[chevyorange]

Maybe it is just my dual G5 but my finder isn't slow and honestly, even after reading all these posts, I can't think of one annoyance with my Mac. Maybe I'm just not an "advanced" user (been using Macs since 1988).
When I look at all the options, OS X is heaven.
I might download the free chapter to see exactly how finicky this guy is.
chevyorange

[Steve_S]

In reply to:

---

This argument completely ignores Gecko based browsers.

---

Okay, what about Gecko based browsers? There are currently what? 4 Gecko based browser efforts going for the Mac. Apple developing Safari doesn't exactly hurt the Gecko based browser movement. These browsers are designed for cross platform compatibility. They are not making money on the Mac market and are likewise not threatened by Safari.
As for Apple, I tend to agree with their choice for not choosing Gecko as the basis of it's browser. Yes, many compatibility headaches came from this decision, but Apple isn't just putting on a pretty face onto someone else's effort, they are building their own foundation and technology based on existing technology. It's been enhanced tremendously. Apple wanted something light weight and cleaner than Gecko. The extension of this goes into things like dashboard, etc.

In reply to:

---

1) They could start alienating third party developers (Watson/Sherlock, Konfabulator/Dashboard, etc.). Apple has been making great strides in attracting developers. They shouldn't retard their hard work in this area by alienating those same people.

---

Valid point to be sure. However, look at all of the tiny little interface enhancements done to OS X from third parties. Should Apple be banned from incorporating any of this technology into the OS for life because some small time shop created something cool first? To your point, I think this situation was handled badly by Apple, particularly with the case of Dashboard. With Watson, at least the developer supposedly was offered a job at Apple, etc. I don't believe there was any attempt at compensation for Konfabulator. In short, I don't have an issue with Apple developing Dashboard, I'm sure it will be 1000x better than Konfabulator as it's implementation seems to be quite different, etc. However, I believe Apple should offer some form of compensation when it tramples on the little guy.

In reply to:

---

2)It can be construed as monopolistic. Let's face it, Microsoft became what it is today by doing this very thing.

---

Not really the same thing in my opinion. From my perspective, take Office for example. Did MS dominate because it had the best product? No, it dominated because it was able to offer unfair competitive advantages. For example, a previous company I worked for switched to the MS Exchange server for e-mail and in doing so received a site license for Office (free of charge as I understand it). We're not talking about a couple hundred desktops here, more like 80,000+ Now, to me, that's the type of unfair practice MS used to become the monopoly it is.

In reply to:

---

3) Instead of spurring up better competition, it kills it. Microsoft completely killed IE for Mac instead of fixing it.

---

When was the last time Explorer was (signifantly) updated for the Mac before Safari? Hell, MS hasn't exactly been doing much for Explorer on the PC side now that it's dominated that market as well. There's no indication that MS was ever going to make Explorer a strong browser on the Mac side. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Apple know that Explorer was basically just going stay in maintenance mode for Mac and likewise take action into their own hands? Or, did MS decide to dump Mac Explorer after Safari came out? I don't know, but I'm betting that Apple was prompted to take matter into it's own hands.

In reply to:

---

Short run it seems good to the end user, but I think in the long run, it's a dangerous policy. There's a fine balance here and applying it to every situation would kill the platform. I'm still not entirely convinced that making Safari was necessary.

---

I agree that Apple entering a market should not be a decision that's taken lightly. Apple clearly needs to carefully pick and choose and make surgical strikes where necessary. To date, I think they've done a good job. You suggest that Safari wasn't a good idea, but you need to look at Safari as more than just a web browser. Keep in mind things webkit is used for like dashboard, web based help, e-mail applications and more. The bottom line is that MS announced that future versions of it's web technology was going to be built into the OS (which implies no Mac specific version). I don't doubt this was communicated to Apple prior to Safari's debut. I do believe Apple needs to have a competitive answer to this challenge. Safari answers that challenge and then some. The web experience is just to important to rely on someone like Mozilla to fill the gap (even if they do quite nicely!). There's to much risk involved here, so I tend to agree with Apple's decision.
Steve

[mwalker]

> 1) They could start alienating third party developers (Watson/Sherlock, Konfabulator/Dashboard, etc.). Apple has been making great strides in attracting developers. They shouldn't retard their hard work in this area by alienating those same people.
There seems to be no real lack of third-party developers for the Mac, large or small. I'm not sure this is a true issue, at least in general.

[MacZilla]

Well,
When the piece of software ran 400% better in the older version of the OS than the newer one, then I think Apple bears some responsibility to help their developers out. Virtual PC sells Macs, period.

[MacZilla]

In reply to:

---

But ultimately, that was the solution? Apple developing their own browser. So, any time a product for Macs doesn't perform up to user standards, Apple should make their own version? I can't agree with that. Sorry.

---

I never said Apple should make their own PC emulator, just help Microsoft make their app run faster.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:
But back to the original point of all this. Apple should do all it can to the OS to help make Virtual PC work better, because it will sell Macs to switchers who need the reassurance of being able to run Windows. Based on the fact that neither Connectix and now Microsoft seem to be able to make any headway on OS X performance, there has to be something that can be done.
What exactly? Are you sure that Apple isn't working with Microsoft to make VirtualPC run faster? I think you're being a little pie in the sky about this.

---

I am sure Apple is working with Microsoft to make Virtual PC run faster. In fact I think that I have read where they have. It's just not good enough.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

Okay, what about Gecko based browsers? There are currently what? 4 Gecko based browser efforts going for the Mac. Apple developing Safari doesn't exactly hurt the Gecko based browser movement. These browsers are designed for cross platform compatibility. They are not making money on the Mac market and are likewise not threatened by Safari.

---

Not what I was saying, let's back up the train.
You said:

In reply to:

---

would you rather have Safari or Explorer (at least what MS was able to deliver for the Mac)?

---

You posed this question as if Gecko based browsers were not an option. They were and are.
I'll agree with your assertion that Safari is about more than being a browser, but then again, that invalidates Safari as an example for the purposes of this discussion as the lack of IE development is no longer their main motivation.
And let's face it, Mozilla still produces a faster, more accurate, flexible product (if the product in question is as a web browser only).
We can agree on the compromise that this is a line that Apple needs to be extremely careful about treading. I was taking issue with what I perceived to an attitude of "this product for Mac is broken, Apple should fix it." It's not a fix all solution, nor should it be. Apple's main focus should be supplying great APIs to attract and support developers (which seems to be one of the greatest foci for Tiger).

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

I am sure Apple is working with Microsoft to make Virtual PC run faster. In fact I think that I have read where they have. It's just not good enough.

---

I'm not sure that Apple CAN make it any better (if we're assuming that it is really all that necessary to their business plan, which I don't believe). Unless you can point to something specific that Apple did to impede VirtualPC as a prodcut, I can't go along with this.

[MacZilla]

In reply to:

---

Unless you can point to something specific that Apple did to impede VirtualPC as a prodcut, I can't go along with this.

---

LOL!!! Well, you'll be pleased to know I'm not seeking your approval.

[d00d]

I'll rephrase to make it clear to you. I think you're wrong and you've offered no evidence to the contrary.

[Lectrick]

The biggest Mac annoyance I've seen is when someone approaches me a.k.a. "the computer guy" about what kind of computer to buy, I recommend a Mac (not always, but depending on needs), they then buy a PC... and THEN they always have the nerve to ask me for assistance when it inevitably starts running like crud! THAT is the biggest annoyance of a Mac lover EVER!
That said, you folks should stop b!tching about VPC performance on OS X. Try emulating Windows 95 instead of XP and you'll get the same performance you had back in OS 9... which is probably the Windows you were emulating back then anyway =P Or, get a new Mac- the latest VPC seems to run just fine on my Dual G5, even when emulating "Windows Xtra-Piggy" /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[MacZilla]

Well, I think I'm right and I believe I've offered quite a bit of evidence to support all of my correct arguments. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, "dood." /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Steve_S]

In reply to:

---

You posed this question as if Gecko based browsers were not an option. They were and are.

---

I think you're missing the point of what I said. Let's recap.
Yes, I've already acknowledged the Gecko based browers as such. However, your point was that Apple needs to be careful where it enters a market. The obvious risk is offending a third party developer. I agree to this. My point was that yes, MS was dropping the ball with Explorer. Apple had a choice to either endorse a Gecko based browser or develop their own browser to ensure the Mac Internet experience was first rate. When offering the choice of Safari vs. Explorer, I didn't mention the Gecko based browsers because Safari is not a threat to the opensource community. I also mentioned how MS declared that future versions of Explorer will be built into Windows rather than as a stand-alone product. I also mentioned how this clearly signals the death of Mac Explorer with or without Safari. From these events, you asked if Safari was the answer to this problem in a manner which suggested you didn't agree with this decision. I went on to discuss other practical reasons for Apple having such web based technology in house.

In reply to:

---

And let's face it, Mozilla still produces a faster, more accurate, flexible product (if the product in question is as a web browser only).

---

The faster argument is debatable. There are web sites which render faster on each respective browser. Speed wise, they're certainly in the same ballpark. More accurate can also be debated. I'd agree that Gecko is more compatible. However, that only acknowledges that Gecko is able to handle incorrect web code in the same manner as Explorer. As to web standards, there are areas of CSS handling that Safari is apparently ahead and "more accurate", etc. Additionally, there are key features in Safari (like spell checking, etc.) that are not found in Gecko based browsers. Finally, Safari renders text the best on the Mac side. Of course, I write this post using Firefox on Windows /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

In reply to:

---

We can agree on the compromise that this is a line that Apple needs to be extremely careful about treading. I was taking issue with what I perceived to an attitude of "this product for Mac is broken, Apple should fix it." It's not a fix all solution, nor should it be. Apple's main focus should be supplying great APIs to attract and support developers (which seems to be one of the greatest foci for Tiger).

---

I generally agree with your position here, with the exception that I believe Apple has been correct in addressing software weaknesses on the Mac side thus far. I for one am happy that Apple offers a good web browser, consumer multimedia software (iLife), first rate PRO apps (FCP, etc). Surely, Apple can't and shouldn't enter every market. However, in some cases, Apple has turned the Mac from being worst to best in a few specific categories. That's been a good thing thus far.
Steve

[Nobody]

Seems like my "Troll" post didn't provoke the debate I thought it might. How dare you agree so readily MacZilla! s:-)
As for the rest, how did Safari and VPC jump in there?
I'm still mired in Jaguar due to hardware issues caused by Panther, so I guess I might have more "history" issues than most. Although they were equally denied when they were not "history".
Panther improved navigation and the UI but it still suffers from quirky inconsistencies and clumsiness that is really all the more annoying because they come from Apple who should not need to be reminded how to suck eggs.
Ah well as ever, it is do as I say not as I do.
Navigation, keyboard shortcuts, networking, increased system complexity, software bloat, inconsistent and often irrational UI behavior, lack of speed, bugs in the printer dialogs and particularly the awful font handling are all issues that are still to be resolved for me.
All the signs are that Apple doesn't see them as issues at all. So we can expect more of the same.

[MacZilla]

How dare you criticize the Mother Ship! Please report to Cupertino for your Kool-Aid treatment at once!