Mac OS X 10.4 Details

[macster]

I want a finder that works: one that always updates when the filesystem changes (kqueue anyone?), remembers my settings for windows or ignores them CONSISTENTLY (I don't care at this point: just pick one and do it), stays in spacial mode when I ask it to, and I want that 10.2 connect to server dialog back because the method in 10.3 is terrible by comparison.

Have to agree with evn on this.

Give me the perfect Finder!!!and the OS will be nearly perfect

[JadeWolf324]

Have to agree with evn on this.

Give me the perfect Finder!!!and the OS will be nearly perfect

they should re-write it in Cocoa

[PureEdit]

The panther finder does kindof suck. It is better then the jaguar one, but still slow and feature less.

I rarly even use the finder anymore except for the desktop. I use a combonation of QuickSilver and the terminal to do everything.

PathFinder is an alright app, but it is a little bloated and has some bugs of its own.

[jedimasterk]

If I can answer your question with a question: How many Mac OS users installed VirtualPC, installed Windows, and thought that they would be more productive using Windows XP to the point that they could justify not only the hardware cost, but also the cost of replacing software?

Most Macintosh users don't install VirtualPC because they like Windows but cannot use it, they use the program because there are one or two application that are Windows only that they have to use (IE: I know a couple of designers that run Windows XP so they can make sure that IE6 bugs aren't destroying their pages).

Being capable of running on multiple platforms is no doubt an asset, but I don't think that's the only criteria one should use for determining "Better". Mac OS X is the single most popular *NIX operating system - more than FreeBSD, Fedora Core, and Gentoo Linux - so clearly the majority of *NIX users disagree with you (source:wikipedia, though there others if you look).

I'd estimate that Mac OS's popularity as a *NIX environment has something to do with both the availability of major applications like Microsoft Office and Photoshop, as well as with it's two-decade reputation for ease-of-use.

The lions share of *NIX users are Apple customers (see above), so they must have figured out something. Looks like they've found the right mix of opensource (kernel, low level funcions, APIs) and close source (compositing engine, 'killer applications', etc).

Any fortune 500 company is going to have more Windows clients that Linux or Mac machines - does that mean that Windows is a better operating system. I honestly never thought I'd here a Linux advocate using market-share arguments to make a point as long as the Microsoft was the dominant Operating System vendor.

If I can answer your question with a question: How many Mac OS users installed VirtualPC, installed Windows, and thought that they would be more productive using Windows XP to the point that they could justify not only the hardware cost, but also the cost of replacing software?

Probably alot since Mac hardware cost way to much. And there is way more software out their for both Windows XP and the superior Linux operating system.

Most Macintosh users don't install VirtualPC because they like Windows but cannot use it, they use the program because there are one or two application that are Windows only that they have to use (IE: I know a couple of designers that run Windows XP so they can make sure that IE6 bugs aren't destroying their pages).

So I guess that their isn't any Mac only applications that Windows and Linux users may want to run. Like Final Cut Pro.

Being capable of running on multiple platforms is no doubt an asset, but I don't think that's the only criteria one should use for determining "Better". Mac OS X is the single most popular *NIX operating system - more than FreeBSD, Fedora Core, and Gentoo Linux - so clearly the majority of *NIX users disagree with you.

So your saying that it is better to just go out and spend thousands of dollars so that I can run Mac OSX, vs Free or a box distribution of Linux that will cost me under one hundred dollars and will run on my current hardware (x86), which may already be more powerful than any Mac hardware out their already. Can Mac OSX do what Knoppix does. Does SGI or Sun systems use Mac OSX for graphics. I agree Mac OSX is probably more powerful than Windows XP Pro, but I doubt you can compare it overall to Linux, or Free BSD. Linux is used in mission critical situations not Mac OSX.

I'd estimate that Mac OS's popularity as a *NIX environment has something to do with both the availability of major applications like Microsoft Office and Photoshop, as well as with it's two-decade reputation for ease-of-use.

The lions share of *NIX users are Apple customers (see above), so they must have figured out something. Looks like they've found the right mix of opensource (kernel, low level funcions, APIs) and close source (compositing engine, 'killer applications', etc).

Who give a rats ... about MS Office when more Unix users use Open Office or Star Office. Do you really like giving MS all of your money. You cold buy more songs at the Apple music store, by using Open Office vs MS Office. Open Office and Star Office do just as good of a job as MS Office. I beta tested MS Office 2003 and Open Office, so I know. I'm mot going to empty my bank account for that "killer" application. Have you ever tried Gimp for your photo editing needs. It is almost just as powerful and easy to use as Photoshop, and it's "free". Apple should be promoting Open Office or Star Office on their website. Their more than likely getting a cut from Microsoft.

[session]

If I can answer your question with a question: How many Mac OS users installed VirtualPC, installed Windows, and thought that they would be more productive using Windows XP to the point that they could justify not only the hardware cost, but also the cost of replacing software?

Probably alot since Mac hardware cost way to much. And there is way more software out their for both Windows XP and the superior Linux operating system.

Most Macintosh users don't install VirtualPC because they like Windows but cannot use it, they use the program because there are one or two application that are Windows only that they have to use (IE: I know a couple of designers that run Windows XP so they can make sure that IE6 bugs aren't destroying their pages).

So I guess that their isn't any Mac only applications that Windows and Linux users may want to run. Like Final Cut Pro.

Being capable of running on multiple platforms is no doubt an asset, but I don't think that's the only criteria one should use for determining "Better".  Mac OS X is the single most popular *NIX operating system - more than FreeBSD, Fedora Core, and Gentoo Linux - so clearly the majority of *NIX users disagree with you.

So your saying that it is better to just go out and spend thousands of dollars so that I can run Mac OSX, vs Free or a box distribution of Linux that will cost me under one hundred dollars and will run on my current hardware (x86), which may already be more powerful than any Mac hardware out their already. Can Mac OSX do what Knoppix does. Does SGI or Sun systems use Mac OSX for graphics. I agree Mac OSX is probably more powerful than Windows XP Pro, but I doubt you can compare it overall to Linux, or Free BSD. Linux is used in mission critical situations not Mac OSX.

I'd estimate that Mac OS's popularity as a *NIX environment has something to do with both the availability of major applications like Microsoft Office and Photoshop, as well as with it's two-decade reputation for ease-of-use.

The lions share of *NIX users are Apple customers (see above), so they must have figured out something.  Looks like they've found the right mix of opensource (kernel, low level funcions, APIs) and close source (compositing engine, 'killer applications', etc).

Who give a rats ... about MS Office when more Unix users use Open Office or Star Office. Do you really like giving MS all of your money. You cold buy more songs at the Apple music store, by using Open Office vs MS Office. Open Office and Star Office do just as good of a job as MS Office. I beta tested MS Office 2003 and Open Office, so I know. I'm mot going to empty my bank account for that "killer" application. Have you ever tried Gimp for your photo editing needs. It is almost just as powerful and easy to use as Photoshop, and it's "free". Apple should be promoting Open Office or Star Office on their website. Their more than likely getting a cut from Microsoft.

I have a hard time reading and _trying to_ understand your post because you messed up yours and evn's. you might want to fix that before you can get your point cross

[the evn show]

So I guess that their isn't any Mac only applications that Windows and Linux users may want to run. Like Final Cut Pro.

Final cut pro doesn't run under emulation: it requires a G4.

Even if it did: it's doubtful that even if someone could get the program to launch it wouldn't be useful. Final Cut can easily consume all cycles available on a Dual G5 - emulation is not an option.

Final Cut pro costs more than the price of a real macintosh anyway so that was a poor choice.

Maybe people really like OmniGraffle: but there are windows equivalents. By applications they 'need' to run I meant those custom applications written in VB that so many offices have, though IE6 is a common need among designers which is why I choose that.

But nice try.

So your saying that it is better to just go out and spend thousands of dollars so that I can run Mac OSX

Where did I say that? Let me quote that again in bold so you can see it a little better:

Being capable of running on multiple platforms is no doubt an asset, but I don't think that's the only criteria one should use for determining "Better".

Is English your first language?

Does SGI or Sun systems use Mac OSX for graphics

What does this have to do with anything?

but I doubt you can compare it overall to Linux, or Free BSD. Linux is used in mission critical situations not Mac OSX

Why can't I compare it? they run the same applications and Mac OS X is a distribution of BSD.

Do you doubt MY ability to do the comparison, or do you really think there is no comparison between one flavor of BSD and another?

Who give a rats ... about MS Office when more Unix users use Open Office or Star Office.

About 90% of businesses - like it or not, Microsoft Office is the #1 choice. Sometimes you really can't accept substitutes.

You cold buy more songs at the Apple music store, by using Open Office vs MS Office

No I can't: iTMS isn't in this country.

And here's a thought: maybe I'd rather have an operating system that was designed with my platform of choice, has toll free tech-support if I ever need it, is gaurnteed to work with the documents my clients send me, and best of all: works with drag+drop install so I can trash it when I don't need it any more.

Open Office and Star Office do just as good of a job as MS Office.

I'd rather use Office than OpenOffice.org - but I have that option: Linux users don't (save for Wine). I want to use PPC based notebooks so Linux has NO option for me.

And no, open office doesn't do "just as agood a job" as MS Office. The visual basic scripts don't work: like it or not businesses use them - GNUmeric is useless to me if it doesn't support those.

I beta tested MS Office 2003 and Open Office, so I know.

Sorry to impune your authority, but I'd rather make my own decisions about what works "good enough" for me and I'm sure many other computer users around these parts do too.

Have you ever tried Gimp for your photo editing needs. It is almost just as powerful and easy to use as Photoshop, and it's "free"

Yes, I've tried it off and on for years. It's nowhere near photoshop's capability. Maybe for Randy Q. McWarez but those of us that use photoshop to pay the bills know what we're doing and almost all of us choose photoshop: we're not stupid.

Apple should be promoting Open Office or Star Office on their website. Their more than likely getting a cut from Microsoft.

They have a cross promotion deal. They also have a deal with VW to promote iPods, Quark to promote QE, and Adobe to promote Photoshop.

What's your point?

Don't answer: You're as die-hard a Linux troll as we've seen around these parts. Maybe you could tag-team with Area91 and hook-up some windows/linux battle-royal action or something, either way, I'm not responding to your arguments any further.

You 'invent' arguments (like the part where I told you that spending thousands to buy a powermac was a better choice than running linux or freebsd), you don't have anything novel to say, and your grasp of BBCode is a little week.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[d10p]

This guy is a super trol....look at this post in the Linux forum...it's very amusing.

Back on topic, please...I want more Tiger info! :D

[oik]

what's up with all the trolls and mac bashers climbing into the mac forums lately?

[PureEdit]

Nice reply once again env show.

The only thing you said that is not completely true is that [Final cut pro doesn't run under emulation: it requires a G4.] Well it does 'require' a G4, but it works decently on a G3 if you modify a file after the install. I am sure you could get it to run on PearPC, but it wouldn't do anything useful.

[fishie]

what's up with all the trolls and mac bashers climbing into the mac forums lately?

its pear pc its brining out the gimps

[the evn show]

Well it does 'require' a G4, but it works decently on a G3

that comes down to your definition of "run" i guess - I wouldn't curse the worst troll with the performance of a hacked up copy of FinalCutPro running on an emulated G3 but thanks for the correction all the same. I learn something new every day.

Off Topic (not that much of this thread has been on topic): To all the people who like the way I post and say something: thank-you.

It's nice get a little positive feedback from time to time, and I don't let you guys know I appreciate it enough.

Once again, thanks.

[giantsnyy]

that comes down to your definition of "run" i guess - I wouldn't curse the worst troll with the performance of a hacked up copy of FinalCutPro running on an emulated G3 but thanks for the correction all the same. I learn something new every day.

Off Topic (not that much of this thread has been on topic): To all the people who like the way I post and say something: thank-you.

It's nice get a little positive feedback from time to time, and I don't let you guys know I appreciate it enough.

Once again, thanks.

I enjoy watching you rip this guy a new rectum...

people who dont see the advantages of all the platforms are childish ignorant 12yr olds...

back ON topic... in a thread thats actually about 10.4...

I'll most likely be buying this, b/c i don't care about the price, Mac OS X is a good operating system, and if there is enough improvements and added features that make it worth wile, then the money isn't a problem.

As for JediMasterK... STOP TROLLING

[Bling3k12]

As much of a distain I have for Microsoft's OS division, I'd rather buy and use Office than OpenOffice.org or StarOffice or any of that... I don't have to worry about compatibility (is this gonna work when I send it to my Windows friend? Is my Windows friend gonna have to put up with me griping "aah I can't open your file!" Plus I get the peace of mind (as much as it hurts to say that) that I know it's gonna work pretty much every time I use it. It just works, I move the Office folder to Applications, open a program, enter in the key, boom... done! Wanna remove it? Go to trash, empty trash.

Is OpenOffice that easy to install and remove? Hell, not even Office for Windows is that easy.

And yeah, I've used the Gimp...

All I can say is that it's pathetic. Sorry, but when my job and career depends on design, I'd rather spend my money on Photoshop than save it with a program that's sub-par, to me.

Just two points that I wanna re-iterate that the evn show pretty much told you off with.

[Southern Patriot]

I enjoy watching you rip this guy a new rectum...

people who dont see the advantages of all the platforms are childish ignorant 12yr olds...

back ON topic... in a thread thats actually about 10.4...

I'll most likely be buying this, b/c i don't care about the price, Mac OS X is a good operating system, and if there is enough improvements and added features that make it worth wile, then the money isn't a problem.

As for JediMasterK... STOP TROLLING

I can't say anything for jedimasterk, but I did just notice that in another forum, area91 admitted that he is 14. That does kind of explain his attitude.

@Evn Show: thanks, it's good to see a few mature people on this site. It's so full of teenage angst sometimes, it makes me want to just leave and never return.

[PureEdit]

Off Topic (not that much of this thread has been on topic): To all the people who like the way I post and say something: thank-you.

It's nice get a little positive feedback from time to time, and I don't let you guys know I appreciate it enough.

Once again, thanks.

You deserve it. I clicked on This Link before, and starting from your very first post here everything you have posted has been very informative well written.

Good Job ;)

[JadeWolf324]

I did just notice that in another forum, area91 admitted that he is 14. That does kind of explain his attitude.

why doesnt that suprise me..... :rolleyes:

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

I really can't believe this has gone on as long as it has, but I'm putting my foot down as it's entirely gone off-base. If you want to discuss 10.4, create a new topic. Same goes if you want to discuss the merits of a particular operating system. But the two are separate topics, so keep them that way.

Thread closed - timdorr belated fro moderating industries :fro: