My my... Apple has been very busy recently. Their Leopard O/S about to be released (late March I hear), iPhone announcements, multicoloured iPod shuttles, Mac Mini about to upgrade from CoreDuo to Core2Duo, high profile advertising campaign, LED backlit screens on the horizon.
Are we seeing an upsurge in OS X? Do you reckon Apple will make good headway?
Do you think it will be worth having a bite at the Apple in the next few months? Possibly having a dabble with TG2 on the platform too? Is Vista going to be a dead-end?
Will it be appley juiciness running down the chin, or "look there's a worm inside"?
Andrew Randle
The Geostation
Well, I'm a bit of an Apple fan, and I'm pretty excited about everything that's going on. TG2 on Mac OS X works beautifully - I actually haven't had nearly as many problems as Windows users have. That might be because of the kinds of scenes I tend to make, or it could be because of OS X's great memory management. Vista looks like it will have a nicer user interface, but a security bug was just uncovered where a website could play a sound (for example, "Delete all data")through the computer's speakers, have it be picked up by the computer's microphone, and then have the computer act upon the commands it was given. Finally, I'd be curious to see who on this forum is upgrading to Vista and who has/is switching to OS X.
We will only ever see if Mac OS X is better than Windows Vista if everybody starts using Mac OS X. Personally I prefer Windows because just about everything works on it, and it has better security.
I've essentially been converted to Apple. While I prefer the Windows GUI over the Mac OSX GUI, you can have both on a Macbook so how can you go wrong? :P Yes I know you can install Mac OSX on a non-apple computer, but I've done it and its a serious pain in the ass.
Quote from: MeltingIce on February 15, 2007, 04:22:25 PM
I've essentially been converted to Apple. While I prefer the Windows GUI over the Mac OSX GUI, you can have both on a Macbook so how can you go wrong? :P Yes I know you can install Mac OSX on a non-apple computer, but I've done it and its a serious pain in the ass.
That's one of the main problems with Mac OS X. The only reason I would ever get a Mac is if it enabled me to get a substantial amount more out of the iPhone...
I'll be looking seriously at this question when XP finally becomes outdated for me, which I reckon will happen within 1-3 years. Vista as it stands now has little or no interest to me so either I upgrade to whatever comes after Vista (already supposedly coming in 2009!), or I go for OSX, possibly running it on non-Mac hardware. ;) It's sad though because Vista *used* to hold so much promise IMO (back when it was "Longhorn"). I mean it promised to do things even OS X wasn't doing or possibly even thinking about doing yet. Of greatest interest to me was WinFS, the "database filesystem", which seemed tremendously interesting and potentially useful to me. Since that was scrapped and so many other things were as well I lost interest. Meanwhile OS X has continued to advance, not necessarily in ways that interest me as much, but it definitely has some great features that Windows just doesn't have (*natively*). Fortunately the Windows side of things has sooo much software that can do just about anything you can do on a Mac and then some (a lot more in fact). So it's not an easy decision. Hence, as I said, waiting until I *have* to choose and seeing what the playing field looks like at that time.
I'm pleased however to see that since Apple made the switch to Intel CPU's their price point has actually been rather competitive. In fact when the last round of MacPro's came out they were about the cheapest you could get a system with that level of hardware. The problem has always been that it's nearly impossible to cut corners (reasonably) with Mac hardware. The Mac Mini was a sort of compromise and I do hope they continue with that line as they upgrade the hardware line - it was cheap and you could get it kind of "bare bones", which is what I want. The MacPro's are awesome but they have a bottom-line price that is higher than I'm generally willing to spend. For comparison's sake my roommate just bought an almost entirely new Core 2 Duo E6600 system, 2GB of RAM, a Geforce 8800GTS, new case, etc. and only spent just under $1400 *after* California 8.25% tax *and* shipping. The MacPro *starts* at over $2000. Now granted that's with *two* dual core CPU's (4 cores total) and the E6600 only has 2 total, but the point is that if I only want dual core I have to go for a fricking iMac or a Mac Mini. They could have had the MacPro price point way lower if they'd (and thus more attractive and having a wider market) if they'd offered a single CPU model (dual socket motherboards are always much more expensive). So while the hardware is a good value for what you get, the problem remains that they don't offer the options I want at the price I want, while the PC side offers billions of options.
I could go on forever back and forth on this stuff. The bottom line is I'll be waiting and continuing to use XP until I really have to change and I recommend others do the same as Vista just doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade while carrying still much higher system requirements and bloat.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on February 15, 2007, 10:23:48 PM
Vista (already supposedly coming in 2009!),
Yea right, but if microsoft could pull that off it would be intesting. I'm keeping XP on this comp right now and fedora on my laptop for the time being.
Regards,
Will
Vista has arrived five years behind schedule with an ongoing Antitrust case in Europe and a whole raft of core features doped for developmental time constraint reasons all I can say is...Who Cares?
The Project that is (If you believe Microsoft) meant to arrive in 2009 (I will believe when I see it) was called Vienna but goes under a new name now which cannot at this time be talked about, do Microsoft really expect people to upgrade their O/S again in such a short time frame, hardly I would suspect and then only if it offered substantial new features that surpassed Vista by substantial orders of magnitude?
I have a feeling that Microsoft will face an insurmountable battle convincing its business clients to upgrade yet again when many of those same clients have not even upgraded to XP and still use Windows 2000.
A recent survey of 100 leading companies found that a substantial number (Sorry don't remember the exact figure) would wait at least five years before rolling out Vista on their systems. Given the time and fiscal outlay that it costs to develop and roll out training courses and related materials and related infrastructure the decision be Microsoft to release a new O/S so soon could prove to be a loss making decision.
I do find it interesting that Microsoft are trying from the sound of in to change over to the Apple business model this surely must mean a change in their corporate structure as well, at the vary least at mid to low level management.
There is an opportunity right now for a brand new O/S to come onto the market and take market shear away from Microsoft, this window of opportunity will however not last long, in the end then we shall see what the future holds.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Quote from: Oshyan on February 15, 2007, 10:23:48 PM
Of greatest interest to me was WinFS, the "database filesystem", which seemed tremendously interesting and potentially useful to me.
Everyone was looking forwards to WinFS...If that had made it through we would be seeing a lot more people upgrading...
I can't see Vista failing to become common eventually, which is why I want to upgrade now - the more experience I have with Vista compared to other people, the better my programs and efficiency while working will be compared to other people...
The thing about any new OS coming along to compete with Windows is it *must* be compatible with one of the existing software bases out there or it has no chance of gaining enough market share to be a significant threat. Ideally it would be compatible with Windows itself, but that's very difficult to do. If it were a "flavour" of Linux with really good Windows emulation (a much improved version of WINE or CrossOver Office) and they made the UI much more consistent and everything easier to work with, then *maybe*. But ultimately no matter how bad Windows is it's going to take a huge, huge effort for anything to take its crown away. For better or worse...
Anyway it'll be interesting to see how Vista fairs. I'm most curious to see when the first "Requires Vista" app comes out. I know Crysis will need it for its DX10 features, which I'm very much looking forward to seeing (and playing with). But what else? Any applications that might actually require it? I don't know of any Vista features that would actually make sense for requirement...
- Oshyan
Yea the only Vista exclusive feature that comes to mind is DX10 and therefore it seems that games will essentially be the only "vista-required" apps.
only reason I'm consitring buying it later this year.
Regards,
Will
The only feature I can think of, apart from DirectX 10, that Vista has so far and that no other Microsoft operating systems have is the .NET Framework 3.0, which is an optional download in XP. I don't know of any applications yet that require the .NET Framework 3.0, and the fact that it is available for Windows XP (rather than included, like in Vista) means that there isn't a lot Vista can offer that XP can't...
There is another advantage Vista may have: the 64-bit version of Vista is probably much better than the 64-bit version of XP, but again, there are virtually no programs that only work on 64-bit operating systems...
Actually, if the 64 bit version of Vista actually *was* a lot better than XP x64 then I'd be strongly inclined to upgrade. Unfortunately it sounds like it's no better and in fact probably worse, at least for now in terms of support. So no win there either. The only real advantage it can confer is with time in that it is now a more mainstream 64 bit option so it will hopefully push more hardware and software providers to support full 64 bit natively. It's this strange confluence of hardware and software that needs to happen and neither side is pushing hard enough on it in my opinion.
Quite frankly though I think that given the Vista hardware requirements are already high most of that hardware is probably already 64 bit capable, and there's enough 64 bit hardware out there in general that they probably could have just put out a 64 bit *only* Vista and done fine. You could argue that adoption for the average home user would be difficult, but that line has to be crossed at some point, for home as well as professional user, and pro users have had x64 to get used to for a long time now. If they had made 64 bit a requirement all the hardware and software developers would have had no choice and we'd have a lot more capable/compatible hardware and software by now. It's really a chicken and egg thing.
MS probably saw it as too risky, but I think it would have been fully worthwhile and justified. And I at least would finally have a good reason to upgrade to Vista! I'm sure a lot of other people would welcome a good excuse as well and *won't* be buying otherwise, at least for a while. So they might have even come out ahead. :D
- Oshyan
Just my two cents ... but Vista looks so terribly bad in so many respects, that I've commited to removing every windows box from our corp before it's too late to get out.
Only 4 of 68 left in administration; two as of 3/5; none as of asap.
Production is next.
Quote from: Oshyan on February 19, 2007, 04:18:55 PM
MS probably saw it as too risky, but I think it would have been fully worthwhile and justified. And I at least would finally have a good reason to upgrade to Vista! I'm sure a lot of other people would welcome a good excuse as well and *won't* be buying otherwise, at least for a while. So they might have even come out ahead. :D
- Oshyan
Considering the fact that a lot of home computers simply don't meet the requirements of Vista, I agree that it would have been a good opportunuty for Microsoft to release a 64-bit-only OS. However, Microsoft would
never do something as bold as that because compatibility, no matter how limited, with just about everything, is a Microsoft tradition. They are also afraid of loosing their dominant position to Apple, who have set out to lie to the world about how good Mac OS X is...
Quote from: fREeCYCLE on February 19, 2007, 05:44:21 PM
Just my two cents ... but Vista looks so terribly bad in so many respects, that I've commited to removing every windows box from our corp before it's too late to get out.
Only 4 of 68 left in administration; two as of 3/5; none as of asap.
Production is next.
Wow. You clearly hate Windows. Are you replacing them with Linux boxes?
To tell me I hate windows is a bit over the top. Believe that I will say what I mean in direct fashion, but that wasn't it. We have made a calculated decision based on real world circumstances.
Vista is not heading in a direction appropriate for our business needs, nor does it compete in a cost of ownership venue on light duty workstations, such as office machines. Such machines comprise a large number of the stations we must maintain.
We have no existing core-system or group-ware entanglements with MS and are thus free to migrate our client-base as we choose. This migration *could* of course, be very painful or expensive in situations where mission-critical dependency on proprietary backbones preexists.
Low-end stations, terminal clients or general duty machines are easily replaced with Linux variants, especially those not subject to regulation under sarbanes oxley for publicly traded corps. Those which require some measure of commercial interoperability are macs. This is by preference of user interface, application service policies and the ability to dual boot windows on the fly if mandatory.
In our situation, macs/linux prove useful in a number of practical respects. Many, if not all of the services we might care to use are available or present in all three aforementioned OS's. Windows is the only one who sets arbitrary limits on common things like .. how many people can use a service simultaneously and in what capacity without additional server licensing for a potentially menial subsystem .... and it goes on for a country mile.
I personally find the freedom of using our equipment and software in the manner that we want to .. to be more valuable than interoperability with every gadget and nick-knack available over the fence.
Would I pay for a vista station if it were the only way i could run TG2 or other 3d softs I'm into? You Betcha. But that would be a specialty rig having nothing to do with running a corporate environment.
There are compelling arguments for open-source adoption in corporate environments, if not infrastructures. These are by no means iron clad and have hurdles / caveats like anything else.
They are generally technical 'hurdles' or 'deficiencies'... rather than expansive, deliberate licensing blockades to otherwise good solutions. How many of us have actually Read and Understood the full legal implications of any given eula, let alone vista's or osx's? I'm no manner of legal expert, but I know when I've been told that I have no rights when push comes to shove. Given the option, I will avoid such mires or at least pick what I feel is less restrictive.
Ours is a balancing act between need, ROI, CoO, compatibility and future extensibility .... in which Vista failed to capture our business as an indispensable tool.
I don't normally get involved with these debates but one of my colleagues has installed Vista Business (64 bit version) to test the software we develop and tin a word it is terrible (okay 3 words :)).
It is constantly dropping the wireless network connection, his machine locks up randomly, but the most annoying feature he is faced with is the constant nagging dialog boxes asking if he wants to do something and if he is really sure (guess this is what Dark Fire meant by Windows being more secure :)). I am not sure if this is an option he has managed to turn off yet but there lies another problem, they have hidden, moved and probably removed items in the UI that it takes you minutes (if you are lucky) to locate them, case in point "adding removing programs", in XP this is simple, in Vista this is hard to find. This is not unusual when they release a new version of Windows, they change the UI so much it takes you days to figure out where they have moved things.
One user on the Lightwave forums has said that on his machine if Lightwave is busy processing then after a while Vista shuts Lightwave down causing him to lose his work, really useful feature that, not!
I am waiting for Leapord to appear on the Mac to see what that is like but I have no issues at all with OS X, I find it easier to use and just as productive as Windows, things just work with OS X.
Sure, Windows has more software available to you but if the software I need is available on the Mac I use the Mac, that is my choice and personally I prefer OS X over Windows.
Now let me clarify my position, I am not a fanboy of any platform, I use what I need to (Windows/OS X/Linux) in order to get a job done, I have used and developed Windows applications since Wndows 3.1 (both client and server applications) and have been lucky enough to see the Windows NT source code (I worked for a company in the UK who wrote software on behalf of Microsoft to put in one of their server products) which was an eye opener. But I have to say as it stands at the moment Vista is not worth upgrading to, for me I will stay with XP as long as I can and need to.
Drocket.
Quote from: Drocket on February 23, 2007, 05:00:43 PM
It is constantly dropping the wireless network connection, his machine locks up randomly, but the most annoying feature he is faced with is the constant nagging dialog boxes asking if he wants to do something and if he is really sure (guess this is what Dark Fire meant by Windows being more secure :)). I am not sure if this is an option he has managed to turn off yet but there lies another problem, they have hidden, moved and probably removed items in the UI that it takes you minutes (if you are lucky) to locate them, case in point "adding removing programs", in XP this is simple, in Vista this is hard to find. This is not unusual when they release a new version of Windows, they change the UI so much it takes you days to figure out where they have moved things.
Drocket.
Internet Explorer 7 does many of the same things mentioned above. I will probablly go to Firefox very soon.
I moved back from Firefox when IE7 was released - Firefox 2 is too unstable, inefficient and slow compared to IE...
I'm a Mac user myself and have no problems. People complain that you can only use an iPod with iTunes, but I really don't care because I like iTunes and it doesn't put DRM on CDs I rip.
Quote from: fREeCYCLE on February 19, 2007, 05:44:21 PM
Just my two cents ... but Vista looks so terribly bad in so many respects, that I've commited to removing every windows box from our corp before it's too late to get out.
Only 4 of 68 left in administration; two as of 3/5; none as of asap.
Production is next.
Switching to what? Mac or Lin?
Quote from: Mammoth on March 03, 2007, 02:06:03 AM
I'm a Mac user myself and have no problems. People complain that you can only use an iPod with iTunes, but I really don't care because I like iTunes and it doesn't put DRM on CDs I rip.
I don't know how to put DRM on CDs I rip with Windows Media Player. I prefer Windows Media Player because the Windows Media formats are very good, and because it is very fast at starting up and doing everything it does. I admit that iTunes has some much better features, but I still think WMP is better...
WMP is a very solid and respectable media player. However, in terms of content management and user interface, iTunes blows most everything I've seen out of the water. In addition, QuickTime's h.264 and nice streaming capabilities keep it on top for me.
Quote from: old_blaggard on March 03, 2007, 05:31:14 PM
WMP is a very solid and respectable media player. However, in terms of content management and user interface, iTunes blows most everything I've seen out of the water. In addition, QuickTime's h.264 and nice streaming capabilities keep it on top for me.
I hate the iTunes interface and management system. They are the biggest weaknesses of iTunes for me. Everything else is fine - the graphics and visualtsations are good, the iTunes store stuff is good and the compatibility is good. However, it could be a bit faster...
Haha I love iTunes and hate WMP. I find the WMP library views to be very cluttered and unefficient. I guess it just boils down to personal opinions :P
That's why we live in a capitalist world: choices, choices ;).