Anand wants to know how you feel about Apple...

[Darien]

Originally posted by: MAME
I've tried PC's and apples for years as a casual user and a programmer. I have yet to find one CS major (including myself) who preferred the Apples

I know a few. I don't know that many CS majors...and most of the ones I do know like macs more.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Cerb

"a bunch of tricks" can be as easy as downloading a new shell and changing a registry entry--or letting the installer do it for you . Sure it's not supported, but neither is most anything in Linux...

"Supported" means different things though. If something is "not supported" in windows, then it can cause mysterious breakages, might need redoing if some MS software decides to "fix" it, and MS might altogether prevent it from working in the future. Free software is "unsupported" technically, but the difference is that people want you to hack it and they don't keep secrets.

Every time I get in a bind, I find Windows a better desktop. Simple as that.

I always felt the opposite. I tended to get in binds with windows, that doesn't happen to me anymore with linux.

Linux is great, and I'd put up with some of the nice desktop distros if games ran on them, but it is just too easy for things to screw up and then take forever to fix, especially with X. It's very likely nothing more than newer, more robust, versions of X will do anything for it.

You mean, do anything for you. X works great for me. But fear not, the future is looking much brighter for X.

...yup, even just in the past few weeks that has been apparent.

 

[Sunner]

XP is skinned by default.

Well, the default XP skin is absolutely horrible.
And besides, any GUI is, by definition, "skinned" by default.
The point is, if I wanna change it, I have to resort to installing modified DLL's, which will then be overwritten by service packs, etc, get some third party software, or install an entirely new shell, there's no "native" way to do it.

"a bunch of tricks" can be as easy as downloading a new shell and changing a registry entry--or letting the installer do it for you . Sure it's not supported, but neither is most anything in Linux...I'm sure how Apple compares in this regard. Although I've never had an install get FUBAR'd from WindowsBlinds, XP skinning, or the use of any BlackBox Win32 variant or Litestep, even as far back as NT4 SP3.
Yeah, you're stuck w/ IE and WMP...hence Windows has an inherent bloat factor. Fine for desktops--why NOT have IE, WMP, etc (not counting that Opera, Mozilla, Winamp, Foobar2000, etc. are superior)? The GUI, OTOH, is part of why it is called Windows. Good or bad, it will not be removed, even when it can be. And M$ actually makes things pretty nice with the MMC...it's just too easy for other programs (backup apps tend to do this a lot) to make it crash all the time.
IMO, the best thing is what I have right now: A minimal GUI, giving me all the options I get with one taking more space, and an easy to use command line. Use Linux/Unix (terminal window) or break the EULA for Windows (Litestep's LSXCommand is great), that's the way to have it.

A big problem with Windows is, there seem to be very very few projects out there for stuff like this, Litestep sucks IMO, it's very lacking, I've tried a few other alternative shells as well, but they just aren't very good, and they develop very slowly, I have no idea why, but personally I can't think of any other reason than developers not finding it worthwhile to create and maintain major projects(like KDE for example) for Windows.

As for all the junk that tags along with XP, I agree, HD space is cheap, but this was about customization, no? Not even being able to do such trivial things as removing 500 MB of applications you'll never use is hardly a sign of a customizable OS IMO.

For servers...well, maybe that's why you can do a lot with an old P166, Linux and Apache (or in my case, a PII 333)?
Every time I get in a bind, I find Windows a better desktop. Simple as that. Linux is great, and I'd put up with some of the nice desktop distros if games ran on them, but it is just too easy for things to screw up and then take forever to fix, especially with X. It's very likely nothing more than newer, more robust, versions of X will do anything for it.

Now, let's not turn this into a *NIX vs Windows thing(well I guess it already kinda is with Mac vs x86/Windows), but the customization argument is one that a Windows user will never be able to win.

...but will you be able to win it, either?

Well, frankly, yes, when it comes to customizing, I don't see how a close sources OS could ever come close to an open sourced one.
By definition the open source one is more customizable.
There are so many OSS projects that spawn simply cause someone didn't like the way a certain program behaves/looks/whatever, which is a kind of customization.
Once in a time, Mandrake was pretty much just a custom Redhat for example.

Oh and by the way, if my spelling sucks and so forth, I've drank a $hitload of beer and drinks

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Sunner

XP is skinned by default.

Well, the default XP skin is absolutely horrible.
And besides, any GUI is, by definition, "skinned" by default.
The point is, if I wanna change it, I have to resort to installing modified DLL's, which will then be overwritten by service packs, etc, get some third party software, or install an entirely new shell, there's no "native" way to do it.

"a bunch of tricks" can be as easy as downloading a new shell and changing a registry entry--or letting the installer do it for you . Sure it's not supported, but neither is most anything in Linux...I'm sure how Apple compares in this regard. Although I've never had an install get FUBAR'd from WindowsBlinds, XP skinning, or the use of any BlackBox Win32 variant or Litestep, even as far back as NT4 SP3.
Yeah, you're stuck w/ IE and WMP...hence Windows has an inherent bloat factor. Fine for desktops--why NOT have IE, WMP, etc (not counting that Opera, Mozilla, Winamp, Foobar2000, etc. are superior)? The GUI, OTOH, is part of why it is called Windows. Good or bad, it will not be removed, even when it can be. And M$ actually makes things pretty nice with the MMC...it's just too easy for other programs (backup apps tend to do this a lot) to make it crash all the time.
IMO, the best thing is what I have right now: A minimal GUI, giving me all the options I get with one taking more space, and an easy to use command line. Use Linux/Unix (terminal window) or break the EULA for Windows (Litestep's LSXCommand is great), that's the way to have it.

A big problem with Windows is, there seem to be very very few projects out there for stuff like this, Litestep sucks IMO, it's very lacking,

In what respect? The only thing it really lacks is good emulation of the typical windows desktop folder. I'll gladly put up with anything else it might have wrong, as well, for being able to do most of what I need to with the keybaord. Googling, running most apps, calculating, etc.

I've tried a few other alternative shells as well, but they just aren't very good,

If you want a point-and-click one that works well, try Aston.

and they develop very slowly, I have no idea why, but personally I can't think of any other reason than developers not finding it worthwhile to create and maintain major projects(like KDE for example) for Windows.

Ask the same people who want something configurable, like LS in particular, for Linux. Or any single person who finds a bug. It takes time to iron everything out and get everything working right for everybody. Not to mention the fact that getting it all working involves dozens and dozens of third party pieces. You should have tried it in the NT4 days...it's come a long way. I'm quite suprised at the pace KDE and Gnome are both moving at.

For KDE, it might be because Windows Explorer only lacks one thing that KDE and Gnome have: virtual workspaces. It has at least some semblence of almost anything else useful.
And KDE, Gnome too, aren't too configurable in comparison (sure, with Explorer, but that's what happens when one entity can dictate competition). Unlike KDE and Gnome, LS at least allows one to break away from the normal explorer-like interface. What would KDE and Gnome offer Explorer users? I personally dislike that there are such plain standard desktop environments--I like being able to make it what I want (within some very minor constraints).

As for all the junk that tags along with XP, I agree, HD space is cheap, but this was about customization, no? Not even being able to do such trivial things as removing 500 MB of applications you'll never use is hardly a sign of a customizable OS IMO.

That's what I was talking about...I didn't mean HD space by bloat. Try running Win2k Pro on a PII 233 w/ 64MB RAM.
It's hell, and everything gets bogged down. When the worst CPU you can buy is a 1.4GHz Duron, though, and you have to really hunt for anything less than 256MB RAM...who cares? ...for a desktop.

For servers...well, maybe that's why you can do a lot with an old P166, Linux and Apache (or in my case, a PII 333)?
Every time I get in a bind, I find Windows a better desktop. Simple as that. Linux is great, and I'd put up with some of the nice desktop distros if games ran on them, but it is just too easy for things to screw up and then take forever to fix, especially with X. It's very likely nothing more than newer, more robust, versions of X will do anything for it.

Now, let's not turn this into a *NIX vs Windows thing(well I guess it already kinda is with Mac vs x86/Windows), but the customization argument is one that a Windows user will never be able to win.

...but will you be able to win it, either?

Well, frankly, yes, when it comes to customizing, I don't see how a close sources OS could ever come close to an open sourced one.
By definition the open source one is more customizable.
There are so many OSS projects that spawn simply cause someone didn't like the way a certain program behaves/looks/whatever, which is a kind of customization.
Once in a time, Mandrake was pretty much just a custom Redhat for example.

Oh and by the way, if my spelling sucks and so forth, I've drank a $hitload of beer and drinks

Well, have fun in the morning .
Of course the OS is more customizable...it's almost entirely modular. And there are no first party applications, which is one of the most interesting parts. Only first party product is the kernel. A few 2nd party apps maybe (not sure), but 99% is third party. In all technical aspects, Linux wins. When it comes to using it when you haven't read a 2000 page manual...it doesn't. But I'm sure IBM and Novell are working very hard on that (making it easier to use, too, not just making big manuals )

Huh...I went on quite a tangent there.
I'm suprised we're close to being done with two pages and this hasn't become a flamewar.

 

[sharkeeper]

This is self explanatory.

Cheers!

 

[Jeff7181]

Apple has a LONG way to go if they ever want to take marketshare from the PC. Here's some reasons why I don't own an Apple and won't anytime soon.

Price. This is absolutely insane.. For $1800 I get a single 1.6 Ghz processor, 256 MB of RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, a crappy FX5200 Ultra, no monitor... that is pure insanity.

Apple lies. Introducing the world?s fastest personal computer and the first with a 64-bit processor, starting at just $1799. Even if the dual 2 Ghz G5 is the fastest desktop in the world, it doesn't start at $1799, the single 1.6 Ghz model with crap for the rest of the computer is $1799.

Their support sucks. iPod... that's all I have to say about that.

Oh... and Apple has always claimed their computers are more stylish than a PC... I disagree.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Cerb

And KDE, Gnome too, aren't too configurable in comparison (sure, with Explorer, but that's what happens when one entity can dictate competition). Unlike KDE and Gnome, LS at least allows one to break away from the normal explorer-like interface. What would KDE and Gnome offer Explorer users? I personally dislike that there are such plain standard desktop environments--I like being able to make it what I want (within some very minor constraints).

You realize that there are literally tons of different desktop environments and standalone window managers that you can use, besides kde and gnome? That's the entire point. KDE and Gnome do exactly what they do. They don't do other things, because if you want to do other things, you use other software. Just like you use litestep instead of explorer, or whatever."

And there are no first party applications, which is one of the most interesting parts. Only first party product is the kernel. A few 2nd party apps maybe (not sure), but 99% is third party.

I guess the gnu apps could be considered first party, but really, the whole nth-party thing is inappropriate for free software. It's all free software, written by different people, not products sold by companies.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Apple has a LONG way to go if they ever want to take marketshare from the PC.

BINGO! They don't want to. I wish people would get a clue about this whole issue.

 

[Duvie]

Well Mr. Anand.....

For me it is about cash....plain and simple....I cannot see spending that type of cash for a system....What would it take and how much to compete with my current setup??? I don't have problems with my PC now anyways...I am up and running 24/7 and only have to reboot on required software installs...To me it has seemed to be pretty seamless for the last 2 years, and I OC things out of cpec regularly...

I also OC!!! I like bang for the buck which automatically points the clueless who don't see whay I cant "be open-minded" or "immature" (not unmature you moron!!!) to the fact which system I perfer and why....


As for ANand "figure software cost" (said in a whinning voice)....I do, I already paid for the software..when I get a new system i sell the part of the old...the software licenses can transfer over for me and the joe blow who buys my old parts can use what the heck he wants...I don't see your lame point....


I think anand was way off...It mainly is about cost....Most of us are cheap, and some really cheap!!! In a site dominated by amd users who harp price/performance and bang for the buck and he writes this bibble babble...pay attention to your own site, man....It is all about money.

 

[trak0rr0kart]

Word!

I have this curve I go off of. It is like 1/x where x = 1. if you graph it you will see my point. Basically, I don't need to have that extra 2 % performance for the fastest system around, nor do I need to be 99 % efficient when 98 will suffice.

There is no point in buying a premium, proprietary machine that is just going to cost you more in the end because not too many things are interchangable with other PC's in the world (please don't listening to me rich guys, we need your support in buying the latest stuff so as we can have our dirt cheap prices). I would rather just have a PC (windows and linux) that I can totally customize the hell out of, build for dirt cheap and be that 95 % instead of 100% in measured perfomance of the month.

Lets make it easy, just set you mindset back 2 months and buy what was hot then and you should be fine as far as spending money is concerned especially with hardware way overtaking software in development in the last 8 years. Heck, I'm still using my 1400 t-bird system I built when I started college 3 years ago and paid $500 to build the complete setup. Not too shabby for an investment. ( upgraded vid card and ram $150 in the three years)


Regards,

Trak0r

 

[Cygni]

Powerful CPU's + Weak Chipsets + High Prices + Awesome Cases + Uninspired OS = Mac's G4, G5, and powerbook lines.

The stability + ease of use argument for Macs is all rumor, in my eyes. Ive worked on a ton of iMacs, eMacs, towers, i books, and powerbooks, and i havent seen anything that puts them above a standard PC's stability. And WinXP sufficiently puts X to shame in my eyes. Personally, i wont buy a Mac because of the big goose egg in upgradeability, the high price, and the painful OS.

 

[Corporate Thug]

why is it junk?


That's beyond the scope of this thread.

no its not, the title of the thread is "Anand wants to know how you feel about Apple..." and when giving an opinion like "apple is junk", usually one says WHY they feel that way

my roommate has a powerbook and a dual G4, both work just fine...


A PC works just fine too...at one third the cost, double the speed and ten times the amount of hardware and software.

ok, since both work fine, it doesnt make the other junk.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Cygni
Powerful CPU's + Weak Chipsets + High Prices + Awesome Cases + Uninspired OS = Mac's G4, G5, and powerbook lines.

The stability + ease of use argument for Macs is all rumor, in my eyes. Ive worked on a ton of iMacs, eMacs, towers, i books, and powerbooks, and i havent seen anything that puts them above a standard PC's stability. And WinXP sufficiently puts X to shame in my eyes. Personally, i wont buy a Mac because of the big goose egg in upgradeability, the high price, and the painful OS.

what exactly do u mean by uninspired OS?

personally i wouldnt buy a mac desktop i would buy a powerbook because i dont plan of upgrading my laptop one why or another

i know a lot of people think MACs are expensive and they are right, but also consider that macs of higher resell value than PCs.

i do acutions for all my friends, i got $780 on ebay for a 3 year old powerbook 500 mhz G4 (i'm pretty sure it was a G4). thats about half of what he paid for it. what PC desktop or notebook will net you 50% of the what you paid for 3 years from when u bought it????

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Apple has a LONG way to go if they ever want to take marketshare from the PC. Here's some reasons why I don't own an Apple and won't anytime soon.

Price. This is absolutely insane.. For $1800 I get a single 1.6 Ghz processor, 256 MB of RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, a crappy FX5200 Ultra, no monitor... that is pure insanity.

Apple lies. Introducing the world?s fastest personal computer and the first with a 64-bit processor, starting at just $1799. Even if the dual 2 Ghz G5 is the fastest desktop in the world, it doesn't start at $1799, the single 1.6 Ghz model with crap for the rest of the computer is $1799.

Their support sucks. iPod... that's all I have to say about that.

Oh... and Apple has always claimed their computers are more stylish than a PC... I disagree.

like i said in my first post, pricing isnt too bad once u consider student discount. i know this does not apply to everyone but i'm sure anyone who really wants to can finds a student to make the purchase

also, you pay more than a pc but you have MUCH higher resell value

as for the ipod, the battery issue is a myth as a majority of the people that i know who have ipods have had no problems with them even after 18 months. also, as pointed out in another thread, the ipod battery can be EASILY replaced by the owner

as far as looks, i perfer apples designs over any PC

 

[drag]

I think it's funny how people complain that they don't like apple computers because the propriatory hardware design, and then more then likely they use Windows.

IMHO OS X > WinXP


There is no contest. Anybody who tries to tell me that windows Xp is more stable and a better desktop platform then Apple is smoking crack.

I've personally kept running and updated a lab full of a 80+ plus apple computers. All of them were used by art students, all with the same account. (administrator account BTW, although we didn't tell them that.)

You try doing that with windows computers and within 2-3 months you will be pulling your hair out.

The whole lot of them didn't take up more then 4-10 hours a week of my attention. And I did this on a part time basis.

That left the 2 full time administrators to do more important things. One, the traditional mac guru spent time with the students and teachers helping them, plus testing upgrades.

The other, a traditional windows administrator from a seperate part of the college spent all her time wrestling with the w2k servers that were almost constantly on the brink of crashing.

Some of the older ones were upgrades from OS 8.something to OS 9, to OS X.

Not once in years of near constant use did most of them require a reformat and reinstall. I'd say that 90% of them had the original factory-installed OS in upgrade form running as classic mode, or if they were originally installed with OS X they would be still running the upgraded version of that original install.


Also try teaching art students how to map a network share to a harddrive letter in w2k. they get a glazed look on their face as they reach for the notebooks and make you repeat it 3-4 times.

Now do the same for mounting a network share in w2k. Show them once, maybe twice and you can see the lightbulb go on, and they'll remember it for the entire time they will be their.


The price for macs is well worth it. When your paying someone 30-40+ dollars a hour or have to meet the deadline for a 400,000 dollar adverstising project you don't want your employees running spybot, cleaning out viruses, recovering from a crash, or looking up how to do something on the internet. You want them working, having to wait a extra 5 seconds for something to finish rendering and paying a extra 500-1000 bucks for your computer running 5000+ dollars in software is a small price to pay.

Anyways personally I prefer Linux to OS X or windows. A good administrator can keep people from worrying about what is going on down underneath the desktop and automate EVERYTHING they need.

And I have choice too. I can use linux on x86, x86-64(even in native mode, right now even), PowerMacs g4 or g5s, ibm power3,4,5 unix servers, future power970 workstations, Sun sparc machines, HP workstations, computers running alpha proccessors, SGI workstations, clusters, even old-school style S/370 IBM mainframes.


Anybody else is stuck with AMD vs Intel or ATI vs Nvidia. Oh, what a choice that is.

 

[Jeff7181]

Apple's cooling design is good, I'll give them that. But I don't see how a student discount will help much unless it's 50% off. And even then it's JUST starting to be comparable in price to a PC. But PC's have one thing Apple's don't... gaming support. Only the most popular games are ported.

 

[xype]

I used to be indifferent about Macs at best. Then I used them. Then I used the money I earned by having a job to buy one. I'm not regretting it, OS X is nice, the machine works well and the Cinema Display is sweet. I still have the old Duron for gaming, but my next computer is going to be a G5.

I think the people who moan about Macs, repeating the same old stereotypes about them, without having hands-on experience with the machines, are just plain ignorant. And if you can't afford one, you're not Apple's target audience either (after all, their perfect customer gets one of them Cinema Displays and an iPod as well). It's not like Apple is pricing their systems the way they are out of stupidity.

 

[mosco]

Originally posted by: NFactor
I think my sig says it all.

Shouldn't it be 9.81 m/sec/sec not 9.8m/sec?

 

[Jeff7181]

It's not like Apple is pricing their systems the way they are out of stupidity.

Yeah, true. They must be making money or they'd change their marketing strategy and target a different group of consumers. I've used a few different iMac's, used a G4 to help someone buy something on eBay, but that's about the extent of my Mac use... except way back in grade school. I wouldn't mind trying one... I just think they look like crap and it can't do anything for me that justifies the cost of it.

 

[Overkast]

Originally posted by: Rectalfier

And I think the gaming point is a decent one - but I don't understand why so many people have this concept that you only own one computer. You can game on your pc and do other stuff on your mac. Variety is the spice of life..

Those spices don't mix.

All spices mix... it's just a matter of how grown-up your taste buds are in order for you to be able to handle the taste.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Cerb

And KDE, Gnome too, aren't too configurable in comparison (sure, with Explorer, but that's what happens when one entity can dictate competition). Unlike KDE and Gnome, LS at least allows one to break away from the normal explorer-like interface. What would KDE and Gnome offer Explorer users? I personally dislike that there are such plain standard desktop environments--I like being able to make it what I want (within some very minor constraints).

You realize that there are literally tons of different desktop environments and standalone window managers that you can use, besides kde and gnome? That's the entire point. KDE and Gnome do exactly what they do. They don't do other things, because if you want to do other things, you use other software. Just like you use litestep instead of explorer, or whatever."

Yes, and of them, I'm rather fond of xfce (sp). But using it with most any commercial distro (comparable to using Windows) wouldn't be much different than using Litestep or Serenade, as none of the major distros (which you can get support for--buy) that I know of support more than KDE and/or Gnome.

And there are no first party applications, which is one of the most interesting parts. Only first party product is the kernel. A few 2nd party apps maybe (not sure), but 99% is third party.

I guess the gnu apps could be considered first party, but really, the whole nth-party thing is inappropriate for free software. It's all free software, written by different people, not products sold by companies.

...actually, they are also products sold by companies.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: mosco

Originally posted by: NFactor
I think my sig says it all.

Shouldn't it be 9.81 m/sec/sec not 9.8m/sec?

no, no no: 9.806m/s^2

 

[beverage]

I'd love to have a PowerBook, the only thing standing in the way...$$$

 

[RaDragon]

I already have an Apple in my collection of computers.

I got it used, though... An original iMac Bondi Blue. I use it for beta testing websites that I develop (since there are still [subtle] differences between browsing using IE on a PC and IE on a Mac, etc.) I even upgraded the memory myself (LOL -- I used my Laptop's 128MB SODIMM so my iMac can play The Sims ) Also, I've just updated it to running Mac OS 9.2.2 but I wished I were able to run Mac OS X 10.3.2 if I can only afford it... >.< I also have a Newton MessagePad 120 and an eMate 300 for posterity

I use PCs (workstation and servers) 98% of the time, though.

 

[mosco]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: mosco

Originally posted by: NFactor
I think my sig says it all.

Shouldn't it be 9.81 m/sec/sec not 9.8m/sec?

no, no no: 9.806m/s^2

9.XX whatever, i was strictly talking about the m/sec thing because what he wrote is not an acceleration.