Rip-off of a Mac OS
You all die laugthing win you read this
You all die laugthing win you read this
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/interact/story/0,23008,3311009,00.html
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/interact/story/0,23008,3311009,00.html
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
No i agree with, eddie mac does suck and i don't think anyone has really has the money for a 600 card, that pushing it a little don't you think
[This message has been edited by pimpin_228 (edited 27 February 2001).]
[This message has been edited by pimpin_228 (edited 27 February 2001).]
difference is that Mac focused too much on the GUI and not enough on features, stability, etc. (it isn't stable really, it just has a lot of crap hidden and protected like a security blanket)
MS actually did the correct thing, they built a good OS (whether you want to argue or not, Windows 2000 is a very good, stable platform). Now they work on some extra features, cut down on the speed reducing in win2k, and work on the GUI.
If Apple would have done that, they would stand a chance, now Macintosh, Apple, whatever, just plainly is as newbied up as AOL.
Absolutely garbage
MS actually did the correct thing, they built a good OS (whether you want to argue or not, Windows 2000 is a very good, stable platform). Now they work on some extra features, cut down on the speed reducing in win2k, and work on the GUI.
If Apple would have done that, they would stand a chance, now Macintosh, Apple, whatever, just plainly is as newbied up as AOL.
Absolutely garbage
Lets see... focused on the gui... WRONG!!!!!!!!! Totally disregard that they went to a BSD core for MacOS X. If MacOS isn't all that stable then how come 90% (or so) of graphic artists use Macs as their main workstation and 98% of all recording artists use Macs as well (Look at LucasFilm and Skywalker ranch... 100% Mac users)
Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vampyr:
Lets see... focused on the gui... WRONG!!!!!!!!! Totally disregard that they went to a BSD core for MacOS X. If MacOS isn't all that stable then how come 90% (or so) of graphic artists use Macs as their main workstation and 98% of all recording artists use Macs as well (Look at LucasFilm and Skywalker ranch... 100% Mac users)</font>
Simplicity. If someone already has a complicated job in graphics (or whatever), he/she may not have the patience for working with an OS that requires thought. In addition, the Motorolla processor with its short piplines was faster than the Wintel platform, up until the arrival of the PII/PIII 450s. Since then, a lot of software has still focused on the Mac, but that has been changing.
As far as the BSD core, you just argued in favor for jdulmage. They seem to have gone to the BSD core to enhance performance and stability. I believe he was making a broad statement about the direction that MacOS has been on over the last 5 years. They have been relying on the hardware to carry the software, and the user base to continue being appeased by simplicity rather than performance (hence the iMac). However, due to the CPU architecture, there have not been any major improvements to the clock speed/raw performance for a while (however, that is changing at this moment), and that has stalled out the Apple/Mac platform. Haven't you noticed that the most publicly known "feature" changes of the Apple machines has been going from fruit colors to Indigo and "Flower Power"?
------------------
Regards,
clutch
Lets see... focused on the gui... WRONG!!!!!!!!! Totally disregard that they went to a BSD core for MacOS X. If MacOS isn't all that stable then how come 90% (or so) of graphic artists use Macs as their main workstation and 98% of all recording artists use Macs as well (Look at LucasFilm and Skywalker ranch... 100% Mac users)</font>
Simplicity. If someone already has a complicated job in graphics (or whatever), he/she may not have the patience for working with an OS that requires thought. In addition, the Motorolla processor with its short piplines was faster than the Wintel platform, up until the arrival of the PII/PIII 450s. Since then, a lot of software has still focused on the Mac, but that has been changing.
As far as the BSD core, you just argued in favor for jdulmage. They seem to have gone to the BSD core to enhance performance and stability. I believe he was making a broad statement about the direction that MacOS has been on over the last 5 years. They have been relying on the hardware to carry the software, and the user base to continue being appeased by simplicity rather than performance (hence the iMac). However, due to the CPU architecture, there have not been any major improvements to the clock speed/raw performance for a while (however, that is changing at this moment), and that has stalled out the Apple/Mac platform. Haven't you noticed that the most publicly known "feature" changes of the Apple machines has been going from fruit colors to Indigo and "Flower Power"?
------------------
Regards,
clutch
Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vampyr:
You do realize Video and sound editing requires more geek power than playing stupid quake 3 right? (quake 3 runs faster on mac too!)</font>
If I were stuck using an ATI Rage Pro 16MB, and a P3 450 then I guess it would be faster. As far as geek power goes, I have yet to see an enterprise network even consisting of Macs, let alone managed by one. There's far more geek power in managing a TB or so of ERP data than in editing video or sound clips. Not that you would see anything mission critical on a Mac. I wonder why that is...
------------------
Regards,
clutch
You do realize Video and sound editing requires more geek power than playing stupid quake 3 right? (quake 3 runs faster on mac too!)</font>
If I were stuck using an ATI Rage Pro 16MB, and a P3 450 then I guess it would be faster. As far as geek power goes, I have yet to see an enterprise network even consisting of Macs, let alone managed by one. There's far more geek power in managing a TB or so of ERP data than in editing video or sound clips. Not that you would see anything mission critical on a Mac. I wonder why that is...
------------------
Regards,
clutch
What do you get in a mac a complete os that tells you what to do,anf no real freedom in it and 1 button mouse
The Mac OS is very versatile, you just have to know how to use it. (keyboard commands, etc) and for the one button mouse thing, the MS Intellimouse Explorer IS mac compatible and yes, you get support for all 5 buttons. I'm not gonna brag up the mac as being the ALL POWER COMPUTER. But there are some things that the mac can do better than the PC, just like there are things the PC can do better than the mac. Right now the Mac is leading in the graphic creation and music recording industry.
I think the main thing that hurts the mac more than anything is, unlike Linux for the most part, cant be run on a pc system. If I was doing a bunch of video editing or photography stuff, Id much rather have the mac. Plus, I havent heard of any blue screen of plaguing the mac unlike some other OS. Im really excited about the new Mac OS X, it looks like the mac could have something to really compete with. Overall, I belive the mac is a trendsetter. Take the iMac: after it was released, eMachines had their bulkier --the eOne, as the pc version. While things like dual processors have finally gotten to the mac, some things like ease of use are just getting to Windows.
Dont get me wrong, for me the Mac is just too simplistic, but if I had been introduced to it first, things might be different. Not everyone wants to have the hassles of the Windows environment, and just want to turn the machine on and go.
Apple's biggest mistake was being too proprietary, and had imposed fees on software for the Mac, so when mr gates came out with Windows...well, we know what happened.
If it wasnt for the mac, I dont know how far the pc industry may have gotten.
Dont get me wrong, for me the Mac is just too simplistic, but if I had been introduced to it first, things might be different. Not everyone wants to have the hassles of the Windows environment, and just want to turn the machine on and go.
Apple's biggest mistake was being too proprietary, and had imposed fees on software for the Mac, so when mr gates came out with Windows...well, we know what happened.
If it wasnt for the mac, I dont know how far the pc industry may have gotten.
Okay guys what is the point of all this, i just don't understand. Everyone has there own opinion on the Mac and PC. As for WinXP being a rip off of the new Mac OS who cares and again everyone has there own opinion on that as well basicly WinXP is just an enhanced version of Win2k whether MS did rip off the Mac or not who cares because it's just competion. I love WinXP just as much as i loved Win2k, MS has done a very good job on both compared to the BS of Win98 and WinME i could care less if it was a rip off of the Mac since i don't use the Mac.
I just thought i would throw in my 2 cents and maybe stop all this Mac and MS bashing because it is pointless and it is going no where.
I just thought i would throw in my 2 cents and maybe stop all this Mac and MS bashing because it is pointless and it is going no where.
The thing is XP is not really a rip off it is windows it bears only the most superficial resembelece to the mac os.
it still works like windows and feels like windows. If it really was a mac rip off i would suck cause mac sucks. ms does not need to rip off apple anymore cause apple really might as well not even exist.
it still works like windows and feels like windows. If it really was a mac rip off i would suck cause mac sucks. ms does not need to rip off apple anymore cause apple really might as well not even exist.
The only thing that Windows borrowed (stole) in my opinion was Novell's NDS structure. It seems that they just changed it from NDS to ADS.
I don't care what they stole, or what their OS looks like, Windows has the best offering so far in OS's & I intend on keeping with it until something better comes out.
I don't care what they stole, or what their OS looks like, Windows has the best offering so far in OS's & I intend on keeping with it until something better comes out.
Actually, NDS and Active Directories are very different. NDS is based on ease of management. Active Directories is based more on strict security. Because of this, it is easier to have too lax of security in NDS while it is easier to have to strict of security in Active Directories. Both have their advantages. It's too bad that Novell and Microsoft can't agree on how to implement system security and rights. It would be beneficial to both of them if they could.
