steviem
Mar 30, 01:04 AM
Chundles
Sep 14, 08:02 AM
mdntcallr
Nov 8, 08:53 AM
gkarris
May 5, 10:59 AM
blitzkrieg79
Apr 12, 07:44 PM
pdqgp
Apr 14, 10:53 PM
kinster
Nov 7, 08:56 AM
sixth
Sep 6, 09:35 AM
ghostlyorb
Mar 28, 09:15 PM
shadowx
Oct 15, 03:11 PM
Archmagination
Sep 22, 09:41 PM
h00ligan
Nov 7, 07:06 PM
Chris Bangle
Sep 4, 11:51 AM
nagromme
Mar 18, 04:03 PM
richdun
Jul 22, 09:48 PM
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:26 AM
Source
Oct 13, 08:34 PM
BarryJ
Mar 1, 02:25 PM
Nipsy
Oct 13, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Well, wow. How uneducated you are.
Thanks!
You don't lose privacy, fair use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use, and productivity on PCs. I run Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS 7.6.1 on my Athlon 1400MHz. I don't lose those things you mention while using Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, I don't lose them even in Windows. I know what to avoid.
Well, I like to listen to music on an MP3 player. Windows does not natively support MP3. I don't like product activation, as it means I have to call and reactivate when I change a bunch of hardware, which I'm likely to do enough for it to be a problem. I don't like paying for an OS with an insecure foundation. I don't like paying for an OS which with IE 'removed' still manages to pop up ads in ... IE. I don't like a dos cli, which has some UNIX commands, but ususally requires DOS commands.
Extensibility. Let's see. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft.NET platform? It's an excellent platform for development. Microsoft.NET completely replaces their old ****ty Win32. In fact, Microsoft.NET isn't even tied to Win32. I run implementations of Microsoft.NET on Linux and FreeBSD. Microsoft.NET is the, if not one of the, most extensible application programming framework ever engineered. It takes the concept of SUN's Java and made it an unified framework for several specific languages of which are designed for specific types of programming, for example, C# should be used for general applications programming, VB.NET should be used for quick and simple solutions, JScript.NET for scripting, Eiffel.NET for mathematics, Delphi.NET for whatever Delphi was for. Best of all, you can even program dll's in separate languages and combine them in one powerful program. That's some serious leveraging you don't have in UNIX without making wrappers for each language. Microsoft has said bye bye to dll hell (Microsoft.NET actually adopts the UNIX versioning system. Before, it was conflicting versions of dll's that couldn't be installed at the same time. But now, you can have multiple dll's and no dll hell) Besides, I also run *n?x on my PC, that's extreme extensibility by using free OSes. I get benefits of UNIX on my PC as well.
.net is an entirely closed initiative. JScript is JavaScript crippled for IE only. C# is (from what I've heard) bad C++. I have tried to avoid .net for many reasons. I enjoy open standards. I like learning languages which are more likely to succeed in the broadest audience. I hate the whole .dll structure. COM/ASP services I have built in the past refused to scale well.
Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with .net, and some people will surely code for it, as long as its around.
Style. You're saying that PC users don't have style? Maybe their style is to buy affordable computers, run them fast, get **** done. Various people have different style flavors.
No what I'm saying is that Apple is a company that invest heavily in its industrial design, its UI development, etc. which gives it a high degree of style.
The hardware of Apple's line, love it or hate it, is highly stylized. The OS has a lot more visual appeal, and more thoughful and intuitive layout. It's bloody UNIX my Granny sends me email from. Windows is available as delivered in Marshmellow or 98 Mode. It just looks bad...
Ease of use. Windows XP is easy enough. Hell, command line UNIX is easy for me to use. Sure Mac OS X might be easier to use than Windows XP. But seriously, who cares. Windows has an established GUI that many people know how to use.
The ease of use argument is primarily focused opn productivity.
In Windows, when you empty the trash, an alert/confirmation box appears. You can then change focus to another window, burying the alert box, and freezing the OS, so you have to drill down through all the windows you have open to answer this alert before continuing.
Windows will take you through a great help tour in order to tell you it can't help you.
Little annoying counter-intuitive time wasters abound.
I have both, I use both, I code on both, and I just feel from experience that the Mac is a better environment to code on. As I said, I'm not rendering, so the raw speed advantages of x86 are lost to the clunkiness of the UI.
Productivity. Mac OS X is the worst OS for productivity at least for me. It's so frickin' slow drawing all the eye candy crap. At least in Windows XP you can turn them off. Ease of use does not necessarily equate to productivity. Ease of use *AND* GUI responsiveness sum to equate mostly what productivity. Windows XP has both. Mac OS X has only the ease of use while people need huge amounts of RAM on a lower end Mac to run it at least fast enough. Windows XP is usable on a Pentium II 233MHz with 128MB RAM just fine.
I will happily concede that RAM and system spec can make all the difference here, and that Windows will run on a broader base of machines.
My main machine is a DP867 with 2GB of RAM and a ATA133 RAID.
It is as responsive it can be.
Well, wow. How uneducated you are.
Thanks!
You don't lose privacy, fair use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use, and productivity on PCs. I run Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS 7.6.1 on my Athlon 1400MHz. I don't lose those things you mention while using Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, I don't lose them even in Windows. I know what to avoid.
Well, I like to listen to music on an MP3 player. Windows does not natively support MP3. I don't like product activation, as it means I have to call and reactivate when I change a bunch of hardware, which I'm likely to do enough for it to be a problem. I don't like paying for an OS with an insecure foundation. I don't like paying for an OS which with IE 'removed' still manages to pop up ads in ... IE. I don't like a dos cli, which has some UNIX commands, but ususally requires DOS commands.
Extensibility. Let's see. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft.NET platform? It's an excellent platform for development. Microsoft.NET completely replaces their old ****ty Win32. In fact, Microsoft.NET isn't even tied to Win32. I run implementations of Microsoft.NET on Linux and FreeBSD. Microsoft.NET is the, if not one of the, most extensible application programming framework ever engineered. It takes the concept of SUN's Java and made it an unified framework for several specific languages of which are designed for specific types of programming, for example, C# should be used for general applications programming, VB.NET should be used for quick and simple solutions, JScript.NET for scripting, Eiffel.NET for mathematics, Delphi.NET for whatever Delphi was for. Best of all, you can even program dll's in separate languages and combine them in one powerful program. That's some serious leveraging you don't have in UNIX without making wrappers for each language. Microsoft has said bye bye to dll hell (Microsoft.NET actually adopts the UNIX versioning system. Before, it was conflicting versions of dll's that couldn't be installed at the same time. But now, you can have multiple dll's and no dll hell) Besides, I also run *n?x on my PC, that's extreme extensibility by using free OSes. I get benefits of UNIX on my PC as well.
.net is an entirely closed initiative. JScript is JavaScript crippled for IE only. C# is (from what I've heard) bad C++. I have tried to avoid .net for many reasons. I enjoy open standards. I like learning languages which are more likely to succeed in the broadest audience. I hate the whole .dll structure. COM/ASP services I have built in the past refused to scale well.
Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with .net, and some people will surely code for it, as long as its around.
Style. You're saying that PC users don't have style? Maybe their style is to buy affordable computers, run them fast, get **** done. Various people have different style flavors.
No what I'm saying is that Apple is a company that invest heavily in its industrial design, its UI development, etc. which gives it a high degree of style.
The hardware of Apple's line, love it or hate it, is highly stylized. The OS has a lot more visual appeal, and more thoughful and intuitive layout. It's bloody UNIX my Granny sends me email from. Windows is available as delivered in Marshmellow or 98 Mode. It just looks bad...
Ease of use. Windows XP is easy enough. Hell, command line UNIX is easy for me to use. Sure Mac OS X might be easier to use than Windows XP. But seriously, who cares. Windows has an established GUI that many people know how to use.
The ease of use argument is primarily focused opn productivity.
In Windows, when you empty the trash, an alert/confirmation box appears. You can then change focus to another window, burying the alert box, and freezing the OS, so you have to drill down through all the windows you have open to answer this alert before continuing.
Windows will take you through a great help tour in order to tell you it can't help you.
Little annoying counter-intuitive time wasters abound.
I have both, I use both, I code on both, and I just feel from experience that the Mac is a better environment to code on. As I said, I'm not rendering, so the raw speed advantages of x86 are lost to the clunkiness of the UI.
Productivity. Mac OS X is the worst OS for productivity at least for me. It's so frickin' slow drawing all the eye candy crap. At least in Windows XP you can turn them off. Ease of use does not necessarily equate to productivity. Ease of use *AND* GUI responsiveness sum to equate mostly what productivity. Windows XP has both. Mac OS X has only the ease of use while people need huge amounts of RAM on a lower end Mac to run it at least fast enough. Windows XP is usable on a Pentium II 233MHz with 128MB RAM just fine.
I will happily concede that RAM and system spec can make all the difference here, and that Windows will run on a broader base of machines.
My main machine is a DP867 with 2GB of RAM and a ATA133 RAID.
It is as responsive it can be.
shawnce
Aug 24, 02:58 PM
Doylem
Mar 4, 09:38 AM
charkshark
Dec 5, 11:34 PM
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 09:08 AM
leandromp
Nov 12, 02:37 PM