VisorCentral.com - Apple's new Powerbook.

Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Apple's new Powerbook. (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=10727)

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-21-2001 07:04 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
And I would probably argue that Virtual PC is a MUCH more capable OS emulator than anything available on Linux at this time.

Or windows machines for that matter

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by foo fighter on 01-21-2001 07:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Or windows machines for that matter .

Yes, Windows 9x/ME sucks! In my opinion, it is the worst operating system ever to haunt x86 processors! However, that's all going to come to an end this year. Microsoft's next consumer OS (Whistler) will be based entirely on the NT code-base. I've been running Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) for a year now, and it is quite possibly the best OS on the market...period! It's been two and a half months without a crash for me. Say what you will about Microsoft, but Win2k is ROCK SOLID! And best of all, Microsoft is building skinning capabilities (ala WinAMP) into the interface, which means you can change the appearance of Windows to your liking. You can even make it look like Mac OSX, BeOS, or whatever.

At least Windows won't be boring anymore!

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by lennonhead on 01-21-2001 09:49 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by foo fighter
which means you can change the appearance of Windows to your liking. You can even make it look like Mac OSX, BeOS, or whatever.

Don't be so quick to label Aqua (Mac OS X's interface) as a skin. It's much more than that, I don't think MS could ever get Windows to look and act like Aqua. Even if they made a skin to look like it, while in use the transparency and other eye candy involved would tax the computer so much it would seem like you were running Win. 3.1 on a 386. I'm just saying that Mac OS X and Aqua go places that MS would have a really hard time doing with Windows. Windows is always going to act like Windows, look like Windows and be half the operating system that it could be because MS makes it.

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Posted by foo fighter on 01-21-2001 10:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by lennonhead
Even if they made a skin to look like it, while in use the transparency and other eye candy involved would tax the computer so much it would seem like you were running Win. 3.1 on a 386.

That's not true. You can download a third party program called "WindowBlinds" that will add most of the same OS X effects, including transparency (with the exception of the genie), without taxing the system.

quote:
...look like Windows and be half the operating system that it could be because MS makes it.

What's that supposed to mean? Your saying that only Apple knows how to make an Operating System? No offense, but that's a fairly weak argument. I hear this same type of Microsoft bashing from Linux users who keep telling me how their open source OS will crush Microsoft...even though Linux (in its current incarnation) is half the OS that Windows 2000 is.

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by Cerulean on 01-21-2001 10:56 PM:

FF -- I agree with u about W2K -- great product .. About 6 months ago I had 5 WinNT servers (NT4) installed in Mac only design department (The servers are used for RIP, plotting & digital proofing functions) -- anyways, when the system was being installed, the mac zealots had all of the standard Microsoft bashing -- talking bout how they would need service people in there all the time fixing problems, how it would slow them down, etc..etc.. -- however, I was talking with them last week and they love the boxes -- they were amazed at how NT just keeps going and going ... They were actually shocked at how little maintance/crashing/etc was involved with the platform compared to their Mac's -- needless to say, htat particular company is now migrating all of their business machines from Win 9x to W2K...

Joe

Posted by foo fighter on 01-21-2001 11:11 PM:

Cerulean:

Yep, Win2k is awesome! I can't say enough good things about it. The only real complaint I have is that it runs a little slow on my 3 year old PII 350. But, what the hell, I need to upgrade to new system anyway. My 8 gig hard drive is now down to 240 mb of free space, and runs at 5400 rpm. I also foolishly saved money by getting this machine with on-board video/audio....huge mistake! Next time, I'll do better. I'm trying to hold off until May or June when prices drop, and hopefully new systems will be on the market.

Other than that, I wish the game support were a little better. But that will change with Whistler.

Windows 9x/ME users are going to love Whistler!

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by homer on 01-21-2001 11:24 PM:

Well, this whole thread has seemed to drifted to an OS debate.

No OS is better than another OS in broad terms. Windows is better than other for some things, as is MacOS, BeOS, Linux, OS/2...what have you...

Is NT/Win2k a stable OS? Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is how big it is. From my understanding, Y2K is one of the biggest applications ever written. That's not to say that Mac OS 9 is bloated either...it certainly is.

One advantage of OSX is that it is new from the ground-up. Will 'Whistler' be a re-write or just an update to Windows2K?

I also don't understand why Microsoft continues to develop and support two OSes that, from the consumers point of view, really aren't that different. From a developers standpoint, it's absolute hell. We have to support Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT4, ME, and now Whistler? Let's not forget that each of these OSes also had 2-4 major revisions...making the total number of OSes closer to 10 or so. It gets tiring...

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by foo fighter on 01-21-2001 11:35 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
No OS is better than another OS in broad terms. Windows is better than other for some things, as is MacOS, BeOS, Linux, OS/2...what have you...

Good point.

quote:
...From my understanding, Y2K is one of the biggest applications ever written. That's not to say that Mac OS 9 is bloated either...it certainly is.

Yes, Win2k (not Y2k) is big. But OSX is even bigger!

quote:
...One advantage of OSX is that it is new from the ground-up. Will 'Whistler' be a re-write or just an update to Windows2K?

Umm, well not exactly. OSX's Darwin kernel is based on the BSD microkernel which is based on one of the earliest workings of UNIX...back when AT&T grabbed their share and copyrighted it. UC Berkeley took its share and created the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). So, actually OSX's "plumbing" is much older than Windows 2000/Whistler's NT Kernel (which is based loosely on IBM's OS/2)

quote:
I also don't understand why Microsoft continues to develop and support two OSes that, from the consumers point of view, really aren't that different. From a developers standpoint, it's absolute hell. We have to support Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT4, ME, and now Whistler? Let's not forget that each of these OSes also had 2-4 major revisions...making the total number of OSes closer to 10 or so. It gets tiring...

Uh, Microsoft is going to kill the Windows 9x/ME line for good upon release of Whistler. After that, all versions of Windows (starting with Whistler) will be based on NT.

[Edited by foo fighter on 01-21-2001 at 06:38 PM]

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by lennonhead on 01-22-2001 01:07 AM:

I didn't say that no other company could make a half-way decent OS, just that MS couldn't . Regardless of whether you agree with my opinion, I still stand by my argument that a skin can't replicate Aqua. Aqua has real-time resizing and dragging of windows along with the genie effect and the different button effects. Did I mention the ability to have Quicktime movies continue to play while they are minimized in the Dock?

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Posted by homer on 01-22-2001 03:39 AM:

quote:

So, actually OSX's "plumbing" is much older than Windows 2000/Whistler's NT Kernel (which is based loosely on IBM's OS/2)

True, but the Kernel is only a minute part of a modern day OS.

Over time, software get's patched. Everyone does this. However, after every so many revisions, it is far more productive to re-write the app from the ground up. Both Apple and Microsoft have been guilty of patching their OSes far beyond their normal lifespan.

MacOS has been around for 17 years. Windows for 9. They are both LONG overdue for re-writes.

What's the biggest bummer, IMO, is that neither OSX nor Windows' Whistler are trully innovative OSes from the interface standpoint. They both are roughly based on early-eighties GUI concepts. Folders, windows, pull down menus, mouse interface. Now, it could be argued that if it ain't broken, why fix it, but you would think that after 20 some years we'd have SOME sort of great revelation in OS design, wouldn't you?

quote:

Uh, Microsoft is going to kill the Windows 9x/ME line for good upon release of Whistler.

Well, it's about time!

quote:

Regardless of whether you agree with my opinion, I still stand by my argument that a skin can't replicate Aqua.

I agree. Skins do little else than change the visual look of an interface. They don't (at least at this time) change the functionality and interaction of an interface.

Skins are interesting, but I'm not sure if they really serve a purpose yet. In fact, it could be argued that they are a hindrance. If everyone's computer in the office had its own skin, most cubicle dwellers wouldn't be too productive...

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-22-2001 05:12 AM:

Does W2K have a registry? For my purposes there will never be a Windows product for me if it has that damn registry. I had to troubleshoot every week because of that. I understand that the extensions folder on my mac is effectively the same thing, but I've had the mac for almost two months now without having to touch it (other than to define personal preference).

About OS X: does the "classical" interface take it to OS 9.0.4 like running Windows in "DOS mode" (even though DOS is the base OS) or is more like running VPC on my mac? Does it slow the computer down any?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Cerulean on 01-22-2001 05:29 AM:

Whats the big deal about having movies playing when they are minimized? On W2K w/Media player, I can scale movies from full screen down to thumbnail size, while the movie is still playing... if its minimized, it is still running the movie (per the task manager process tab..) -- I haven't played with OSX yet, but whats the deal with this genie effect??

As far as OS rewrites, I thought Microsoft did rewrite Windows 2000 from the ground up? Granted, it maintains a lot of the functionaility of NT4, however, it does provide (technically) more optimized/streamlined routines...

Regarding the actual user interface, why mess with something that works? Do you have any suggestions as to what you would like to see in an interface? How about a flat file system like the Palm OS or possibly a database-centric driven os? just curious if u have any thoughts on this....

Joe

Posted by Cerulean on 01-22-2001 05:37 AM:

Dick-Richardson ----> W2K has a registry, Whistler will have a registry, etc..etc..etc.. As far as that being the same thing as the extensions folder -- not quite .. its more like taking the preferences folder on a Mac and placing it in a database (Which is basically what the registry is..) ---- As far as troubleshooting every week because of the registry? I don't quite understand ... Maybe your toying around too much in the registry is causing the system problems.

OS X is not built on top of OS 9.0.4 -- it is a completely different base system and the OS 9.0.4 compatibility is similar to VirtualPC -- it will most likely slow down those applications that need that compatbility layer .. (however, i have not tested it or read on it to make sure about this)

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-22-2001 05:46 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Cerulean
Maybe your toying around too much in the registry is causing the system problems.

That's what I thought until I reinstalled W95 and ran it for a couple of days with no software installed except the internet (which was what came with the computer, just configured for my ISP) and still had the same problems.

[Edited by dick-richardson on 01-22-2001 at 12:50 AM]

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Cerulean on 01-22-2001 12:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

That's what I thought until I reinstalled W95 and ran it for a couple of days with no software installed except the internet (which was what came with the computer, just configured for my ISP) and still had the same problems.

Sounds like it is a driver or hardware related problem.. If you want, email me your computer config & errors your receiving and I'll try and narrow it down for you.

Joe

Posted by homer on 01-22-2001 01:40 PM:

quote:

How about a flat file system like the Palm OS or possibly a database-centric driven os? just curious if u have any thoughts on this....

There are a lot of interesting ideas floating around out there. One is a database-type file organization, where every file has a large subset of meta information attached to it. This allows people to not only find files based on their folder structure, but through time, context, thought process, etc...

Bruce Tognazzini of http://www.asktog.com has some great ideas as to how OS interfaces need to evolve and change. (Granted, I respected his thoughts much more before he joined Jakon Nielson). Alan Cooper (the author of Visual Basic) also has some great forward-thinking ideas regarding OS interfaces.

Like I said, though, there really isn't ANYTHING in OSX that really makes me go "wow...that is a GREAT interface improvement!" Most of the updates are eye-candy, or simply re-incarnations of current utility add-ons.

I think the 'dock'--however improperly implemented in Apple's case--is probably the only interface improvement that I would see as useful. Granted, both Windows and Mac users have had add-on applications that provide that same functionality for some time now.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by spacemanspiff22 on 01-27-2001 04:55 AM:

There are some more great mac sites out there that nobody mentioned here.
http://www.appleturns.com -a site that rehashes the current mac news and adds a dash of humor and speculation.
http://www.mosr.com -THE mac rumors site (sorry but appleinsider is slow to post new articles, even to the point of going months without an update)
http://www.go2mac.com -for news and some rumors/speculation

Enjoy!

P.S. I've had the OS X Public Beta on my iMac for over three months with no crashes. I plan on buying OS X the first day it is available for my new PowerBook G4 that i ordered a couple hours after it was announced .

Posted by lennonhead on 01-27-2001 07:51 PM:

Not to start an argument here, but mosr never gets things right. The last thing they were right about was the Cube, and I can't think of anything before that. AppleInsider goes a while without updates, but they are usually accurate. This past MWSF was the first time they were wrong about something so close to the official announcement. Mind you these are both rumor sites, I'd just rather read the one with less BS.

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Posted by spacemanspiff22 on 01-27-2001 11:59 PM:

Yeah well...actually http://www.thinksecret.com had the MOST accurate info for macworld january...see http://www.thinksecret.com/features/mwsf01apple.html to see what i mean (although i dont remember the remark about the powerbooks being called "titanium Powerbooks" being there before the expo...). But yeah...since they are all rumor sites, nothing is really solid on any site. All the rumor sites were completely blind-sided by the introduction of the iMac by the way.

Posted by Gameboy70 on 01-28-2001 12:28 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
I also don't understand why Microsoft continues to develop and support two OSes that, from the consumers point of view, really aren't that different. From a developers standpoint, it's absolute hell. We have to support Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT4, ME, and now Whistler? Let's not forget that each of these OSes also had 2-4 major revisions...making the total number of OSes closer to 10 or so. It gets tiring...

Microsoft's been trying for years to migrate their entire customer base to NT. My understanding is that the delays in Win2K stemmed from trying, and failing, to integrate NT architecture with Win9x's. Windows 98 and ME are lucrative stopgaps. There's no successor like "Whistler" planned for the 9x series AFAIK. If Microsoft wants to keep investors impressed, their going to have to exceed their already excessive 49% profit margins, and raising the cost of the OS is the fantastic way to do it -- unless you're the consumer or the developer (MFC 8! It slices, it dices! Free with VC++ 8.0 SOAP Edition, only $1400!).

Why would MS try to integrate the two OS architectures into one solution? Well, without getting into conspiracy theories, the most salient aspect of Win2K is that it costs two to three times as much as 98/ME. Wouldn't it be great if end users and OEMs felt compelled to triple Microsoft's revenues to keep up with the upgrade cycle? If I were Bill, I'd sure think so. Approximately 45% of MS' revenue comes from operating systems, while another 45% comes from applications (primarly MS Office).

Microsoft is doing what they do best: convincing consumers that they really do need to spend money for upgrades they see no reason to get. And while MS revs up their marketing machine in the pre-Whister interim, I'll be running the next three distros of Linux Mandrake.

[Edited by Gameboy70 on 01-27-2001 at 07:31 PM]

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page