39 price it gets from Micorsosft.

Also, Apple is not getting co-marketing kickbacks from Intel like Dell
is (ever wonder why Dell doesn't offer AMD systems?).

Also, Apple is a major manufacturer -- remember they basically started
this industry -- and as such have more overhead than the chopshop on
the corner or a fly-by-night guy on the web. This overhead includes a
basically unconditional 1 yr warrantee on parts & service.

But it is demonstrable that Apple is not overcharging for its
offerings, given that it is barely breaking at its current sales level
(3.2M units/yr).

Apple iMac line also compares favorably to Dell, and its PBG4 line
compares very favorably -- price and featurewise -- to Sony's Centrino
offerings.
Post by Martik
I agree it is an impressive looking WS and I am sure the build quality is
excellent. I just would not pay that much when I know I could get similar
performance and reasonable reliability elsewhere.
thing is though, a dual Opteron or Xeon workstation will cost more,
*and* be less capable.

But I agree that a 3.0Ghz Canterwood P4 system is nearly equally
capable, and only costs ~$1500 or so (that's what I built my system
for), a *lot* less than Apple's 1.8GHz G5 offering ($2750 for a system
with R9800Pro).

Apple does have a "missing middle" at the $1500 pricepoint.
Post by Martik
Post by Heywood Mogroot
The only economy of scale Wintel benefits from is a) Intel CPU's
Other cpu's for Wintel are AMD or Cyrix. I stopped using Intel years ago -
too expensive!
Good for you! Unfortunately, part of the reason AMD is so cheap is
because they are losing 20c for every $1 in sales.
zurg
2003-11-02 09:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
So why is there such a huge markup with all those industry standard
components?
Why do you assume the price difference is all due to markup? Why do you
assume that "industry standard" means all components come from the same
vendor and are equal quality? Just because a component is industry
standard doesn't mean Apple is going to use the same crap that gets
dumped into the typical cheapo PC.

One example that comes to mind: the Firewire connection in Macs are a
high quality kind that can power most smaller peripherals connected to
them. The Firewire connections on most PCs are cheaper and do not offer
that amenity. Both are a industry standard, but one is higher quality.
As usual, Apple errs on the side of slightly more expensive, better
quality and better user experience.

Likewise, compare the typical PC flat screen to that on a Powerbook or
a flat panel iMac. The difference is pretty obvious to more discerning
eyes.

So yeah, there's a price difference, but it's not all markup and
whether it's "industry standard" is irrelevant.
zurg
2003-11-02 03:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
No I meant cheaper and sometimes better quality.
Those two so rarely occur in the same product that I wonder why anyone
would risk it by purchasing a box full of "cheaper and sometimes better
quality."

And economies of scale may come in to play here against Apple, but I'd
prefer to spend a couple hundred more up-front and not have to bother
replacing hard drives and monitors and RAM and blah blah blah. The only
people I know who have had to do significant hardware repairs on their
machines are all PC users. I know Mac users who have had repairs needed
to be done, but they are so rare and typically so minor.

And that hardly brings into play the user experience. I've seen Dell
flat panel screens and they suck ass compared to what Apple puts out.
You may get it cheaper from Dell but you pay for it one way or the
other.
Heywood Mogroot
2003-11-02 21:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by zurg
And economies of scale may come in to play here against Apple,
I don't have any numbers, but once you get into tier-1 league I think
the wholesale prices on a given part are rather similar.

Dell and HP do make more PC's in a month than Apple makes in a year
though, so I guess they're a "tier 0" manufacturer.
Woofbert
2003-11-02 23:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
All this flaming over which OS is better is pretty funny.
I have used both as a professional (DBA and SW development) but feel more
comfortable with XP. It seems more intuitive than MAC. Hardware and software
for XP is cheaper and more readily available. I even run XP on a old Pentium
200 with no problems.
I'm sure the Mac OS has some advantages over XP and visa-versa. Everyone is
entitled to their preferences and they should not be ridiculed because of
it. Even those Linux/Unix weirdos have rights (Yes, I have used these as
well). Let's all try to get along!
People who spell Mac in all caps have the right to be ridiculed.

In my experience, setting up Macs for networking is easy, while setting
up XP is a nightmare. One visitor to my house has an interesting
problem: when he turns off wireless networking, his XP notebook also
turns off TCP/IP networking. And none of my visitors with XP seem to
have anything like Location Manager that would let them set up easily
switchable settings for when they're here and others elsewhere.

Based on my experience with XP over the last few weeks, I'd use W2k if I
could, but Mac OS X is still my favorite.
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Jim Lee Jr.
2003-11-02 23:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woofbert
People who spell Mac in all caps have the right to be ridiculed.
And those too lazy and/or stupid to use correct grammar and spelling.
Woofbert
2003-11-03 03:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lee Jr.
Post by Woofbert
People who spell Mac in all caps have the right to be ridiculed.
And those too lazy and/or stupid to use correct grammar and spelling.
Hear, hear! (Jim, in this particular case, the word "or" would have
included the sense of the word "and": those too lazy or stupid. And I
really hope that when reading that sentence aloud you didn't say, "those
too lazy and slash or stupid." :-)
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Martik
2003-11-03 04:06:12 UTC
Permalink
The world's not out to get you woofbert. Lighten up!
Post by Woofbert
Post by Jim Lee Jr.
Post by Woofbert
People who spell Mac in all caps have the right to be ridiculed.
And those too lazy and/or stupid to use correct grammar and spelling.
Hear, hear! (Jim, in this particular case, the word "or" would have
included the sense of the word "and": those too lazy or stupid. And I
really hope that when reading that sentence aloud you didn't say, "those
too lazy and slash or stupid." :-)
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Woofbert
2003-11-03 05:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martik
The world's not out to get you woofbert. Lighten up!
Woofbert
Post by Woofbert
Post by Jim Lee Jr.
Post by Woofbert
People who spell Mac in all caps have the right to be ridiculed.
And those too lazy and/or stupid to use correct grammar and spelling.
Hear, hear! (Jim, in this particular case, the word "or" would have
included the sense of the word "and": those too lazy or stupid. And I
really hope that when reading that sentence aloud you didn't say, "those
too lazy and slash or stupid." :-)
The phrase "Lighten up," especialy when followed by an exclamation
point, always strikes me as needing the word "dammit" to emphaaize the
speaker's point. :P :-)
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Jim Lee Jr.
2003-11-03 10:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Lee Jr.
And those too lazy and/or stupid to use correct grammar and spelling.
Hear, hear! Jim, in this particular case, the word "or" would have
included the sense of the word "and": those too lazy or stupid. And I
really hope that when reading that sentence aloud you didn't say, "those
too lazy and slash or stupid." :-)
You're right, Woof, I should have used only the the word "or." My fault.
Kevin
2003-11-03 19:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woofbert
In my experience, setting up Macs for networking is easy, while setting
up XP is a nightmare. One visitor to my house has an interesting
problem: when he turns off wireless networking, his XP notebook also
turns off TCP/IP networking. And none of my visitors with XP seem to
have anything like Location Manager that would let them set up easily
switchable settings for when they're here and others elsewhere.
?? Invite me over, I'm sure I could get it going with no problems. I rather
like Windows XP's wireless networking setups. I don't know if it has
"locations" per se, but I can certainly set up my laptop to connect with one
of several different wireless networks with no difficulty.

I had some difficulties getting my new Powerbook to talk with my network
(both wired and wireless) but it was solved relatively quickly.
Woofbert
2003-11-04 03:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Post by Woofbert
In my experience, setting up Macs for networking is easy, while setting
up XP is a nightmare. One visitor to my house has an interesting
problem: when he turns off wireless networking, his XP notebook also
turns off TCP/IP networking. And none of my visitors with XP seem to
have anything like Location Manager that would let them set up easily
switchable settings for when they're here and others elsewhere.
?? Invite me over, I'm sure I could get it going with no problems. I rather
like Windows XP's wireless networking setups.
There's no wireless at my house. I set up my house network about a year
before wireless really took off, and it's still cheaper to add another
RJ45 wherever I need one than to set up an AirPort base station.
Post by Kevin
I don't know if it has
"locations" per se, but I can certainly set up my laptop to connect with one
of several different wireless networks with no difficulty.
I had some difficulties getting my new Powerbook to talk with my network
(both wired and wireless) but it was solved relatively quickly.
By plugging it in? }: )
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Kevin
2003-11-04 05:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woofbert
Post by Kevin
?? Invite me over, I'm sure I could get it going with no problems. I rather
like Windows XP's wireless networking setups.
There's no wireless at my house. I set up my house network about a year
before wireless really took off, and it's still cheaper to add another
RJ45 wherever I need one than to set up an AirPort base station.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Misread the context. Sorry.
Post by Woofbert
Post by Kevin
I had some difficulties getting my new Powerbook to talk with my network
(both wired and wireless) but it was solved relatively quickly.
By plugging it in? }: )
Grrr.. I don't know exactly what, it was more likely a fluke than anything
else. I brought in my new toy, ran the RJ45 to it, and.... nothing. Being
new to the Mac I didn't know how to do diagnostics (or something like on
Windows, "ipconfig /renew"), and as far as I knew it was SUPPOSED to "just
work" anyway. So I knew no better than to keep plugging and unplugging
hoping it would work... and I knew it was a live link because I took the
line off another PC.

Turns out for some reason the switch in the basement partitioned off that
port when I plugged into the Mac (???) -- but I had to actually run to the
basement to cycle power on the switch before I realized it. Happened twice,
actually, then I got wise and used a different hub.

LAN indicator lights on the Powerbook would have helped. I'd have seen
right away that the trouble was cable-level and not protocol level. I guess
I can't really blame the Mac for that.

Also had trouble connecting to my wireless router, it wouldn't go, period,
until I turned off all the security functions on the router, let the Mac
connect, and then re-enable WEP. Yes, I did turn off MAC filtering. Oh
well.

I ended up replacing the router (US Robotics) with one made by Microsoft (!)
and believe it or not the new router (802.11g) has even better range, and
it worked just fine with the Mac.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...