f



Linux and Mac OS X

Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
alternative to Mac OS X?
0
martik (373)
11/20/2003 9:40:00 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

105 Replies
437 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 41

In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
 Martik <martik@telus.net> wrote:

> Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

No

-- 
-------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams http://zap.to/webcams
-------------------------------------------
0
atz02 (117)
11/20/2003 10:32:59 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>, Martik
<martik@telus.net> wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

I wouldn't because for all the progress that has been made in Linux on
the desktop, the GUI is just not right, IMHO.

With OSX being a full Unix and a great GUI on top, I see no reason for
Linux on modern macs.

All just my opinion.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/20/2003 10:49:16 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
 Martik <martik@telus.net> wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? 

Ihave run Yellow Dog Linux on my G3. 

> Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

Nope.

-- 
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux, 
study it thoroughly before you begin. 
0
woofbert.spam (1266)
11/20/2003 11:09:55 PM
Martik wrote:
> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?

   Not currently, although I've checked out Yellow Dog Linux.

Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

   No, primarily because of application availability.  I use Final Cut 
Pro, DVD Studio Pro, and discreet combustion, none of which are 
available for Linux.  However, cheap Linux boxes are ideal for render 
farms...

-zolo





0
zolo (265)
11/20/2003 11:48:15 PM
Martik <martik@telus.net> writes:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I
> switched over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my
> AMD 2100+. Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable
> alternative to Windows. It is drop dead gorgeous, more configurable
> and more stable than Windows. There are still a few quirks and the
> help needs improvement but overall I am very impressed. Do any of
> you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you consider switching to less
> expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an alternative to Mac OS X?

I used to dual-boot into LinuxPPC back in the days when I used OS8 and
OS9.  But now that I have OSX with its BSD subsystem, I don't really
have much need for that any more.  I /would/ switch to Linux on a PC
if I had to, but until that day, I'm saving all my nickels and dimes
for Macs and further versions of OSX.

-- 
Edward Dodge

/Confabulation Consulting/
0
someone8 (100)
11/20/2003 11:57:20 PM
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:40:00 +0000, Martik wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+.
> Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows.
> It is drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than
> Windows. There are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but
> overall I am very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?
> Would you consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as
> an alternative to Mac OS X?

i was a longtime (and old-time) mac user.  i started to prefer linux and
open source oses over macs back in the bad old wait-for-rhapsody years.

having become accustomed to linux-on-pcs in that time, i didn't see a
reason to switch back to more expensive hardware when osx hit its stride.

i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if they
are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another unix)
or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so clearly
been selected as the high-end demographic).

maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
insisting that everything else is crap).
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 12:51:58 AM
> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

Just out of curiosity, "what's wrong" with running a LinuxPPC variant on 
Apple or non-Apple PPC hardware? A Mac user could switch to Linux 
without needing any new hardware at all. Or even dual boot, if they 
wanted to. 

The only Linux I've ever used was PPC Linux. 

It's a very nice OS from a structural point of view, but it still seems 
to me to be largely written by geeks for geeks. 

I've got nothing against it - in fact, if people choose not to use OS X, 
I'd prefer that they instead use Linux. That way, the current global 
virus pandemic might slow down.
0
seeker1 (389)
11/21/2003 2:32:18 AM
Martik wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous,

It looks really nice in screenshots, I'll give you that.  But last time 
I checked, XFree86 still didn't double buffer its windows, so that you 
get nasty flicker and visible redraws when you drag windows around.

> more configurable and more stable than Windows.

More configureable, for sure.  I remember having an ungodly number of 
options for stuff like the login panel (which was kdm, I believe).  What 
font do I want?  What size?  What color?  What picture?  Where do I want 
to position this and that?

I didn't care, I just wanted to add WindowMaker to the window manager 
list.  To do that, I had to edit two text files, buried deep somewhere, 
as root.  Configureable, but nasty.

Oh, and why did I have to be root to establish a PPP connection?

> There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. 

The thing that impressed me was the installation procedure for Yellow 
Dog (aka RedHat on Mac).  It looked good, was easy to use, and worked. 
But Debian and Slackware still both have nasty installations.

> Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?

Yes, but only because I want to develop for it.  I certainly don't want 
to use it.  I start up the X server on Mac OS X and use the Linux 
programs remotely (this is a way nifty feature of Linux).  Mac OS X 
doesn't have that feature, but it does ship with the X server out of the 
box; Windows is clearly inferior here.

> Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

Nope.  If I had to choose today, I'd choose Windows over Linux.

0
nobody6 (639)
11/21/2003 5:37:41 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
 Martik <martik@telus.net> wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

Don't need to. OSX is at least as stable as Linux and has all of the 
Unix tools that Linux has as well as a wealth of shrink-wrapped software 
that Linux does not have. Servers, render farms, and the like are 
perfect applications for Linux. It's cheap, the machines are cheap and 
it's stable. But it doesn't have either the software titles or the 
software TYPES that I need, so for me, it's not a good fit. Doesn't mean 
that others wouldn't find it a refreshing, no, LIBERATING improvement 
over Windows junk and M$' arrogance though.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/21/2003 9:13:50 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
 lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:40:00 +0000, Martik wrote:
> 
> > Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> > over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+.
> > Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows.
> > It is drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than
> > Windows. There are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but
> > overall I am very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?
> > Would you consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as
> > an alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
> i was a longtime (and old-time) mac user.  i started to prefer linux and
> open source oses over macs back in the bad old wait-for-rhapsody years.
> 
> having become accustomed to linux-on-pcs in that time, i didn't see a
> reason to switch back to more expensive hardware when osx hit its stride.
> 
> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if they
> are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another unix)
> or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so clearly
> been selected as the high-end demographic).
> 
> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> insisting that everything else is crap).

I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software 
I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the 
same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all 
the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do 
everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just 
that most OSX users don't need it.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/21/2003 9:18:21 AM
In article <bpjjrm$14ck$1@newsfeeds.rpi.edu>, zolo <zolo@nospam.net> 
wrote:

> Martik wrote:
> > Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> > over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> > I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> > drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> > are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> > very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?
> 
>    Not currently, although I've checked out Yellow Dog Linux.
> 
> Would you
> > consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> > alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
>    No, primarily because of application availability.  I use Final Cut 
> Pro, DVD Studio Pro, and discreet combustion, none of which are 
> available for Linux.  However, cheap Linux boxes are ideal for render 
> farms...

Agree 100%.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/21/2003 9:19:00 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
 Martik <martik@telus.net> wrote:

> Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

Nope. Not as things are now, anyway (nobody knows what the future will 
bring). The mac is a complete package, while Linux is a DIY OS running 
on a hodgepodge of hardware components. Linux has my full respect and 
I think it's going to replace Windows as the dominant OS in the next 
few years, but it's not the OS for me.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/21/2003 9:42:01 AM
NFish wrote:

> Martik wrote:
> 
>> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
>> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+.
>> Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows.
>> It is drop dead gorgeous,
> 
> It looks really nice in screenshots, I'll give you that.  But last time
> I checked, XFree86 still didn't double buffer its windows, so that you
> get nasty flicker and visible redraws when you drag windows around.

Looks ok here, Dell laptop with nVidia graphics. OTOH, I don't tend to drag
windows around, I use virtual desktops to switch between application
groups. Something OSX doesn't offer out of the box.

>> more configurable and more stable than Windows.
> 
> More configureable, for sure.  I remember having an ungodly number of
> options for stuff like the login panel (which was kdm, I believe).  What
> font do I want?  What size?  What color?  What picture?  Where do I want
> to position this and that?
> 
> I didn't care, I just wanted to add WindowMaker to the window manager
> list.  To do that, I had to edit two text files, buried deep somewhere,
> as root.  Configureable, but nasty.

What distro? How long ago?

> Oh, and why did I have to be root to establish a PPP connection?

???

I can run KPPP without being root. Again, how ancient was your distro?

Windows improves at snail's pace dictated by Marketing. Linux improves at a
gallop driven by healthy competition.

>> There are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall
>> I am very impressed.
> 
> The thing that impressed me was the installation procedure for Yellow
> Dog (aka RedHat on Mac).  It looked good, was easy to use, and worked.
> But Debian and Slackware still both have nasty installations.

Debian's very nasty, haven't used Slackware in years.

>> Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?
> 
> Yes, but only because I want to develop for it.  I certainly don't want
> to use it.  I start up the X server on Mac OS X and use the Linux
> programs remotely (this is a way nifty feature of Linux).  Mac OS X
> doesn't have that feature, but it does ship with the X server out of the
> box; Windows is clearly inferior here.

Few people would run Linux on a Mac without a very specific reason, all the
more so considering there's acres of cheap powerful x86 hardware available
for pennies.

>> Would you consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as
>> an alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
> Nope.  If I had to choose today, I'd choose Windows over Linux.

I would need a very specific reason to even run Windows let alone choose it
over Linux or OSX. All those viruses, trojans, worms, all the patching,
security updates, never knowing if the next keypress or mouse click will
destroy the installation, never knowing how much of my personal
information is being fed back to Microsoft or other spyware sites (I think
it's highly significant that XP's built-in firewall only looks at incoming
packets but ignores outgoing data).

The only Windows machines I'd allow would be those connected to the outside
world via a sneakernet firewall.

By any chance, are you related to that notorious cola troll known as
flatfish???

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/21/2003 9:53:17 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
 lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:40:00 +0000, Martik wrote:
> 
> > Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> > over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+.
> > Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows.
> > It is drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than
> > Windows. There are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but
> > overall I am very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?
> > Would you consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as
> > an alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
> i was a longtime (and old-time) mac user.  i started to prefer linux and
> open source oses over macs back in the bad old wait-for-rhapsody years.
> 
> having become accustomed to linux-on-pcs in that time, i didn't see a
> reason to switch back to more expensive hardware when osx hit its stride.
> 
> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if they
> are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another unix)
> or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so clearly
> been selected as the high-end demographic).
> 
> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> insisting that everything else is crap).

You imply that a Mac user's choice is based purely on Mac OS 
snobbishness. I don't think that Mac users would reject Linux out of 
hand because of its popularity. Plenty of Mac users have posted here 
describing how the current release of Linux falls short of theMac OS UI 
standards. And then, of course, is the experience of PC hardware: Yes, 
by and large, it is crap.

-- 
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux, 
study it thoroughly before you begin. 
0
woofbert.spam (1266)
11/21/2003 10:05:15 AM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:05:15 +0000, Woofbert wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
>  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

>> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
>> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
>> insisting that everything else is crap).
> 
> You imply that a Mac user's choice is based purely on Mac OS
> snobbishness. I don't think that Mac users would reject Linux out of
> hand because of its popularity. Plenty of Mac users have posted here
> describing how the current release of Linux falls short of theMac OS UI
> standards. And then, of course, is the experience of PC hardware: Yes,
> by and large, it is crap.

i don't think many of you have run fall 2003 releases, but that wasn't my
main point.  i said "as the maturity-gap closes", and i was looking ahead
to a situation maybe a little like the current mac-vs-win.

back in the day, it was very easy to be a mac advocate.  we had the gui,
and dos did not.  when that gap closed (imo) the advocacy fell from major
advantages to smaller and smaller differences.  do the current difference
justify the whold mac-as-bmw thing, or does the bmw thing imply a certain
snobbish self-identity?

as far as hardware being largely crap, again the differences have fallen
away over they years.  back in the day, we could say that we used serious
scsi while  pcs used ide.  now disk drives, and most everything else is
shared 1:1 between mac and pc.  yet, somehow, the mac is still the bmw.

go figure.  ;-)
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 12:47:09 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
>  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

>> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
>> they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
>> unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
>> clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
>> 
>> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
>> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
>> insisting that everything else is crap).
> 
> I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
> I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
> same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> that most OSX users don't need it.

right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
future.

that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
demographic)."

i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 1:52:01 PM
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:40:00 +0000, Martik wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

	I've been using Linux before I've ever owned a mac. I totally agree with
you that Linux is becoming a full fledged alternative to Windows. But it's
still missing some quality apps that are on OSX, and Wintel. I've tried
several distros in the past few weeks. Lindows, Debian, and on this box I
have Red Hat Fedora on it. Fedora is by far the most visually pleasing.
Lindows is definitely the easiest, fastest OS I've ever installed. But I
think Fedora definitely has the edge for desktop Linux. 

I think even the mac advocates would agree, Fedora is much more visually
pleasing than XP 

http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/Screenshot.png

It also comes with everything an 'average' user would need, all for free. 
A Web Browser
An excellent free Office Suite(Openoffice)
A nice outlook clone.
What I think is needed, is an iPhoto clone. An iMovie clone would be
asking a bit much for free software however :)

	I showed this box to my boss(I'm actually setting it up to be our
company's mail/ftp/web server). I showed him Ximian Evolution(the outlook
email clone). He then asked me 'When can you put that on my computer?'.
The one thing missing for him unfortunately, is a Quickbooks clone. Yes I
know I COULD run crossover office to get it to work. But the whole idea is
to run FREE software.
0
steve_mackay (2364)
11/21/2003 3:42:23 PM
lefty wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
>> lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
>>>they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
>>>unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
>>>clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
>>>
>>>maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
>>>buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
>>>insisting that everything else is crap).
>>
>>I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
>>I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
>>same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
>>the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
>>everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
>>that most OSX users don't need it.
> 
> 
> right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
> reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
> say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> future.

   In my case, that's not true.  For the type of work that I do, I need 
the most powerful hardware I can afford, because time is money.  A dual 
G5 is cheaper and more powerful than a comparable dual Xeon 
configuration, and I have the added benefit of not having to deal with 
Windows BS.  Also, you can't get Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro for 
Windows, and I much prefer them over their Windows "equivalents."  To be 
honest, however, the Windows solutions aren't really equivalent.  Avid 
still doesn't have any software that is as scalable as FCP, and aside 
from something like Scenarist, which is extremely expensive, I haven't 
seen a Windows DVD authoring solution that can touch DVD Studio Pro. 
Combustion is available for Windows, but I believe it has to deal with 
DV-encoded material via .avi rather than QuickTime, which is annoying.

> 
> that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
> consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
> demographic)."
> 
> i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
> by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?

   That depends entirely on the application.  If I could use a Linux PC 
as a render box for combustion, I'd build a render farm with Lintel 
boxes instead of more expensive Macs.  In that particular application, 
the benefits of OS X and Mac hardware would not be useful.

   I don't think there's anything inherently evil about Intel-based 
systems, it's just that they don't really fit into my workflow at the 
moment.  I came to Macs about 18 months ago as a longtime SGI user, so 
my choice was not based on platform loyalty or Apple zealotry.  Apple 
offered the best overall solutions for me, so I went with a Mac.  In 
retrospect, I'm quite satisfied with my choice.  If Linux becomes more 
relevant to my work in the future, I'd certainly consider it.

-zolo

0
zolo (265)
11/21/2003 3:46:34 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:46:34 -0500, zolo wrote:

> lefty wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
>>> lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
>>>>they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
>>>>unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
>>>>clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
>>>>
>>>>maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
>>>>buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
>>>>insisting that everything else is crap).
>>>
>>>I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
>>>I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
>>>same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
>>>the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
>>>everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
>>>that most OSX users don't need it.
>> 
>> 
>> right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
>> reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
>> say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
>> future.
> 
>    In my case, that's not true.  For the type of work that I do, I need 
> the most powerful hardware I can afford, because time is money.  A dual 
> G5 is cheaper and more powerful than a comparable dual Xeon 
> configuration, and I have the added benefit of not having to deal with 
> Windows BS.  Also, you can't get Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro for 
> Windows, and I much prefer them over their Windows "equivalents."  To be 
> honest, however, the Windows solutions aren't really equivalent.  Avid 
> still doesn't have any software that is as scalable as FCP, and aside 
> from something like Scenarist, which is extremely expensive, I haven't 
> seen a Windows DVD authoring solution that can touch DVD Studio Pro. 
> Combustion is available for Windows, but I believe it has to deal with 
> DV-encoded material via .avi rather than QuickTime, which is annoying.

there are some of you, certainly.  i have a hard time believing that most
mac buyers, or even most g5 buyers, are really in that boat.

for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you could,
for instance buy something like this:

Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel DDR400/40GB,
Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6 months ISP, XP Home
$539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)

and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.

i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be satisfied
with that ;-)

0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 3:55:13 PM
lefty wrote:

<snip>
> 
> as far as hardware being largely crap, again the differences have fallen
> away over they years.  back in the day, we could say that we used serious
> scsi while  pcs used ide.  now disk drives, and most everything else is
> shared 1:1 between mac and pc.

<snip>


   That's a valid point.  Also, for better or for worse, high end PCs 
seem to be more bleeding edge than Macs in incorporating the latest 
technology standards, i.e. AGP8X, PIC-X, the forthcoming PCI Express, 
DDR RAM, USB2 (although Firewire trumps it), etc.

   SCSI support is arguably much better for PCs than Macs (under OS X), 
which I find annoying.  Try to find an Ultra320 hardware RAID card that 
works under OS X and you'll see what I mean.  OS X has software RAID 
capability, but I'll slit my wrists before I choose a software RAID over 
a hardware RAID. I guess Apple is quite content to sell XServe RAIDs 
with a Fibre Channel interface, but I'd still like to see more SCSI 
options.  Whether that's the fault of Apple or of third-party SCSI 
vendors, I'm not sure, but hopefully this will improve with time.  OS X 
also doesn't currently support logical volume management, which is a 
crime.  Both Linux and Windows have this, and there's no reason OS X 
can't offer it as well.

-zolo

0
zolo (265)
11/21/2003 4:15:17 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
> >  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
> >> they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
> >> unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
> >> clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
> >> 
> >> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> >> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> >> insisting that everything else is crap).
> > 
> > I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
> > I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
> > same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> > the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> > everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> > that most OSX users don't need it.
> 
> right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
> reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
> say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> future.
> 
> that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
> consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
> demographic)."
> 
> i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
> by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?

If I were buying a box now, it wouldn't be the $700 box.  It would be
much further up the food chain and it wouldn't be a Linux box because
of lack of the apps I want to use.

Realistically, if I were buying a box now, it would be a dual G5/1.8Ghz
and it would be priced about the same as anything I would want from the
windows world.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 6:26:40 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.15.56.19.175692@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:46:34 -0500, zolo wrote:
> 
> > lefty wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
> >>> lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>>i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
> >>>>they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
> >>>>unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
> >>>>clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
> >>>>
> >>>>maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> >>>>buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> >>>>insisting that everything else is crap).
> >>>
> >>>I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
> >>>I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
> >>>same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> >>>the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> >>>everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> >>>that most OSX users don't need it.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
> >> reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
> >> say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> >> future.
> > 
> >    In my case, that's not true.  For the type of work that I do, I need 
> > the most powerful hardware I can afford, because time is money.  A dual 
> > G5 is cheaper and more powerful than a comparable dual Xeon 
> > configuration, and I have the added benefit of not having to deal with 
> > Windows BS.  Also, you can't get Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro for 
> > Windows, and I much prefer them over their Windows "equivalents."  To be 
> > honest, however, the Windows solutions aren't really equivalent.  Avid 
> > still doesn't have any software that is as scalable as FCP, and aside 
> > from something like Scenarist, which is extremely expensive, I haven't 
> > seen a Windows DVD authoring solution that can touch DVD Studio Pro. 
> > Combustion is available for Windows, but I believe it has to deal with 
> > DV-encoded material via .avi rather than QuickTime, which is annoying.
> 
> there are some of you, certainly.  i have a hard time believing that most
> mac buyers, or even most g5 buyers, are really in that boat.
> 
> for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you could,
> for instance buy something like this:
> 
> Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel DDR400/40GB,
> Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6 months ISP, XP Home
> $539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)
> 
> and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.
> 
> i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be satisfied
> with that ;-)
> 
And then after you got it, you would need to add the DVD/RW and some
pro-level software (or even prosumer software) and a decent graphics
card, firewire and a few other things, bringing the price up a fair
amount and you still would be less powerful than the G5 duals.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 6:29:34 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:29:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.15.56.19.175692@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

>> for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you
>> could, for instance buy something like this:
>> 
>> Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel
>> DDR400/40GB, Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6 months
>> ISP, XP Home $539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)
>> 
>> and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.
>> 
>> i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be satisfied
>> with that ;-)
>> 
> And then after you got it, you would need to add the DVD/RW and some
> pro-level software (or even prosumer software) and a decent graphics
> card, firewire and a few other things, bringing the price up a fair
> amount and you still would be less powerful than the G5 duals.

are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
from "most" to "pro-level" ....

but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.

i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?

http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688

TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 7:11:30 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.12.06.724292@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:29:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.15.56.19.175692@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >> for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you
> >> could, for instance buy something like this:
> >> 
> >> Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel
> >> DDR400/40GB, Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6 months
> >> ISP, XP Home $539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)
> >> 
> >> and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.
> >> 
> >> i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be satisfied
> >> with that ;-)
> >> 
> > And then after you got it, you would need to add the DVD/RW and some
> > pro-level software (or even prosumer software) and a decent graphics
> > card, firewire and a few other things, bringing the price up a fair
> > amount and you still would be less powerful than the G5 duals.
> 
> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
> 
> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
> 
> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
> 
> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
> 
> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99

Lefty,

I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
build your own?

I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
because everything came from the same place.  

Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.  

Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.

And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 7:31:50 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

>> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
>> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
>> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
>> 
>> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
>> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
>> 
>> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
>> 
>> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
>> 
>> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
> 
> Lefty,
> 
> I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
> those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
> build your own?
> 
> I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
> because everything came from the same place.  

oh yeah, everybody thinks that's worth $1000.

not.

but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.

> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.  
> 
> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.

obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.

> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.

or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 7:36:21 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.37.28.168472@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> >> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
> >> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
> >> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
> >> 
> >> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
> >> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
> >> 
> >> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
> >> 
> >> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
> >> 
> >> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
> > 
> > Lefty,
> > 
> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> > parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
> > those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
> > build your own?
> > 
> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> > works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
> > because everything came from the same place.  
> 
> oh yeah, everybody thinks that's worth $1000.
> 
> not.
> 
> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.
> 
> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> > money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> > I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.  
> > 
> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> > have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
> > guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> 
> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
> 
> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> > the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> > consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.

Or if you make you living with that computer, you could be losing much
more than that doing things that do not produce income.  I can take a
new mac, plug it in, load the apps I want and transfer data from the
old in about 1-2 hours and I'm ready to get on the phone and make sales
again.

With Linux, I'm gonna spend most of a day getting some of that done,
still be missing some pieces I need for my work and not making money
during that time.  

Figuring I can make about $100/hour in sales (that's make, not sell),
Linux costs me $800 more off the bat, and then since some of the pieces
to the puzzle I work with aren't there, I still have my mac.  Doesn't
seem to be a very good choice to me.

If I had to change from the mac today, I would hold my nose and go back
to windows.  Not because I like windows better than Linux, but the
tools I need are also in Windows and not in Linux.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 7:47:34 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:47:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

then OSX and the mac make more sense.

>> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
> 
> Or if you make you living with that computer, you could be losing much
> more than that doing things that do not produce income.  I can take a
> new mac, plug it in, load the apps I want and transfer data from the
> old in about 1-2 hours and I'm ready to get on the phone and make sales
> again.

you just spec'd a system with firewire and dvd burning ... are you a
graphics pro, or were you spec'ing your home machine?

> With Linux, I'm gonna spend most of a day getting some of that done,
> still be missing some pieces I need for my work and not making money
> during that time.  
> 
> Figuring I can make about $100/hour in sales (that's make, not sell),
> Linux costs me $800 more off the bat, and then since some of the pieces
> to the puzzle I work with aren't there, I still have my mac.  Doesn't
> seem to be a very good choice to me.
> 
> If I had to change from the mac today, I would hold my nose and go back
> to windows.  Not because I like windows better than Linux, but the
> tools I need are also in Windows and not in Linux.

it is much more straightforward in a business setting to list your
requirements, and then look at the solutions that meet them.  either
linux does, or doesn't.  end of story, and no sweat either way.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 7:50:36 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.51.43.267231@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:47:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
> >> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
> > 
> > Or if you make you living with that computer, you could be losing much
> > more than that doing things that do not produce income.  I can take a
> > new mac, plug it in, load the apps I want and transfer data from the
> > old in about 1-2 hours and I'm ready to get on the phone and make sales
> > again.
> 
> you just spec'd a system with firewire and dvd burning ... are you a
> graphics pro, or were you spec'ing your home machine?
> 
I'm self-employed and I work from my home.  My business machine and my
home machine are one and the same.  The firewire and dvd burning are
for use on the home side to do DVDs of my trips.  That the mac just
happened to have that too made the decision that much easier.  ;-)

How do you think I can post here all day? <G>

I can be on the phone with a client, while faxing a quote or spec to
another one, while reading the email from a different one and still
have time to twiddle.  


> > With Linux, I'm gonna spend most of a day getting some of that done,
> > still be missing some pieces I need for my work and not making money
> > during that time.  
> > 
> > Figuring I can make about $100/hour in sales (that's make, not sell),
> > Linux costs me $800 more off the bat, and then since some of the pieces
> > to the puzzle I work with aren't there, I still have my mac.  Doesn't
> > seem to be a very good choice to me.
> > 
> > If I had to change from the mac today, I would hold my nose and go back
> > to windows.  Not because I like windows better than Linux, but the
> > tools I need are also in Windows and not in Linux.
> 
> it is much more straightforward in a business setting to list your
> requirements, and then look at the solutions that meet them.  either
> linux does, or doesn't.  end of story, and no sweat either way.

True.  If I were looking for a server, I would probably give Linux a
serious look, but on the desktop for me, it is a non-starter.  Not
because it isn't good, just for the holes in tools it would leave me.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 8:00:48 PM
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote on 11/21/03 12:31 PM:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.12.06.724292@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:29:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <pan.2003.11.21.15.56.19.175692@lefty.invalid>, lefty
>>> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you
>>>> could, for instance buy something like this:
>>>> 
>>>> Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel
>>>> DDR400/40GB, Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6 months
>>>> ISP, XP Home $539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)
>>>> 
>>>> and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.
>>>> 
>>>> i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be satisfied
>>>> with that ;-)
>>>> 
>>> And then after you got it, you would need to add the DVD/RW and some
>>> pro-level software (or even prosumer software) and a decent graphics
>>> card, firewire and a few other things, bringing the price up a fair
>>> amount and you still would be less powerful than the G5 duals.
>> 
>> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
>> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
>> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
>> 
>> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
>> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
>> 
>> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
>> 
>> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
>> 
>> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
> 
> Lefty,
> 
> I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
> those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
> build your own?
> 
> I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
> because everything came from the same place.
> 
> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
> 
> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> 
> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
> Lloyd

Sounds like you want a machine for getting work done, Lefty wants a "hobby"
machine, one where he can build it and then continually tinker with it to
suite his needs of the day.  Your needs are probably better filled by Apple,
Lefty's by PC's.  Makes sense to me.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/21/2003 8:25:42 PM
"lefty" <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote on 11/21/03 12:36 PM:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
>>> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
>>> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
>>> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
>>> 
>>> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
>>> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
>>> 
>>> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
>>> 
>>> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
>>> 
>>> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
>> 
>> Lefty,
>> 
>> I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
>> piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
>> parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
>> those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
>> build your own?
>> 
>> I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
>> works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
>> because everything came from the same place.
> 
> oh yeah, everybody thinks that's worth $1000.
> 
> not.
> 
> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.

My guess is that most people want to do more than run an OS on a box.  They
want a box that is reliable and one that does not force them to tinker.
Sort of like saying you can build a kit car quite cheaply, but most people
would not want to.  For those that do, however, the option exists.

Right now the computer market is still young enough where there are quite a
few people who want to tinker and have a computer as a hobby.  My guess is
over time that will become less and less the case.
> 
>> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
>> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
>> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
>> 
>> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
>> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
>> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> 
> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
> 
>> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
>> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
>> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.

For most people, not computer hobbyists, they would end up spending that
$1000 dollars over time with having to replace parts, hire technical help ,
etc.  That $1000 dollar savings is, for the most part, a myth.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/21/2003 8:29:33 PM
"lefty" <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote on 11/21/03 12:50 PM:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:47:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
>>> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
>> 
>> Or if you make you living with that computer, you could be losing much
>> more than that doing things that do not produce income.  I can take a
>> new mac, plug it in, load the apps I want and transfer data from the
>> old in about 1-2 hours and I'm ready to get on the phone and make sales
>> again.
> 
> you just spec'd a system with firewire and dvd burning ... are you a
> graphics pro, or were you spec'ing your home machine?

I am not a graphics pro, but having Firewire and DVD burning capabilities
has come in handy several times for me.
> 
>> With Linux, I'm gonna spend most of a day getting some of that done,
>> still be missing some pieces I need for my work and not making money
>> during that time.
>> 
>> Figuring I can make about $100/hour in sales (that's make, not sell),
>> Linux costs me $800 more off the bat, and then since some of the pieces
>> to the puzzle I work with aren't there, I still have my mac.  Doesn't
>> seem to be a very good choice to me.
>> 
>> If I had to change from the mac today, I would hold my nose and go back
>> to windows.  Not because I like windows better than Linux, but the
>> tools I need are also in Windows and not in Linux.
> 
> it is much more straightforward in a business setting to list your
> requirements, and then look at the solutions that meet them.  either
> linux does, or doesn't.  end of story, and no sweat either way.

For me, I looked at my needs and likely near-future needs, and then bought a
machine.  I did get some things I rarely use, but so be it.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/21/2003 8:32:14 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:25:42 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Sounds like you want a machine for getting work done, Lefty wants a
> "hobby" machine, one where he can build it and then continually tinker
> with it to suite his needs of the day.  Your needs are probably better
> filled by Apple, Lefty's by PC's.  Makes sense to me.

that may not be far from the truth ... but the thing is, bricks and mortar
stores like Good Guys, Comp USA, Office Depot, and Best Buy all sell DVD
upgrades, etc.  if we assume that some fraction of those parts-buyers
actually manage to get them installed, then that home-tinkerer market
might not be too small.

a fair number of them might be buying the upgrade because they think they
can manage it and save a few bucks, rather than (like me) they are getting
a kick out of it.

those sorts might be sooner tempted by linux than the mac buyers.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 8:38:03 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:29:33 -0700, Snit wrote:


>> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
>> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
>> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.
> 
> My guess is that most people want to do more than run an OS on a box.  They
> want a box that is reliable and one that does not force them to tinker.
> Sort of like saying you can build a kit car quite cheaply, but most people
> would not want to.  For those that do, however, the option exists.

where does your os stop?  is iphoto in or out?  the thing is, everybody's
os bundles are growing, and the need to go shopping is going down.  if
i can load up a fedora "os" and it can interface to my printer, scanner,
digital cameras, let me run gimp, easly burn cds (drag and drop now, by
default on linux, imagine!) ... if it comes with a full office suit ... i
think i've accomplished a lot by the simple expedient of loading an os.

a lot less time and effort than building a car ;-)

> Right now the computer market is still young enough where there are quite a
> few people who want to tinker and have a computer as a hobby.  My guess is
> over time that will become less and less the case.

today, to do everything i want to do (it's more "wants" at home than
"needs"), i still need to tinker ... a bit.  but the amount of tinkering
is dropping fast.

which is why i started this sub-thread with the words "as the maturity-gap
closes".  my strong expectation is that it will.

>>> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
>>> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
>>> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
>>> 
>>> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
>>> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
>>> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
>> 
>> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
>> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
>> 
>>> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
>>> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
>>> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
>> 
>> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
> 
> For most people, not computer hobbyists, they would end up spending that
> $1000 dollars over time with having to replace parts, hire technical help ,
> etc.  That $1000 dollar savings is, for the most part, a myth.

i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
these days between the midline mac and pc.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 8:52:35 PM
zolo wrote:

> works under OS X and you'll see what I mean.  OS X has software RAID 
> capability, but I'll slit my wrists before I choose a software RAID over 
> a hardware RAID.


To address that point--that really depends on why you want
RAID.  If you're trying to squeeze out the last gasp of
disk performance by striping, okay.  But if you're mirroring,
then, well, CPUs are so honking fast today they can afford
a little overhead in the filesystem access.  :-)


Duke

0
duke11 (340)
11/21/2003 9:00:19 PM
Peter Hayes wrote:
> NFish wrote:
>>Martik wrote:
>>>Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
>>>over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+.
>>>Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows.
>>>It is drop dead gorgeous,
>>
>>It looks really nice in screenshots, I'll give you that.  But last time
>>I checked, XFree86 still didn't double buffer its windows, so that you
>>get nasty flicker and visible redraws when you drag windows around.

Is that why it does that?  I've recently switched completely from Windows
to Linux, and that's the only thing that annoys me.  :-)   I used to be
annoyed trying to read uSoft Office docs, but the 1.1 version of
OpenOffice hasn't choked on one yet....the older versions used to,
but 1.1 is still batting 1000 here.

> Looks ok here, Dell laptop with nVidia graphics. OTOH, I don't tend to drag
> windows around, I use virtual desktops to switch between application
> groups. Something OSX doesn't offer out of the box.

Yow, really?  Jeez, I couldn't live without that.  I want a new
Powerbook laptop, but I've gotta have virtual desktops.  Even
Windows machines can do that, given the right 3rd party software....is
there some app for OSX that will add it?

>>The thing that impressed me was the installation procedure for Yellow
>>Dog (aka RedHat on Mac).  It looked good, was easy to use, and worked.
>>But Debian and Slackware still both have nasty installations.
> 
> 
> Debian's very nasty, haven't used Slackware in years.

I started on RedHat and have just recently switched to Slackware from RedHat.  Slackware's installation
is very nice now, so long as you know how to partition a disk.  It's
got no eye candy, but then, you don't have to interact with it much,
so that's not a big deal, in my opinion.

Duke


0
duke11 (340)
11/21/2003 9:24:52 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.20.53.42.39023@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:29:33 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
> 
> >> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
> >> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
> >> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.
> > 
> > My guess is that most people want to do more than run an OS on a box.  They
> > want a box that is reliable and one that does not force them to tinker.
> > Sort of like saying you can build a kit car quite cheaply, but most people
> > would not want to.  For those that do, however, the option exists.
> 
> where does your os stop?  is iphoto in or out?  the thing is, everybody's
> os bundles are growing, and the need to go shopping is going down.  if
> i can load up a fedora "os" and it can interface to my printer, scanner,
> digital cameras, let me run gimp, easly burn cds (drag and drop now, by
> default on linux, imagine!) ... if it comes with a full office suit ... i
> think i've accomplished a lot by the simple expedient of loading an os.
> 
> a lot less time and effort than building a car ;-)
> 
> > Right now the computer market is still young enough where there are quite a
> > few people who want to tinker and have a computer as a hobby.  My guess is
> > over time that will become less and less the case.
> 
> today, to do everything i want to do (it's more "wants" at home than
> "needs"), i still need to tinker ... a bit.  but the amount of tinkering
> is dropping fast.
> 
> which is why i started this sub-thread with the words "as the maturity-gap
> closes".  my strong expectation is that it will.
> 
> >>> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> >>> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> >>> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
> >>> 
> >>> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> >>> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
> >>> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> >> 
> >> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
> >> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
> >> 
> >>> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> >>> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> >>> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> >> 
> >> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
> > 
> > For most people, not computer hobbyists, they would end up spending that
> > $1000 dollars over time with having to replace parts, hire technical help ,
> > etc.  That $1000 dollar savings is, for the most part, a myth.
> 
> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
> these days between the midline mac and pc.

Here's a comparison between the iMac 17" and an HP Presario model that
is as close a comparison as I could make at each companies respective
website:

HP --

emove
�
qty.
�
item description
�
�
part number
�
total
�

�
�
�Custom Presario 8000T PC 
- 2.8 GHz (HT) Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4
- Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional Edition
- PROMO 512 MB DDR / PC3200 (2 DIMM)
- SAVE $40 80GB 7200 rpm Ultra DMA Hard Drive
- 16X max. DVD-ROM Drive
- FREE UPGRADE to 4X DVD+RW/+R
- 3.5 in. 1.44MB Floppy Drive
- NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 + 4 FREE Eidos games
- Sound Blaster Audigy 2 card with Front Audio ports
- JBL Platinum Speakers w/ Digital Audio Port
- Presario Keyboard & Optical Scroll Mouse
- Microsoft(R) Works/Money 2003/Encarta
- hpshopping in-box envelope
�
P8657A#ABA               $1,267.00
�
Compaq FP17 17" LCD flat panel display 
�
P9622C#ABA               $449.00
�
Item subtotal                 $1,716.00
Moving down a model, with a slightly slower processor would be about
$1440 for nearly this same config.

Apple:


iMac 1.25GHz w/ 17" TFT 
Z087 

Keyboard/Mac OS X - U.S. English 
065-4480 
512MB DDR333 - 2 DIMMs 
065-4330 
Accessory Kit 
065-4481 
80GB Ultra ATA drive 
065-4484 
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW) 
065-4483 

Subtotal                      $1,899.00 

We can argue for days about the relatives strengths and weaknesses of
each, but in the scheme of where these models sit in the product line,
I think that these are comparable and they are both in consumer models.

Having seen both of these in action, for most things that would be done
on them, performance would not be far apart.  Of course, there are
things that the PC might be faster at doing, but I don't think a
consumer user would ever see the difference, outside of games.

So the pricing isn't that far apart, IMHO.

If we were to go the the dual g5's for a comparison, then we would have
to go to dual Xeons on the windows side of the house.  Comparison there
is interesting, to say the least.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 9:25:21 PM
> I'm self-employed and I work from my home.  My business machine and my
> home machine are one and the same.  The firewire and dvd burning are
> for use on the home side to do DVDs of my trips.  That the mac just
> happened to have that too made the decision that much easier.  ;-)
> 

What kind of business are you running?
0
martik (373)
11/21/2003 9:29:22 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:25:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

>> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
>> these days between the midline mac and pc.

i think the only way to do it is to see what midline buyers are buying. 
we know that the median price windows pc is $700-800 (regardless of what
you choose as equivalent to some mac).

the question is, what is the average mac purchase price.  given that, we
can calculate the difference between the two group's purchases.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 9:29:41 PM
In article <MPG.1a2823797b5c4b37989681@news.telus.net>, Martik
<martik@telus.net> wrote:

> > I'm self-employed and I work from my home.  My business machine and my
> > home machine are one and the same.  The firewire and dvd burning are
> > for use on the home side to do DVDs of my trips.  That the mac just
> > happened to have that too made the decision that much easier.  ;-)
> > 
> 
> What kind of business are you running?

I do independent sales for a couple of companies.  For info, the apps I
need are for office compatibility ( Linux and OSX have this), Web,
email and sales management.  I also used Visio for network design, but
have since moved to OmniGraffle.

That sales management tool took me some time to find, even on the mac. 
There are a slew of 'contact managers', 'pims', 'project managers', but
there are not a slew of good sales management programs on any platform. 
Every one of them had something I liked, but only 3 apps fit all my
needs.

Windows has two of note, ACT! and Goldmine, the mac has Daylite.  To be
honest, I haven't looked in a long time, but when I did there was
nothing like any of those for Linux.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 9:38:35 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.21.30.48.279261@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:25:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> >> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
> >> these days between the midline mac and pc.
> 
> i think the only way to do it is to see what midline buyers are buying. 
> we know that the median price windows pc is $700-800 (regardless of what
> you choose as equivalent to some mac).
> 
> the question is, what is the average mac purchase price.  given that, we
> can calculate the difference between the two group's purchases.

I know that number comes up all the time, and I'm sure that it is
calculated in some manner, yet Dell, the low price leader shows average
unit sales in excess of $1300 ( I think that is the last number I heard
about).

I think you need to look at the part of a tier 1's lineup for each side
to determine a comparison, because you DON'T know which is the most
popular and it actually doesn't matter.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 9:48:36 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.21.30.48.279261@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:25:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> >> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
> >> these days between the midline mac and pc.
> 
> i think the only way to do it is to see what midline buyers are buying. 
> we know that the median price windows pc is $700-800 (regardless of what
> you choose as equivalent to some mac).
> 
> the question is, what is the average mac purchase price.  given that, we
> can calculate the difference between the two group's purchases.

BTW, it is easy to see you certainly didn't like my comparison as it
wasn't going to show what you wanted it to.  ;-)

Nice shift!

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 9:49:26 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>,
 lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
> >  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
> >> they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
> >> unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
> >> clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
> >> 
> >> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> >> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> >> insisting that everything else is crap).
> > 
> > I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
> > I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
> > same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> > the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> > everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> > that most OSX users don't need it.
> 
> right, but windows would have the software you need too.

Actually, it doesn't. There are a number of apps as well as core 
technologies that I need which Windows either doesn't support at all, or 
supports poorly (we all know what these are, no need to open that can of 
worms again). Also, some of the apps I use, while there might be Windows 
versions, do not have the same fedatures that they do on the Mac. For 
instance,  InDesign on Windows doesn't have anywhere NEAR the capability 
of the Mac version, and therefore I wouldn't want to use it.  


> i look at the
> reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
> say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> future.

I already gave my reasons. OSX IS Unix, why would I want to trade a 
fully developed Unix, the only one with a real, integrated GUI, and lots 
of professional, shrink-wrapped apps tailored to my profession, for an 
ad hoc Unix-like distro with a relatively primitive and geeky interface 
that has none of the apps I need? Even if all of these objections went 
away, OSX will still be Unix, and I will still feel more comfortable 
with it, and see no reason to change. As for the cheapness of the 
hardware and OS, with me this is not an issue. I do not mind spending 
money on the things I value, even if nobody else sees the same value in 
them that I do. Let me reiterate, I have nothing against Linux, I just 
don't need what it offers.

> that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
> consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
> demographic)."
> 
> i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
> by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?

I could be driving a new Hyundai for less than $9000 too, but like 
Linux, I wouldn't want one. Basic transportation is not my requirement 
in a car. It is for some, and I, for one, am glad that there are a few 
cars available that are that cheap for those who just need to get 
around. But other than the fact of it, the reality is just as 
meaningless to me as is an inexpensive Wintel boxen running Linux and 
for the same reason. 

Now, if someday, Linux is just as good as a Mac, has the all of the same 
apps available, and the GUIs stop trying to emulate Windows with all of 
their conventions, I might change to Linux. But I honestly, I don't see 
that happening. An example: a few months ago, I was looking for a way to 
not have to purchase OfficeX for the Mac. I used to get my copies of 
Office directly from M$ through a friend who would buy them for me at 
the company store and then have the store drop-ship the software to my 
door. I think I paid something like $50 for the last version of Office I 
got from him (Office 2000 for Windows). Alas, he took early retirement 
and is no longer my 'connection.' So, to avoid the upgrade price, I 
downloaded OpenOffice for OSX and installed it under OSX' X11 beta. It 
worked fine, but I was appalled at how much like a Windows program it 
looked and acted. Same terrible open and save dialog boxes, same 
'Control' (instead of 'Command') X, C, and V. Soon after that, M$ 
offered an 'educational' distro of Office for $149. Fry's didn't ask me 
for student ID and neither did M$ when I registered it, so I bought 
that. At least Office are Mac programs.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/21/2003 9:49:37 PM
In article <211120031226296727%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
> > >  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > >> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
> > >> they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
> > >> unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
> > >> clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
> > >> 
> > >> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> > >> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> > >> insisting that everything else is crap).
> > > 
> > > I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
> > > I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
> > > same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> > > the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> > > everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> > > that most OSX users don't need it.
> > 
> > right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
> > reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
> > say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> > future.
> > 
> > that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
> > consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
> > demographic)."
> > 
> > i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
> > by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?
> 
> If I were buying a box now, it wouldn't be the $700 box.  It would be
> much further up the food chain and it wouldn't be a Linux box because
> of lack of the apps I want to use.
> 
> Realistically, if I were buying a box now, it would be a dual G5/1.8Ghz
> and it would be priced about the same as anything I would want from the
> windows world.
> 
> Lloyd

Me too.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/21/2003 9:50:06 PM
Duke Robillard wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote:
>> NFish wrote:
>>>Martik wrote:
>>>>Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I
>>>>switched over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD
>>>>2100+. Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to
>>>>Windows. It is drop dead gorgeous,
>>>
>>>It looks really nice in screenshots, I'll give you that.  But last time
>>>I checked, XFree86 still didn't double buffer its windows, so that you
>>>get nasty flicker and visible redraws when you drag windows around.
> 
> Is that why it does that?  I've recently switched completely from Windows
> to Linux, and that's the only thing that annoys me.  :-)   I used to be
> annoyed trying to read uSoft Office docs, but the 1.1 version of
> OpenOffice hasn't choked on one yet....the older versions used to,
> but 1.1 is still batting 1000 here.
> 
>> Looks ok here, Dell laptop with nVidia graphics. OTOH, I don't tend to
>> drag windows around, I use virtual desktops to switch between
>> application groups. Something OSX doesn't offer out of the box.
> 
> Yow, really?  Jeez, I couldn't live without that.  I want a new
> Powerbook laptop, but I've gotta have virtual desktops.  Even
> Windows machines can do that, given the right 3rd party software

There's a Tweak-UI for WinXP that offers four virtual desktops. The switch
isn't as clean as the Linux one, but it can give you a quad split so you
can see all the desktops at once, should the urge to do so come upon you.

> ....is there some app for OSX that will add it?

Virtual Desktops from http://www.codetek.com

and others.

I haven't tried it yet, still waiting for my Powerbook... Looks like the
new year now. Three weeks to build, a week to deliver and it's not even on
the list yet.
 
>>>The thing that impressed me was the installation procedure for Yellow
>>>Dog (aka RedHat on Mac).  It looked good, was easy to use, and worked.
>>>But Debian and Slackware still both have nasty installations.
>> 
>> 
>> Debian's very nasty, haven't used Slackware in years.
> 
> I started on RedHat and have just recently switched to Slackware from
> RedHat. 

I don't like RedHat's distro very much. SuSE's well... just more
integrated.

> Slackware's installation is very nice now, so long as you know how to
> partition a disk.  It's got no eye candy, but then, you don't have to
> interact with it much, so that's not a big deal, in my opinion.

Eye candy installers don't bother me much either, just so long as it works.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/21/2003 9:52:21 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:49:37 +0000, George Graves wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>,
>  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

>> i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
>> by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?
> 
> I could be driving a new Hyundai for less than $9000 too, but like 
> Linux, I wouldn't want one. Basic transportation is not my requirement 
> in a car. It is for some, and I, for one, am glad that there are a few 
> cars available that are that cheap for those who just need to get 
> around. But other than the fact of it, the reality is just as 
> meaningless to me as is an inexpensive Wintel boxen running Linux and 
> for the same reason. 

on one level you talk about reasonable requirements, but these snobbish
car metaphors always get me.  i mean, "mac is a bmw, linux is a hyundai"
makes it oh so easy to slide into emotional consumerism.

i bought a mac .... i must be somebody!
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 9:56:29 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:49:26 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.21.30.48.279261@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:25:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> >> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the
>> >> difference is these days between the midline mac and pc.
>> 
>> i think the only way to do it is to see what midline buyers are buying.
>> we know that the median price windows pc is $700-800 (regardless of
>> what you choose as equivalent to some mac).
>> 
>> the question is, what is the average mac purchase price.  given that,
>> we can calculate the difference between the two group's purchases.
> 
> BTW, it is easy to see you certainly didn't like my comparison as it
> wasn't going to show what you wanted it to.  ;-)
> 
> Nice shift!

it wasn't a shift, you totally missed my point.

the difference in markets isn't about your hypothetical models, it is
about what consumers in the two camps actually do.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 9:58:31 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:48:36 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> I know that number comes up all the time, and I'm sure that it is
> calculated in some manner, yet Dell, the low price leader shows average
> unit sales in excess of $1300 ( I think that is the last number I heard
> about).
> 
> I think you need to look at the part of a tier 1's lineup for each side
> to determine a comparison, because you DON'T know which is the most
> popular and it actually doesn't matter.

i've documented the $700 to $800 figure for you in the past.  i don't
really see how you can wave it away, though you may wish it was higher:

"Personal computer prices have never been lower.

Of course, we should note that we told you exactly the same thing in March
1996 (when an average desktop computer sold for $2,100). We told you that
again in January 1998 (when the average price was $1,329). And again in
December 2000 (when the average price was $853). And yet again in November
2001 (when the average price was $832.

So, with prices now averaging $796, is this a good time to replace that
aging beige box?"

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mizTa.1610%24gi.1699509%40news2.news.adelphia.net
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 10:05:42 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.21.59.35.998682@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:49:26 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.21.30.48.279261@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:25:21 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the
> >> >> difference is these days between the midline mac and pc.
> >> 
> >> i think the only way to do it is to see what midline buyers are buying.
> >> we know that the median price windows pc is $700-800 (regardless of
> >> what you choose as equivalent to some mac).
> >> 
> >> the question is, what is the average mac purchase price.  given that,
> >> we can calculate the difference between the two group's purchases.
> > 
> > BTW, it is easy to see you certainly didn't like my comparison as it
> > wasn't going to show what you wanted it to.  ;-)
> > 
> > Nice shift!
> 
> it wasn't a shift, you totally missed my point.
> 
> the difference in markets isn't about your hypothetical models, it is
> about what consumers in the two camps actually do.

But that wasn't what your question was, here let me quote it for you
although it is in this message too:

> but i wonder what the
> > >> >> difference is these days between the midline mac and pc.

The problem with trying to decide what the midline buyer is buying is
that there are two distinct markets for pcs.  First is the consumer,
and they are most likely paying more because the more upscale consumer
box is what the store is pushing (for obvious reasons), the other is
the business buyer, who buys with totally different criteria.

And I would think that it would also be fair to know the midline price
the consumer was paying with tier 1 vice all makers.  Another totally
different market.

Unless you can find a source that says the midline of the consumer
buyers are paying 'x' then you cannot determine what you are now saying
you would need to make the comparison.

It is a shift in emphasis, and it is obvious that you made the shift
because you did not like my comparison of nearly like to like because
it did not show the large disparity you were looking for.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 10:10:19 PM
confirmation from another source:

"But desktop PCs look likely to continue to be a tough market for
manufacturers, as most sales now come in well below $1,000, making it more
difficult to squeeze out a profit. The average retail price of a desktop
PC in August was $725, only slightly higher than last February's
all-time-low of $717."

the story is dated September 26, 2003, 10:54 AM PT and probably has the
most recent figures as of that time:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5082842.html
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 10:13:33 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:10:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:


>> > Nice shift!
>> 
>> it wasn't a shift, you totally missed my point.
>> 
>> the difference in markets isn't about your hypothetical models, it is
>> about what consumers in the two camps actually do.
> 
> But that wasn't what your question was, here let me quote it for you
> although it is in this message too:

don't be an idiot.  i know what my question meant.  when i wrote:

"but i wonder what the difference is these days between the midline mac
and pc."

i was wondering about the median price, as sold, by the two groups.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 10:15:42 PM
Duke Robillard wrote:
> zolo wrote:
> 
>> works under OS X and you'll see what I mean.  OS X has software RAID 
>> capability, but I'll slit my wrists before I choose a software RAID 
>> over a hardware RAID.
> 
> 
> 
> To address that point--that really depends on why you want
> RAID.  If you're trying to squeeze out the last gasp of
> disk performance by striping, okay.  But if you're mirroring,
> then, well, CPUs are so honking fast today they can afford
> a little overhead in the filesystem access.  :-)
> 
> 
> Duke
> 

   I need a striped RAID solution to guarantee massive bandwidth for 
multiple streams of uncompressed video.  In the video world, you can 
never have too much I/O bandwidth!

-zolo

0
zolo (265)
11/21/2003 10:22:54 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.22.06.46.735629@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:48:36 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > I know that number comes up all the time, and I'm sure that it is
> > calculated in some manner, yet Dell, the low price leader shows average
> > unit sales in excess of $1300 ( I think that is the last number I heard
> > about).
> > 
> > I think you need to look at the part of a tier 1's lineup for each side
> > to determine a comparison, because you DON'T know which is the most
> > popular and it actually doesn't matter.
> 
> i've documented the $700 to $800 figure for you in the past.  i don't
> really see how you can wave it away, though you may wish it was higher:
> 
> "Personal computer prices have never been lower.
> 
> Of course, we should note that we told you exactly the same thing in March
> 1996 (when an average desktop computer sold for $2,100). We told you that
> again in January 1998 (when the average price was $1,329). And again in
> December 2000 (when the average price was $853). And yet again in November
> 2001 (when the average price was $832.
> 
> So, with prices now averaging $796, is this a good time to replace that
> aging beige box?"
> 
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mizTa.1610%24gi.1699509%40news2.news.adelphia.net

And as in the past, it is a nice number with no meaning.

It doesn't segment the market at all to show what the 'consumer' market
is buying as opposed to the business buyer.  That make a very large
difference when trying to come up with valid comparisons.

If you insist on doing it your way, your just pulling your pud!  ;-)

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 10:31:32 PM
In article
<gmgravesnos-C79808.13500621112003@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <211120031226296727%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
> > > >  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
> > > >> they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is another
> > > >> unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
> > > >> clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
> > > >> 
> > > >> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few emac
> > > >> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> > > >> insisting that everything else is crap).
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the software
> > > > I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to the
> > > > same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> > > > the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> > > > everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> > > > that most OSX users don't need it.
> > > 
> > > right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
> > > reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, and
> > > say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> > > future.
> > > 
> > > that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
> > > consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
> > > demographic)."
> > > 
> > > i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
> > > by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?
> > 
> > If I were buying a box now, it wouldn't be the $700 box.  It would be
> > much further up the food chain and it wouldn't be a Linux box because
> > of lack of the apps I want to use.
> > 
> > Realistically, if I were buying a box now, it would be a dual G5/1.8Ghz
> > and it would be priced about the same as anything I would want from the
> > windows world.
> > 
> > Lloyd
> 
> Me too.

Yeah, but something tells me you are closer to buying one than I am. 
;-(

Realistically, for what I do with a computer, my G4/933 is overkill for
the stuff I do all the time, and OK with the little video/photo stuff I
do.

Hell, my 333 powerbook does most of my business stuff fast enough!

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 10:33:42 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.22.16.49.214717@lefty.invalid>, lefty
<lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:10:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> 
> >> > Nice shift!
> >> 
> >> it wasn't a shift, you totally missed my point.
> >> 
> >> the difference in markets isn't about your hypothetical models, it is
> >> about what consumers in the two camps actually do.
> > 
> > But that wasn't what your question was, here let me quote it for you
> > although it is in this message too:
> 
> don't be an idiot.  i know what my question meant.  when i wrote:
> 
> "but i wonder what the difference is these days between the midline mac
> and pc."
> 
> i was wondering about the median price, as sold, by the two groups.

that is not what you asked though.

And from other posts, the question you had meant to ask already had an
answer you liked, so were using it as a way to say again that macs are
overpriced.  

I actually liked your approach, for a trolling it was rather smooth! <G>
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/21/2003 10:39:08 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:39:08 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.22.16.49.214717@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

>> don't be an idiot.  i know what my question meant.  when i wrote:
>> 
>> "but i wonder what the difference is these days between the midline mac
>> and pc."
>> 
>> i was wondering about the median price, as sold, by the two groups.
> 
> that is not what you asked though.
> 
> And from other posts, the question you had meant to ask already had an
> answer you liked, so were using it as a way to say again that macs are
> overpriced.  
> 
> I actually liked your approach, for a trolling it was rather smooth! <G>

nothing bugs me more than people who cannot accept what i say in plain
english.

but i think, when people see you refusing to accept my prompt explanation
for my own words, they'll figure out who is doing the spinning and
trolling
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 10:47:20 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:31:32 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

>> "Personal computer prices have never been lower.
>> 
>> Of course, we should note that we told you exactly the same thing in
>> March 1996 (when an average desktop computer sold for $2,100). We told
>> you that again in January 1998 (when the average price was $1,329). And
>> again in December 2000 (when the average price was $853). And yet again
>> in November 2001 (when the average price was $832.
>> 
>> So, with prices now averaging $796, is this a good time to replace that
>> aging beige box?"
>> 
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mizTa.1610%24gi.1699509%40news2.news.adelphia.net
> 
> And as in the past, it is a nice number with no meaning.
> 
> It doesn't segment the market at all to show what the 'consumer' market
> is buying as opposed to the business buyer.  That make a very large
> difference when trying to come up with valid comparisons.
> 
> If you insist on doing it your way, your just pulling your pud!  ;-)

of course it has meaning.  it tells us what is being sold at retail, and
allows us to see how vendors position themselves relative to that average
retail price.  people (like emachines) who position themselves well-under
are going for the low-end, and people (like apple) who position themselves
well-over are going for the high-end.

don't embarrass yourself with this "no meaning" and "pulling your pud"
stuff.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/21/2003 10:47:33 PM
Peter Hayes wrote:
> Duke Robillard wrote:

>>>drag windows around, I use virtual desktops to switch between
>>>application groups. Something OSX doesn't offer out of the box.
>>
>>Yow, really?  Jeez, I couldn't live without that.  I want a new
>>Powerbook laptop, but I've gotta have virtual desktops.  Even
>>Windows machines can do that, given the right 3rd party software
> 
>>....is there some app for OSX that will add it?
> 
> Virtual Desktops from http://www.codetek.com

Uh-oh.  You've gotta *buy* that one.  :-)   I'm a Linux guy;
I don't mind doing more work if the software doesn't cost
anything and I can re-compile it if I need to.

Maybe I need to re-think this whole Mac thing.  :-)

Duke

0
duke11 (340)
11/21/2003 11:01:13 PM
"lefty" <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote on 11/21/03 1:38 PM:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:25:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Sounds like you want a machine for getting work done, Lefty wants a
>> "hobby" machine, one where he can build it and then continually tinker
>> with it to suite his needs of the day.  Your needs are probably better
>> filled by Apple, Lefty's by PC's.  Makes sense to me.
> 
> that may not be far from the truth ... but the thing is, bricks and mortar
> stores like Good Guys, Comp USA, Office Depot, and Best Buy all sell DVD
> upgrades, etc.  if we assume that some fraction of those parts-buyers
> actually manage to get them installed, then that home-tinkerer market
> might not be too small.

I have no doubt that it is quite large.  Many of the people who end up
paying me either have tried tinkering themselves, or, more often, have had
someone come in a do it to... um, for them.  I would say at least half my
business comes from people who want their machines to not be screwed up -
and I do not even push that part of my business; I prefer to do software
training.
> 
> a fair number of them might be buying the upgrade because they think they
> can manage it and save a few bucks, rather than (like me) they are getting
> a kick out of it.

I am sure a non-insignificant number do save some bucks.  I am also sure a
large number end up paying people like me to come in and rescue them.
Actually, while I am not cheap, the people who really focus on the hardware
tend to cost even more than I do; and I do refer people out from time to
time.  I am not really a hardware guy.
> 
> those sorts might be sooner tempted by linux than the mac buyers.

True, and despite the numbers who end up being screwed by the piecemeal
solutions, there are some who have it work out for them.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/22/2003 12:50:09 AM
"lefty" <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote on 11/21/03 1:52 PM:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:29:33 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
> 
>>> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
>>> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
>>> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.
>> 
>> My guess is that most people want to do more than run an OS on a box.  They
>> want a box that is reliable and one that does not force them to tinker.
>> Sort of like saying you can build a kit car quite cheaply, but most people
>> would not want to.  For those that do, however, the option exists.
> 
> where does your os stop?  is iphoto in or out?  the thing is, everybody's
> os bundles are growing, and the need to go shopping is going down.  if
> i can load up a fedora "os" and it can interface to my printer, scanner,
> digital cameras, let me run gimp, easly burn cds (drag and drop now, by
> default on linux, imagine!) ... if it comes with a full office suit ... i
> think i've accomplished a lot by the simple expedient of loading an os.
> 
> a lot less time and effort than building a car ;-)

Buy the time you buy the machine - for most people not by much.  :)
> 
>> Right now the computer market is still young enough where there are quite a
>> few people who want to tinker and have a computer as a hobby.  My guess is
>> over time that will become less and less the case.
> 
> today, to do everything i want to do (it's more "wants" at home than
> "needs"), i still need to tinker ... a bit.  but the amount of tinkering
> is dropping fast.
> 
> which is why i started this sub-thread with the words "as the maturity-gap
> closes".  my strong expectation is that it will.

There may come a time when Linux is a viable alternative to OS X or even
Windows for the "average" user.  That time is not now.  I would, however,
welcome it.  If I could get a machine to be as good as a Mac at a much lower
price, I for one would be happy to get it.
> 
>>>> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
>>>> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
>>>> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
>>>> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
>>>> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
>>> 
>>> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
>>> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
>>> 
>>>> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
>>>> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
>>>> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
>>> 
>>> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
>> 
>> For most people, not computer hobbyists, they would end up spending that
>> $1000 dollars over time with having to replace parts, hire technical help ,
>> etc.  That $1000 dollar savings is, for the most part, a myth.
> 
> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
> these days between the midline mac and pc.

Depends on what features you add and what you call midline.  By the time you
add the virus checkers and software and hardware that comes standard on the
midrange Macs, many PC's (say Dell's) are actually more expensive, or the
price is at least close.  Now, not all people need all the software Apple
ships, so a knowledgeable buyer may be able to save a few bucks with the
Dell.  Macs tend to have a lower cost of ownership / higher return on
investment (for those that use it as an investment), so even when the Mac is
more expensive initially, in the long run it is often the cheaper choice.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/22/2003 12:58:17 AM
"Duke Robillard" <duke@NOSPAMio.com> wrote on 11/21/03 2:24 PM:

> Peter Hayes wrote:
>> NFish wrote:

>> Looks ok here, Dell laptop with nVidia graphics. OTOH, I don't tend to drag
>> windows around, I use virtual desktops to switch between application
>> groups. Something OSX doesn't offer out of the box.
> 
> Yow, really?  Jeez, I couldn't live without that.  I want a new
> Powerbook laptop, but I've gotta have virtual desktops.  Even
> Windows machines can do that, given the right 3rd party software....is
> there some app for OSX that will add it?

Yes.  Go to versiontracker.com.  And with expos�, many people find they no
longer need the third party solutions.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/22/2003 12:59:55 AM
"lefty" <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote on 11/21/03 3:47 PM:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:31:32 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
>>> "Personal computer prices have never been lower.
>>> 
>>> Of course, we should note that we told you exactly the same thing in
>>> March 1996 (when an average desktop computer sold for $2,100). We told
>>> you that again in January 1998 (when the average price was $1,329). And
>>> again in December 2000 (when the average price was $853). And yet again
>>> in November 2001 (when the average price was $832.
>>> 
>>> So, with prices now averaging $796, is this a good time to replace that
>>> aging beige box?"
>>> 
>>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mizTa.1610%24gi.1699509%40news2.news.adelp
>>> hia.net
>> 
>> And as in the past, it is a nice number with no meaning.
>> 
>> It doesn't segment the market at all to show what the 'consumer' market
>> is buying as opposed to the business buyer.  That make a very large
>> difference when trying to come up with valid comparisons.
>> 
>> If you insist on doing it your way, your just pulling your pud!  ;-)
> 
> of course it has meaning.  it tells us what is being sold at retail, and
> allows us to see how vendors position themselves relative to that average
> retail price.  people (like emachines) who position themselves well-under
> are going for the low-end, and people (like apple) who position themselves
> well-over are going for the high-end.
> 
> don't embarrass yourself with this "no meaning" and "pulling your pud"
> stuff.

Well, this thread had actually gone on for a while without sinking to
flames.  This flame is just absurd, but aren't that all?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/22/2003 1:26:00 AM
"Duke Robillard" <duke@NOSPAMio.com> wrote on 11/21/03 4:01 PM:

> Peter Hayes wrote:
>> Duke Robillard wrote:
> 
>>>> drag windows around, I use virtual desktops to switch between
>>>> application groups. Something OSX doesn't offer out of the box.
>>> 
>>> Yow, really?  Jeez, I couldn't live without that.  I want a new
>>> Powerbook laptop, but I've gotta have virtual desktops.  Even
>>> Windows machines can do that, given the right 3rd party software
>> 
>>> ....is there some app for OSX that will add it?
>> 
>> Virtual Desktops from http://www.codetek.com
> 
> Uh-oh.  You've gotta *buy* that one.  :-)   I'm a Linux guy;
> I don't mind doing more work if the software doesn't cost
> anything and I can re-compile it if I need to.
> 
> Maybe I need to re-think this whole Mac thing.  :-)
> 
http://space.sourceforge.net/
http://wsmanager.sourceforge.net/ (though still in Alpha)

There, now you can get a Mac.  :)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/22/2003 1:28:30 AM
In article <211120031633326125%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:

> In article
> <gmgravesnos-C79808.13500621112003@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <211120031226296727%lloydparsons@spamac.com>,
> >  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> > > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:21 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <pan.2003.11.21.00.53.04.185569@lefty.invalid>,
> > > > >  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >> i kind of wonder when you ask current maccies if they'll switch, if
> > > > >> they are going to be the first to consider linux (because it is 
> > > > >> another
> > > > >> unix) or if they will be the last to consider it (because they've so
> > > > >> clearly been selected as the high-end demographic).
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> maybe as the maturity-gap closes it will start to peel off a few 
> > > > >> emac
> > > > >> buyers, but i think the g5 buyers are going to keep on buying (and
> > > > >> insisting that everything else is crap).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think Linux IS crap, but it certainly doesn't have the 
> > > > > software
> > > > > I need, and I believe that ultimately, most Mac users would come to 
> > > > > the
> > > > > same conclusion. OSX has all the Unix we need, Linux doesn't have all
> > > > > the software we need, so it's a matter of OSX being able to do
> > > > > everything Linux does but not vice-versa. It's good stuff, it's just
> > > > > that most OSX users don't need it.
> > > > 
> > > > right, but windows would have the software you need too.  i look at the
> > > > reasons why you choose expensive macs over cheaper windows boxes now, 
> > > > and
> > > > say that you'll voice those same reasons when it is mac-vs-linux in the
> > > > future.
> > > > 
> > > > that's what i meant above when i said "or if they will be the last to
> > > > consider it (because they've so clearly been selected as the high-end
> > > > demographic)."
> > > > 
> > > > i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be 
> > > > impressed
> > > > by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?
> > > 
> > > If I were buying a box now, it wouldn't be the $700 box.  It would be
> > > much further up the food chain and it wouldn't be a Linux box because
> > > of lack of the apps I want to use.
> > > 
> > > Realistically, if I were buying a box now, it would be a dual G5/1.8Ghz
> > > and it would be priced about the same as anything I would want from the
> > > windows world.
> > > 
> > > Lloyd
> > 
> > Me too.
> 
> Yeah, but something tells me you are closer to buying one than I am. 
> ;-(

As soon as one shows up at the Apple store. It's a done deal.
> 
> Realistically, for what I do with a computer, my G4/933 is overkill for
> the stuff I do all the time, and OK with the little video/photo stuff I
> do.
> 
> Hell, my 333 powerbook does most of my business stuff fast enough!

If It comes to that - my current computers are fast enough as well. But 
I just want a new toy :-)

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/22/2003 2:00:45 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.21.57.36.398910@lefty.invalid>,
 lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:49:37 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.13.53.08.341416@lefty.invalid>,
> >  lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >> i mean, if you choose g5s now, aren't you the last folks to be impressed
> >> by the "news" that you could just run a free os on a $700 box?
> > 
> > I could be driving a new Hyundai for less than $9000 too, but like 
> > Linux, I wouldn't want one. Basic transportation is not my requirement 
> > in a car. It is for some, and I, for one, am glad that there are a few 
> > cars available that are that cheap for those who just need to get 
> > around. But other than the fact of it, the reality is just as 
> > meaningless to me as is an inexpensive Wintel boxen running Linux and 
> > for the same reason. 
> 
> on one level you talk about reasonable requirements, but these snobbish
> car metaphors always get me.  i mean, "mac is a bmw, linux is a hyundai"
> makes it oh so easy to slide into emotional consumerism.
> 
> i bought a mac .... i must be somebody!

You misunderstand me. I'm only trying to make a point. To people for 
whom a Mac is a BIG BUDGET item that they really can't afford, It's good 
that they can buy cheap computers that will do what they need to do with 
them. It's even better that there is an essentially free alternative to 
Windows for these people, but like someone else here pointed out, if I 
bought a new PC, it would cost as much as would a new Mac simply because 
a bare-bones PC wouldn't do it for me any more than a bare-bones Mac or 
a bare-bones car. I simply don't have any use PERSONALLY for such a 
device. many do, and choice is good. I'm not being snobbish, just 
practical. Everybody's needs are NOT the same. While there are many who 
can get by fine with a $600 PC, there are many more who cannot.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/22/2003 2:07:23 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.37.28.168472@lefty.invalid>,
 lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> >> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
> >> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
> >> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
> >> 
> >> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
> >> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
> >> 
> >> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
> >> 
> >> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
> >> 
> >> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
> > 
> > Lefty,
> > 
> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> > parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
> > those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
> > build your own?
> > 
> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> > works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
> > because everything came from the same place.  
> 
> oh yeah, everybody thinks that's worth $1000.
> 
> not.

It's not important that EVERYBODY think that that's worth $1000. It's 
only important that MANY do. Like I've said, not everybody's computer 
needs are the same. What may seem like too much money for you 
(especially when you can do it yourself and save big $) is not too much 
for others who would rather just buy the machine and USE it rather than 
play with it.

> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.

You act like that fact means that people who do not care about that are 
somehow defective and wasteful of money. That's not the case. Many 
people just want a computer that they can use rather than fsck with, and 
for them, the Mac is not too expensive and running Linux on a $700 Intel 
box is TOO cheap.

> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> > money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> > I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.  
> > 
> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> > have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
> > guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> 
> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
> 
> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> > the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> > consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.

Not important, ultimately.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/22/2003 2:14:50 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.21.20.53.42.39023@lefty.invalid>,
 lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:29:33 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
> 
> >> but then, that's where _I_ started, saying that people who were already
> >> self-selected to pay for that kind of thing are probably the last to
> >> respond to the "news" that they could run a free os on a $700 box.
> > 
> > My guess is that most people want to do more than run an OS on a box.  They
> > want a box that is reliable and one that does not force them to tinker.
> > Sort of like saying you can build a kit car quite cheaply, but most people
> > would not want to.  For those that do, however, the option exists.
> 
> where does your os stop?  is iphoto in or out?  the thing is, everybody's
> os bundles are growing, and the need to go shopping is going down.  if
> i can load up a fedora "os" and it can interface to my printer, scanner,
> digital cameras, let me run gimp, easly burn cds (drag and drop now, by
> default on linux, imagine!) ... if it comes with a full office suit ... i
> think i've accomplished a lot by the simple expedient of loading an os.
> 
> a lot less time and effort than building a car ;-)
> 
> > Right now the computer market is still young enough where there are quite a
> > few people who want to tinker and have a computer as a hobby.  My guess is
> > over time that will become less and less the case.
> 
> today, to do everything i want to do (it's more "wants" at home than
> "needs"), i still need to tinker ... a bit.  but the amount of tinkering
> is dropping fast.
> 
> which is why i started this sub-thread with the words "as the maturity-gap
> closes".  my strong expectation is that it will.
> 
> >>> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> >>> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> >>> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
> >>> 
> >>> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> >>> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the
> >>> guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> >> 
> >> obsolete info.  there are now enough apps that you can run a gnome or kde
> >> theme for most things, self-consistent within the set.
> >> 
> >>> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> >>> the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> >>> consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> >> 
> >> or if you think it's worth keeping $1000 in the bank.
> > 
> > For most people, not computer hobbyists, they would end up spending that
> > $1000 dollars over time with having to replace parts, hire technical help ,
> > etc.  That $1000 dollar savings is, for the most part, a myth.
> 
> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
> these days between the midline mac and pc.

Not enough for anyone but a skinflint or someone with a very limited 
income (or a Windroid looking for a debating point) to worry about.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/22/2003 2:16:55 AM
lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.21.12.48.15.656232@lefty.invalid>...

> as far as hardware being largely crap, again the differences have fallen
> away over they years.  back in the day, we could say that we used serious
> scsi while  pcs used ide.  now disk drives, and most everything else is
> shared 1:1 between mac and pc.  yet, somehow, the mac is still the bmw.

I've had a top-of-the-line P4 box here at home for 6 months now. It's
crap compared to the $2500 midrange G5.

BeanTech black aluminum case
Abit IC7 i875P
Antec TruPower P/S (with blue LED!)
2.6GHz P4C upclockable to ~3.2 but there's no difference so back to
stock bus settings
Zalman 2900-AlCu HSF
1GB Corsair PC-3200-LL
256MB nvidia 5600, will upgrade to NV-40 later.
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz w/ Klipsch 2.1 speakers
Seagate 7200.7 80GB (ATA-133)
802.11b PCI adapter
Windows XP SP1a+about 3000 updates

All totalled, tax & shipping, ~$1900 (counting $150 for XP license
which I already had, not counting the speakers).

The damn thing doesn't sleep like a Mac  -- you can't tell if a
sleeping Mac is on or not except for the pulsating light on the front,
but this XP machine still runs its fans for some reason, like my old
B&W G3 from 1999.

Operation noise-wise is reasonably not loud, but it's still not quiet
enough to put at my desk (I have the box just outside the door, out in
the hall), even though I went for individually quiet components (the
aluminum case here is part of the problem).

XP still can't handle multiple displays as well as a Mac.
XP integration with FireWire and 802.11b is simply not there like a
Mac.
XP understands Windows networking only. My Macs have SAMBA to
interface with this, but also do Apache, AppleTalk, ftpd out of the
box.

The dual 1.8GHz G5 is ~$1000 more than my home-made P4 box, but the
integration is night & day. My philosophy of never ever ever buying a
Rev A Mac again is keeping my credit card holstered (that and the fact
I'll have another 20% developer discount available early next
near...).

You really can't separate HW from the OS. HW w/o good OS support is
also known as "doorstop".

Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).

OS X kicks wintel/lintel ass on every level (except games support and
price), and the price premium, something like a dollar a day, is more
than worth it.

In 2000 I bought a Miata LS instead of a 323ci -- looking at the kbb
values now ($21,000 vs. $14000) I'm beginning to think the extra $10g
for the beemer would have been smarter then, too.  At any rate a $10g
difference is a lot more significant than a $1g difference, and I use
my computer(s) a lot more than my car(s).
0
imouttahere (3635)
11/22/2003 2:48:42 AM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 05:37:41 +0000, NFish wrote:

> Martik wrote:
> 
>> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
>> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+.
>> Well, I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows.
>> It is drop dead gorgeous,
> 
> It looks really nice in screenshots, I'll give you that.  But last time I
> checked, XFree86 still didn't double buffer its windows, so that you get
> nasty flicker and visible redraws when you drag windows around.

I just finished dragging windows all over. No flicker.

> 
>> more configurable and more stable than Windows.
> 
> More configureable, for sure.  I remember having an ungodly number of
> options for stuff like the login panel (which was kdm, I believe).  What
> font do I want?  What size?  What color?  What picture?  Where do I want
> to position this and that?

Accept the defaults.

> 
> I didn't care, I just wanted to add WindowMaker to the window manager
> list.  To do that, I had to edit two text files, buried deep somewhere, as
> root.  Configureable, but nasty.

MainMenu->System Tools -> More Tools -> Desktop Switching Tool

> 
> Oh, and why did I have to be root to establish a PPP connection?

You don't. It depends on what you are using to make the connection.

> 
>> There
>> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
>> very impressed.
> 
> The thing that impressed me was the installation procedure for Yellow Dog
> (aka RedHat on Mac).  It looked good, was easy to use, and worked. But
> Debian and Slackware still both have nasty installations.
> 
>> Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W?
> 
> Yes, but only because I want to develop for it.  I certainly don't want to
> use it.  I start up the X server on Mac OS X and use the Linux programs
> remotely (this is a way nifty feature of Linux).  Mac OS X doesn't have
> that feature, but it does ship with the X server out of the box; Windows
> is clearly inferior here.
> 
>> Would you
>> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
>> alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
> Nope.  If I had to choose today, I'd choose Windows over Linux.

I bought a 2 ghz no-name box this summer. I installed Red Hat 9. No
window$, although I do use WINE for a few apps.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/22/2003 3:43:37 AM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.12.06.724292@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:29:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.15.56.19.175692@lefty.invalid>, lefty
>> > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >> for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you
>> >> could, for instance buy something like this:
>> >> 
>> >> Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel
>> >> DDR400/40GB, Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6
>> >> months ISP, XP Home $539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)
>> >> 
>> >> and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.
>> >> 
>> >> i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be
>> >> satisfied with that ;-)
>> >> 
>> > And then after you got it, you would need to add the DVD/RW and some
>> > pro-level software (or even prosumer software) and a decent graphics
>> > card, firewire and a few other things, bringing the price up a fair
>> > amount and you still would be less powerful than the G5 duals.
>> 
>> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
>> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
>> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
>> 
>> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
>> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
>> 
>> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
>> 
>> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
>> 
>> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
> 
> Lefty,
> 
> I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all those
> bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to build your
> own?
> 
> I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
> because everything came from the same place.

Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When Jaquar
came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were supported too, huh?

> 
> Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.

You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these problems.

> 
> Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the guy
> at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.

KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.

> 
> And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with the
> computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a consistent
> manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.

Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large movie
houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/22/2003 3:49:02 AM
Steve Mackay <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.21.15.50.48.842344@hotmail.com>...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:40:00 +0000, Martik wrote:
> 

> know I COULD run crossover office to get it to work. But the whole idea is
> to run FREE software.

I never begrudge paying for the tools that I make income therefrom.

sure, like in your screenshot, a free-beer web browser, mp3 client,
and news client isn't a bad idea.

But Adobe, Macromind, Alias/Wavefront, Metrowerks, and now Apple to
some extent with Project Builder / XCode / FCP lite / DVD Studio Pro
have done very well by me.

hmmm, Apple *really* needs to break-out the iApps into an "Apple
Studios" label or something. Not sure Apple Corps records would go for
that tho.

There's what, 200 workdays in a year... Paying $1/day/seat for an
office suite isn't much a burden on business. The problem isn't the
price, it's just the lack of viable competition.

at least until Apple kicks out its own office-killer...
0
imouttahere (3635)
11/22/2003 3:52:50 AM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:42:01 +0100, C Lund wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
>  Martik <martik@telus.net> wrote:
> 
>> Would you
>> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
>> alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
> Nope. Not as things are now, anyway (nobody knows what the future will
> bring). The mac is a complete package, while Linux is a DIY OS running on
> a hodgepodge of hardware components. 

That's a ridiculous statement.... hodgepodge... or did you mean Linux runs
on such a large selection of hardware and/or is so scalable?

> Linux has my full respect and I think
> it's going to replace Windows as the dominant OS in the next few years,
> but it's not the OS for me.

OK.. that's fair.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/22/2003 3:52:54 AM
Steve Mackay <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.21.15.50.48.842344@hotmail.com>...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:40:00 +0000, Martik wrote:
> 

> know I COULD run crossover office to get it to work. But the whole idea is
> to run FREE software.

I never begrudge paying for the tools that I make income therefrom.

sure, like in your screenshot, a free-beer web browser, mp3 client,
and news client isn't a bad idea.

But Adobe, Macromind, Alias/Wavefront, Metrowerks, and now Apple to
some extent with Project Builder / XCode / FCP lite / DVD Studio Pro
have done very well by me.

hmmm, Apple *really* needs to break-out the iApps into an "Apple
Studios" label or something. Not sure Apple Corps records would go for
that tho.

There's what, 200 workdays in a year... Paying $1/day/seat for an
office suite isn't much a burden on business. The problem isn't the
price, it's just the lack of viable competition.

at least until Apple kicks out its own office-killer...
0
imouttahere (3635)
11/22/2003 3:53:58 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.19.12.06.724292@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:29:34 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.21.15.56.19.175692@lefty.invalid>, lefty
> >> > <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> for most,  the $700 intel pc is more than enough horsepower.  you
> >> >> could, for instance buy something like this:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Dimesion 4600 P4-2.6Ghz/800Mhz Bus version 256MB Dual Channel
> >> >> DDR400/40GB, Free Dell Wireless keyboard/Mouse, Free 48x CDRW, 6
> >> >> months ISP, XP Home $539 shipped free. (from www.techbargains.com)
> >> >> 
> >> >> and kick it up to 1gb ram, 100+ gb hd.
> >> >> 
> >> >> i mean really, you'd *have* to be an old sgi buyer not to be
> >> >> satisfied with that ;-)
> >> >> 
> >> > And then after you got it, you would need to add the DVD/RW and some
> >> > pro-level software (or even prosumer software) and a decent graphics
> >> > card, firewire and a few other things, bringing the price up a fair
> >> > amount and you still would be less powerful than the G5 duals.
> >> 
> >> are you going to argue that "most" (as in "for most") people burn dvds
> >> these days?  maybe, but i don't. i'm also not sure why you are sliding
> >> from "most" to "pro-level" ....
> >> 
> >> but you might be able to get dvd burning in under the $700 if you also
> >> shop around and upgrade post-purchase.  prices are falling rapidly.
> >> 
> >> i don't know, would this suit our bargain hunter?
> >> 
> >> http://www.buy.com/retail/clearance/dotd.asp?sku=70012143&dcaid=1688
> >> 
> >> TDK indiDVD 4X DVD+R/RW Burner (CC4FA4) Price After Rebate:  $69.99
> > 
> > Lefty,
> > 
> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> > parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all those
> > bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to build your
> > own?
> > 
> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> > works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work together
> > because everything came from the same place.
> 
> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When Jaquar
> came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were supported too, huh?
> 
I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that
affect me.

And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux for
lots of years.

> > 
> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> > money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux and
> > I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
> 
> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these problems.
> 
> > 
> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals that
> > have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to the guy
> > at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> 
> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
>
To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps and
one gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?

> > 
> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with the
> > computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a consistent
> > manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> 
> Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large movie
> houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.

Big whoop!  They don't have the same needs that I do.  And in most of
those places Linux is being used as a server or for special purposes.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/22/2003 5:02:41 AM
> 
> I bought a 2 ghz no-name box this summer. I installed Red Hat 9. No
> window$, although I do use WINE for a few apps.

How does wine work without windows?

0
martik (373)
11/22/2003 5:10:48 AM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:10:48 +0000, Martik wrote:

> 
> 
>> I bought a 2 ghz no-name box this summer. I installed Red Hat 9. No
>> window$, although I do use WINE for a few apps.
> 
> How does wine work without windows?

It replaces some window$ apis. You can read about it t www.winehq.com
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/22/2003 5:51:51 AM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
(snip)
>> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
>> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
>> > parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
>> > those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
>> > build your own?
>> > 
>> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
>> > works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work
>> > together because everything came from the same place.
>> 
>> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When Jaquar
>> came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were supported too,
>> huh?
>> 
> I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that affect
> me.

You are not the world.

> 
> And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux for lots
> of years.

I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the number of
supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports CD burners that OS
X doesn't.

> 
> 
>> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
>> > money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux
>> > and I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
>> 
>> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these
>> problems.
>> 
>> 
>> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals
>> > that have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to
>> > the guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
>> 
>> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
>>
> To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps and one
> gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?
> 

What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?

> 
>> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
>> > the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
>> > consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
>> 
>> Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large movie
>> houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.
> 
> Big whoop!  They don't have the same needs that I do.  And in most of
> those places Linux is being used as a server or for special purposes.

You show your ignorance. Hollywood artists are using Linux on the desktop.
City employees are using Linux on the desktop. Wall Street people are
using on the desktop. Linux may not be right for -you-, but it is viable
for a great many others.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/22/2003 5:57:14 AM
 
>> How does wine work without windows?
> 
> It replaces some window$ apis. You can read about it t www.winehq.com

Thanks, I didn't know that!

0
martik (373)
11/22/2003 6:25:40 AM
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> alternative to Mac OS X?
> 
> Don't need to. OSX is at least as stable as Linux and has all of the 
> Unix tools that Linux has as well as a wealth of shrink-wrapped software 
> that Linux does not have. Servers, render farms, and the like are 
> perfect applications for Linux. It's cheap, the machines are cheap and 
> it's stable. But it doesn't have either the software titles or the 
> software TYPES that I need, so for me, it's not a good fit. Doesn't mean 
> that others wouldn't find it a refreshing, no, LIBERATING improvement 
> over Windows junk and M$' arrogance though.
> 

There is certainly a lot of hype around Linux.  So much so that you hardly
hear about any other Intel alternatives.  I find it interesting that you
hardly hear anything at all about FreeBSD in Mac newgroups particularly
since much of Mac OS X is built from it.  Strip away the Apple UI and much
of what is there is FreeBSD.

I started using FreeBSD in 1994 or 1995 and have used it as a server and
I used it as my desktop until I switched desktops to Mac OS X on a Quicksilver
G4.  I still use FreeBSD in various server applications and have installed
it for various clients using it as an smb, web, firewall, mail, java J2EE, 
and Sql db server.  I have always been far more impressed with
the stability, reliability, and performance of this OS over any Linux 
distribution I have ever seen.  FreeBSD is a well engineered OS that has
a well managed release engineering cycle.  But unfortunately, it doesn't
get the hype that linux does even though many large websites and corporations
use and depend on it.  Apple made an excellent decision, in my opinion, by 
using FreeBSD as its base for Mac OS X. Here is a most interesting article 
about FreeBSD and how great a workhorse it is.

http://www.cotse.com/nix/os/bsd/stealth_os.html

-- 
John J. Rushford
j j r { a t } a l i s a { d o t } o r g 
http://www.cs.du.edu/~jjr
0
11/22/2003 7:00:00 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> (snip)
> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> >> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with the
> >> > parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for all
> >> > those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when wanting to
> >> > build your own?
> >> > 
> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and it
> >> > works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work
> >> > together because everything came from the same place.
> >> 
> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When Jaquar
> >> came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were supported too,
> >> huh?
> >> 
> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that affect
> > me.
> 
> You are not the world.
> 
> > 
> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux for lots
> > of years.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the number of
> supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports CD burners that OS
> X doesn't.
> 
And Linux has been around how long?

You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a big
issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved with time.

If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it will
become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever really been
the problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones with OSX that
were not on any list.

Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it does in
the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have support for
OSX, for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?). 

> > 
> > 
> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for less
> >> > money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not linux
> >> > and I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to me.
> >> 
> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these
> >> problems.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals
> >> > that have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface to
> >> > the guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to things.
> >> 
> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
> >>
> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps and one
> > gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?
> > 
> 
> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
>
Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
different GUI's on the same OS.

> > 
> >> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around with
> >> > the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in a
> >> > consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> >> 
> >> Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large movie
> >> houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.
> > 
> > Big whoop!  They don't have the same needs that I do.  And in most of
> > those places Linux is being used as a server or for special purposes.
> 
> You show your ignorance. Hollywood artists are using Linux on the desktop.
> City employees are using Linux on the desktop. Wall Street people are
> using on the desktop. Linux may not be right for -you-, but it is viable
> for a great many others.

As long as the needs on the desktop aren't too broad, that can be true. 
But Linux on the desktop won't become the next Windows until joe
six-pack can buy it and use it as easily as Windows.  That isn't the
case now.

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/22/2003 2:31:42 PM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:16:55 +0000, George Graves wrote:

>> i was pulling a number out of the air, but i wonder what the difference is
>> these days between the midline mac and pc.
> 
> Not enough for anyone but a skinflint or someone with a very limited 
> income (or a Windroid looking for a debating point) to worry about.

well, i think you are identifying your demographic pretty exactly with
those words.  they are the reason you, and the other 3% like you, make
the decisions you do.

but really, don't try to tell me (like you did in the other post) that
"It's not important that EVERYBODY think that that's worth $1000. It's 
only important that MANY do."

i start counting "MANY" somewhere above 3%.

0
lefty3173 (239)
11/22/2003 3:12:55 PM
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:

> Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
> meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
> value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).

i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind, and
isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people without
calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.

(if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance, i'll
certainly give them another try.)
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/22/2003 3:17:52 PM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:00:00 +0000, read-the-signature wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> alternative to Mac OS X?
>> 
>> Don't need to. OSX is at least as stable as Linux and has all of the 
>> Unix tools that Linux has as well as a wealth of shrink-wrapped software 
>> that Linux does not have. Servers, render farms, and the like are 
>> perfect applications for Linux. It's cheap, the machines are cheap and 
>> it's stable. But it doesn't have either the software titles or the 
>> software TYPES that I need, so for me, it's not a good fit. Doesn't mean 
>> that others wouldn't find it a refreshing, no, LIBERATING improvement 
>> over Windows junk and M$' arrogance though. 
> 
> There is certainly a lot of hype around Linux.  So much so that you hardly
> hear about any other Intel alternatives.  I find it interesting that you
> hardly hear anything at all about FreeBSD in Mac newgroups particularly
> since much of Mac OS X is built from it.  Strip away the Apple UI and much
> of what is there is FreeBSD.

fwiw, i use both linux and freebsd.  sometimes i list both together,
sometimes i say "free unixes", and sometimes i just get lazy and say linux.

my perspective (coming from multiple proprietary unixes) is that multiple
free unixes are good, interoperable, and to a large degree interchangeable.

also, i believe that hype is good.  without it none of the free unixes
would be gaining ground.  i wouldn't really care if more of the hype fell
on freebsd and less on linux ... but this is the way it went, and i can go
with it.  ymmv.
0
lefty3173 (239)
11/22/2003 3:40:30 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.52.54.808808@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:42:01 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
> >  Martik <martik@telus.net> wrote:
> >> Would you
> >> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> >> alternative to Mac OS X?
> > Nope. Not as things are now, anyway (nobody knows what the future will
> > bring). The mac is a complete package, while Linux is a DIY OS running on
> > a hodgepodge of hardware components. 
> That's a ridiculous statement.... hodgepodge... or did you mean Linux runs
> on such a large selection of hardware and/or is so scalable?

What I meant by "hodgepodge" here is that Linux is supposed to be able 
to run on anything that one would call a "computer", regardless of 
whether the computer is DIY or comes off a shelf.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/22/2003 7:13:50 PM
lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.22.15.19.01.391668@lefty.invalid>...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
> 
> > Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
> > meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
> > value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).
> 
> i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind, and
> isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people without
> calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.
> 
> (if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance, i'll
> certainly give them another try.)

i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.

Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street. 

The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland
that is making similar massive organizational planning.

Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.

See yah in the future.
0
imouttahere (3635)
11/22/2003 8:14:21 PM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> (snip)
>> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
>> >> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with
>> >> > the parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for
>> >> > all those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when
>> >> > wanting to build your own?
>> >> > 
>> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and
>> >> > it works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work
>> >> > together because everything came from the same place.
>> >> 
>> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When
>> >> Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were
>> >> supported too, huh?
>> >> 
>> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that
>> > affect me.
>> 
>> You are not the world.
>> 
>> 
>> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux for
>> > lots of years.
>> 
>> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the number of
>> supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports CD burners that
>> OS X doesn't.
>> 
> And Linux has been around how long?
> 
> You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a big
> issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved with time.

They were an issue years ago.

> 
> If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it will
> become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever really been the
> problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones with OSX that were not
> on any list.

Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with the box.

> 
> Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it does in
> the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have support for OSX,
> for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?).

Oh, well...

> 
> 
>> > 
>> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for
>> >> > less money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not
>> >> > linux and I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to
>> >> > me.
>> >> 
>> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these
>> >> problems.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals
>> >> > that have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface
>> >> > to the guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to
>> >> > things.
>> >> 
>> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
>> >>
>> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps and
>> > one gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?
>> > 
>> > 
>> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
>>
> Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
> different GUI's on the same OS.

So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?

> 
> 
>> >> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around
>> >> > with the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in
>> >> > a consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
>> >> 
>> >> Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large movie
>> >> houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.
>> > 
>> > Big whoop!  They don't have the same needs that I do.  And in most of
>> > those places Linux is being used as a server or for special purposes.
>> 
>> You show your ignorance. Hollywood artists are using Linux on the
>> desktop. City employees are using Linux on the desktop. Wall Street
>> people are using on the desktop. Linux may not be right for -you-, but
>> it is viable for a great many others.
> 
> As long as the needs on the desktop aren't too broad, that can be true.
> But Linux on the desktop won't become the next Windows until joe six-pack
> can buy it and use it as easily as Windows.  That isn't the case now.

That is true in many (most?) cases for Joe six-pack.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 1:34:32 AM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:14:21 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:

> lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.11.22.15.19.01.391668@lefty.invalid>...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
>> 
>> > Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
>> > meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
>> > value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).
>> 
>> i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind, and
>> isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people without
>> calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.
>> 
>> (if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance, i'll
>> certainly give them another try.)
> 
> i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.
> 
> Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street.
> 
> The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland that
> is making similar massive organizational planning.
> 
> Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
> where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.
> 
> See yah in the future.

Your premise is incorrect. Linux isn't 'chasing' micro$oft.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 1:35:53 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> (snip)
> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick around
> >> >> > piecemealing together a box that may or may not have problems with
> >> >> > the parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging around the net for
> >> >> > all those bargains or any of the other things that pop up when
> >> >> > wanting to build your own?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in and
> >> >> > it works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all work
> >> >> > together because everything came from the same place.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When
> >> >> Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were
> >> >> supported too, huh?
> >> >> 
> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that
> >> > affect me.
> >> 
> >> You are not the world.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux for
> >> > lots of years.
> >> 
> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the number of
> >> supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports CD burners that
> >> OS X doesn't.
> >> 
> > And Linux has been around how long?
> > 
> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a big
> > issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved with time.
> 
> They were an issue years ago.
> 
That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are all
scanners supported now?

> > 
> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it will
> > become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever really been the
> > problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones with OSX that were not
> > on any list.
> 
> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with the box.
>
I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I bought
and stuck in 

> > 
> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it does in
> > the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have support for OSX,
> > for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?).
> 
> Oh, well...
>
There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...

> > 
> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for
> >> >> > less money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows, not
> >> >> > linux and I'm not going to have the apps that I want available to
> >> >> > me.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these
> >> >> problems.
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by individuals
> >> >> > that have no over riding influence in what makes a proper interface
> >> >> > to the guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its own approach to
> >> >> > things.
> >> >> 
> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
> >> >>
> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps and
> >> > one gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
> >>
> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
> > different GUI's on the same OS.
> 
> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
>
X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use, no
classic, no X11.

All consistent.

> > 
> > 
> >> >> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around
> >> >> > with the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done in
> >> >> > a consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large movie
> >> >> houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.
> >> > 
> >> > Big whoop!  They don't have the same needs that I do.  And in most of
> >> > those places Linux is being used as a server or for special purposes.
> >> 
> >> You show your ignorance. Hollywood artists are using Linux on the
> >> desktop. City employees are using Linux on the desktop. Wall Street
> >> people are using on the desktop. Linux may not be right for -you-, but
> >> it is viable for a great many others.
> > 
> > As long as the needs on the desktop aren't too broad, that can be true.
> > But Linux on the desktop won't become the next Windows until joe six-pack
> > can buy it and use it as easily as Windows.  That isn't the case now.
> 
> That is true in many (most?) cases for Joe six-pack.
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/23/2003 1:51:55 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.35.52.205600@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:14:21 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
> 
> > lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2003.11.22.15.19.01.391668@lefty.invalid>...
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
> >> > meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
> >> > value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).
> >> 
> >> i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind, and
> >> isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people without
> >> calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.
> >> 
> >> (if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance, i'll
> >> certainly give them another try.)
> > 
> > i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.
> > 
> > Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street.
> > 
> > The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland that
> > is making similar massive organizational planning.
> > 
> > Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
> > where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.
> > 
> > See yah in the future.
> 
> Your premise is incorrect. Linux isn't 'chasing' micro$oft.

What makes you think that?  I've read in other venues, messages
wondering when something new is going to be done.  Not something that
has already been done by someone else and then copied or whatever to
Linux, but something totally new.

I don't know if I agree with his premise either, but why don't you?

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/23/2003 1:55:19 AM
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:40:00 -0500, Martik wrote:

> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?


I've been running Linux now (Suse 8) for a year and a half now and LOVE IT.
The ONLY thing that takes this box down is a power outage. I have to get a
UPS....

"Fred"
0
Garvin (48)
11/23/2003 1:05:27 PM
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:25:40 +0000, Martik wrote:

> 
>>> How does wine work without windows?
>> 
>> It replaces some window$ apis. You can read about it t www.winehq.com
> 
> Thanks, I didn't know that!

At the moment, I am trying to get Dreamweaver MX to run. I also use it for
to run SimpleOCR and NovaNet (distance education client software).
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 1:07:32 PM
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:51:55 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
>> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> (snip)
>> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick
>> >> >> > around piecemealing together a box that may or may not have
>> >> >> > problems with the parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging
>> >> >> > around the net for all those bargains or any of the other things
>> >> >> > that pop up when wanting to build your own?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in
>> >> >> > and it works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all
>> >> >> > work together because everything came from the same place.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When
>> >> >> Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were
>> >> >> supported too, huh?
>> >> >> 
>> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that
>> >> > affect me.
>> >> 
>> >> You are not the world.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux
>> >> > for lots of years.
>> >> 
>> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the number
>> >> of supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports CD burners
>> >> that OS X doesn't.
>> >> 
>> > And Linux has been around how long?
>> > 
>> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a
>> > big issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved with
>> > time.
>> 
>> They were an issue years ago.
>> 
> That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
> anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are all
> scanners supported now?

Are they supported in OS X?

> 
> 
>> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it
>> > will become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever really
>> > been the problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones with OSX
>> > that were not on any list.
>> 
>> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with the
>> box.
>>
> I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I bought and
> stuck in

So you are saying cheap CD-RWs will generally work if you replace the
Apple supplied CD-ROM?

> 
> 
>> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it does
>> > in the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have support
>> > for OSX, for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?).
>> 
>> Oh, well...
>>
> There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
> scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...
> 
> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for
>> >> >> > less money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows,
>> >> >> > not linux and I'm not going to have the apps that I want
>> >> >> > available to me.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these
>> >> >> problems.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by
>> >> >> > individuals that have no over riding influence in what makes a
>> >> >> > proper interface to the guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its
>> >> >> > own approach to things.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
>> >> >>
>> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps
>> >> > and one gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
>> >>
>> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
>> > different GUI's on the same OS.
>> 
>> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
>>
> X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use, no
> classic, no X11.
> 
> All consistent.

You keep saying you. You, you, you. If that is your criteria, then fine.
The Mac fits -your- needs, and everything else sucks. But you are not the
world, and other OSes nicely fit others' needs.

BTW, Apple X11 is no more and addon than any GUI in Linux. Apple X11 comes
supplied on the CDs and can be installed with everything else. If you only
install one GUI environment under Linux, and only use its associated apps,
you have consistence.

> 
> 
>> > 
>> >> >> > And there is nothing wrong with that IF you want to play around
>> >> >> > with the computer.  But IF you want to get productive work done
>> >> >> > in a consistent manner, then OSX and the mac make more sense.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Several city governments disagree with you, as do several large
>> >> >> movie houses, as do several firms on Wall Street.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Big whoop!  They don't have the same needs that I do.  And in most
>> >> > of those places Linux is being used as a server or for special
>> >> > purposes.
>> >> 
>> >> You show your ignorance. Hollywood artists are using Linux on the
>> >> desktop. City employees are using Linux on the desktop. Wall Street
>> >> people are using on the desktop. Linux may not be right for -you-,
>> >> but it is viable for a great many others.
>> > 
>> > As long as the needs on the desktop aren't too broad, that can be
>> > true. But Linux on the desktop won't become the next Windows until joe
>> > six-pack can buy it and use it as easily as Windows.  That isn't the
>> > case now.
>> 
>> That is true in many (most?) cases for Joe six-pack.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 1:14:41 PM
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:55:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.35.52.205600@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:14:21 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
>> 
>> > lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:<pan.2003.11.22.15.19.01.391668@lefty.invalid>...
>> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with
>> >> > a meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most
>> >> > areas I value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games
>> >> > support).
>> >> 
>> >> i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind,
>> >> and isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people
>> >> without calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.
>> >> 
>> >> (if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance,
>> >> i'll certainly give them another try.)
>> > 
>> > i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.
>> > 
>> > Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street.
>> > 
>> > The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland
>> > that is making similar massive organizational planning.
>> > 
>> > Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
>> > where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.
>> > 
>> > See yah in the future.
>> 
>> Your premise is incorrect. Linux isn't 'chasing' micro$oft.
> 
> What makes you think that?  I've read in other venues, messages wondering
> when something new is going to be done.  Not something that has already
> been done by someone else and then copied or whatever to Linux, but
> something totally new.
> 
> I don't know if I agree with his premise either, but why don't you?
> 

I don't agree that 'Linux' is 'chasing' micro$oft. For one thing there is
no 'Linux'. There is a plethora of Linux developers with no single
dictator. They develop based on the needs they think need to be solved.
There is no single 'Linux' entity that desires to crush all other software
vendors using whatever means (immoral, illegal or unethical) they can.
Linux software is basically moving from the server space into the desktop
space. m$ is doing the opposite.

.... and so it goes.
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 1:20:53 PM
Heywood Mogroot wrote:

> lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.11.22.15.19.01.391668@lefty.invalid>...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
>> 
>> > Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
>> > meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
>> > value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).
>> 
>> i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind, and
>> isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people without
>> calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.
>> 
>> (if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance, i'll
>> certainly give them another try.)
> 
> i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.
> 
> Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street.

The car in question is misfiring badly on all cylinders, tends to stall,
the door locks don't work. Meantime, the owner insists on spending his
money on a paint job instead of basic maintenance.

> The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland
> that is making similar massive organizational planning.

You have the advantage over me here, since I've no idea what Longhorn will
eventually consist of. Some "new" fs, I believe, "new" in that Be created
something very similar several years ago.

> Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
> where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.

Do you know where "Micorsoft" was 10 years ago? Win 3.11 was their best
effort. A 16 bit CMT platform with a mediocre GUI - their sole real
achievement was getting it to run on machines with 4Mb ram. You may be
running Slackware 1.0, the rest of us are running something a tad newer...

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.


0
me4 (19624)
11/23/2003 5:19:55 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.23.13.14.39.739669@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:51:55 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> (snip)
> >> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick
> >> >> >> > around piecemealing together a box that may or may not have
> >> >> >> > problems with the parts that I bought.  Spend the time digging
> >> >> >> > around the net for all those bargains or any of the other things
> >> >> >> > that pop up when wanting to build your own?
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it in
> >> >> >> > and it works and all the pieces are already there.  And they all
> >> >> >> > work together because everything came from the same place.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When
> >> >> >> Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were
> >> >> >> supported too, huh?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions that
> >> >> > affect me.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You are not the world.
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux
> >> >> > for lots of years.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the number
> >> >> of supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports CD burners
> >> >> that OS X doesn't.
> >> >> 
> >> > And Linux has been around how long?
> >> > 
> >> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a
> >> > big issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved with
> >> > time.
> >> 
> >> They were an issue years ago.
> >> 
> > That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
> > anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are all
> > scanners supported now?
> 
> Are they supported in OS X?
> 
No.  I would agree that scanners are a shared weakness of Linux and
OSX, with Linux currently having an edge.

To be fair, even XP won't work with all scanners.  But the scanner
range supported in XP is certainly better than either OSX or Linux.

We use a Fujitsu scanner that is tied tightly to Adobe Acrobat. 
Basically stick a bunch of pages in, push either 'simplex' or 'duplex',
depending upon whether the page is single or double-sided and it scans
to Acrobat.  I know of nothing like that for either OSX or Linux, do
you?

> > 
> > 
> >> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it
> >> > will become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever really
> >> > been the problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones with OSX
> >> > that were not on any list.
> >> 
> >> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with the
> >> box.
> >>
> > I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I bought and
> > stuck in
> 
> So you are saying cheap CD-RWs will generally work if you replace the
> Apple supplied CD-ROM?
>

They have for me.  I had done about a half dozen before someone
informed me that there was supposedly a problem.  Maybe it was a
problem in much older macs, but my experience wasn't with very old macs
and the ones I did all just worked.  

> > 
> > 
> >> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it does
> >> > in the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have support
> >> > for OSX, for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?).
> >> 
> >> Oh, well...
> >>
> > There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
> > scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...
> > 
> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine, for
> >> >> >> > less money, but then I'm probably going to be running windows,
> >> >> >> > not linux and I'm not going to have the apps that I want
> >> >> >> > available to me.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have these
> >> >> >> problems.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by
> >> >> >> > individuals that have no over riding influence in what makes a
> >> >> >> > proper interface to the guy at the keyboard.  Each app takes its
> >> >> >> > own approach to things.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde apps
> >> >> > and one gnome app running, and yet another program that is neither?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
> >> >>
> >> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
> >> > different GUI's on the same OS.
> >> 
> >> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
> >>
> > X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use, no
> > classic, no X11.
> > 
> > All consistent.
> 
> You keep saying you. You, you, you. If that is your criteria, then fine.
> The Mac fits -your- needs, and everything else sucks. But you are not the
> world, and other OSes nicely fit others' needs.
>
Didn't say it sucked, don't put words in my mouth. ;-)

> BTW, Apple X11 is no more and addon than any GUI in Linux. Apple X11 comes
> supplied on the CDs and can be installed with everything else. If you only
> install one GUI environment under Linux, and only use its associated apps,
> you have consistence.
>
True, but why would I want to buy a mac and use X11 only?  If I was
going to do that, I could just buy a cheap dull.....

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/23/2003 5:28:19 PM
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote in message news:<221120031955076012%lloydparsons@spamac.com>...
> In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.35.52.205600@none.com>, Rick
> <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:14:21 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
> > 
> > > lefty <lefty@lefty.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:<pan.2003.11.22.15.19.01.391668@lefty.invalid>...
> > >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:48:42 -0800, Heywood Mogroot wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > Which is why I'll never use Linux, even if Cupertino gets hit with a
> > >> > meteor, as Micorsoft will always be superior to Linux in most areas I
> > >> > value (developer tools, hw integration, ease of use, games support).
> > >> 
> > >> i always figure anybody who says "I'll never use" has a closed mind, and
> > >> isn't worth my time.  everything changes over time, and people without
> > >> calcium in their noggins are able to adapt.
> > >> 
> > >> (if apple every beats intel in low-to-mid range price/performance, i'll
> > >> certainly give them another try.)
> > > 
> > > i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.
> > > 
> > > Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street.
> > > 
> > > The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland that
> > > is making similar massive organizational planning.
> > > 
> > > Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
> > > where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.
> > > 
> > > See yah in the future.
> > 
> > Your premise is incorrect. Linux isn't 'chasing' micro$oft.
> 
> What makes you think that?  I've read in other venues, messages
> wondering when something new is going to be done.  Not something that
> has already been done by someone else and then copied or whatever to
> Linux, but something totally new.
> 
> I don't know if I agree with his premise either, but why don't you?

fwiw, I don't agree with the premise that Linux can't innovate anything.

But as you I'd like to see some counter-examples.

Eazel was something, but that tanked a couple of years ago.
0
imouttahere (3635)
11/23/2003 5:43:53 PM
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:28:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.23.13.14.39.739669@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:51:55 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
>> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
>> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> (snip)
>> >> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick
>> >> >> >> > around piecemealing together a box that may or may not have
>> >> >> >> > problems with the parts that I bought.  Spend the time
>> >> >> >> > digging around the net for all those bargains or any of the
>> >> >> >> > other things that pop up when wanting to build your own?
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it
>> >> >> >> > in and it works and all the pieces are already there.  And
>> >> >> >> > they all work together because everything came from the same
>> >> >> >> > place.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When
>> >> >> >> Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were
>> >> >> >> supported too, huh?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions
>> >> >> > that affect me.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> You are not the world.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux
>> >> >> > for lots of years.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the
>> >> >> number of supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports
>> >> >> CD burners that OS X doesn't.
>> >> >> 
>> >> > And Linux has been around how long?
>> >> > 
>> >> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a
>> >> > big issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved
>> >> > with time.
>> >> 
>> >> They were an issue years ago.
>> >> 
>> > That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
>> > anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are all
>> > scanners supported now?
>> 
>> Are they supported in OS X?
>> 
> No.  I would agree that scanners are a shared weakness of Linux and OSX,
> with Linux currently having an edge.
> 
> To be fair, even XP won't work with all scanners.  But the scanner range
> supported in XP is certainly better than either OSX or Linux.
> 
> We use a Fujitsu scanner that is tied tightly to Adobe Acrobat. Basically
> stick a bunch of pages in, push either 'simplex' or 'duplex', depending
> upon whether the page is single or double-sided and it scans to Acrobat. 
> I know of nothing like that for either OSX or Linux, do you?

I haven't looked. But Linux has seems to have supported more scanners
since OS X came out.

 
>> >> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it
>> >> > will become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever
>> >> > really been the problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones
>> >> > with OSX that were not on any list.
>> >> 
>> >> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with
>> >> the box.
>> >>
>> > I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I bought
>> > and stuck in
>> 
>> So you are saying cheap CD-RWs will generally work if you replace the
>> Apple supplied CD-ROM?
>>
>>
> They have for me.  I had done about a half dozen before someone informed
> me that there was supposedly a problem.  Maybe it was a problem in much
> older macs, but my experience wasn't with very old macs and the ones I did
> all just worked.
> 

.... so the internal IDE cheap CD burners will work, but external USB's
don't. Interesting. You'd think that Apple would be pushing CD burner
compatibility for its iApps to use.

> 
>> > 
>> >> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it
>> >> > does in the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have
>> >> > support for OSX, for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?).
>> >> 
>> >> Oh, well...
>> >>
>> > There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
>> > scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine,
>> >> >> >> > for less money, but then I'm probably going to be running
>> >> >> >> > windows, not linux and I'm not going to have the apps that I
>> >> >> >> > want available to me.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have
>> >> >> >> these problems.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by
>> >> >> >> > individuals that have no over riding influence in what makes
>> >> >> >> > a proper interface to the guy at the keyboard.  Each app
>> >> >> >> > takes its own approach to things.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde
>> >> >> > apps and one gnome app running, and yet another program that is
>> >> >> > neither?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
>> >> > different GUI's on the same OS.
>> >> 
>> >> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
>> >>
>> > X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use, no
>> > classic, no X11.
>> > 
>> > All consistent.
>> 
>> You keep saying you. You, you, you. If that is your criteria, then fine.
>> The Mac fits -your- needs, and everything else sucks. But you are not
>> the world, and other OSes nicely fit others' needs.
>>
> Didn't say it sucked, don't put words in my mouth. ;-)
> 
>> BTW, Apple X11 is no more and addon than any GUI in Linux. Apple X11
>> comes supplied on the CDs and can be installed with everything else. If
>> you only install one GUI environment under Linux, and only use its
>> associated apps, you have consistence.
>>
> True, but why would I want to buy a mac and use X11 only?  If I was going
> to do that, I could just buy a cheap dull.....
> 
Where did I say to use X11 only?

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 5:59:16 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.23.17.59.15.50908@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:28:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.13.14.39.739669@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:51:55 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick
> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> (snip)
> >> >> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick
> >> >> >> >> > around piecemealing together a box that may or may not have
> >> >> >> >> > problems with the parts that I bought.  Spend the time
> >> >> >> >> > digging around the net for all those bargains or any of the
> >> >> >> >> > other things that pop up when wanting to build your own?
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug it
> >> >> >> >> > in and it works and all the pieces are already there.  And
> >> >> >> >> > they all work together because everything came from the same
> >> >> >> >> > place.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either. When
> >> >> >> >> Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of scanner were
> >> >> >> >> supported too, huh?
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions
> >> >> >> > that affect me.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> You are not the world.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of Linux
> >> >> >> > for lots of years.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the
> >> >> >> number of supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux supports
> >> >> >> CD burners that OS X doesn't.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> > And Linux has been around how long?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners were a
> >> >> > big issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally solved
> >> >> > with time.
> >> >> 
> >> >> They were an issue years ago.
> >> >> 
> >> > That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
> >> > anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are all
> >> > scanners supported now?
> >> 
> >> Are they supported in OS X?
> >> 
> > No.  I would agree that scanners are a shared weakness of Linux and OSX,
> > with Linux currently having an edge.
> > 
> > To be fair, even XP won't work with all scanners.  But the scanner range
> > supported in XP is certainly better than either OSX or Linux.
> > 
> > We use a Fujitsu scanner that is tied tightly to Adobe Acrobat. Basically
> > stick a bunch of pages in, push either 'simplex' or 'duplex', depending
> > upon whether the page is single or double-sided and it scans to Acrobat. 
> > I know of nothing like that for either OSX or Linux, do you?
> 
> I haven't looked. But Linux has seems to have supported more scanners
> since OS X came out.
> 
I haven't looked either, but wouldn't be surprised if Linux is now
supporting more.  I've never been able to figure out why scanner
support seemed such a bugaboo for OS's other than Windows.  You would
think that the mfg's of scanners would be interested in other markets
too.  

But is it not the case in Linux that scanner support is mostly 3rd
party?  I know that the broader scanner support for OSX is 3rd party
(Vuescan?).

>  
> >> >> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time it
> >> >> > will become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't ever
> >> >> > really been the problem with OSX as I've used a few different ones
> >> >> > with OSX that were not on any list.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with
> >> >> the box.
> >> >>
> >> > I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I bought
> >> > and stuck in
> >> 
> >> So you are saying cheap CD-RWs will generally work if you replace the
> >> Apple supplied CD-ROM?
> >>
> >>
> > They have for me.  I had done about a half dozen before someone informed
> > me that there was supposedly a problem.  Maybe it was a problem in much
> > older macs, but my experience wasn't with very old macs and the ones I did
> > all just worked.
> > 
> 
> ... so the internal IDE cheap CD burners will work, but external USB's
> don't. Interesting. You'd think that Apple would be pushing CD burner
> compatibility for its iApps to use.
>
One would think, but then again, all of the macs sold today have some
burning capability built-in, so I would see no incentive for them to do
so.  

And I do believe that I've seen some reports of external USB CD burners
working, although not all of them.  I could be wrong on that, just
working from failing memory.  <G>

> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it
> >> >> > does in the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners have
> >> >> > support for OSX, for many others that don't there is Vuescan (?).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Oh, well...
> >> >>
> >> > There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
> >> > scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than mine,
> >> >> >> >> > for less money, but then I'm probably going to be running
> >> >> >> >> > windows, not linux and I'm not going to have the apps that I
> >> >> >> >> > want available to me.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have
> >> >> >> >> these problems.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by
> >> >> >> >> > individuals that have no over riding influence in what makes
> >> >> >> >> > a proper interface to the guy at the keyboard.  Each app
> >> >> >> >> > takes its own approach to things.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde
> >> >> >> > apps and one gnome app running, and yet another program that is
> >> >> >> > neither?
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X app?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's, not
> >> >> > different GUI's on the same OS.
> >> >> 
> >> >> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
> >> >>
> >> > X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use, no
> >> > classic, no X11.
> >> > 
> >> > All consistent.
> >> 
> >> You keep saying you. You, you, you. If that is your criteria, then fine.
> >> The Mac fits -your- needs, and everything else sucks. But you are not
> >> the world, and other OSes nicely fit others' needs.
> >>
> > Didn't say it sucked, don't put words in my mouth. ;-)
> > 
> >> BTW, Apple X11 is no more and addon than any GUI in Linux. Apple X11
> >> comes supplied on the CDs and can be installed with everything else. If
> >> you only install one GUI environment under Linux, and only use its
> >> associated apps, you have consistence.
> >>
> > True, but why would I want to buy a mac and use X11 only?  If I was going
> > to do that, I could just buy a cheap dull.....
> > 
> Where did I say to use X11 only?

We were talking about consistency, weren't we?  If so, I would think
that would imply and either-or situation.  For instance, I'm interested
in Open-Office, when it becomes available in OSX native with the look
and feel of OSX, I'll take a serious look.  As it is now, I'm not
interested.  To be honest, I already own MS Office X so there is no
reason to shift.

LLoyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/23/2003 6:39:22 PM
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:39:22 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.23.17.59.15.50908@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:28:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.13.14.39.739669@none.com>, Rick
>> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:51:55 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick
>> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
>> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
>> >> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> (snip)
>> >> >> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick
>> >> >> >> >> > around piecemealing together a box that may or may not
>> >> >> >> >> > have problems with the parts that I bought.  Spend the
>> >> >> >> >> > time digging around the net for all those bargains or any
>> >> >> >> >> > of the other things that pop up when wanting to build your
>> >> >> >> >> > own?
>> >> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug
>> >> >> >> >> > it in and it works and all the pieces are already there. 
>> >> >> >> >> > And they all work together because everything came from
>> >> >> >> >> > the same place.
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either.
>> >> >> >> >> When Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of
>> >> >> >> >> scanner were supported too, huh?
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions
>> >> >> >> > that affect me.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> You are not the world.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of
>> >> >> >> > Linux for lots of years.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the
>> >> >> >> number of supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux
>> >> >> >> supports CD burners that OS X doesn't.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> > And Linux has been around how long?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners
>> >> >> > were a big issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally
>> >> >> > solved with time.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> They were an issue years ago.
>> >> >> 
>> >> > That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
>> >> > anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are
>> >> > all scanners supported now?
>> >> 
>> >> Are they supported in OS X?
>> >> 
>> > No.  I would agree that scanners are a shared weakness of Linux and
>> > OSX, with Linux currently having an edge.
>> > 
>> > To be fair, even XP won't work with all scanners.  But the scanner
>> > range supported in XP is certainly better than either OSX or Linux.
>> > 
>> > We use a Fujitsu scanner that is tied tightly to Adobe Acrobat.
>> > Basically stick a bunch of pages in, push either 'simplex' or
>> > 'duplex', depending upon whether the page is single or double-sided
>> > and it scans to Acrobat. I know of nothing like that for either OSX or
>> > Linux, do you?
>> 
>> I haven't looked. But Linux has seems to have supported more scanners
>> since OS X came out.
>> 
> I haven't looked either, but wouldn't be surprised if Linux is now
> supporting more.  I've never been able to figure out why scanner support
> seemed such a bugaboo for OS's other than Windows.  You would think that
> the mfg's of scanners would be interested in other markets too.
> 
> But is it not the case in Linux that scanner support is mostly 3rd party? 
> I know that the broader scanner support for OSX is 3rd party (Vuescan?).

Define 'third party'. I know Epson produces iScan, but from what I can
tell, most people use SANE and related front and back ends. Almost
everything in Linux is 'third party'. nVidia is coming around, as is ATI.

> 
> 
>> >> >> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time
>> >> >> > it will become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't
>> >> >> > ever really been the problem with OSX as I've used a few
>> >> >> > different ones with OSX that were not on any list.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with
>> >> >> the box.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I
>> >> > bought and stuck in
>> >> 
>> >> So you are saying cheap CD-RWs will generally work if you replace the
>> >> Apple supplied CD-ROM?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > They have for me.  I had done about a half dozen before someone
>> > informed me that there was supposedly a problem.  Maybe it was a
>> > problem in much older macs, but my experience wasn't with very old
>> > macs and the ones I did all just worked.
>> > 
>> > 
>> ... so the internal IDE cheap CD burners will work, but external USB's
>> don't. Interesting. You'd think that Apple would be pushing CD burner
>> compatibility for its iApps to use.
>>
> One would think, but then again, all of the macs sold today have some
> burning capability built-in, so I would see no incentive for them to do
> so.

All of the Macs sold -today-, maybe, but that wasn't so even a couple of
months ago. And new Macs aren't the majority of Macs being used.

> 
> And I do believe that I've seen some reports of external USB CD burners
> working, although not all of them.  I could be wrong on that, just working
> from failing memory.  <G>

They are supported in things like Toast.

> 
> 
>> > 
>> >> >> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it
>> >> >> > does in the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners
>> >> >> > have support for OSX, for many others that don't there is
>> >> >> > Vuescan (?).
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Oh, well...
>> >> >>
>> >> > There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
>> >> > scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than
>> >> >> >> >> > mine, for less money, but then I'm probably going to be
>> >> >> >> >> > running windows, not linux and I'm not going to have the
>> >> >> >> >> > apps that I want available to me.
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have
>> >> >> >> >> these problems.
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by
>> >> >> >> >> > individuals that have no over riding influence in what
>> >> >> >> >> > makes a proper interface to the guy at the keyboard.  Each
>> >> >> >> >> > app takes its own approach to things.
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde
>> >> >> >> > apps and one gnome app running, and yet another program that
>> >> >> >> > is neither?
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X
>> >> >> >> app?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's,
>> >> >> > not different GUI's on the same OS.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
>> >> >>
>> >> > X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use,
>> >> > no classic, no X11.
>> >> > 
>> >> > All consistent.
>> >> 
>> >> You keep saying you. You, you, you. If that is your criteria, then
>> >> fine. The Mac fits -your- needs, and everything else sucks. But you
>> >> are not the world, and other OSes nicely fit others' needs.
>> >>
>> > Didn't say it sucked, don't put words in my mouth. ;-)
>> > 
>> >> BTW, Apple X11 is no more and addon than any GUI in Linux. Apple X11
>> >> comes supplied on the CDs and can be installed with everything else.
>> >> If you only install one GUI environment under Linux, and only use its
>> >> associated apps, you have consistence.
>> >>
>> > True, but why would I want to buy a mac and use X11 only?  If I was
>> > going to do that, I could just buy a cheap dull.....
>> > 
>> Where did I say to use X11 only?
> 
> We were talking about consistency, weren't we?  If so, I would think that
> would imply and either-or situation. 

If that is the case, why did you bring up the differnce between KDE and
Gnome?

> For instance, I'm interested in
> Open-Office, when it becomes available in OSX native with the look and
> feel of OSX, I'll take a serious look.  As it is now, I'm not interested. 
> To be honest, I already own MS Office X so there is no reason to shift.

Again, you are not the world.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/23/2003 7:35:31 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.23.19.35.29.728221@none.com>, Rick
<rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:39:22 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.17.59.15.50908@none.com>, Rick <rick@none.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:28:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.13.14.39.739669@none.com>, Rick
> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:51:55 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.23.01.34.31.947187@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:31:42 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.05.56.24.886724@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:02:41 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.22.03.49.00.181743@none.com>, Rick
> >> >> >> >> > <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:31:50 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> (snip)
> >> >> >> >> >> > I think you miss all the points.  Why would I want to dick
> >> >> >> >> >> > around piecemealing together a box that may or may not
> >> >> >> >> >> > have problems with the parts that I bought.  Spend the
> >> >> >> >> >> > time digging around the net for all those bargains or any
> >> >> >> >> >> > of the other things that pop up when wanting to build your
> >> >> >> >> >> > own?
> >> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> > I use a mac because I don't have to dick with it!  I plug
> >> >> >> >> >> > it in and it works and all the pieces are already there. 
> >> >> >> >> >> > And they all work together because everything came from
> >> >> >> >> >> > the same place.
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> Uh huh... and no one has complained about Panther, either.
> >> >> >> >> >> When Jaquar came out, I suppose the great majority of
> >> >> >> >> >> scanner were supported too, huh?
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > I haven't complained, and I'm a majority of one in decisions
> >> >> >> >> > that affect me.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> You are not the world.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > And no, not many scanners were supported -- reminded me of
> >> >> >> >> > Linux for lots of years.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> I'd be willing to bet MacOS X hasn't caught up to Linux in the
> >> >> >> >> number of supported scanners. And I know for sure Linux
> >> >> >> >> supports CD burners that OS X doesn't.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > And Linux has been around how long?
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > You and I both know, or should, that CD Burners and scanners
> >> >> >> > were a big issue with Linux.  It was a problem that was finally
> >> >> >> > solved with time.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> They were an issue years ago.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> > That's the point, it took years for scanner support in Linux to get
> >> >> > anywhere at all, and a few more to pick up most of the rest.  Are
> >> >> > all scanners supported now?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Are they supported in OS X?
> >> >> 
> >> > No.  I would agree that scanners are a shared weakness of Linux and
> >> > OSX, with Linux currently having an edge.
> >> > 
> >> > To be fair, even XP won't work with all scanners.  But the scanner
> >> > range supported in XP is certainly better than either OSX or Linux.
> >> > 
> >> > We use a Fujitsu scanner that is tied tightly to Adobe Acrobat.
> >> > Basically stick a bunch of pages in, push either 'simplex' or
> >> > 'duplex', depending upon whether the page is single or double-sided
> >> > and it scans to Acrobat. I know of nothing like that for either OSX or
> >> > Linux, do you?
> >> 
> >> I haven't looked. But Linux has seems to have supported more scanners
> >> since OS X came out.
> >> 
> > I haven't looked either, but wouldn't be surprised if Linux is now
> > supporting more.  I've never been able to figure out why scanner support
> > seemed such a bugaboo for OS's other than Windows.  You would think that
> > the mfg's of scanners would be interested in other markets too.
> > 
> > But is it not the case in Linux that scanner support is mostly 3rd party? 
> > I know that the broader scanner support for OSX is 3rd party (Vuescan?).
> 
> Define 'third party'. I know Epson produces iScan, but from what I can
> tell, most people use SANE and related front and back ends. Almost
> everything in Linux is 'third party'. nVidia is coming around, as is ATI.
> 
3rd party is something produced by someone other than the mfg of the OS
or equipment in this case.

> > 
> > 
> >> >> >> > If OSX is missing some of them, you can also bet that over time
> >> >> >> > it will become less of an issue.  Internal CD burners haven't
> >> >> >> > ever really been the problem with OSX as I've used a few
> >> >> >> > different ones with OSX that were not on any list.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Internal burners aren't generally a problem becasue they come with
> >> >> >> the box.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I wasn't talking about apple provided ones, just some cheapo I
> >> >> > bought and stuck in
> >> >> 
> >> >> So you are saying cheap CD-RWs will generally work if you replace the
> >> >> Apple supplied CD-ROM?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > They have for me.  I had done about a half dozen before someone
> >> > informed me that there was supposedly a problem.  Maybe it was a
> >> > problem in much older macs, but my experience wasn't with very old
> >> > macs and the ones I did all just worked.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> ... so the internal IDE cheap CD burners will work, but external USB's
> >> don't. Interesting. You'd think that Apple would be pushing CD burner
> >> compatibility for its iApps to use.
> >>
> > One would think, but then again, all of the macs sold today have some
> > burning capability built-in, so I would see no incentive for them to do
> > so.
> 
> All of the Macs sold -today-, maybe, but that wasn't so even a couple of
> months ago. And new Macs aren't the majority of Macs being used.
>
True, but it is an ever changing world....

And since the other mfg's don't generally do much in the way of
supporting older equipment, why would I expect Apple to?

> > 
> > And I do believe that I've seen some reports of external USB CD burners
> > working, although not all of them.  I could be wrong on that, just working
> > from failing memory.  <G>
> 
> They are supported in things like Toast.
>
I knew about Toast, but I thought I read where at least some would work
with OSX directly.  I could certainly be wrong though.

I know that DVD's are an issue, iDVD doesn't support any drive except
an internal superdrive.  But iDVD Pro does.  I think that is a fair
tradeoff for consumers and Apple alike.  Apple has no incentive to
support xyz dvd burner, but the user might want to.

> > 
> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Scanner support should come from the scanner manufacturer as it
> >> >> >> > does in the Windows world.  And many of the current scanners
> >> >> >> > have support for OSX, for many others that don't there is
> >> >> >> > Vuescan (?).
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Oh, well...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > There are still scanners not supported in XP, and I suspect not all
> >> >> > scanners are supported by Linux.  So, oh well...
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> > Sure, I can build a machine that might be faster than
> >> >> >> >> >> > mine, for less money, but then I'm probably going to be
> >> >> >> >> >> > running windows, not linux and I'm not going to have the
> >> >> >> >> >> > apps that I want available to me.
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> You are no the world. A great number of people do not have
> >> >> >> >> >> these problems.
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> > Apps on Linux, just like Linux itself, are designed by
> >> >> >> >> >> > individuals that have no over riding influence in what
> >> >> >> >> >> > makes a proper interface to the guy at the keyboard.  Each
> >> >> >> >> >> > app takes its own approach to things.
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> KDE apps are fairly consistent, as are Gnome apps.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > To a certain extent that is true, what about if I need 2 kde
> >> >> >> >> > apps and one gnome app running, and yet another program that
> >> >> >> >> > is neither?
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> What if you need 2 Classic apps and window$ app and one OS X
> >> >> >> >> app?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Same problem.  But we are then talking about 3 different OS's,
> >> >> >> > not different GUI's on the same OS.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> So what? Ok... what if you have 2 Apple X11 apps and an OS X app?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > X11 is and addon, why would I want to do that?  OSX is what I use,
> >> >> > no classic, no X11.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > All consistent.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You keep saying you. You, you, you. If that is your criteria, then
> >> >> fine. The Mac fits -your- needs, and everything else sucks. But you
> >> >> are not the world, and other OSes nicely fit others' needs.
> >> >>
> >> > Didn't say it sucked, don't put words in my mouth. ;-)
> >> > 
> >> >> BTW, Apple X11 is no more and addon than any GUI in Linux. Apple X11
> >> >> comes supplied on the CDs and can be installed with everything else.
> >> >> If you only install one GUI environment under Linux, and only use its
> >> >> associated apps, you have consistence.
> >> >>
> >> > True, but why would I want to buy a mac and use X11 only?  If I was
> >> > going to do that, I could just buy a cheap dull.....
> >> > 
> >> Where did I say to use X11 only?
> > 
> > We were talking about consistency, weren't we?  If so, I would think that
> > would imply and either-or situation. 
> 
> If that is the case, why did you bring up the differnce between KDE and
> Gnome?
>
> > For instance, I'm interested in
> > Open-Office, when it becomes available in OSX native with the look and
> > feel of OSX, I'll take a serious look.  As it is now, I'm not interested. 
> > To be honest, I already own MS Office X so there is no reason to shift.
> 
> Again, you are not the world.

True, but there are probably more like me using computers, than geeks
and wannabe's.  

Lloyd
0
lloydparsons (1421)
11/23/2003 7:46:18 PM
Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<r7qqpb.q9f.ln@vlad.seahaze>...

> > i just don't see Linux overcoming Micorsoft's moving of the goalposts.
> > 
> > Linux is a dog chasing a car down the street.
> 
> The car in question is misfiring badly on all cylinders, tends to stall,
> the door locks don't work. Meantime, the owner insists on spending his
> money on a paint job instead of basic maintenance.

? This is not the MS I know, who is outspending Apple on R&D 10:1,
with the gap increasing.

> > The Longhorn platform is impressive and there's nobody in linuxland
> > that is making similar massive organizational planning.
> 
> You have the advantage over me here, since I've no idea what Longhorn will
> eventually consist of. Some "new" fs, I believe, "new" in that Be created
> something very similar several years ago.

WinFS is the least of it. MS is implementing a QuartzExtreme-like
graphics layer called "Avalon", and can say their UI work in beta is
already ahead of Apple's, and we haven't seen their "Aqua"-killer
codenamed "Aero" yet.

MS has also caught the managed-code religion (pioneered in a
production OS by NeXT 15 years ago with Objective-C), and their CLR,
C#, and VB scripting, combined with XAML (XML application scripting)
looks to be a very compelling platform for application development and
web deployment.

MS is on the right track with Longhorn. It's not the incremental
update that Win95OSR2, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2k, WinXP were.

> > Micorsoft is chasing where NeXT was 10 years ago, and Linux is chasing
> > where Micorsoft was 10 years ago.
> 
> Do you know where "Micorsoft" was 10 years ago?

btw, for those who don't get my joke about Micorsoft:

http://geraldholmes.freeyellow.com/

> Win 3.11 was their best effort.

NT was out, too. Chicago was 16+ months out still, but in terminal
approach, aka in beta like the Linux desktop permanently is.
0
imouttahere (3635)
11/24/2003 4:24:33 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>, Martik wrote:
> Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
> over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
> I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
> drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
> are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
> very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
> consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
> alternative to Mac OS X?

I'm coming into this discussion pretty late, but I felt I should
answer. 

I SOLD my AMD hardware and gave up on Linux just so I could own a
Mac. I'm sick of being a system administrator. I did it professionally
for a while, and now I just want to use my computer, not fiddle with
the underpinnings. OSX was a good way to go for me because I can still
do any UNIX thing that I want, but I'm freed of the hassle of
recompiling this, that or the other thing every few days.

I DO use an old machine as a FreeBSD mail server, and I'm pretty happy
with that, but I'm happy to be free of the day to day hassles of
running Linux.

(I work with Windows all day, BTW, and I absolutely hate
it. Certainly, if my situation was similar to yours, I would have
done the same. I have the money now to choose NOT to do the same,
though.)

JS

-- 
========================= jan@chloris.ca ========================
Jan Sacharuk Member in Good Standing of The Discordian Solidarity
Turn on viewing of the X-Geek-Code header to see my Geek Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  "Up yours, Zoidberg! Up wherever your species traditionally
			  crams t'ings!"
			-Hermes, Futurama


0
jan8933 (7)
11/24/2003 8:51:10 PM
In article <BBE3C45E.3178C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, Snit wrote:

> I am not a graphics pro, but having Firewire and DVD burning capabilities
> has come in handy several times for me.

Apparently (and I haven't checked this myself, this is what a friend
was crowing about recently) DVD media is now cheaper per MB than CDs.

JS

-- 
========================= jan@chloris.ca ========================
Jan Sacharuk Member in Good Standing of The Discordian Solidarity
Turn on viewing of the X-Geek-Code header to see my Geek Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"And though you hold the keys to ruin of everything I see, with
every prison blown to dust, my enemies walk free. Though all my
kingdoms turn to sand, and fall into the sea, I'm mad about you.
                       I'm mad about you." - Sting

0
jan8933 (7)
11/24/2003 9:06:33 PM
"Jan Sacharuk" <jan@dontspamme.chloris.ca> wrote on 11/24/03 2:06 PM:

> In article <BBE3C45E.3178C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, Snit wrote:
> 
>> I am not a graphics pro, but having Firewire and DVD burning capabilities
>> has come in handy several times for me.
> 
> Apparently (and I haven't checked this myself, this is what a friend
> was crowing about recently) DVD media is now cheaper per MB than CDs.
> 
I am not sure about that one way or the other, but I do know that DVD's are
more convenient when you want to back up more than a CD can hold.  Or, or
course, burn a DVD slide show that plays in almost all DVD players.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/24/2003 9:21:43 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.20.21.39.59.633697@telus.net>,
Martik  <martik@telus.net> wrote:
>Fed up with all the spyware, viruses and other XP problems,so I switched
>over (again) to Mandrake 9.2 a couple of weeks ago on my AMD 2100+. Well,
>I must say Linux is maturing to a viable alternative to Windows. It is
>drop dead gorgeous, more configurable and more stable than Windows. There
>are still a few quirks and the help needs improvement but overall I am
>very impressed. Do any of you run Linux on your Mac H/W? Would you
>consider switching to less expensive Intel/AMD with Linux as an
>alternative to Mac OS X?


I spent $45 on an HP workstation, 400 MHz and 384 RAM, and it's running 
Mandrake 9.2.  The computer is a few years old, but my Mac is even older.  
I've wanted to play with Linux for a long time, couldn't afford the 
hardware to run OSX, and then I realized how cheap a halfway decent used 
PC can be, so I just got one.  I'm not actually doing anything useful 
with it, still just playing around and learning scripting and tools and 
things.

-- 
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the 
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been 
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekul�
0
glhansen (662)
11/24/2003 10:14:17 PM
Snit wrote:
> "Duke Robillard" <duke@NOSPAMio.com> wrote on 11/21/03 4:01 PM:

>>>Virtual Desktops from http://www.codetek.com
>>
>>Uh-oh.  You've gotta *buy* that one.  :-)   I'm a Linux guy;
>>I don't mind doing more work if the software doesn't cost
>>anything and I can re-compile it if I need to.
>>
>>Maybe I need to re-think this whole Mac thing.  :-)
>>
> http://space.sourceforge.net/
> http://wsmanager.sourceforge.net/ (though still in Alpha)
> 
> There, now you can get a Mac.  :)

Cool, thanks!   I know I've got Terrasoft's number around
here somewhere....

Duke


0
duke11 (340)
11/25/2003 2:48:27 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v12) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Dear All: Them pesky bugs. A few more squashed courtesy of the sleepy pixel. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ What's new in v11 ------------ Fixed some comprehensive help [NRi]. Fixed scale option placeholder [NRi]. Improved application and document icons. Example files now double-click to open in application. What's new in v12 ------------ Added layout option tooltips [NRi]. Fixed layout popup button changing wrong graph [MKe]. Clicking on warning icon now opens Activity window [NRi, AM]. Revert menu item now disabled. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.13 (v13) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Dear All, I've just released the newest version of Mac Graphviz, featuring shapefile support and enhanced zoom. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ Shapefiles supported include PDF, EPS, PS, JPEG, PNG and all Quicktime formats. Either specify an absolute or relative (to working directory) file path, or a URL using the shapefile attribute. Developers can now also use the graphviz.framework directly with #include headers in C e.g. using Xcode "Add Frameworks..."; documentation is available from the main Graphviz site -- http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/libguide.pdf Changes ------- Added drawer and zoom menu commands [DWa, NRi]. Added intelligent window zooming [NRi]. Added shapefile support. Added UTF-8 support [RSc]. Added cvtgxl, gvpack and gvpr tools [BSw]. Fixed page setup then close unexpectedly invoking save dialog [PRo]. HTML-like labels now work on 10.2 (use embedded expat instead of libxml2). Improved internal frameworks (added headers, consolidated dylibs). Tracked main build of 23 June. Graphviz is still free, but I'm now accepting donations for it. Enjoy! Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v10) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Hi all, Yet another Graphviz version. The old application icon had been voted off the island, and brand new application and document icons flown in for the task. Comprehensive help features in this version too. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ What's new: ------------ Added new application and document icons. Added comprehensive help. Fixed changes not affecting graph size displaying incorrectly [BTr]. Fixed export then close crashing the export of an open window. Improved shadowed frame for graph [NRi]. Improved status display [NRi]. Changed sources to pure BSD license. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Hi all, It's been a busy week or two at Pixelglow Software. Here's a brand new version of Graphviz, all spit and polish now. You'll enjoy the integrated color and font panel support, hand cursor panning and remembered settings. And everyone's most asked for -- a single click on the Edit tool will now bring up the DOT code for you to edit, and of course when you save it the graph automatically re-renders. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/download/ Here's the lowdown: Added edit, render and stop toolbar items [PCh]. Added integrated font and color fields and panels. Added hand cursor panning [AM]. Added autocomplete for most fields [NRi]. Added support for user defaults ("Remember Settings" menu command, command line arguments to GUI) [JSc, RPa]. Fixed click on popup menu unexpectedly selecting "..." [AM]. Fixed small zooms sometimes preventing full scrolling [DJu]. Fixed allowing fonts starting with "." to be selected [NRi]. Fixed transparent backgrounds rendering opaque in bitmap output. Fixed width or height > 32767 pixels unexpectedly cropping bitmap output [AM]. Improved toolbar interaction. Improved settings descriptions and tooltips. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy
Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: (excuse the mispronunciation; punny licence) It seems that Mac OS X has partially documented issues (http://altair.ific.uv.es/~JaxoDraw/Bugparade/bugparade.htm, http://developer.apple.com/java/faq/issues.html#anchor6) with the generation of EPS, and I'm trying to find a workaround. The Preview application cannot export to eps, but it can read it (converting it to PDF). If I use Adobe Acrobat to read the PDF generated by Preview, the EPS it generates sometimes (inconsistently) causes dvips to make an unreadable file. What I'm trying to do is the followi...

Your Mac won't start up in Mac OS X (Mac OS X 10.3.9 or earlier)
Your Mac won't start up in Mac OS X (Mac OS X 10.3.9 or earlier) Nothing can be more frustrating than turning on your Mac only to find that it won't start up. Instead of seeing the Finder, you see a blue or gray screen, an icon of a broken folder, a kernel panic, a flashing question mark, or a computer that just sits there. What can you do? Don't worry. It could be a simple issue that you can fix yourself. Note: This article applies to Mac OS X 10.3.9 or earlier. Tip: If your computer won't start at all, skip to "You see a blank, gray screen" below. The first step to help your Mac start up again is to identify which symptom you see. Once you know what the symptom is, you can try to fix it. Here's a list of the most common things you might see if your Mac turns on but doesn't start up. Click the link for the symptom you see, then follow the steps to fix it. You see an empty, blue screen. You might also see a progress indicator, which looks like a colored pinwheel or spinning disc. A "broken folder" icon, a prohibitory sign, or "kernel panic" message appears. Sam Walker Apple Specialist You see a blank, gray screen. A flashing question mark appears. None of the above happens, but your Mac doesn't start up. You see an empty, blue screen. You might also see a progress indicator, which looks like a colored pinwheel or spinning disc There are several different things you can try to fix this symptom. Go through eac...

Mac OS 9.x included in Mac OS X?
Hi, I read that Mac OS X has a so-called classic mode which emulates Mac OS 9.x so that older applications can still be run. Provided one is not an upgrader from Mac OS 9.x, does Mac OS X include Mac OS 9.x required for the classic mode or does it have to be bought separately? Peter >Provided one is not an upgrader from Mac OS 9.x, does Mac OS X include >Mac OS 9.x required for the classic mode or does it have to be bought >separately? If you buy the installer for OS X it *does not* include OS 9. You generally use the copy of OS 9 that came with your computer in order to install C...

Mac OS X & Mac OS X Server
Hi, I'm currently using a 9i developer release on Mac OS X (10.3) which has proved very stable so far. My understanding of the various Oracle press releases is that 10G will be released for Mac OS X, are there any beta testers out there wiling to comment on availabilitu/quality/performance issues for 10G on Mac OS X? Another question is whether tools such as the OEM will be available in 10G for Mac OS X, does anybody know? Yours in anticipation! Steve Steve <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004013008345616807%steve@nospamcom>... > releases is that 10G wil...

You cannot install Mac OS X on this volume. Mac OS X cannot start up from this volume.
Hi Group, Decided to reinstall OSX today on my MAC Book. _ Boy was this a mistake_ I booted off the DVD and changed the partition setup to two instead of one using the disk utility program. Selected MAC OSX Extended Journaled for both paritions. Now in the installer when I come to select the drive to install on I get the message "You cannot install Mac OS X on this volume. Mac OS X cannot start up from this volume." There is a red explaination mark on the drive. I have reboot, reformatted the drive back one parition using the disk util program and I still have the same proble...

Are Mac OS X 10.5.8's iLife programs safe to use in Mac OS X 10.7.x and 10.8.x?
Hi. Someone told me that Mac OS X 10.7.x and 10.8.x do not come with iLife like the older Mac OS X versions (e.g., 10.5.x). I did not know this! Since my client uses iPhoto that came preinstalled on his old 2008 MacBook Pro's Mac OS X 10.5.x (10.5.8 right now), can he use the old one from 10.5.8? Or will he need a third party replacement (needs to import/copy the old image files) or buy a new iPhoto version for his photo(graph)s? I recalled he did not like iPhoto and wonder if the new one is any better. Thank you in advance. :) -- Quote of the Week: "Every ruler...

Mac OS X Kerberos Extras updated for Mac OS X 10.3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just a reminder to coincide with today's release of Mac OS X 10.3 ("Panther"), the MIT Kerberos team has released an updated version of the Mac OS X Kerberos Extras that work with both Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) and Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther). The Mac OS X Kerberos Extras allow CFM-based applications, such as Eudora and Fetch, to work with OS X's built-in Kerberos. Older releases of the OS X Kerberos Extras will not work with Mac OS X 10.3. You must have the latest release (which was released back in June) for it to work with Panther. However...

Mac OS X 1.0 x86 and Mac OS X 10.4 x86
I wonder of OS X on Intel runs binaries made for Mac OS X Server 1.0 or earlier x86 versions of NEXTSTEP... There should be some interesting error messages to find. I'll try it out with OmniWeb 3 one day... -- Andrew J. Brehm Marx Brothers Fan PowerPC/Macintosh User Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches In article <1gxrpng.qcld42zk38uoN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>, ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote: > I wonder of OS X on Intel runs binaries made for Mac OS X Server 1.0 or > earlier x86 versions of NEXTSTEP... > > There should be some interesting error messages to find. > > I'll try it out with OmniWeb 3 one day... I *really* doubt it. 10.0 PPC doesn't run OS X Server 1.0 PPC binaries, does it? -- "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote: > In article <1gxrpng.qcld42zk38uoN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>, > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote: > > > I wonder of OS X on Intel runs binaries made for Mac OS X Server 1.0 or > > earlier x86 versions of NEXTSTEP... > > > > There should be some interesting error messages to find. > > > > I'll try it out with OmniWeb 3 one day... > > I *really* doubt it. 10.0 PPC doesn't run OS X Server 1.0 PPC binaries, > does it? I think i...

FS: Mac OS X v10.2 and Mac OS X v10.3 (Panther)
clearing up my storeroom. we have moved to tiger. OS10.2 are the original two cds from apple OS10.3 (Panther) are the original three cds from apple. prices: best offer -- getting out of bed in the morning is an act of false confidence - jules feifer to email me, delete syzygy. from my return address ...

Run Linux App over Mac OS X via Mac X11
Hello. I have a working Linux GUI app and tried in vain to run it over MacOS X via X11. The error msg from X11 is as follows: ------------------------------------------------- $ Gdk-ERROR **: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) serial 16453 error_code 2 request_code 45 minor_code 0 ------------------------------------------------------ The app was built using gcc-3.4.2 (gcc-3.4.2/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.2), and libwx_gtkd_gl-2.4.a. Could some tell me how to fix or get around it. Many thanks ming -----Original Message----- From: Henk Boons...

[News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Switch to Ubuntu Linux not Apple Mac OS ,----[ Quote ] | So why are people not going over to Ubuntu? Beats me. If you are looking for | commercial technical support, Ubuntu does offer that. If you are looking at | extreme personalization options Ubuntu offers that, probably even more than | the Mac OS. If you are looking for easy upgrades to future versions, Ubuntu | offers that. If you are looking for ease of use, Ubuntu offers that. If you | are looking for robustness and security, Ubuntu is the best. Ubuntu can be | installed on all types of hardware and even on older hardware. Mac OS does | not offer this flexibility. | | The more I use Ubuntu, the more I fail to understand the lure of the Mac OS. | Is it the snob value or stupidity that make people consider a Mac over | Windows and not Ubuntu? `---- http://prosenjit23.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/switch-to-ubuntu-linux-not-apple-mac-os/ Recent: Dell Mini Inspiron 9 ,----[ Quote ] | I’m living the dream, I tell you! I’ve swapped my MacBook for a Dell Mini and | so far the experience has been pretty positive. `---- http://jonrob.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/dell-mini-inspiron-9/ Moving from Mac to Ubuntu: Why I’m switching ,----[ Quote ] | Why I’m leaving Mac | |    1. Crap file management.The Finder doesn’t work for me. No location bar |    and no tree strucure side panel makes it difficult to navigate folders and |    move f...

Mac OS X fonts in Mac OS 9
Dear all, Is it possible to use MacOS X fonts in the classic environment? What's the procedure if it is ... Cheers! In article <3bef037b.0411010152.7625d932@posting.google.com>, davidol@hushmail.com (David) wrote: > Is it possible to use MacOS X fonts in the classic environment? > What's the procedure if it is ... No problem: a) TrueType fonts (.ttf - the vast majority) can simply be *moved* to the fonts folder in your Classic system folder. b) OpenType fonts (.otf) can be placed there as well but require Adobe Type Manager Light to work: <http://www.adobe....

Mac os 9 Vs. Mac os X
I am porting some windows software to mac os 9. My client has only mac os 9. I would like to use the URLAccessLib for my development. I find no documentation of it on Apple websites as if mac os 9 has fallen off the earth for them. The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 will I need all the mac os x libraries ? can someone throw somelight ? Thanks >The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward >compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 >wi...

Mac os 9 Vs. Mac os X
I am porting some windows software to mac os 9. My client has only mac os 9. I would like to use the URLAccessLib for my development. I find no documentation of it on Apple websites as if mac os 9 has fallen off the earth for them. The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 will I need all the mac os x libraries ? can someone throw somelight ? Thanks On 21 Nov 2003, dharmesh wrote: > I am porting some windows software to mac os 9. My client has only mac > os 9. I would like to use the URLAccessLib for my development. I find > no documentation of it on Apple websites as if mac os 9 has fallen off > the earth for them. Mac OS 8/9 documentation is at http://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos8/mac8.html (it's in the legacy documentation section) > > The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward > compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 > will I need all the mac os x libraries ? If your application is carbonised (ie you link against CarbonLib instead of InterfaceLib & co) then the same binary will run on OS X and OS 9 Fred I was trying to reference the CarbonLib from visual basic...I was succesful with Interacelib but couldn't access CarbonLib. I dont understand why. The system seems to have CarbonLib 1.4. Thanks for the reply Frederick Cheung <f...

54g Wireless
Hi there, I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit WEP and the other is a brand new IBook with 128bit WEP security. Our wireless network router is a belkin but only allows us to set 64 bit OR 128 bit - is there anyway of allowing either of these computers onto the network whilst securing it? Thanks Wesley Blue Wezza wrote: > Hi there, > > I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish > IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit WEP and the ...

54g Wireless
Hi there, I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit WEP and the other is a brand new IBook with 128bit WEP security. Our wireless network router is a belkin but only allows us to set 64 bit OR 128 bit - is there anyway of allowing either of these computers onto the network whilst securing it? Thanks Wesley Blue Wezza <blue-wezza@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish > IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit W...

Creating a Bootable Mac OS 9 CD in Mac OS X
I have a bootable Mac OS 9 CD for an old Power Mac. I need to duplicate the System Folder with a few extra extensions and create a bootable CD for emergency reboot on the old computer. My new iMac does not run Classic. I copied the "System Folder" from the Mac OS 9 CD to the new iMac and burned a CD-R. The old Power Mac does not boot from the CD-R when I restart it holding down "C". My investigation revealed that the System Folder in a bootable CD-R must be "blessed" by turning on a boot bit or something. When I copied the System Folder to the iMac, it bec...

X forwarding from from a Mac OS X to SuSE Linux
Hi, I'm running a SuSE Linux box at home, and my girlfriend has a Mac runing OS X at her house. I'd like to xhost into my machine from hers and run something. For example: $ ssh -X susebox $ emacs & and have emacs open graphically. I've done it a million times from Linux to Linux, and even from Windows to Linux, using Cygwin's excellent X-server. I got sshd working on her machine, but now I'm stuck. What should I do? Are there some X configuration files I need to check to make sure Mac's X-server is even listening for connections? Is Mac OS X even running an...

Problem with Helvetica font on Mac OS X/Mac OS 9 System
I'm working with a Mac which has Mac OS X and Mac OS 9.2 running on top of the X. I use MS Word and Pagemaker and there's a problem with helvetica italic not displaying consistently. I mean, without any intervention, some days it's visible, other days it's not. I thought maybe it was due to not having the font file, but it seems we do have it. I don't know if this is related, but Adobe Type Manager has also popped up lately complaining about not having enough cache memory. I looked at the setting and it was 2MB already, but increased it to 3 MB yesterday. It seems to have...

Recent Articles,, * Amazon offering Mac OS X Snow Leopard Family Pack for $36.49, * Apple Releases Mac OS X 10.6.1, the first update to the Snow Leopard operating system, * Gartner: Exchange
http://switchtoamac.com/site/survey-indicates-that-50-of-us-it-pros-are-considering-abandoning-windows-likely-to-switch-to-apples-mac-os-x.html http://tinyurl.com/ybrbgek A June 12, 2009 CNNMoney.com article titled 'Can Windows 7 save PCs?", David Goldman writes about Microsoft's upcoming Windows 7 operating system. The article discusses the PC slump and highlights a March survey conducted by Dimension Research that indicates that 50% of respondents are likely to dump Windows in favor of Apple's Mac OS X operating system. Noteworthy quotes form the article ...

[News] [Linux] Linux More Secure Than Mac OS X, Windows
How secure are Linux, Window and Mac OS? ,----[ Quote ] | Overall it looks like the Linux kernel turns out to be the most | secure system. Not only does it have virtually no security holes | that lead to system access, it's also very resilient to remote | attacks, two areas where both Windows and Mac OS X aren't doing | very well. `---- http://www.masuran.org/node/29 Lots of nice charts on the page. Good summary. Related: Linux hacks rare as hens' teeth, says survey ,----[ Quote ] | Adding more fuel to the Linux versus Windows fire, a US research firm | this week released a ...

Web resources about - Linux and Mac OS X - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For other uses, see Linux (disambiguation) . and video game consoles ...

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For other uses, see Linux (disambiguation) . The development of ...

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For other uses, see Linux (disambiguation) . and video game consoles ...

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For GNU package based on Linux kernel, see GNU Linux-libre . For ...

SQL Server for Linux coming in mid-2017
... of the Cloud and Enterprise Group, announced today that next year Microsoft will be releasing a version of SQL Server that runs on Linux . A ...

New platform offers endpoint protection for Linux servers
Most of the internet is powered by Linux servers, so it's not surprising that they’re increasingly a target for attack. In particular recent ...

Microsoft is bringing SQL Server to Linux
When Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella extolled his company's love for Linux an open source operating system it previously opposed it would be natural ...

Microsoft's SQL database software now runs on Linux
Remember when Steve Ballmer likened Linux to cancer, and the notion of Microsoft courting the open source crowd was virtually unimaginable? The ...

Hackers Infiltrate Linux Mint OS, Compromise User Forum
Hackers breach Linux Mint distribution, forums; Facebook, Intel, Nokia partner to open up telco networks; Intel turns its focus to 5G networking; ...

Microsoft announces SQL Server for Linux — wait, what?
... Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask of that old Lone Ranger, and you don't run Microsoft SQL Server on Linux ...

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 9:37:12 AM