Re: I really do like OS X but . . .

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:06:23 -0500, TheLetterK
<theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>foo@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:46:00 -0500, TheLetterK
>> <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
>>>>_nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
>>>>OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
>>>>origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
>>>>a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
>>>>stop endlessly repeating this.
>>>
>>>I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
>>>I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
>>>compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
>>>introduces a number of problems.
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>
>I'm not terribly surprised that you don't consider problems not of a
>technical nature.

Can you be more specific?

>> The NT VDM is well-documented and well-known, and I doubt MS has
>> anyone working on it anymore; why would they?
>>
>>
>>>Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
>>>.NET...
>>
>>
>> Huh? Win32 is just an environment, one of several. Don't like it?
>> Put in another one.
>
>Win32 is also the name for a set of APIs. The only real competition on
>Windows right now, would be from .NET or Java. Still, Win32 is, by far,
>the most commonly used.

So target for it if you want to.

>>
>> http://mipagina.cantv.net/jjaguilerap/w2k_arq.html
>
>I was speaking of the APIs, not the kernel and overall system
>architecture. Win32 is a throwback to the MS-DOS shell days, and should
>disappear.

Why?

>>>>>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>>>>>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>>>>>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>>>>>the OS,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>>>>>features.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
>>>>talking about?
>>>
>>>XP is the very definition of feature crippled.
>>
>>
>> How so?
>
>Microsoft took an excellent kernel like NT, and married it with absolute
>*** for a userspace.

This is getting tiresome. *How so*?

>>>>>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>>>>>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>>>>>usability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
>>>>incremental changes for $130 each!
>>>
>>>You do realize that Microsoft also charges for major point updates?
>>>Unless XP was free for Windows 2000 users? If so, I would like a refund...
>>>
>>>Windows 2000 == NT 5.0
>>>Windows XP == NT 5.1
>>>Windows Server 2003 == NT 5.3
>>>
>>>Would it help if Apple had completely removed version numbers from their
>>>marketing campaigns, like Microsoft does?
>>
>>
>> $130 for this year's OS. Every year. Only Apple.
>
>And until recently it was '$300' for Microsoft every 2-3 years. I

1. Upgrades are available for far less than that. Heck, new
*machines* with the OS are available for less than that!
2. Software still works on Windows 2000; it isn't as if people are
forced to upgrade. The need to upgrade on the PC isn't nearly what it
is on the Mac due to the more mature Windows APIs in use.

>definitely prefer Apple's release model, even if it does cost more.
>There's nothing I hate more than having to wait 4 years for an OS update.

Why? As a developer it's vastly easier to support a simpler and more
mature release schedule, and I have to believe it's easier from a
support perspective too (both on Apple's part and on IT's part).

>>>>>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>>>>>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>>>>>slower,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
>>>>George, this is an old one too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>>>>>any difference in productivity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>These are all strawman arguments. There
>>>>>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
>>>>you.
>>>
>>>Benchmarks tend to be mixed, and I think there are causes for benchmark
>>>differences that most people don't really consider. Like poorly
>>>optimized code.
>>
>>
>> So clearly every application is poorly written.
>
>Every application? No. But a large majority of them, particularly
>professional applications that receive a great deal of effort at being
>optimized for specific hardware and Windows.
>
>>
>> Or else, as is vastly more likely, the CPU's slower.
>
>I don't think there's any real reason to suspect that the G5 is
>substantially slower, considering the fact that many highly optimized
>applications *do* perform similarly to their Wintel counterparts.

And some don't. And generally speaking, more don't than do.

>>>>>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>>>>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>>>>platforms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
>>>>Mac systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>>>>>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>>>>>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>>>>>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>>>>>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>>>>>on PCs is largely a myth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>>>>>than PPC Macs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
>>>>Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
>>>>seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
>>>
>>>I have no doubt they will be faster for many uses. Though I don't know
>>>if moving the Xserves over is a good idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>The only reason anyone even looks at the Xserves, are because they use
>G5s (which are very well suited to high performance clustering on the
>'cheap'). Without that advantage, no one would give them the time of day.

A particular label on the CPU isn't an advantage in and of itself.
What advantage does that G5 give you? How is it high performance
clustering on the cheap? Do you do a lot of said clustering, and what
do you do with it?

>>>>>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is funny, George. Really.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>>>>>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>>>>>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>>>>>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>>>>>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>>>>>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
>>>>Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
>>>>fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>>>
>>>Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
>>>price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>I don't see why the price would drop, when Apple switches to a
>manufacturer that charges even more. Apple has no bargaining room with
>Intel, like they had with IBM and Freescale.

You mean like saying they'll go to AMD?

>>>>>LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
>>>>>sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
>>>>>and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
>>>>>difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
>>>>>tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
>>>>>they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
>>>>>nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
>>>>>more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
>>>>>notwithstanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
>>>>identically.
>>>
>>>Surely even you realize that there are other differences between the
>>>case of your average PC and average PowerMac G5. Apple spends a lot more
>>>on cases than most OEMs.
>>
>>
>> Their loss.
>>
>>
>>>>>As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
>>>>>the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
>>>>>computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
>>>>>before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
>>>>>away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
>>>>>remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
>>>>>Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
>>>>>we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
>>>>>adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
>>>>>the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
>>>>>emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
>>>>>scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's new?
>>>
>>>The lack of support.
>>
>>
>> Again, what's new?
>
>Again, the lack of support.

Not new.

>>>>>My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
>>>>>likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
>>>>>on going Intel until the next decade.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You'll, as usual, be the laggard, in this case technically.

.