“Isn’t it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued—put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Mac has become the AS/400 of desktop computing, except for the fact that it’s prettier. Of course, if Apple never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Windows platform?” Another one of Dvorak’s well-known editorials.
E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
What do you mean with Mac? These days Macs and a PCs differ by only one thing: the microporcessor. What will do the difference in the future is likely to be the software. Here it comes Mac OS X. This is the real point where Apple is moving forward and any savy software developer knows that. Mac OS is not only Unix, it’s opensource (at least the foundations) and it’s STANDARD compliant. And it’s a pleasure to play with. It’s not yet the fastest OS in the world but I bet anyone who says XP is. It has room to improve and it’s focused not to chaos, like Linux, nor to steal your freedomto choose, like XP. I guess it’s the only (still imperfect) user oriented OS and it’s amazing that this is based on Unix, the NO-user-fiendly OS by definition.
As a long time Mac user, I have to say that is about the best written piece of flame bait I have ever read. I have to say, the answer should be obvious to all: because they are making money as things are.
Yes, I think that article was not a good article by Dvorak. He has written some really good pieces, but this one does not make much sense…
I just read it again. I see his point, and I see his error. He does not understand that “Mac” is simply a marketing name, as very successfully Gino said. We had old Macs, new Macs, 68k Macs, PPCs etc. The Mac hardware evolved as the software did. The only thing that stayed the same is the name: Mac.
Dvorak seems to think that the current Macs are just faster versions of the 1984’s Mac. Which of course is not true, therefore his article is a bit redundant and wrong.
However, I like his paragraph about the Linux and MacOSX effort to bring a better Desktop to UNIX.
He’s just pissed because he cant afford a mac on a trolls salary.
He’s just pissed because he cant afford a mac on a trolls salary.
Good one 🙂
….
Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.
As for UI, I don’t see Lindows making something more intuitive than other desktop OSes out there? Amazingly, Mac OS X came out without copying Windows… So, if I’m was to say who was bring Linux to the desktop best, I would say no one. Having a good product (which most Linux companies don’t anyway) isn’t the only thing needed to sell a product.
The author completely misses the point. The whole Macintosh thing is a brandname. Take a brand new Mac and one that is 10 years old, the only similarities is the brand name and some of the UI; and maybe “Classic” mode. The author shows he is completely ignorant in this sense, and fails to see that the new Macs aren’t the same old Mac with some “hormones” pump in; the very same way Windows isn’t the same as the Windows 1.0 (which was a complete flop, mind you). PC architeture also came from the 60s, but is is the same as the 60s? Not a chance in the world. In terms of OS and design, the PC world copies the Mac. But underneat, Macs are just PCs using PowerPC processors as oppose to x86; which the article never told it is bad (and besides, PPC is younger than x86).
Reading the headline and the first sentence… I thought I would agree. I immediately made the assumption that he was dogging on the recent form factor of Macs… the whole eMac/iMac thing. It’s okay, but could NeXT^H^H^H^H^H Apple PUHLEEEEZE bring back the NeXT slab form factor again? It’s just so damn cool, and NO ONE is making them anymore.
Well, as it turns out, the article makes no sense whatsoever. Hell, if he knew the first thing about OS X he’d know one of the greatest development accomplishments was getting OS X to run on the wide variety of hardware that had been marketed under the brand name of “Macintosh”. And beyond what OS X can run on, there’s NuBus Macs, m68k Macs, etc etc etc.
What the hell was he thinking when he wrote this?
Does anybody care what this guy thinks? He must have gotten one of Steve Jobs fabled performance reviews in a former life. Bad Karma!
His bias has always been so obvious his comments always look assenine. Fitting.
This article is complete non-sense. Does this guy knows anything about Macs or the AS/400 (which is now known as iSeries!).
Ten year old macs can’t be compared with today macs. Todays macs are great machines and have only the same name with old macs.
It’s the same like the iSeries. The latest models have Power4-CPUs and they switched form CISC to RISC “long” time ago.
The same goes for the mac. They changed form CISC to RISC long time ago and the G4 is a great CPU….. not to mention the upcoming G5 (end of da year?).
Anyway, how can someone waste server-space for such a lousy editorial. Or does M$ sponsored him, because of Apple’s switch campain?
LoCal
Never change a winning team!
It’s the same like the iSeries. The latest models have Power4-CPUs and they switched form CISC to RISC “long” time ago.
The same goes for the mac. They changed form CISC to RISC long time ago and the G4 is a great CPU….. not to mention the upcoming G5 (end of da year?).
WOO HOO! Let’s have the 70s style CISC vs. RISC Usenet flamewar (something I learnt about with Google).
G4 isn’t pure RISC, the same with Power-4
x86 (the current evolution, as well as x86-64) isn’t pure CISC.
So there we have it 🙂 Previously RISC and CISC architecture evolved to be more and more alike (though they are still apples and oranges).
And as for the G5, it is still vapourware. Except from being mention on the roadmap, there isn’t any indicator that G5 would be released by end of this year, and would match the rumours about it. In fact, it is not even clear that whether G5 would be used in Macs in the first place :-). Heck, there is even some rumours x86 Macs would come out, and transition to it would be ala 68k to PPC.
But they are all rumours, and therefore vapourware.
Also, G4 can sure do more with each clock cycle. But with processors 2.5x the clock speed of it; it isn’t the fastest anymore. No benchmark shows that G4 is the fastest; and Apple’s one is undocumented (and therefore not allowing it to be reproduce to check the genuinity, and to see whether it is flawed) and also compares with an old processor (2ghz).
Okay, today Macs are different from past Macs, but not in the sense Dvorak would like it to be. If you look at Mac, there have been some big change from the initial Mac, in terms of technologies (going to µkernel arch and unix layout) and in terms of physical form. But face it, these changes are not innovative, they are just integration of existing technologies. NeXT did it before, and IIRC, it was 10 years _ago_. So where’s the innovation ? This is what Dvorak simply ask.
He choose to criticize Mac because this is the best PC (as Personal Computer, not i86 stuff) around, and if he can find flaws in it, then all the rest is even worse. Would he have tried to make his point with XP, and everyone here would have laughed and agreed.
IMHO, Apple deserves a little bit more time, because like the Author said, they lost time with their adventures with IBM, and Jobs is here to catch up on innovation, with NeXT as a starting point.
Let see what Apple is doing/promoting, beside Darwin…Airports, Ipod, FireWire, Mac Servers…Apple is working on connectivity. If Apple combines all that, and manage to evolve Darwin to a distributed OS…^_^
“Would BMW please stop building those old, boring cars, and do something new!”
“OK, Sir, no problem, what do you want?”
“I don’t know. Just something new, which is… not old”
“OK, errrr, so what’s the problem with our old cars?”
“They’re old. They still have 4 wheels, an engine… just like they used to decades ago!”
“So? What’s wrong with that?”
“It’s old! It doesn’t make me go Wheeeeee”
Sounds like a little child talking? Right.
But it’s exactly what Dvorak is doing. He wants something new
without explaining what’s wrong with the current Macs.
Yes, there has been no grand innovation in the PC area for
years, just little, gradual improvements. So? If someone
can point out a fundamental flaw in current hardware that should be fixed, I’d say “Go Apple! Ditch the Mac and do
that new thing”.
But noone can point out that fundamental flaw.
And even if someone could find such a fundamental problem,
I’d bet my ass on it being something to do with software,
not hardware.
And Apple just redid its software basis completely…
Dvorak: “So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called Mac. Apple has nothing it could possibly replace it with. There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away.”
Contrary to what Steve Job’s would like everyone to believe, Apple is leading edge in only one part of the computer industry–industrial design. They may really neat looking computers. The insides are as plain jane and off the shelf as any other computer manufacturer in the world. Even the great technology innovators, like IBM, aren’t inventing an entirely new computing concept. With the state of the current computer industry, do we need to start from scratch again like we did in the late 70’s? First question is who would buy such a device, and the second question is how much would it cost to develop. The last, and most important, question is how much more effective a tool will it be compared to current computers.
Apple is just a computer company, like Dell or HP. They aren’t some great technology R&D firm who’s sole purpose for existence is inventing concepts people may never use or see.
The AS/400 is some serious hardware with many practical purposes. Not only hardware, but the software you can run on it (OS/400 and Linux simultaneously) allows for some of the best database applications to be executed along with very nice server applications.
Okay, if anyone thinks that the Mac hasn’t changed since its creation, they need to dust off their old System 7 (or better yet, 5 or 6) disks and reinstall that. At work last week, somebody dug up a Powerbook 190 and knew I was a Mac guy, so they gave it to me to see if it was useful. DAMN! I’d forgotten so much! How weird System 7 looks! The difference between 7 and 9.2 is colossal, nevermind X! But, it was still fun messing around with it… didn’t even have contextual menus….:)
I don’t think Dvorak has even half a clue when it comes to the Mac. I think OS X is revolutionary.
1. Hardware-wise, the platform has stagnated. As someone pointed out, the mobo is basically 2-year-old PC, with the exception of the CPU. And the CPU is more of a liability than anything else. Being “different” has no practical value.
2. OSX is a reactionary kludge. NEXTSTEP may have been cool when it came out, but now it’s ancient history. In dog years, it should be dead. In Internet years it’s grandchildren should be dead! Jobs’ reactionary “old fart” decision to go for the old instead of innovating is the tune that Apple sings today, and it sucks. Dvorak seems to be impressed with how quickly Apple got OSX to market, but he must have gotten Alzheimer’s while he was waiting decades for it to arrive. There’s no trick in serving what has been cooking since the 70s!
3. Dvorak is being charitable when he says that Apple tries to make up for all of the design shortcomings by “haute design”. There’s nothing haute about the “flashy trash” styling! It’s called “putting lipstick on a pig” in the industry…
System 7? Heck, give me System 6! Lean and mean…now that was Apple’s shining moment.
I agree that it is time for a revolutionnary device! Similar to the Macintosh in 1984. Dvorak makes some good points here:
“Having said that, why can’t Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh? The answer is obvious if we look at recent history and compare it to the era when the Mac was invented. Here’s the problem. This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the Xerox Star in over 20 years. All the R&D money has been diverted, mismanaged, killed by zealous bean counters, or simply wasted. Most of the big R&D labs have been closed or cut back. All the R&D seems to be in semiconductor technologies, which is because that particular business is more of a psychopathic rat-race than anything else and you get eaten by the rats if you miss a step.”
ciao
yc
Speed: ” There’s no trick in serving what has been cooking since the 70s! ”
I think the trick was making it user friendly enough that the average joe isn’t intimidated by it. I don’t think anyone would disagree that OS X is the easiest and nicest GUI for average computer buyers of all the Unix-like operating systems
Dvorak advocates dropping everything mac and starting anew. Seems to me JLG had the same idea in 1990. Look where that got him! Its obvious people do not want that.
I think the trick was making it user friendly enough that the average joe isn’t intimidated by it. I don’t think anyone would disagree that OS X is the easiest and nicest GUI for average computer buyers of all the Unix-like operating systems
I’ve read soundbite stuff like that for years, the same thing repeated over and over and over. In that social psychology class that I took they showed us how people will tend to believe something that is repeated over and over. Knowing that, I have learned to demand proof of all claims. So far, nobody has come up with any to justify the “user friendly” claim. Heck, I haven’t even seen the terms defined! Appeals to popularity like “I don’t think anyone would disagree…” don’t fool me either.
I’m perfectly to give credit where credit is due. But if the accolades have yet to be earned, don’t expect me to follow blindly. Prove it if you can, but don’t BS me.
I used to work with Macs and PCs, side by side. So I already know that most of the ease of use claims are total bullshit. I’ve found absolutely nothing that puts Mac OS on top, and in fact I’ve found some traits that really annoy me. If you prefer the way it works, that’s your trait, not one of the product.
The truth is that OSX is a collection of lots of things that are neither new or innovative. Performance is poor, and there are horror stories (read the “NetBSD” story above). The only thing that makes it stand out is eye candy. “Shiny baubles and insincere flattery” is a lousy trick that doesn’t make up for the obvious shortcomings.
I don’t think that Dvorak is right… If there is a problem in the world, that’s with the software, and it’s not something Apple related. In my opinion, they’re doing a lot of things to improve the macintosh (remember, they switched to power pc architecture, adopted nextstep… not easy things to do when you have a lot of people not wanting to switch to something new).
The hardware (PC and Mac) is great today. Fast, faster, every day… My harddrive is bigger than i ever though a hard drive will be…
But the software? What really changed? More colors on the screen? Shadows under the mouse cursor? Yeah, that’s progress…
Dvorak’s writing made me think about what do I really need to see changed. I want speech recognition that works, AI in games that is really challenging, hand writing, search engines that understand what info I want to find… Not another cube shaped computer only because the design of my computer is boring… It wouldn’t be if one day my computer will be able to talk to me like the ones in science fiction movies…
I would like Apple to drop the hardware crap…I would love to see OSX on a PC. Think of it, a 2.2mhz intel OSX system. I would like to see the Mac drop, but I would like to see the OS continue and that what it is all about anyway…right.
>>The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole’ Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena.<<
Think the GUI coders will finally get it?
The as/400 or iSeries as its called nowadays is as someone earlier mentioned some serious hardware and software.
Has the good writer ever seen one in action ?
I agree, Marvin, the man doesn’t really know what he wants to change, but still complain that there’s no change. It doesn’t mean there’s nothing to change, but Dvorak failed to name one.
All I wanted to say is that there are effectively things to change, or add, but Apple needs time to accomplish these innovations, and perhaps we’re seeing the begining of these innovations in their currents products.
PS : I’m not a native english speaker, I’m not sure I’m writing what I want to, so please tell me if there’s someting wrong in my posts.
“NEXTSTEP may have been cool when it came out, but now it’s ancient history.”
you must be joking! i still see these machines floating around and being used very productively. object oriented programming is so passe, isn’t it? i cannot think of a negative comment regarding Next, ever! software wise that is. those optical disks were quite slow.
the problem with this article, and the subsequent comments, is that nobody seems to know how they would move forward. and, how is apple indicative of a problem, when they are the most innovative of the pc manufacturers. getting nowhere ever faster seems to be the goal. which is why those old next users, still utilizing a very cool combination of hardware and software, are so interesting. where are you going today? nowhere fast!
> I think the trick was making
> it user friendly enough that
> the average joe isn’t
> intimidated by it.
Where is average joe and his mac though? Most Joes are still stuck in Windowsland, so maybe there’s more to desktop success than fanciful GUI? OS X may not be that useable. Last time I tried, it was annoyingly slow. That was over a year ago, so its possible they run better on the newer machines.
Why isn’t OS X based on Linux, or even BeOS? The Linux kernel would have been a better choice, and BeOS would have been more like an apple thing.
And I wish someone at Apple would take a risk for once and move OS X to intel. Once they do that, competition in the desktop market will be possible again.
His argument is similar to the recent flurry of OSNews articles pining for a 3D interface, which I, for one, denigrated. It’s the same basic WIMP (windows/icon/mouse/pointer) interface. Dvorak makes it more provacatively and offers no solutions, but its the same argument.
Singling out Apple is a back-handed compliment (relatively speaking). Windows dismissal in the first paragraph is like saying it’s not even worthy of discussion.
The comment about Lindows was out of place in this article. It may belong in a column on making a user-friendly Linux, but not one about shooting old dogs. Cloning the Windows interface is not innovative. Not to mention that they are standing on the shoulders of lots of those open-source types who apparently don’t think Linux is ready for the desktop. You know, the ones working on KDE, Wine, etc.
Rob Campbell
[email protected]
>> 1. Hardware-wise, the platform has stagnated. As someone pointed out, the mobo is basically 2-year-old PC, with the exception of the CPU.
Did you miss Firewire, USB, DVD-R and AirPort (802.11b)??
>> 2. OSX is a reactionary kludge.
Let’s see, an open source core, powerful windowing system and beautiful graphical interface. Kludge indeed, meanwhile Solaris and Linux have been struggling to produce the equivalent, largely succeding minus the coherent GUI.
>> 3. Dvorak is being charitable when he says that Apple tries to make up for all of the design shortcomings by “haute design”.
I missed any reference in the article to any particular design shortcoming, but put it this way, the iPod has been wholly recognized as the best MP3 player package bar none. ‘Haute design’ or not, I don’t see too many shortcomings in that.
regus
i cannot think of a negative comment regarding Next, ever!
And that’s the problem — that you cannot think, or more probably will not think about it. But closing your eyes doesn’t make the truth go away. And the truth is that the NeXT box was a product of the 80s. It’s also a product that failed in the marketplace.
the problem with this article, and the subsequent comments, is that nobody seems to know how they would move forward.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t get any paychecks from Apple. It’s not my job to develop new products for them. I’m a consumer. Apple is supposed to work for me if they want my money. This idea that the buyer is supposed to do Apple’s work for them is looney! Doubly so since Apple customers are notorious for taking whatever Apple sells them without question, and raving about it.
In fact, I believe that it’s that very lack of critical thinking, and the lack of self-identity that has allowed Apple to stagnate. They could market a steaming pile of poo, and the Apple faithful would snap it all up, waxing poetic about how wonderful and innovative it is. With no real pressure to excel, it’s no surprise that Apple has coasted.
What Apple does to recover from this malaise, I don’t care. The important thing is that $500 “workstations” that can’t keep up with an average PC and computers as fashion accessories is getting pretty stale.
Did you miss Firewire, USB, DVD-R and AirPort (802.11b)??
No, I didn’t “miss” them. What they have to do with this discussion is beyond me, and you don’t appear to be able to explain. If you’re trying to say that Apple “innovated” those products, you’re wrong. The only one that Apple had any hand in developing is Firewire, and even that wouldn’t have seen the light of day if it hadn’t been for Adaptec, Compaq and other PC companies that finally brought it to market.
Let’s see, an open source core, powerful windowing system and beautiful graphical interface. Kludge indeed, meanwhile Solaris and Linux have been struggling to produce the equivalent, largely succeding minus the coherent GUI.
That’s a lie, plain and simple. OSX is not open source! And neither Linux nor Solaris are trying to be OSX. Shame on you and your sleazy marketing spin!
I missed any reference in the article to any particular design shortcoming, but put it this way, the iPod has been wholly recognized as the best MP3 player package bar none. ‘Haute design’ or not, I don’t see too many shortcomings in that.
The article wasn’t about the ipod, was it? No, it was about the Mac. Please leave your straw men at home.
>And I wish someone at Apple would take a risk for once and
>move OS X to intel. Once they do that, competition in the
>desktop market will be possible again.
That will be a total fiasco. If you put OS X on i86 and drop
the Mac you are a direct competitor to Microsoft. In fact
you compete with the fundament of Microsofts success: Windows.
Do you realy think they would develop MS-Office for OS X on i86?
Do you realy think they would team up with apple like they do today?
Do you realy think the allow their OEM partners to install OS X ond/or Windows on their PCs the same time?
It seams you haven’t learnt anything out of the BeOS story.
If Apple would port OS X to x86 the would be dead tomorrow.
Blown away by Microsofts economical power.
Beside this, what price would you pay for a OS X86 ? 🙂
100 $ ? 200$?? In fact Apple make their money with hardware sales. If you drop this – good bye Apple…
So… again… NO OS X ON INTEL PLEASE!!!
I did a Google search recently, looking for information on favorite text editor emacs, and suffice to say the naming collision confused poor google.
Emacs was there first.
Ha ha. This is getting hilarious. But what the heck:
> 1. Hardware-wise, the platform has stagnated.
>> Did you miss Firewire, USB, DVD-R and AirPort (802.11b)??
>>> No, I didn’t “miss” them. What they have to do with this discussion is beyond me.
No-one claimed Apple invented these technologies. My point was that Apple’s *stagnant* hardware included components 2 years ago that are only now becoming standard on any other computing platform.
>> Let’s see, an open source core, powerful windowing system and beautiful graphical interface.
>>> That’s a lie, plain and simple. OSX is not open source!
OS X has an open source core, it’s called Darwin. Your unresearched comments sound distinctly like the original article…
Ha ha. This is getting hilarious.
I’m glad you can accept defeat with a good sense of humor.
My point was that Apple’s *stagnant* hardware included components 2 years ago that are only now becoming standard on any other computing platform.
That claim simply isn’t true. In the case of USB it’s the exact opposite of the truth! It was PC hardware that included USB for two full years before the first Mac shipped with USB. 802.11B and Firewire were available for the PC before they were for the Mac, maybe not by years, but still PC-first. DVD-R is more ambiguous, but what’s important to the context of this thread is that the DVD-R drives in Macs were not made by Apple, and the technology isn’t exclusive to Apple. And in case you haven’t noticed, the marketplace prefers computers that cost a thousand dollars less and come with CD burners.
OS X has an open source core, it’s called Darwin.
That’s no excuse for your previous lie. And the personal attack that I didn’t include just shows how wrong and desperate you are. If OSX was so good, you would have legitimately good things to say about it. Instead you’re lying and flaming people who have legitimate criticisms. You ought ot be ashamed of yourself, and your product.
And it looks like you’re not so jolly after all.
You mustn’t pay any attention to Dvorak, no matter what he says. It is flamebait, he does this every so often to get some attention. People devoted to Apple are also Apple’s harshest critics (as long as they’re talking to each other and not non-Apple users :-). The last time I recall Dvorak making a big stink was when he said the (then) brand new iBook looked like a woman’s make-up kit. Of course, the iBook was a huge success. The points he brings up are not worth discussing because he isn’t sincere when he makes them. He has some kind of problem.
“But the software? What really changed? More colors on the screen? Shadows under the mouse cursor? Yeah, that’s progress… ”
Have you ever listened to something called Internet? Is it only hw?
” Why isn’t OS X based on Linux, or even BeOS? The Linux kernel would have been a better choice, and BeOS would have been more like an apple thing. ”
You all know why… because Linux is not free software, it has a very restrictive license…
>My point was that Apple’s *stagnant* hardware included components 2 years ago that are only now becoming standard on any other computing platform.
>> That claim simply isn’t true. 802.11B and Firewire were available for the PC before they were for the Mac.
Sure, but *availability* doesn’t mean much for the platform as a whole. Mac platform included them as OE, and thus ubiquitous to the platform- advancing the platform as a whole. The same did not apply for ANY other PC platform, even if the technologies were technically *available*.
> OS X has an open source core, it’s called Darwin.
>> That’s no excuse for your previous lie.
I don’t recall stating that anything besides the core of OS X was open source. Nice try though..!
And no, I didn’t think that was a flame at all, but your comments seemed quite poorly thought out (or sometimes plain false, as above). No offense intended. Case closed.
editorial journalism has sunk to a new low with dvorak’s piece. i call it being hard up for good ideas with a looming deadline to fill the space.
article is terrible.
Why is anyone even attempting to have a discussion with this troll? For him – is opinion is the only correct one, and it is concrete.
The poor fool cannot even admit when he is wrong. He just twists it as much as possible and then calls you names, or insinuates that you were either lying or you tricked him.
You can’t have a rational conversations with him, so why even try? Send him back to slashdork, ..er.. I mean slashDOT.
Speed:” I’ve read soundbite stuff like that for years, the same thing repeated over and over and over. In that social psychology class that I took they showed us how people will tend to believe something that is repeated over and over. Knowing that, I have learned to demand proof of all claims. So far, nobody has come up with any to justify the “user friendly” claim. Heck, I haven’t even seen the terms defined! Appeals to popularity like ‘I don’t think anyone would disagree…’ don’t fool me either.
I’m perfectly to give credit where credit is due. But if the accolades have yet to be earned, don’t expect me to follow blindly. Prove it if you can, but don’t BS me. ”
I’ve had Windows, FreeBSD and OS X boxes in my house for everyone to use. That is, at any given time I would have one of the following types of computers, not all at once. They were setup and ready to go, so there was nothing for my family/friend users to do except login and use the software on the box–the average user’s computer interaction. No one had a problem with Windows. Everyone tried FreeBSD and eventually started using computers at their friend’s house et cetera, so I put windows back. When I moved to Mac with OS X, there was a little apprehention, but now no one minds using it. They use it as seamlessly as they would a Windows box. Granted that is *one* case study, but many industry pundits have had similar glowing reviews of OS X compared to Linux and other UNIX/Unix-like implementations.
Certainly, market hype plays into the buying decision of customers. However, the end user experience on OS X is cleaner for the average user than other Unix-like platforms. I would even say that it is easier in many ways than Windows. But I’m not going to get into that debate.
I can think of maybe 20 things, off the top of my head, that I’d do if I was going to design an entirely new computer. Nothing particularly radical. One area that’s been completely ignored is the keyboard; there have been “Internet keyboards” and so forth, but they’re not well integrated with the system. Really, all common functions (i.e., commands you can do at any time) should be on the keyboard. An email button/key that lights up when you have mail is an obvious idea; even better if they can make it work when the computer is powered down / in sleep mode (and then you press it and it boots instantly into your email app). But also, why aren’t there bold, italics, and underline keys? Or at least an emphasis key. Current keyboard layouts were designed with command line interfaces in mind; it’s ridiculous that they’ve barely changed, especially when, like Apple, you control the hardware and the software. How about multiple displays and detachable displays (ala Mira)? Microsoft can support this kind of thing but Apple is in a position to actually do something interesting with it. What about a remote control (of sorts) with a simple lcd display that lists my mp3’s and movies, so I can choose/play them, and even has my buddy list and tells me how many emails I have? I don’t think there’ll be any innovations on par with the introduction of the GUI anytime soon but there’s still room for improvement.
Dvorak could have made the same comments about the PC and been just as accurate, or rather, inaccurate, but then he wouldn’t have just one company to single out; he would have had to castigate the entire PC industry.
Besides the fallacy of “talking computers” being innovation, it seems pretty obvious to me that computers right now are mostly on an evolutionary line, not revolutionary. Computers are becoming faster, more powerful, larger storage space, etc., but little about today’s computers are *radically* different from computers of ten or even fifteen years ago.
But so what? We don’t need a new revolutionary idea because the old ideas haven’t been fully absorbed or used to capacity yet. Most people are still far behind the computer curve, woefully underusing the power of their computers. We’re still trying to catch up with what’s already available. This is true of the software developers as well as computer users.
Besides, when the next revolutionary computer idea comes along, we probably won’t even recognize it as being revolutionary until several years after the fact.
A big problem I see with OSX and XP (and even Gnome and KDE) is the idea that flashy effects and colors are being seen not just as the eye candy they are, but as being progressive somehow. It’s fun to look at drop-shadows, glossy title bars and transparency effects, but these things have little or nothing to do with actual ease-of-use. That’s what R&D should be focusing on.
…he’s found what works for him. Sure, he believes that anyone who can possibly find value in things outside the set of “things Speed likes” is an idiot, but it’s good to have people like that around to mark the extreme end of the spectrum: they make Apple zealots look calm and rational.
And it’s certainly no surprise that Speed’s so hip to Mr. Dvorak, who’s admitted in the past that he goes into knowingly overstated rants with a deliberate intent to rile people and get them up in arms. Why, Dvorak and Speed are virtual comrads in arms! Together they can wave their canes threateningly at the rest of us and shout, “You young whippersnappers with your Macs, why, I remember when we had to use hexadecimal to change defaults in WordStar, and we liked it!“
The real question is, when is PC Mag going to update their old, stodgy product line? They need to chunk writers who haven’t said anything “genuinely interesting” in years, and replace them with “fresh legs”.
> Why is anyone even attempting
> to have a discussion with
> this troll?
Because they never had one before, that’s why. A new day, a new victim.
> Everyone tried FreeBSD and
> eventually started using
> computers at their friend’s
> house et cetera
Hehehe, that’s a damn good one!
Why isn’t he calling for the death of the IBM PC Compatible?
At least Apple hardware has evolved a little. It isn’t designed around running DOS, it doesn’t have a 640k SRAM chip, and it doesn’t have a 4 partition limit.
I mean why the hell do PCs without ISA busses have IRQs? IRQs aren’t in the PCI standard |-p
trooooooolllllllll
windows is an old dog and should have been put to sleep before it was even conceived.. OSX is the FUTURE!!!
regus, whine all you like, Apple isn’t an innovator, period. No amount of convoluted rambling on your part is going to alter that.
I don’t recall stating that anything besides the core of OS X was open source. Nice try though..!
If you agree with me, then why did you argue? Yeah, nice try, but…
And no, I didn’t think that was a flame at all, but your comments seemed quite poorly thought out (or sometimes plain false, as above).
If you have any specific quote to reference, and if you have any evidence to show, I’m here. But all you did was call me names.
Case closed.
I work with Macs on a daily basis. And the sad fact is, the only thing a Mac can outperform a PC in is printing. They’re no more intuitive than any other platform out there, their benchmarks campared to any x86 based architecture is embarrasing. Many will scream that you can get more features on a top of the line mac than you can on a standard PC. Well, duh! Dollar for dollar, I’ll give you the top of the line Mac and I can take the same money and build a PC that will outmatch, outrun and outperform ANY Mac in existence. Jobs needs to get his head out of his ass and switch the Mac’s over to an x86 architecture. If I could dual-boot my current system with MacOS, I’d consider investing in Mac’s. As it stands, I see no reason to pay more money to be the laughingstock of all my friends.
> Why is anyone even attempting
> to have a discussion with
> this troll?
>>Because they never had one before, that’s why. A new day, a >>new victim.
Touche! Apologies to all.
reg
Hank, I give you credit for showing something. It’s far more than I get from the Mac sales force 99.9% of the time. As you mentioned, one anecdotal story carries the weight of one anecdotal story. And even your story fails to meet the “easiest” claim, since it shows OSX in a tie with Windows.
If you’re serious about testing the theory, the next step is to define terms, so you’re truly measuring ease of use, and not curiosity, familiarity or visual appeal. Then you’ll need to construct a scientific environment to test in — one where people can’t be influenced by outside influences. Double blind testing is the norm for this kind of thing. After that you need to run enough tests to collect a meaningful amount of statistical data, which means having a lot of people from a large cross-section of the population participating. When all that is done, you can see if the data supports your theory or not.
If the data does support your theory, the next step is re-search and peer review. Others must duplicate your experiment independantly of you, and see if they come up with the same results. If most do, then you’re on your way! As long as others review your methods, and find them to be sound, that is. Once all that is done, then you can take an expert opinion about the ease of use of OSX.
Good luck!
It’s ironic and funny that you use inductive reasoning in your little attempts at character assassination, WattsM. As you change your story about me to fit the situation, you contradict yourself, and impugn your own credibility!
When are you going to learn that using logical fallacies will never win you an argument? Especially against me!
Don’t forget dead trees…
Good point!
Dvorak isn’t speaking about Apple from the standpoint of the Macintosh computer, rather from the standpoint of the Apple II to Macintosh transition. During the reign of the Apple II computer, the command line was the standard method of input, just as it was for DOS, just as it was for UNIX. Then, one day Apple got a look at a new, graphical operating system. From this, came the Lisa. The Lisa was more of a Macintosh prototype, and everyone dismissed the early Macs as toys, with a toy OS. Who would pay $10,000 for a toy?
But Apple was responsible for bringing many higher standards to the general computing audience. When IBM PCs (and PC compatibles later on) were running at lousy resolutions with a measly 4 – 16 colors, Macs were being used at higher resolutions ~640×480 and 4,096 colors. Macs had 16 bit sound when PCs were emitting little more than beeps. Macs were using SCSI devices… rarely ever seen on PCs. In short, Macs were better machines than the PC equivalent. Macs were entirely different machines than the Apple II (both from a hardware and software standpoint).
It was these very reasons that I chose to use a Mac over a PC. System 6.x and 7.1 were easier to use and more stable than the later 7.5.x. Today, system 8 & 9 contain so many extensions, control panels, preferences, etc. that they’re not much easier to maintain than a Windows PC. Load time is horrendous. The stability was problematic. When Apple made the transition to PowerPC, this was supposed to make for a faster machine… to catch up and beat the Pentium. Although the PowerPC was a more advanced processor, it was bogged down emulating 68k code to remain compatible with the Mac OS. Was there a quantum leap going from MacOS 6.x (yes, I’ve used this) to 7.x (I’ve used this too) to 8.x (ditto) to 9.x? NO! Prettier colors, slight changes (some improvements, some bugs), a newer filesystem… but functionally, nothing changed. Certainly not of the same magnitude that going from the Apple II to Lisa/ Mac did.
Apple was running up against a wall. They were trying to develop a new OS, but couldn’t quite pull it together. They looked at other OS’s to buy. They finally came up with an amalgamation of NEXT/ BSD/ Mac. The interface is THE SAME general interface of the old MacOS. The underlying architecture is based on an even OLDER operating system.
Apple is now TRYING to compete with PCs at the hardware level. Their OS is the easiest to use OS based on UNIX… but is it the easiest OS to use? Does it solve any problems inherent in the old OS… stability issues, yes… new computing paradigm? No. It’s MacOS 10, NOT NewOS 1.0.
I’m surprised that others make such bold statements as to imply that the PowerPC Mac has made the same leap from 68k Mac that was made going from Apple II to Macintosh. Dvorak’s idea is for Apple to create a new computer that is BETTER than a PC… something that people would pay $10,000 for. Something that was running on superior architecture with a superior OS. Because right now technology is stagnating… quick! name a popular OS not based on UNIX or Windows.
Although you claim to be trolling, you still bring up some interesting points:
Why isn’t he calling for the death of the IBM PC Compatible?
Because the IBM PC et al is dead and buried. Compaq’s ISA-based ‘386 line saw to that.
At least Apple hardware has evolved a little. It isn’t designed around running DOS, it doesn’t have a 640k SRAM chip, and it doesn’t have a 4 partition limit.
Same for any contemporary PC. So what’s your point?
I mean why the hell do PCs without ISA busses have IRQs? IRQs aren’t in the PCI standard |-p
The same reason why Macs and other computers have IRQs.
quick! name a popular OS not based on UNIX or Windows.
OSX. There’s not a drop of UNIX in it.
You can read my post above about why the “ease of use” claim is meaningless.
Problem is Dvorak is loosing all his readers to TechTV. His columns are boring and to be honest so is PC magazine. To get some attention he decided to post some flame bait. Now he is popular again.
As for non-innovative. I have not seen anything innovative yet..
I give Apple some credit. A lot of people have been asking for a easier unix look alike.. OSX is that.
from Speed:OSX. There’s not a drop of UNIX in it.
I believe that is incorrect.. It’s a decent Unix look alive.. It just doesn’t have X-Windows.. Thank god..
“Jobs needs to get his head out of his ass and switch the Mac’s over to an x86 architecture. If I could dual-boot my current system with MacOS, I’d consider investing in Mac’s. As it stands, I see no reason to pay more money to be the laughingstock of all my friends.”
Am I the only one to find something involuntarily funny here?
On this one point, the Macintosh name. I think apple should come out with a whole line of apple-named systems. Only one apple-named line has gotten a little stale.
I would like to see the “eFuji Notebooks”, the “@Red Delicious Server” line and iMacs could be renamed as “iGranny Smith”.
” I’ll give you the top of the line Mac and I can take the same money and build a PC that will outmatch, outrun and outperform ANY Mac”
you silly little man. well lets see. if i buy a mac from apple for say, 2grand, i am gonna get a good computer. the same as if i bought a pc from say, dell or gateway. but if i MAKE a computer with 2grand to work with, ofcourse i am gonna make a computer that is better than BOTH the mac or the PC. why? why you ask? well lets see.
you don’t have to pay for…
MS tax(if you choose linux or other OS)
tech support…
extra bundled software…
whatever extra the company charges to make a profit…**
if you know what you are doin, you can make your own computer and get a better deal. thats just obvious.
Please don’t start to argue with Speed about UNIX, UN*X, Unix, and Unix-like, and if Mac OS X is one of them. You’ll end up with a big headache. It’s not worth what you may learn with him.
Dvorak doesn’t even understand what Apple is doing. Jobs is Apple and Jobs wants Apple to be the USA version of Sony. Inch by inch, that is what he’s angling for and moving towards. He has even pretty much said it himself. That is why it’s so frustrating that people are allowed to have columns in magazines when they don’t even know what the direction and goals of a company they’re writing about are.
Speed:” Hank, I give you credit for showing something. It’s far more than I get from the Mac sales force 99.9% of the time. As you mentioned, one anecdotal story carries the weight of one anecdotal story. And even your story fails to meet the “easiest” claim, since it shows OSX in a tie with Windows.”
My easiest claim wasn’t in comparison to Windows though. I stated “…OS X is the easiest and nicest GUI for average computer buyers of all the Unix-like operating systems”. All I was stating was that the average user will be more willing to use OS X than other Unix-like operating systems. I intentionally left Windows, BeOS and other such operating systems out to avoid rehashing that debate. I also put the stipulation “average user”, because I’m sure there are power users who would find OS X more difficult to use than their favorite OS.
Speed:”If you’re serious about testing the theory, the next step is to define terms…When all that is done, you can see if the data supports your theory or not.”
I could do that, but what would be the point? I’m not make ing a scientific claim, I’m making a qualitative one. I’m also not making a claim with any direct financial ramifications for any parties. If I were the head of development at Apple, then maybe it would be worth while to conduct such a study. However even in that case, such a rigorous process would be hard to justify.
Speed:”If the data does support your theory, the next step is re-search and peer review. Others must duplicate your experiment independantly of you, and see if they come up with the same results. If most do, then you’re on your way! As long as others review your methods, and find them to be sound, that is. Once all that is done, then you can take an expert opinion about the ease of use of OSX. ”
Along these lines, such a study would probably take several years. This study would therefore be near impossible to complete, since all OS’s are a moving target over that much time. Such a rigorous process is very good for scientific theories, but doesn’t work well for studying subjective variables.
I don’t understand. The only thing in the computing sphere to perk up my interest in the last few years was BeOS. Windows and Mac of any version is just cludge by comparison. Unfortunately, I have to run either Mac OS or Windows to get my music studio up and running so here I am working on WinXP. I would much prefere to be spending thousands of dollars on music software for BeOS but alas, until OpenBeOS comes of age and developer interest gets behind it in the Music Software industry, I am stuck in the Windows Rutt.
As for Mac OSX, it’s not the software I really object to compared to Windows but it’s the hardware and the REALLY proprietry nature of it. Viva competition!
His point is that macs haven’t fundamentally changed since 84. He’s looking to apple for the next revolution in computing (the gui being the last since the internet was really a function of computing not a force in computing), he’s calling apple the leader in revolutionary computing. Its probably the most pro mac editorial he’s ever done. To continue the car analogy where he asks for something new thats exactly what he’s doing. He’s waiting for the flying car, but all apple (and all other computer and os makers) is doing is putting in a bigger engine and making it a little more aerodynamic. btw the as/400 series analogy was illustrating his point that they’re only getting more powerful (i.e. evolving) not improving. I love all the pot shots being taken at dvorak who is probably the most recognizable name in computer journalism because they can’t comprehend what he’s saying. What’s really funny though is the people who said he should’ve singled out microsoft when instead of giving them the credit of being a revolutionary company (which he’d have to do to have the piece make sense) he instead insults them and calls them an also ran. Everyone who didn’t get it should retake reading comprehension. Most shocking is the fact I agree with speed on some points, jeeze I must be feverish. And to the fool who said dvorak is loosing readers to techtv, he’s on techtv.
…I’m not making logical fallacies, I’m making fun of you. The difference is subtle, but significant.
I’m damaging my credibility? Let’s review your modus operandi here, Pops. You make easily falsifiable assertions like “OS X isn’t based on Unix” and wait for people to question you. “Hey,” someone might calmly point out, “at http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html it very plainly says ‘Darwin incorporates a full implementation of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) UNIX, welded on top of the Mach kernel.'” Then, you pounce–attacking their character rather than trying to refute their argument.
And with all due respect, given that you responded with ad hominem attacks in your first response to me and never once even hinted at an apology, and that you appear to do this regularly without any apparent understanding of how it makes you come across to most readers, well… I think I’ll let other people judge who’s more credible.
Incidentally, if you can actually disprove the contention of Apple and Jordan Hubbard that Darwin, and thus OS X, is a Unix, I’ll do something I don’t think you’re capable of: I’ll apologize.
But don’t pretend it’s up to me to prove that it is. I gave you the reference to Apple’s statement, and Jordan Hubbard’s interview is linked from OS News. You’re the one accusing them of lying. You’re the one making the wild claim. That means you have to prove it–but I don’t think you’ll even try.
I think you’ll just attack my character again.
Bets, anyone?
http://www.unix-systems.org/
That will explain what UNIX really is.
I would like to see the “eFuji Notebooks”, the “@Red Delicious Server” line and iMacs could be renamed as “iGranny Smith”.
For the road warriors there’d have to be a Rambo line. And it would have to be Rambeau misspelled to “Rambo” just as McIntosh is misspelled to “Macintosh”. Either that or a line named for raincoats…
Apple used to be a good company when Woz was Apple too.
My easiest claim wasn’t in comparison to Windows though. I stated “…OS X is the easiest and nicest GUI for average computer buyers of all the Unix-like operating systems”.
So what you meant to say is “OS X is the easiest and nicest GUI of all the Unix-like operating systems, for average computer buyers”. OK, I can accept that. The way you wrote it said “buyers of all the Unix-like operating systems”, which doesn’t specifically exclude Windows. So when you went on to mention Windows, you led me to a different conclusion. But I see what you’re saying now.
All I was stating was that the average user will be more willing to use OS X than other Unix-like operating systems. I intentionally left Windows, BeOS and other such operating systems out to avoid rehashing that debate.
That’s fine, but you still must prove your theory, or it will remain heresay.
I also put the stipulation “average user”, because I’m sure there are power users who would find OS X more difficult to use than their favorite OS.
Right. That’s a good start. The more specific you get, the better. The more general you get, the harder it becomes to prove it.
[i]I could do that, but what would be the point?
Well for one, people other than nitwits and Bozos would believe you. It would also give you a basis for meaningful discussion. After all, this is a technical subject, and you can’t get far on sheer attitude.
I’m not make ing a scientific claim, I’m making a qualitative one. I’m also not making a claim with any direct financial ramifications for any parties. If I were the head of development at Apple, then maybe it would be worth while to conduct such a study. However even in that case, such a rigorous process would be hard to justify…
So now we know why you’re not doing it. But I think the more salient question is why you are saying it. And why are you saying it if you don’t even know if it’s true?
…I’m not making logical fallacies, I’m making fun of you.
Really? You might want to look up the meaning of fun, because what you have been doing is acutely lacking any discernable joy. And since I already showed your logical fallacies, it’s too late to deny it. I’d say “nice try if it weren’t for the fact that it’s so pathetic.
I’m damaging my credibility? Let’s review your modus operandi here, Pops…
That’s a very bitter fairy tale, but a fairy tale none the less. I also notice the irony that your bit of fiction does exactly what it accuses me of. Bravo, Mr. Backwards Mixed-Up guy!
And with all due respect, given that you responded with ad hominem attacks in your first response to me…
Once more you have a mean-spirited accusation, but not a shred of proof.
Incidentally, if you can actually disprove the contention of Apple and Jordan Hubbard that Darwin, and thus OS X, is a Unix, I’ll do something I don’t think you’re capable of: I’ll apologize.
The thing is that I didn’t fall for that ruse! I didn’t back then, and I won’t now. I’m not the one making those claims, so I’m not obligated to do anything about them. But the claimants are still responsible for their words, even if they try to weasel out of it.
Apple used to be a good company when Woz was Apple too.
When Steve Woz was in Apple, Apple lost to IBM and Microsoft; and Woz made a full page ad welcoming PC into the market when it was release.
I think Jobs is a good businessman. He first made a mess out of Apple, losing most of their market share; and user base. Then he made a company with not one successful product, in terms of sales. But the wonder is, Jobs learns from his mistakes, and turn a bankrupting company into a very successful company – not many could do that.
As for OS X being more easier to use than Linux; you claim that there isn’t prove to this fact. The most recent prove is David Coursey; never use a Mac, able to get used to it in a few days. I; took a month to get used to Linux, about a week to get used to Windows, and going to the Apple store, with no knowlegde of Mac OS (except the technical areas, but not the UI); I actually found my way around. There are plenty of other testimonials around. So far; desktop Linux has always been either Windows clones; or something with too much choices which is compulsary to read the manual (amazingly, I’m able to use Windows without the manual; same with Mac OS, when I go to the mall).
But what can I expect? Most open source projects, if not all; don’t have usablity experts. The UI is made within the best guess by some geekish hackers. In fact, no where near the amount of money spent on usablity in Mac OS (or even Windows) is spent on Linux. (I can also think of Sun; which is the only company that pumps in money making the accessblity toolkit; using real usablity experts).
To tell the truth, I never really thought Apple’s OS was actually easy to use except until the iMac G4 (which I almost bought one, BTW) came out, and went out to try it. OS X’s UI is nothing like the one in KDE or Windows; and I manage to know where’s where without help. But I still use Linux as my main OS. Why? I’m most comfortable in. I really don’t care if it is the hardest OS in the world; it suits me. It apparently suits you Speed and linux_babe. But I know that Linux isn’t easy, and wouldn’t deny it.
NeXT wasn’t the first to bring a easy to use GUI for UNIX, anyway. There was one, during the pre-Windows age. It was never used because it was resource hungry (remember, think OLD PCs).. I can’t place the name (sorry, I would try to crack my head for it)
Oh, as for Mac OS X and UNIX; legally and historically; Mac OS X is based on UNIX. It is therefore Unix-like (trust me, there are much more UNIXes that don’t bundle X; server ones especially). Have any problems with it, be my guess to rewrite history. However, OS X isn’t qualified for the UNIX(r) trademark because; for Workstation UNIXes, you must use X11 and CDE; OS X never went through stress test Open group requires; using a file system somewhat incompatible to those found in UNIX; and so many more reasons.
That’s a very bitter fairy tale, but a fairy tale none the less. I also notice the irony that your bit of fiction does exactly what it accuses me of. Bravo, Mr. Backwards Mixed-Up guy!
Actually, it is not a fairy tale. You have lied, swayed the truth, started using personal insults in many threads. For example, the one about the article of David Coursey; you said David didn’t mention Xconfigurator in his article which you claim to have read; but it was mentioned in paragraph 2. But right now, the person who you were replying to is just as bad (sorry, but its the truth).
Trust me, get the truth, and the truth shall set you free. There is no use lying about Linux; giving false expectations and so on. If I listened to you in the first place before trying out Linux; I would leave Linux the minute I try to use it.
When Steve Woz was in Apple, Apple lost to IBM and Microsoft; and Woz made a full page ad welcoming PC into the market when it was release.
So what you’re claiming is that a newspaper ad caused Apple to lose??? And you’re saying that I don’t make sense?!? Kid, you need to get your head examined! What you wrote has to be the single most idiotic statement that I have ever read. Geez, you Mac-heads are the most irony-proof people on earth.
I think Jobs is a good businessman. He first made a mess out of Apple, losing most of their market share; and user base. Then he made a company with not one successful product, in terms of sales. But the wonder is, Jobs learns from his mistakes, and turn a bankrupting company into a very successful company – not many could do that.
Two years of success during a wildly up market is hardly Jobs’ accomplishment. Have you looked at Apple’s numbers recently?
As for OS X being more easier to use than Linux; you claim that there isn’t prove to this fact.
No, I’m observing that there’s no proof. The people claiming ease of use are making the claims. No, a couple of anecdotes don’t constitute proof.
I still use Linux as my main OS. Why? I’m most comfortable in. I really don’t care if it is the hardest OS in the world; it suits me. It apparently suits you Speed and linux_babe. But I know that Linux isn’t easy, and wouldn’t deny it.
Neither would I. So what? Are you trying to build some straw man to distract us all from the fact that Coursey got caught in a lie?
Oh, as for Mac OS X and UNIX; legally and historically; Mac OS X is based on UNIX.
That’s your claim. I know that you can’t prove it, and unless you’re out of your mind, you do too. Repeating the lie over and over will never make it come true! Why don’t you give it up? You know very well that I’ll destroy you on this, because I have the proof and you don’t.
You have lied, swayed the truth, started using personal insults in many threads.
And yet you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. You’re only name-calling. That says nothing about me, and everything about you and your lack of character.
For example, the one about the article of David Coursey; you said David didn’t mention Xconfigurator in his article which you claim to have read; but it was mentioned in paragraph 2.
You lie. There’s no “Xconfigurator” in that article. I checked, but clearly you did not. You can refer to my earlier comments on the subject, as I will not be lead around the same old ground.
Trust me, get the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
My advice to you is to stop being a hypocrite and heed your own advice.
Speed: “That’s fine, but you still must prove your theory, or it will remain heresay. ”
My original statement is complete heresay, anecdotal and an opinion. I could quote articles that I’ve read in many Unix-centric venues, but that would be more opinion and anecdotal comparisons. I would never elevate my statement to the level of a theory. 🙂
Speed:” Well for one, people other than nitwits and Bozos would believe you. It would also give you a basis for meaningful discussion. After all, this is a technical subject, and you can’t get far on sheer attitude. ”
I think the ease of use issue is more one of personal preference or subjective values rather than technical ones. Even when people try to make technical comparisons in such topics, they are always presented with a technical comparisons that illustrates the opposite opinion. Technical studies on interface design have shown various opinions on what constitutes the “best” interface, but many times it isn’t used because subjective parameters outweigh the metrics used in the study.
It’s similar to the soft drink comparisons between Coke and Pepsi. People can perform rigorous analyses to determine which one people like better and never come to a concensus. We could look at the number of liters of soda sold, but then we are back to a discussion biased by marketing, and not talking about pure enjoyment of a product. One thing focus groups and case studies along those lines show is that public opinion is very difficult to gauge, and it’s even harder to predict.
Speed:”So now we know why you’re not doing it. But I think the more salient question is why you are saying it. And why are you saying it if you don’t even know if it’s true?”
I’m just stating various opinions that I’ve read and experienced personally. It’s a completely unscientific and anecdotal statement and should be taken as such.
——————————-
I’d like to make one additional anecdotal point on the Apple marketing machine making OS X more approachable than other Unix-like operating systems. I think Unix does have a stigma in people’s minds, and it was something that Apple’s marketing team did a good job overcoming. When I first started telling one of my “average joe” friends how great OS X was, and that I finally got to run Unix that everyone else could use, they almost gave up the idea of buying a new Mac on the spot. The basic attitude was, “How am I supposed to use my new Mac if it has Unix on it.” Without even trying it, they assumed they couldn’t own or maintain a Unix machine. Granted, they shouldn’t be trying to maintain a Solaris server, or anything like that, but the fact that they wouldn’t even consider buying a computer with Unix on it speaks volumes. Without any discussion of technical merit, it is obvious Apple has done a great job overcoming this type of bias by looking at the shear number of new Macs sold, all running OS X.
“There was a moment around 1992 when IBM and Apple were going to consolidate the Mac into a PowerPC architecture. The two companies entered into a joint venture called Taligent to develop the next generation OS. This was actually a good idea. This group incorporated Apple’s so-called Pink development folks, but it eventually fell apart, leaving Apple with a development gap from which it never fully recovered. During this era there was much talk about a common reference platform that could standardize the PowerPC chip as a serious competitor to x86 processors.”
But I thought that the Mac is a Common Hardware Reference Platform in that it is possible to run Mac os,Windows ,Linux and possibly others coterinimously ?
I wrote:
And with all due respect, given that you responded with ad hominem attacks in your first response to me…
Speed replied:
Once more you have a mean-spirited accusation, but not a shred of proof.
My accusation is that you made ad-hominem attacks in your first response to me, correct? Here’s what you wrote, verbatim:
Why do I get the feeling that your sum total knowledge of this subject is limited to what you read on a couple of fanboy websites? I don’t know where you were when CP/M was being used (pooping into a diaper, I suspect)…
You leapt to an unwarranted conclusion about my age and experience, apparently based on the fact that I gave references; you dismissed the references snidely (“fanboy websites”); and you were unnecessarily rude and belittling (“pooping into a diaper”).
If you want to actually discuss things with me on occasion here, great. I’ll stop being obnoxious if you stop being obnoxious. But that requires you to admit you were being obnoxious–not to try to find ways to tell me I’m nuts for taking offense.
So what you’re claiming is that a newspaper ad caused Apple to lose??? And you’re saying that I don’t make sense?!? Kid, you need to get your head examined! What you wrote has to be the single most idiotic statement that I have ever read. Geez, you Mac-heads are the most irony-proof people on earth.
You are getting VERY irritating.
Firstly, I was trying to prove that Woz was a bad businessmen. He did the ultimate mistake of looking down on PC; which forever till now Apple is suffering of.
Secondly, I don’t qualify as a Mac-head. I don’t own a Mac, and most probably would never own one till maybe I become a millionaire and could buy anything.
Thirdly, you are the one who needs to check his head.
Two years of success during a wildly up market is hardly Jobs’ accomplishment. Have you looked at Apple’s numbers recently?
It wasn’t two years. Unless it is year 2000, or have this wild illusion that Jobs became Apple’s CEO at year 2000, it is three and a half years of success. And one and a half of those years PCs was having lack of consumer demand. And yes, I have looked at Apple’s numbers recently, it is pretty impressive considering about 4 years ago everyone, even the most pro-Apple guys, predicted that Apple would have been bankrupted by year 2000. Also, I consider Jobs a good businessmen because he didn’t repeat the same mistakes he made during the years at Apple before he was kicked (he was the one who cause Apple’s shares to go down to 12%) and his failure at NeXT – something many don’t seem to know how to do.
No, I’m observing that there’s no proof. The people claiming ease of use are making the claims. No, a couple of anecdotes don’t constitute proof.
Maybe this would be proof enough for you. Desktop distributions can be divided into two groups.
Group A are those who clone Windows like Lycoris, Corel, Lindows, ELX etc. Their clones aren’t a full replica of Windows, but enough similarities for a normal consumer to expect it to behave like Windows. Also, unlike Windows and Mac OS, all of the mentioned distributions can’t install new software (via deb or RPM), without getting into complicated jargon. S/He wouldn’t need to open a manual to do something of this sort of Windows; but they would have to do so do understand the language presented to them. Sure, installing Windows is relatively hard; but it is legions easier than installing new software on these distribution. For example, 99.99% of the applications, all dependencies are already in the package, and the only other dependencies (like IE) are already on the system. Maybe sometimes it requires Java, but that’s rare.
Group B consist of regular vanilla distribution distributing everything except the kitchen sink, with a friendlier face, like Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera and so on. These distributions installs a lot of choices of software by default, and users usually could pick what software they want in the installation. A good thing? Hardly (maybe it is good for geeks, but I’m talking consumers).
1) It confuses the consumer with software he/she doesn’t know of. Would a retired couple living in the Florida would be instested in 5 terminal emulators, 3 word processors, 3 spreadsheet applications, 2 office suites, 2 calculators, 11 window managers etc.? I don’t think so, unless they are retired system analysis or something of that sort. Instead of installing the best of the crop, they install everything. But if there could be those who might be interested in them, so they should be optional, not default.
2) In the installation allows choosing of software installed. But there are practically hundreds of software to choose from, and most likely a average consumer wouldn’t know any of them. So installers have them in groups, like in Mandrake. Hardly a cure as each group installs often redundant software, which most likely would confuse users.
Bundling redundant software also eats up hard disk space.
And I don’t know of any desktop distribution that doesn’t fit Group A or Group B. And really, I don’t think it is neccesary. Is it neccesary to have another desktop OS out there? Is there consumer demand for it?
Neither would I. So what? Are you trying to build some straw man to distract us all from the fact that Coursey got caught in a lie?
What lie?
Oh, if you say he didn’t mention XConfigurator, see paragraph 2.
If you say it doesn’t exist, it does. See http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-7.3-Manual/getting-sta…
Lie? You seem the one who is lying.
That’s your claim. I know that you can’t prove it, and unless you’re out of your mind, you do too. Repeating the lie over and over will never make it come true! Why don’t you give it up? You know very well that I’ll destroy you on this, because I have the proof and you don’t.
BSD is based on the original AT&T code license to the University of California Berkeley. Darwin is based on BSD. Need more prove? So, historically, Darwin is based on UNIX, even if it is incompatible with it. Darwin is Unix-like, it doesn’t adhere to any Open Group standards.
http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification….
Notice Apple is listed. I have proof and you don’t.
You lie. There’s no “Xconfigurator” in that article. I checked, but clearly you did not. You can refer to my earlier comments on the subject, as I will not be lead around the same old ground.
I think you aren’t following the proper steps in making a critism of an article
Step 1: Read the article (not a sypnosis of it)
Step 2: Comment on it.
You would find Xconfigurator mentioned in the article ( http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-936965.html ), paragraph 2. To make it easier on you, here’s a quote:
“At the end of the last column, I was struggling with how to change the screen resolution on my monitor. Turns out this is managed by a piece of middleware called X Windows, familiar to all in the Linux/Unix community. Alas, the only way to change the screen from low-resolution 640×480 to a more useful 1024×768 was to run a program called Xconfigurer from the command prompt. Or I could simply reinstall the OS, which seemed like the easier way out. ”
And to prove that Xconfigurator DOES exist, there is a URL to Red Hat’s boring manual above. But if you hate to scroll up, here is it again – http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-7.3-Manual/getting-sta…
I checked, and clearly YOU did not.
My advice to you is to stop being a hypocrite and heed your own advice.
I’m not a hypocrite, and I did not lie. There is prove above, and if that’s not enough for you, nothing will.
And, just to remind you, I don’t say anything without knowing what I’m talking about, it is my trait. If I made a mistake, I would always as fast as possible apologize. And apparently wherever you said I or David Coursey lied, you are the one that lied.
http://www.unix-systems.org/
That will explain what UNIX really is.
I said OSX is a Unix look alike.. If you would read a post instead of just glancing through it you might save yourself embarassment.
As of the Open Systems Group. Bah… They just suck fees so companies can claim they are selling Unix. No one even cares anymore that why so few Unix 98 registrations.
yawn.
the man is complaining about the future. when he says “what can they do next?” it means he doesn’t have any creativity. that’s what innovation is. when people are saying “what can they do next?” and someone does something that makes them say “wow! who ever thought they would do that?”–that’s innovation. people said this with the original imac. this is nothing new.
(rajan r) Well, since The author wrote about Xconfigurer, and not Xconfigurator (newbie’s error?) don’t be surprise if you cannot convince Speed that he did indeed mean Xconfigurator.
Why is David Coursey’s article discussed here?
I have to admit this article was full of humor, it had some (possibly good) points, but they missed the mark and this guy seems like he has been away from the computing industry too long to get a grasp of what is going on!
on a side note…
Sorry that I have been mute:-( my friend from the US has left and my girlfriend is here with me for the summer, so you’ll see very little of me for 2 months… she doesn’t like me being on the computer when my attention should be focused elsewhere (you guys know how it is)!
Hello OSnews readers.
I know that 99% of you will not read this comment as I am chiming in here kinda late. However, I once read an interview with Steve Jobs when he was working at Next, and he said in that interview that when he visited Xerox’s Palo Alto research center there were 3 things that he new immediately would change the ways that we use computers in the future (meaning today). The first he debued with the Lisa, and then the Macinstosh, and that is the GUI. Odviously, the GUI has changed the way we use computers today, so, he was right there. He then says that he got so caught up with the GUI at Apple that he forgot the other two until he founded next. The second is object oriented development. Odviously, he was right on this one too, most programming today is based on object-oriented development (although not how Jobs invisioned it happening). Java and C++ are really showing the strengths of object-oriented development. The third was networking, and with that, the Internet, which he claimed he got right with Next. Personally, I don’t think he did, and I don’t think he has with MacOS X either. This is where the next big thing will be for computers, the de-emphysis on the desktop computers and instead the focus on distributed computering and the Internet. That is what dvorak is looking for, and so am I. But I don’t expect that innovation to come from Apple, at least not until we see a post-Jobs Apple.
Skipp
PS 3d desktops would be nice too, provided we had something nicer than a 2d monitor to display them on.
Skippy, you only read a tiny fraction of the whole story. Sure, Jobs is going to say a lot of self-glorifying things in 20/20 hindsight. But every interview that I’ve read with the other people on that tour says that Jobs spent more time schmoozing Xerox management than he did “discovering” the great technology at PARC. The corroborated story shows the engineers leading Jobs to the Alto.
So to review, it was engineers at PARC that had the vision about the GUI first, and who developed it into a product. Then it was engineers at Apple (under Woz’ leadership) who had the foresight to actually acquire the technology. Jobs’ role was to kill the Lisa by being a pompous ass that nobody wanted to work with, and damn near kill the Mac until the VCs stepped in and saved the day.
By the time Next was started, colleges were spewing out CS graduates who had been indoctrinated in OOP, microkernels and all the other stuff that Next just happened to sell. (Just like today we have grads who evangelise Java and AI) Some of it proved to be valuable, but a lot of it flopped. If you were to believe Jobs, Next was the only company doing OOP, but that simply isn’t true.
As for networking, the original Mac didn’t have any. Eventually it did, but this was something that was driven by the success of the PC-LAN more than Apple “visionaries”. The Next’s role in the Internet was coincidental. Tim Berners-Lee wrote that he got a Next box to “play with”, and the WWW was the official excuse, but he could have done it with other tools. That’s because Berners-Lee was the crucial factor to the development of the WWW.
True, Jobs probably changed history just a little bit in the interview, this is Jobs we are talking about afterall. If he really gleamed all three of these developments at Xerox he probably would have put them into the macintosh instead of the next cube. But, my concern here is not whether or not Jobs was telling the truth, my concern is whether or not you think distributed computing is the next step that Dvorak is looking for.
Personally, I think it is, and I think it is something Jobs and crew havn’t even recongnized. Stop focusing on individual machines, focus on a virtual machine that you can log into anywhere, not that would be revolutionary. Go to your friends house and log into his computer with your “account” and then it is basically your computer with all your settings there and everything. Don’t know how that would be technically possible, but, the Internet is the first step. The second would have to be some standardization of protocals and the such.
But, that is what I think is the future, do you agree, disagree, think I’m an idiot?
Skipp
(rajan r) Well, since The author wrote about Xconfigurer, and not Xconfigurator (newbie’s error?) don’t be surprise if you cannot convince Speed that he did indeed mean Xconfigurator.
Oh, so maybe that’s why.. I just figured it was a spelling error since in Red Hat manuals, the only way to change the resolution is Xconfigurator. I think it’s a newbie error. For quite some time, when I first started using Linux; I kept calling KDE KDF (hey! I was very new to computing)
Hmm, Speed stoped his arguments?
He’s just like any other troll… once his work is done, he packs up and causes havoc in the next thread.
I’ve never liked Slashdot, but at least on Slashdot you can put all the idiots on your ignore list.
Yes, that’s kind of what I figured he’d do. He did this in the last thread we got into a debate on–essentially, ignoring comments he knows he can’t refute without tipping his hand. While my last comment to Speed was personal rather than technical–when he challenged me to show proof that his first communication to me was an ad hominem attack and I did so by quoting it back–the effect’s the same.
I kind of hoped he’d prove me wrong by being honest enough to say, “Yeah, I overstepped reasonable bounds there, and from now on I’ll just attack your arguments rather than you,” but he didn’t. I’m vaguely disappointed; despite our probably too-loud arguments, I really wanted to think better of him as a person.
On the bright side, I suppose that means I can lampoon him without feeling guilty about it.
Mac = Legacy Legacy should be gone. and as for what Mac OS/X is out to do with the whole unix and the Gui and the open source thing, its been done already, and that OS is BeOS, without the horrid Mac OS legacy and the horrid Unix legacy.
Mac OS/X is like sewing some 93 year olds toghether and giving them a face lift