Re: When is a Mac no longer a Mac?

In article <DoNotSpamthegoat4-325BD4.00545412122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Who cares about hardware? Either platform has enough umph for 99% of
>> the user base.
>
> Lots of users care about hardware. Here's a bit of amusement if you
> know your way around google: comb though some old CSMA stuff during the
> PPC vs. x86 fights of old.

Right, but csma isn't really a good representation of "the user base".

>>> On the software side, the classic MacOS is gone, replaced by Unixy
>>> stuff. And like it or not, higher up on the UI level lots of
>>> Windows-like stuff has been creeping in. Copy/paste files, window
>>> minimize, close box moved, the Dock, motherfucking wizards, etc.
>>
>> All of which none "came" from Windows.
>
> What do you mean?

It didn't come from Windows.

>>> So what about Mac today is still Mac? Please try to stay away from
>>> fuzzy buzzword bull*** like "OSX is full of innovation, which is
>>> what Macintosh has always been about." That's meaningless crap.
>>> What actual property of Macs today sets them apart from PCs?
>>
>> Mac OS X. That was easy.
>
> Ah, but can you get into specifics? How is OSX tangibly different
> from Windows?

I did, below. :P Just a few few examples that make a world of difference.

>>> Now that Ragosta's gone I figure a realistic discussion might be
>>> possible as long as everyone keeps Snit kill filed.
>>
>> Well, B.b., you didn't really set the tone for a "realistic
>> discussion", now did you? It's quite clear that you're anti-"Mac OS X
>> in its current incarnation" and quite anti-Intel. If you're looking
>> to be persuaded about the good things of Macs of today, you're not
>> setting up the chess table correctly.
> >
> >Some things that set OSX apart from "PCs" are, but not limited to:
> >
> >Quartz Extreme
> >AppleTalk
> >Spotlight
> > Smart Folders everywhere
> >Exposé
> >SSH
> >Airtunes
> >Good interface
> >Core Image
> >Core Video
> >iLife
> >iWork
> >Pro applications
> >Unix foundation
> >
>> Plus, OSX has the functions built in for lots of applications to use
>> in their own context, like quartz extreme enabled transitions and
>> stuff like that, that just help unifying the UI in OSX in a
>> predictable way.
>
> OK, that makes sense to me. But let me color some of that from the
> POV of a user with old hardware.

I'm sorry, that's not very interesting in a thread about what the difference
between Mac and PC is. I know for a fact that OSX flies on older hardware,
unlike Windows.


> Apple Talk is Local Talk, which is as dead as ADB.

Local Talk is "dead", Apple Talk isn't.


> I don't have Spotlight, so can't comment.

You're missing out on a LOT. And why do you question the differences between a
Mac and a PC using old system software and old hardware?

> Expose' is neat, but also exposes some of OSX's layering and event
> issues. It's also of limited use on a small monitor.

It's actually at its finest on a small monitor.

> SSH? You know where SSH came from, don't you? %man ssh

I don't know what point you're trying to make? That Apple didn't "invent" it?
That's irrelevant. Windows does not support it, I use it a lot. I have to
download SSH clients all the time when I'm on WIndows.

> Airtunes: don't use, can't comment.

It's really really neat.

> Good interface is kind of subjective.

Yeah, that's a common misconception. Good interface isn't subjective at all.
The usefullness of certain interface features may be subject to opinion, but a
"good interface" is by definition a interface that is good for most people -
whether the realise it or not.

> I'm not saying it's bad, but
> good compared to what? Windows?

Obviously.

> Many millions use windows daily.

Yeah? Are you equating quantity with quality? Millions of people program their
VCR daily, in spite of the interface for those being an awful mess. People
learn to cope with bad software, so they can get by. But they're not using it
at it's full potential.

> Windows could certainly use lots of improvements, but it's obviously not
> terrible enough to stop most people.

I beg to differ. When you have an office suit with a gazillion features that
actually could benefit lots of people, but none use it - that's a testimony to
the implementation.

> Core Image/Core Video. I'm simply not sure what specifically you're
> referring to here. Could you elaborate?

It's system libraries to handle Image, Video and Sound. OSX has built in
functions that can be used in conjunction with these. A developer can, for
instance, call in Core Image to do Image manipulation on an image without
writing a single line of image code. Basic functions like brightness/contrast
and more advanced like artistics filters. I believe APerture uses Core Image
for its alterations to the images.

> iLife is cute, I'll grant you that. I have no use for it, but it was
> fun to play with at the store.

Indeed.

> Is iWork's Pages based on AppleWorks? If so I hope they fixed some
> bugs.

No, it's unrelated.

> Pro applications is too non-specific.

Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Aperture,
Shake.

> A Unix foundation is not exactly something that sets Macs apart.

No? Why not? It makes a world of difference for me.

> That's not to say I think your list is somehow "countered" in this
> discussion. I just wanted to point out that all of those advantages are
> not complete. There's a good deal of half assing going on at Apple, as
> illustrated by the Finder's continuing sorry state.

I don't know what you're talking about here. The Finder serves me well. I'm
suspecting that you are talking about some rather insignificant bug and then
judges the entire program as faulty? I knew there were lots of people like that
before.

I've never had any problem finding files, traversing file system hierarchy and
launching applications using the Finder.

> So I'm worried that Apple is trying to sustain itself on momentum and
> bull***, which is what they did back in the 90's.

How's that for serious discussion? :)

> If Apple repeats that mistake (and it looks like they're headed that
> way) it's going to be far easier to jump ship if Windows or Linux
> should outpace them.

Yeah, this has been the mantra of lots of people for the last two decades. When
we actually see this happen, I'll join the club. For the moment, Mac is a
wonderful platform with wonderful applications, and Apple is a prospering
company.

> That's what inspired the question: what's going to retain users?
> Sure, a certain segment will stick with Apple to the bitter end no
> matter what, but what about the other folks? With no hardware divide,
> and with software stagnating unless you just out and out need multimedia
> capabilities in every damned app, Apple looks to be losing their
> advantages over the other options out there.

Well, every WIndows user I've seen to test/buy a Mac from never having any
experience with them absolutely *love* them now. Every single one. Not one
person have said "neat, but I'll stick with Windows". Some of them have their
PCs around for games - just like me (although I don't have them around, I've
always been a Mac user).

The Mac is so substantially different that these people actually gladly pay the
premium. I have one recent "switcher" (of which switch I had nothing to do
actually) that bought a iMac, and is now planning to buy a iBook. His interest
in computers increased substantially with the Mac.

--
Sandman[.net]

"Kudos to Apple for being the first to bring affordable 64 bit
computing to the PC market"
- Edwin
.

Quantcast