[lord_xaero]

You are the one lost.

see if you can visualize this circa 1970 BSD was created for the military as part of DARPA. Later circa 1985 jobs left apple to make NeXT, which was based on his own designs and a heathy dose of stealing but it was a huge failure. Openstep was born in the hopes that by making it open people would write programs for it. NOPE. Meanwhile back in cupertino the big blue apple is getting pretty rotten. Macos is failing. the have at most months to fix the problem. A parallel project BSD is stable working and already has a heft code base of developers. Hmmmmm should we use an OS we couldn't give away or use NeXT as the core layer (the part of the os that talks to the hardware and Makes little significant observable difference to the os you actually use) and use the os that has an actual base as the program layer (this would Be BSD) then spend a short period of time making the os look like NEXT. This is what they HAD TO DO or they would have been out of buisness. BSD had the code base. next was used to interface the low level stuff IO and what not.the gui was grated onto a unix frankenstein. There was no other way they could get all that stuff done in the time it took them. Microsoft, which is an order of magnitude bigger, could not throw away windows and start over with a new os in the time it took them. and NEXTstep and openstep wrer really only needed untill the pc hardware transition was complete and after that the code base was mor a liability than anything else. Why adapt hardware to your custom bottom layer when you can replace the bottom layer with something easier like BSD then just use off the shelf drivers recompiled for use in you "innovative"obsolete OS. You should know, That I know this bucause I am the guy developers come to to make things work. at one time or another I have worked on every kind of hardware there was. Some I really do miss. I really did like some of the beboxes. You will see. apple's eternal need to control the platform will kill it. As big as microsoft is there is no way to control everyone with a windows box.

[lord_xaero]

I tell you the car is powered by a new engine, because IT HAD TO BE. You tell me "nope it still looks red" Lets pretend for a moment you have no shiny gui. your computer is just a box of wires with a sata hard drive in it. that hard drive runs darwin. it goes something like this.

init-low level ram,cpu,hard drives, video..... core "hook" handler the next level of osconnects to her. in Windows it is the command.com segment of the os. You can run pretty much ANYTHING HERE it doesn't matter. This layer it the machine talking to itself. all that matters is that it passes along the instructions both ways. hardware talks to os layer os layer relays from program layer to harware layer.

next is the OS layer. You still can't see this either. This is mostly FREEBSD it talks to the lower and uper layers. this is what programmers program for. This is also why apple chose this OS Layer.



next an finally is the gui. you get to see and interact with this. It can look like next or windows or something i made to look like a 1983 pulsar watch, what matters here is how well it lets you do what you want to. this is the least critical layer. From the harware layer to here is where the actual computing gets done. you are just there to give instructions and look at the screen.

I have been developing code for computers for over 20 years. I wrote code for apples in the dark ages and switched to pcs long long ago when I determined that form outweighed fuction in the design meetings.

[lord_xaero]

that would be FREE BSD (not freebies)or berkley software distribution. And no I making money being a very well paid problem solver. I show companies how to be better at what they dow without having to be good at what I do. I save peoples jobs by coming up with low cost alternatives that are as good or better at a fraction of the price. in my area of the world I am considered the best, and I have yet to see one place where a mac would be beneficial on a cost by performance basis. As I have stated I bear no ill will toward the platform. it it the rediculous claims of the user base that i take issue with. No matter how you slice it macs are less powerful. (either by way of actual performance or just lake of software) and more expensive. they are pretty. Which is what the ad said in the first place. We can argue the merits of every os under the sun but the bottom line is Windows does more for less, so it is the dominant os. OSX does less for more but is pretty and is left alone because it isn't even worth virus coders time.

[folklore]

lord_xaero said:

Actually that was against the Iphone. And it's good you can run windows. You must understand I don't dislike macs. I just dislike the Apple attitude on a few things. Their one size fits all mentality really bugs me. And yes I am aware you can (kinda) run windows. Vmware fusion is great, I have vmware and several patched versions of OSX86. Anyone can run anything thats available for the mac on a mac. and with the realese of several osx86 any pc can run anything available on a mac. making the hardware too expensive which is STILL my point.

Intel Macs don't "kinda" run Windows. They do run Windows, natively, with Boot Camp. No virtualization required. All you need is an Intel Mac, Leopard, and a Windows install disc. Creating a dual-boot system is dead simple with OS X.

Apple doesn't have a one-size-fits all mentality. It has a 6 sizes fits most mentality (Mac Mini, Mac Pro, MacBook Air, MacBook, MacBook Pro 15", MacBook Pro 17" - and that ignores customization options for each model).

[folklore]

lord_xaero said:

>We can argue the merits of every os under the sun but the bottom line is Windows does more for less, so it is the dominant os. OSX does less for more but is pretty and is left alone because it isn't even worth virus coders time.

As the Macalope wrote about a week ago, by that argument, all businesses should be buying used PCs with Linux.

[mdawson]

JDW, I am in full agreement with you and lwdesign about the mid-range professional/prosumer system or more properly power users. I use the term power user because simply being a professional does not equate to needing a powerful computer, as many professionals would be more than well served by an iMac. Power users are a subset of both the professional and consumer market segments and this group of users are those that perform the most demanding of computing tasks.

Two types of power users exist: power users and specialized power users. Both need expandable hardware, but for the former, a full-sized tower like the Mac Pro is overkill. For such users, the benefit of a Mac Pro is that they are buying up. As a power user I have no issue with following the audiophile?s amplifier mantra, ?you can never have too much power?. That statement is more true for computers where the constant advances in technology make today?s workstation tomorrow?s e-mail box. As I have stated several times in the past, Apple is only one company and we cannot expect them to be everything to everyone. Remember the Apple that did try to be that company? Personally, I would be more upset if Apple?s offerings were such that I had no choice but to buy down getting less computer than I need.

The Mac Pro ?specifically? serves the needs of the specialized power user. That is, those users that not only need the capability to add technologies to their computer as new technologies surface or the need arises, but who will attach non-standard/proprietary hardware to their computer out of the box. A perfect example is someone running National Instruments? LabVIEW as I did in my lab in grad school. We needed full-sized towers because from the outset because one or two NI-DAQ cards were going to be placed in any given computer. Even those machines that were not specifically used for instrumentation needed to be expansion ready, as swapping computers often occurred.

Aside from our immediate need, in the five plus year period that any given computer would be in use, my former faculty advisor required the ability to add new technologies; the turn-around time in academia can be quite long unless you are a huge grant magnet. Fir instance, we found a generic FireWire 400 card in a surplus computer. I plugged it into my primary tower and now it is the only system my former team has that is FireWire capable, excepting my former advisor?s laptop (crippled 4-pin; typical of Wintel laptops) and office desktop.

As power users go, the specialized power user is a minority. Most power users need a modicum of (future) expansion/upgrade capability, but typically the same level of processing power. For instance, someone doing 3D modeling obviously needs the Mac Pro?s processing oomph and physical RAM capabilities, but they are far less likely to need more than one spare PCIe slot, if any, over the lifetime of the Mac. Providing space for expansion cards is a good portion of the Mac Pro?s volume. By the same token, few people have a need for more than one optical drive. With hard drive mechanisms at 2TB, even a video pro can get by on two internal hard drives.

So I would mostly agree with lwdesign?s specs?given the DIMMS available I would boost the maximum RAM from 4 to 8 GB up to 8 to 16 GB and retain all of the Mac Pro?s ports. The power user market is definitely larger than most choose to believe, but given that Mac Pro sales significantly lag behind that of say the iMac and MacBooks, Apple does not wish to further splinter the power user market. And again, it would be much worse if the trade off were to buy less computer.

[lord_xaero]

> {quote:title=folklore wrote}{quote}
Intel Macs don't "kinda" run Windows. They do run Windows, natively, with Boot Camp. No virtualization required. All you need is an Intel Mac, Leopard, and a Windows install disc. Creating a dual-boot system is dead simple with OS X.

Apple doesn't have a one-size-fits all mentality. It has a 6 sizes fits most mentality (Mac Mini, Mac Pro, MacBook Air, MacBook, MacBook Pro 15", MacBook Pro 17" - and that ignores customization options for each model).
[/quote]
I have seen the silly results of trying to run mac hardware with windows. I got a first hand look at it when a friend of mine tried to prove me wrong and decided to install xp sp3 on his macbook pro and had multiple exceptions trying to run poser. he then tried to run hl2 with custom maps and the screen alternated from red to blue. I opened my $249 pos net book and ran both with no issues what so ever. then I booted the same $249 atom powered netbook to osx86 and proceded to play with "his os" (I'll admit osx ran kinda slow) but it works. as for the 6 sizes fit most. you miss the bigger picture. I can have whatever I want in a pc and a warehouse full of software to run on it. you get what I had 5 years ago, or not. And you have to be happy for it. The point that a company that talks so much crap about an operating system, but still has a way to run that "crappy" os to get any work done pretty much proves my point. We can't all blog about not working on our mac. some of us have to run software that software is on pcs, pcs that run operating systems that the entire world uses to get work done. Most of this worlds ilives run on windows. To pay extra for the privilege of NOT running programs is absurd.

you see we get cool stuff because the thousands of pc makers want our money, so they try hard to make a better pc for our need than the next company. Apple throws down 6 models and says "buy these because they are cool" that is not freedom, that is digital slavery to the big blue apple.

[lord_xaero]

folklore said:

As the Macalope wrote about a week ago, by that argument, all businesses should be buying used PCs with Linux.

oem copy of xp $60

being able to run almost every program written for pc in history. with or without emulation software slowdown utils etc - Priceless



copy of OSX $226

not being able to run some apps made just a few years ago - hilarious



Assuming all other hardware is identical (which lets face it macs ARE more expensive) you are already loosing the price/compatibilty argument. osx is a single flea trying to kill the dog by biting it to death.

in less than 5 years osx will be sold to any computer company for instalation on any hardware. Then when more people have it, then and only then tell me how stable and secure it is. How the development cycle results in innovation rather than oooohhh pretty.

when you are forced to compete with other companies to create or die.

face it macs are LOSING market share because the refuse to understand ONE lost customer is one too many.

[folklore]

[quote name='lord_xaero']
>

folklore said:

> As the Macalope wrote about a week ago, by that argument, all businesses should be buying used PCs with Linux.
oem copy of xp $60


being able to run almost every program written for pc in history. with or without emulation software slowdown utils etc - Priceless

I don't need to run every program written for Windows. That's not on my list of things I'm looking for in a computer - and that's what arguments like yours fail to grasp. The things that Windows fanboys like to tout - upgrades you'll never do! ability to run software you'll never run! endless customization! - just don't matter to me.

I'm looking for the best tools to get my job done. And my Mac is the best tool I've found. Period.

I get more done on my Mac. Part of that is due to absolutely fantastic software written by third parties, mostly small developers with a passion for good code. Part of it is due to the consistent look and feel of most Mac apps (thanks to Apple's guidelines). Part of it is OS X's rock solid stability - I can count the number of crashes in 5 years on one hand, and I've never had to reinstall OS X like I have Windows XP.

Put simply, my Macs enable me to get my work done faster, better, and with less hassle than any Windows PC I've owned. If that means that I pay a tad more - and that's a very big if in my book - it's worth every last penny to me.

[duality]

Windows likely forever will be "lipstick on a pig" (the pig being MS-DOS), which is why I moved to Mac circa 1990.

Microsoft devotees who denigrate the Mac remind me of those who touted American automobiles over the Japanese imports back when Toyota first began to eat their lunch. Perhaps MS one day will also be looking for a government-sponsored bailout.

[Grapho]

Number don't lie, what you decide to measure or omit will definitely take you to deferent conclusions. If a real balanced study was to be conducted, you would find that the Mac is still a better buy.

I always have managed to sell my old Mac to help pay for the new one when the time to upgrade arrives. This can not be done with a PC. So if something keeps it's value longer, a lot longer, it is a better value.

[JDW]

spinoza2 said:

...just 'up the road' in another discussion thread someone else is clamoring for a Mac tablet, in the discussion across the way another is complaining that Apple isn't bringing out a cheaper iPhone, and in another thread a participant just can't understand why Apple is not coming out with a netbook. And then there is that loud ten percent minority who can't stand the glossy displays of the new Mac lineup, those that can't believe Apple dropped Firewire 400, and geez, I'm really ticked off that Apple isn't coming out with a purple iPhone. What are they thinking!

Here we go again with the bashing of fellow Mac lovers. Why not take all your energy and focus it on Windows PC advocates like lord_xaero ? Instead you chose to fight people who are pretty much like yourself. It makes no sense.

But to answer your post...

1) "cheaper iPhone" or "purple iPhone" is not about a Mac computer which sits on your desktop, which is what I am talking about. In addition, when you talk about iPhone and pricing, AT&T shares the blame/praise with Apple, which again is different than when talking about a Mac computer. Even so, if someone really thinks Apple should do something different with the color scheme -- hey, why is it a sin to chat about it online? It's not like these folks are saying, "the iPhone is garbage, let's start using a Windoze mobile phone."

2) A "netbook" is an el-cheapo laptop with a tiny screen, mainly targetting at younger people who like disposable computers. I am not into laptops, high or low end. My discussion was on a Mac desktop computer priced at $1,500, possibly in the form of a mid-range tower, or perhaps a quadcore iMac without gloss at just under $2,000 -- all of which are possible while still giving Apple a margin. There is no margin in a $400 netbook, so I side with Apple on the pricing decision. But if someone wants to talk about a "lower priced MacBook that retains all the current bells and whistles," I don't think its a crime to talk about it. Also, I think Apple is excessively focused on laptops anyway, so I don't see a problem in their overlooking netbooks. But again, if a Mac lover wants to talk about netbooks, it's not a sin, nor does their talk hurt Apple. It's really about "choice."

3) You have no justification at all for saying there are only "10%" of people who don't like glossy screens. You've pulled numbers from a space where the sun shines not! And hey, let me blow you away with this: I love glossy LCD screen images. I think they look gorgeous. BUT... And that's a big, huge BUT... Glossy screens have to be in the right lighting conditions -- which is darn near impossible for many people. (And please don't get me started on the awful "films" either.) Just because YOU have those conditions or just because YOU don't feel eyestrain even in the wrong lighting conditions, doesn't mean everyone should magically be like you. People are diverse. Give people a break. And you cannot argue against giving people a break (i.e., with two screen choices) because Apple is already doing this on the 17" MacBook Pro. Aha! Got ya! So our appeals to Apple to give us "basic screen choice" on iMacs is certainly not unreasonable at all in light of what they do right now on the 17" MacBook Pro. And if pressure on Apple continues to increase, Jobs/Ive and those MBAs will break down at some point, do the right thing, and give us a matte LCD option.

You status quo advocates really get on my nerves (but I still love you). You complain just as much as people who ask for something missing from Apple's product line, yet your complaints are destructive (tearing down fellow Mac lovers), rather than constructive (suggesting the sale of something that is missing). And then, when Apple comes out with something that you hoped they wouldn't come out with (like FW800 on the Mini), you silently just buy those machines and enjoy the new features. Oh my, how awful that is. Start exercising some brotherly love toward your fellow Mac lovers, even if you yourself don't share the same desires for change that others do. "But, JDW, you don't share my views, so see you're a hypocrite." No, because I share "constructive view" while you bashers share "destructive views." And you cannot say your position simply "defends Apple in a constructive way" because you then must assume that "the status quo equals long term success for Apple." Since the inception of the Macintosh, users have voiced their opinions on change. Change is good, and so is talk about change. Please refrain from bashing your fellow Mac lovers (and refrain from bashing me concerning my defense of Mac lovers).

4) The dropping of FW on any Mac is a legitimate gripe. I laughed myself silly when I saw the 2009 Mini come out. I was laughing at all you folks who just love to bash your fellow Mac lovers here in these forums. For when the MacBook came out, it lacked FW, and many Mac lovers legitimately griped about that. You Mac-lover-bashers then came on the scene saying how USB was "good enough for your needs" and how "FW is dead, get over it." Then Apple comes out with FW800 on the Mini, and I get the last laugh. I still love you oddball Mac lovers though. Perhaps you were once Windows users who converted to the Mac platform, and part of that past Windows experience keeps you on edge. If so, it's okay to let go. Go easy on your fellow Mac lovers because we love you too.

So again, please refrain from bashing fellow Mac users. Use your bashing energy on PC trolls who grace our forums. They are plenteous in number, and yes, you can still get your kicks bashing them. I will join you. But leave fellow Mac users alone. All we want is another great Apple product or feature. And yes, sometimes pressure from "being vocal in the forums" makes its way to Cupertino. To deny such is to forget how that has worked in the past. Indeed, our passion for Apple is what motivates us to talk about what perhaps is missing in the lineup! But in the end, let's be constructive, not destructive!

[spinoza2]

"But to answer your post..."

You prove my point nicely with your long wish list for Apple. There's lots a lots of people with strong opinions out there telling Apple what they should be making and selling, and when you put them all together you've got dozens and dozens of things Apple should be doing. That's fine, but I'm also entitled to my opinion that I think Apple is absolutely right in keeping the peanut gallery at bay. "Choice", as you put it, is both expensive for a company to maintain, and it invariably leads to diminished quality (as Microsoft has eminently proven with its bloatware to cater to all possible tastes). Through its product choices Apple is openly accepting there are a lot of other computer companies for the consumer to choose from. If you don't like unibody laptops, if you're not into all-in-one computers with glossy displays, then you're free to look elsewhere.

Apple is pretty much doing things just right, and they have been for several years now. I think it's good that they're lean and mean, that they're optimizing their computer line-up, and that they drop the life support for older technologies once they become a financial burden. I think it's good they're aggressively controlling their products, that they're vigorously defending their intellectual property, and that they're not catering to the "10%" wish list folks. The 90% who prefer glossy displays is a statistic from Apple itself, by the way, based on their studies. Having used glossy displays for almost ten years now, I fully concur and would never return to a matte display again. The dramatic improvement in brightness and contrast far outweighs the potential for glare, which can easily be controlled.

[lord_xaero]

folklore said:

I don't need to run every program written for Windows. That's not on my list of things I'm looking for in a computer - and that's what arguments like yours fail to grasp. The things that Windows fanboys like to tout - upgrades you'll never do! ability to run software you'll never run! endless customization! - just don't matter to me.

I'm looking for the best tools to get my job done. And my Mac is the best tool I've found. Period.

I get more done on my Mac. Part of that is due to absolutely fantastic software written by third parties, mostly small developers with a passion for good code. Part of it is due to the consistent look and feel of most Mac apps (thanks to Apple's guidelines). Part of it is OS X's rock solid stability - I can count the number of crashes in 5 years on one hand, and I've never had to reinstall OS X like I have Windows XP.

Put simply, my Macs enable me to get my work done faster, better, and with less hassle than any Windows PC I've owned. If that means that I pay a tad more - and that's a very big if in my book - it's worth every last penny to me.

I don't need to run EVERY windows software either. But I can, if I need to. I have watched my friend, a mac zealot give up trying to do what he wanted because Simple software either didn't exist or was hard to find. My point is if you are broken down in the middle of the desert would you prefer to have a full garage full of tools in case you need to fix the car, or one pretty aluminum scredriver and a note that says good luck.

I'll take all the tools thanks.

I cannot get my work done with a mac. PERIOD.

I do not expect you to understand. You are apple slaves. If apple doesn't give you what you want, you reason that you don't need it. As a PC user we demand a feature and we get it the next day. A net book is low margin? Some of us have to carry computers, wwhile a $2500 macbook air is nice and all I get more bang for the buck out of a $250 EEE. Yes yes I know the screen on the air is larger. (so it wouldn't fit in my glovebox) but really is the apple logo worth an extra zero? can you really work 10 times better on it? is it 10 times faster? can it run 10 times the software? Or is it 10 times as cool from some esoterc fuction, like ilife?

Your beloved company was almost dead just a few years ago. They will have to listen to what people want to survive the next few. One customer who buys anything else is one too many. this is the way everybody else plays this game.