Microsoft VS Apple discussion cont.

[snume]

My point is if you already have another OSs on the HD installing Windows is a pain in the ass, I swapped the order of my hard drives to please Windows' installer then swapped them back and added Windows to my boot loader (that Windows would have over written if was on the same drive).

Yeah, I agree here. When I wanted to dual boot Win95 and WinNT, I had to install in the correct order or I had to star over (without some major workaround). What has been your experience with dual booting MAc Os's? I can't say i know anyone who has done it ie OS9 & OSX on the same Mac.

Yes I am referring to Linux, BSD, Minix, Unix,ect

Well, my opinion is that with all the users writing, rewriting and improving the drivers, Linux would HAVE to be more stable, but I don't use Linux and I wonder how easy for the average person it would be to have the latest, most stable driver for their individual piece of hardware.

Windows may not be perfect, but it does facilitate the driver installing and updating for you. Provided the manufacturer has developed their driver properly and tested it exhaustively, with all the possible other combinations of hardware it could interact with (this never happens - the customers become the testers and bug reporters) the hardware should work properly. The great selection comes with a risk of error. Something Apple doesn't let you experience. I think that's great, but if there were no competition in the market, we would still be paying $3000+ in 1982 dollars for the base model home computer. You can thank Windows for the affordability of your Mac.

For a gaming PC I want something that I can turn on and get right to playing like the Amiga was (that I use for retro computer gaming), this way 10 years down the road I could just dust of the PC start it up and start playing my old games for it quickly. It also means one can drag their computer to their TV and quickly show people stuff of the computer (like cool games) without boring them with a long booting process.

This would indeed be a great thing, and maybe somewhere down the road, possible. I feel your pain, but I can't consider it a reason not to like Windows or MS. It seems to be the case with everything besides Game Consoles.

[snume]

oh, well as if Vista is a miraculous operating system with no problems whatsoever .

Not what he was implying, he was saying OS X isn't perfect either and it's funny how Mac defenders will blame anyone else but Apple for any problem with Macs but blame MS whenever there is any small problem with Windows.

I guarantee you the original Mac OS X was still 1,000X better than Vista is now.

How do you mean? Please provide some examples of the features OS X was released with that aren't available or don't have equivalents in Vista that make it 1000x better. I don't use OS X but I do use Vista so it would help me understand your position.

I don't think Vista is perfect, but I use it everyday, it performs well for me andd I like it. My wife doesn't like it on her work machine (too slow) but she likes it on her laptop. I believe her work machine is underpowered (not enough RAM) but it doesn't crash on her, just really sluggish (not a small issue either).

[Psy]

Yeah, I agree here. When I wanted to dual boot Win95 and WinNT, I had to install in the correct order or I had to star over (without some major workaround). What has been your experience with dual booting MAc Os's? I can't say i know anyone who has done it ie OS9 & OSX on the same Mac.

It is unreality easy to have both OS9 and OSX on the same Mac. Also back in 1991 Commodore released the Amiga 3000UX that had both Amiga OS 2.04 and Amiga Unix preloaded on the machine, in 1988 Apple released Apple Unix so you could dual boot your Mac with MacOS and Apple Unix.

Well, my opinion is that with all the users writing, rewriting and improving the drivers, Linux would HAVE to be more stable, but I don't use Linux and I wonder how easy for the average person it would be to have the latest, most stable driver for their individual piece of hardware.

Windows may not be perfect, but it does facilitate the driver installing and updating for you. Provided the manufacturer has developed their driver properly and tested it exhaustively, with all the possible other combinations of hardware it could interact with (this never happens - the customers become the testers and bug reporters) the hardware should work properly. The great selection comes with a risk of error. Something Apple doesn't let you experience. I think that's great, but if there were no competition in the market, we would still be paying $3000+ in 1982 dollars for the base model home computer. You can thank Windows for the affordability of your Mac.

Yet Commodore was cheaper, the Amiga 1200 launched at $599 in October 1992. Even the Amiga 1000 launched around $1,500

This would indeed be a great thing, and maybe somewhere down the road, possible. I feel your pain, but I can't consider it a reason not to like Windows or MS. It seems to be the case with everything besides Game Consoles.

Both Commodore and Atari went the road of fast booting home PC.

[snume]

It is unreality easy to have both OS9 and OSX on the same Mac.

This is cool. I bet MS just doesn't want you to use one Pc for more than one OS. Not very nice of them.

Also back in 1991 Commodore released the Amiga 3000UX that had both Amiga OS 2.04 and Amiga Unix preloaded on the machine, in 1988 Apple released Apple Unix so you could dual boot your Mac with MacOS and Apple Unix.

While this is also cool, how did this pan out for either company? Did Unix take off? Not really. It's not for the average user and not a selling point to 99% of the market. Only the extreme hardcore would use it. I don't think it's a bad thing or useless, just not a huge selling point. The Dual boot Vista/OS X machine is probably the most enticing.

Yet Commodore was cheaper, the Amiga 1200 launched at $599 in October 1992. Even the Amiga 1000 launched around $1,500

Both Commodore and Atari went the road of fast booting home PC.

Where are these companies now? They priced their competitors (TI being one) out of the business and then themselves. And they were not PC clones, they were proprietary and based off of Video Game Console technology. I believe they may have been BETTER than the PC, but neither of them makes a computer anymore. If they had run windows, they may have become the industry leaders. The Amiga could have done with better marketing as well.

[17daysolderthannes]

I couldn't be bothered to real this thread, but I hate iPods.

I do too.

[17daysolderthannes]

How do you mean? Please provide some examples of the features OS X was released with that aren't available or don't have equivalents in Vista that make it 1000x better. I don't use OS X but I do use Vista so it would help me understand your position.

I don't think Vista is perfect, but I use it everyday, it performs well for me andd I like it. My wife doesn't like it on her work machine (too slow) but she likes it on her laptop. I believe her work machine is underpowered (not enough RAM) but it doesn't crash on her, just really sluggish (not a small issue either).

I was talking in terms of reliability: i.e. Mac OS X has 1000X fewer crashes and compatibility errors than Vista.

[Psy]

While this is also cool, how did this pan out for either company? Did Unix take off? Not really. It's not for the average user and not a selling point to 99% of the market. Only the extreme hardcore would use it. I don't think it's a bad thing or useless, just not a huge selling point. The Dual boot Vista/OS X machine is probably the most enticing.

Most of the Internet runs of *nix (mostly FreeBSD) and most 3D workstations (like SGI workstations) still run off Unix. Also neither Apple or Commodore was selling Unix to average user but were selling them to industries as low end workstations.

Where are these companies now? They priced their competitors (TI being one) out of the business and then themselves. And they were not PC clones, they were proprietary and based off of Video Game Console technology.

Why should they have base their hardware on crappy IBM technology? The IBM PC was based on 1970's technology, when IBM designed the IBM PC they used existing hobbyists designs and hardware. Also the Amiga was arcade board technology not video game console technology, even though the Amiga 1000 had the specs of the Sega Genesis the Amiga was launched in 1985 and the Sega SG-1000 Mark III was the most advanced Video Game Console at the time.

On a side note the Amiga mother board was modified for use in arcade machines, the most famous being the Virtuality line.

I believe they may have been BETTER than the PC, but neither of them makes a computer anymore. If they had run windows, they may have become the industry leaders. The Amiga could have done with better marketing as well.

AmigaOS was a true multi-tasking back in the 1980's (okay so the multi-tasking was done through the Amiga's hardware) so what would be the point of Amiga users wanting to run Windows?

[17daysolderthannes]

How about a Kernel Panic:

ok, that has happened to me twice, but all it took was a quick restart and everything I was working on was saved in the "recovered files" folder, so its a minor inconvenience at worst.

Or the ever-so-lovely spinning beach ball of death:

that's the software f'ing up, all you have to do is right click the program (or ctrl click if you don't have a 2 button mouse) the app in the dock and force quit and start it up again. All the programs I have that do that to me are usually half-baked homebrew stuff.

Yeah, like Final Cut Pro, that piece of shit. Soooo ancient. Don't upgrade your Quicktime beyond 7.3.1 or you are asking for trouble with Final Cut Pro.

OK, so Apple has its first glitch ever of all time, I have a problem sometimes with iMovie HD not recognizing my mini DV camera, but the newer remake of iMovie always recognizes it. It may actually be my fault though because I'm accidentally opening up iMovie into an iSight file instead of a DV file.

[snume]

I was talking in terms of reliability: i.e. Mac OS X has 1000X fewer crashes and compatibility errors than Vista.

OK, that's fine, I just wanted clarification. I think there were a lot of features that Vista has implemented to keep pace, though, I just wanted to know what they were.

I feel MS should not have released Vista as an upgrade for current PC users and only made it available on NEW (not refurbished 1 or 2 year old technology) PC's. The majority drivers were not ready for prime time and it caused a lot of people a lot of headaches. I haven't had any of those headaches, even with my Refurbished PC (I added 1GB RAM to beef it up).

I have run Vista for over a year on my home PC. I have had 1 crash. I have had no virus problems on it. I use it every day and it runs all the time. How much more reliable do I want it to be. I may not have had the same experience as the Vocal Minority of the Vista user base, but, in my opinion, I believe I have had the same experience as most of the casual PC using public who have bought a new PC with Vista in the last year.

[snume]

Why should they have base their hardware on crappy IBM technology? The IBM PC was based on 1970's technology, when IBM designed the IBM PC they used existing hobbyists designs and hardware.

I wasn't saying they should have, just that they were based on hardware that generally had it's OS in ROM or on a cart and quickly booted. Not a bad thing, just different.

AmigaOS was a true multi-tasking back in the 1980's (okay so the multi-tasking was done through the Amiga's hardware) so what would be the point of Amiga users wanting to run Windows?

I can't say they would have been better, just that they would have had access to all the software written for Dos/Windows. It may no thave been better, just a larger selection. Just a thought.

[snume]

ok, that has happened to me twice, but all it took was a quick restart and everything I was working on was saved in the "recovered files" folder, so its a minor inconvenience at worst.

one more system restarts due to a crash than I've had

that's the software f'ing up, all you have to do is right click the program (or ctrl click if you don't have a 2 button mouse) the app in the dock and force quit and start it up again.

This is also accomplished in Windows with a <ctrl><shift><esc> to open Task manager and you right click on the process and stop it. Seems as intuitive.

OK, so Apple has its first glitch ever of all time, I have a problem sometimes with iMovie HD not recognizing my mini DV camera

and 2nd

, but the newer remake of iMovie always recognizes it. It may actually be my fault though because I'm accidentally opening up iMovie into an iSight file instead of a DV file.

The point is all software can have bugs, you can't test for every possible combination, and expressing every comment as absolute will most likely always make you wrong.

[Psy]

I wasn't saying they should have, just that they were based on hardware that generally had it's OS in ROM or on a cart and quickly booted. Not a bad thing, just different.

Part of the OS in the ROM and this was normal as the early home computers like the C64 has such slow transfer rates that it would be impractical to expect people to have a boot disk (or tape) just so they could load the program they wanted.

I can't say they would have been better, just that they would have had access to all the software written for Dos/Windows. It may no thave been better, just a larger selection. Just a thought.

Both Commodore and Apple released Dos cards that were IBM clones on card.

[snume]

Both Commodore and Apple released Dos cards that were IBM clones on card.

That rings a bell as well. Do you remember what the price points were of those add-ons? I remember the cost of most add-ons for home computers of the day being pretty prohibitive for all but the hard core. My family could never afford them, that I remember.

[dragonboy]

Computer technology sucks, people who make computers suck, they never have any clue what they are doing. Where should I begin, there is so much crap to rant about I don't know where to start. I'll start with the memory. Early computers were all like: read code from memory and do it; todays computers are like: load from the hardrive into the RAM, load from the RAM into the cashe, load from the cashe into the inter-cashe, load from the inter-cashe to the inter-inter-cashe and so on, ect. Very efficiant indeed! Now the cpus. The all the cpus are based off of a freeegchaun 8086. Now don't get me wrong, old cpus work good enough, but when they keep adding crap to them that don't even work just because Intel beleives in that retarded "complicated is always better" theory, that makes me go insane. Now the 8086 is an old 8-bit cpu, to make a 64-bit cpu out of it what do they do. It has to load all of the big fat bloated 64-bit code into it's cashe through an 8-bit bus, just so the 64-bit part can run it. Please don't get me started on the cpu language. Cpus haven't run programs in their natural assembly language in like a billion years. Instead they run compile language that gets translated into Windows language that gets translated into another compile language into DOS language that gets translated into another compile language that gets translated into assembly. First there was the computer, than there was compile language to make computers more compatable, then they made DOS computers using that compile language, made DOS computers able to run compile language themselves, used that compile to write Windows, and made Windows run compile. Every code gets translated at least six times before the computer actually does it. My rant is now over.

[snume]

I liked it. Very informative. Gives a really cool clear picture of how convoluted computing is. Good stuff.