|Posted on Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 9:55 am: |
Mordantia, I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean for this thread to turn into that. It was just a moment of weakness when I went beyond my normal skillset and fixed something I previously thought was unfixable.
I used to work for Apple (#28774, scary I still remember) and watched as the Copland team imploded, Amelio took his bonus and ran, and left the company in a huge hole. When I left I felt like a deprogramed cult member. Win 95 had been out for about a year, and I hadn't touched it because I was a "Mac only" person. Heaven forbid I should "soil" myself with an inferior Microsoft product. My new job required me to learn 95 (and NT, and 3.1) and I realized that the differences had become almost moot.
In the end, they are all tools. As they say in construction, "the right tool for the right job." Steve Jobs has done an incredible job of breathing new life into the product, especially in the core graphic/video design market. Final Cut Pro is a video editing tool that is making the $30,000 editing systems like Avid and Media 100 look pathetic, and there is nothing that favorably compares to it on the PC side. That type of "killer app" approach is what will keep Apple on the right path.
That said, I'm writing this on my Sony VAIO laptop, because that's what our company writes software for - the PC world.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 8:59 pm: |
Couldn't stay away... Blackjack, you're right about the corporations but I completely disagree that the average citizen is of no interest to the government. The 9/11 people fell through the cracks because that's just gonna happen in a country as large and open as the US. 3,000 people died in NY - just sacrificial lambs, now we're where we wanted to be. The government shouldn't be in the business of collecting data on its citizens, but it is.
I could care less if some marketer knows I bought Dr. Pepper with a coupon, a private company can't really hurt me - maybe harass me with junk mail but that's about it. Government abuse is a different story though, we gotta take that in the ass.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 8:05 pm: |
I've been using OS X for some months now, and I agree that it's very nice.
I've always thought the perpetual debate over PC and Macs and which was better was rather silly. Eons ago, there might have been a marked difference, but essentially they're both good and they both suck. Sometimes, one of them gets the edge in a certain area for a little while and sometimes one of them does something incredibly stupid that makes life difficult for its users.
But, hell, if people didn't stand around arguing over which team was better, be it sports, computer platform, religion, politics, country, horsepower, gender, sex preference, music genre, absinthe brand (hehe), or whether dogs or cats were innately the superior pet -- well, I guess the world might implode. Or at least be a lot quieter and peaceful. Especially message boards. Heh.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 5:44 pm: |
Just read this on http:/www.thinksecret.com
At a speaking event last month, Kevin Browne, general manager of Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, said that while he sees the company's Internet Explorer web browser as the most complete browser for Mac, it's still not "the product we want it to be yet." During his speech, he also noted that the MacBU has suspended OS 9 Internet Explorer development to devote its full resources to the next release. Key areas of concern, Browne said, include performance, privacy, security, and web rendering that's on par with IE for Windows.
Sources say that a "major update" to Internet Explorer is indeed on its way, and it might be showing its face sooner rather than later. While a confirmed version number for this release was not available, insiders speculated that this could be Internet Explorer 5.5 for Mac.
Microsoft has reportedly rewritten a significant amount of the code for Internet Explorer, to make it faster. The MacBU has also been working to make it more compliant with websites, another issue Browne described in April.
While the timeline for this upgrade's release is uncertain, it could be soon, sources said.
It'll be great if it's true
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 2:55 pm: |
yeah, omniweb was poopy at first, but it seems pretty cool now, and even emulates IE to other websites so they think you're using explorer (apples Itools site won't work with omniweb unless you tell omniweb to emulate IE). I haven't tried Mozilla but I'll try that too.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 9:02 am: |
I used Omniweb for a while, but it didn't render many pages correctly and didn't seem fully standards compliant. At the time, plugin support was also pretty spotty.
Mozilla is nice because it's reasonably fast and is fully standards compliant.
You need to be careful setting packet size with some connections. Frex, setting the mtu of your network interface above 1492 on a PPPoE connection can result in many dropped connections and very poor over all connectivity.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 8:22 am: |
Our politicians have seen to it that last bit of privacy we have will die at the hands of our silicone masters.
Politicians nothing. They are YEARS behind the marketing people. You see, the average person is of no interest to the FBI or NSA, but the average person is EXACTLY who the corporations want to know about. The government issued visa renewals to two of the 9/11 hijackers a couple of months ago and no red flags went up, but I can GUARANTEE you that somebody, somewhere, could tell you what brand of toilet paper they bought and if they used a coupon...
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 7:52 am: |
Angry P and Mr. Rabid:
There's actually a hack for OSX which significantly improves your internet performance. Macs, like PCs do not come setup with their download buffers to handle the larger packets you can d/l w/ DSL and cable. I think I found it on the MacAddict website, and it tells your Mac to allow larger D/L buffers and it literally doubles your download speeds. I agree that IE for OSX is clunky. Not only is it slow (microsofts fault, not apples), but it is very unresponsive. You'll click a button and nothing happens, or it stops d/ling a page before it's done. You should get OmniWeb instead. I'm using OmniWeb right now and it's plenty faster than IE and the interface looks much more "Aqua" than IE, because it's written specifically for Mac OSX and nothing else. It does everything IE does and more, and manages your bookmarks much better, and it's download manager is super cool and makes IE look very outdated. The OmniWeb people update the program about once a month too, so I highly suggest that over IE.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 12:04 am: |
Damn this thread! Working in the computing field is like being in the mafia, you can never get away from it. All computers suck and the world would be a better place without them. Our politicians have seen to it that last bit of privacy we have will die at the hands of our silicone masters. I'm buying a good pen, some embossed stationary and a cool wax seal.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 9:37 pm: |
I am really happy with OS X. In the 7 months I've had my G4 my computer has not crashed once. Not one single time. Sure, Microsoft apps crash but it doesn't affect the system at all. UNIX kicks ass. Sure it's old, but it's proven stable technology. OS X is new, so lots of improvements will be made. I think 10.2 will be great, because offloading the Aqua rendering to the graphics card will really speed things up.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 9:25 pm: |
I think the old technologies they are supporting refer to the classic environment (which I haven't booted in nearly six months) and the Carbon APIs.
It is true that a lot of OS X is old technology. The base of the OS is UNIX! Apple moved a lot of the NeXTStep brain trust direcly into OS X development. Of course it's old . That doesn't mean it's bad or slow.
As for the PR flack's statement, much of OS X is new. I'd be surprised if there weren't room for performance improvements. I do agree that OS X was rushed out. I think Jobs was under a lot of pressure to push it out. Apple got a release that was stable and useable on the faster machines and released that. However, Apple's been making substantial performance gains with each major release.
As an everyday user, I can say that I've been very satisfied with the growth of OS X. This is the OS I've been waiting decades for.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 9:04 pm: |
It's not a download slowdown, it's a rendering problem. The CPU is trying to render what a graphics card would be on a PC.
It happens on every browser I have heard of anybody testing.
Basically, a lot of OSX (from what I hear- I haven't looked at it much meself) is just re-hash, it's old technology. Apple wanted to get it to market, and said fuck the performance issues.
Their public relations person admitted to it- the spin she put on was something along the lines of 'we supported a lot of older technologies so that people would find the transition easier. We are at the very beginning of OSXes performance potential.'
In other words 'we'll fix it! Really, just give us a few months!'