Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: Zombie9920 on 11 May 2004, 21:27
-
Well, it looks like a PPC emulator has finally been created.
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html)
Screenshots,
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html)
There is a version of the emulator for Windows and Linux. This is the first release of the emulator, it will only get better over time. (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
The people at Apple will probably sue the creator soon.
It does look cool, but I wish this guy could get some commercial backing. Imagine the plethora of mac applications all available for use on a linux box with emulation software.
-
This can be a good thing. It will show PC users the beauty of OS X and convince Windows and Linux users to switch to the Mac.
-
It would take a hell of a lot more than this to get me to switch to a mac.
-
quote:
convince Windows and Linux users to switch to the Mac.
Why would I want to run GNU/Linux on a Mac when I can run it on a PC much more cheaply? Oh, you were suggesting I switch to OSX? No thanks.
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
No thanks.
Your loss.
-
Oh really? What am I missing?
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Oh really? What am I missing?
Why don't you just try it and see for yourself?
-
I don't have access to a Mac. Maybe you could just summarise what you think is good about it.
-
You can the emulator, can't you?
Anyway, one of the many things I like about the Mac is the ergonomy of the interface and the whole system (which involves much more than just 'ease of use'). It's not only about allowing people to get work done, it's about allowing beginners, average users and professionals alike to do a maximum amount of work with a minimum amount of configuration and tweaking.
Now, this may not really concern you, but for other people this is crucial. I'm no ignorant when it comes to computers, but I would rather use Macs because I can get to work without having to worry about details that are of no relevance to the goal I want to accomplish.
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
You can the emulator, can't you?
Yes, but I don't have a copy of OSX.
quote:
Anyway, one of the many things I like about the Mac is the ergonomy of the interface and the whole system (which involves much more than just 'ease of use'). It's not only about allowing people to get work done, it's about allowing beginners, average users and professionals alike to do a maximum amount of work with a minimum amount of configuration and tweaking.
So basically it's "user-friendly". I don't need that. At least not when it's at the cost of flexibility/compatibility, which user friendliness always is.
-
quote:
Yes, but I don't have a copy of OSX.
I don't recall that you have ever had qualms over just grabbing a copy from your favourite file sharing network.
quote:
So basically it's "user-friendly". I don't need that. At least not when it's at the cost of flexibility/compatibility, which user friendliness always is.
That's only one aspect, and as I have said it doesn't necessarily concern you. But the best part is that the user-friendliness is implemented in a way that maximises flexibility for everyone (not just the hardcore command line users, though that option is fully available), as opposed to the 'bureaucracy' task-based systems with lots of 'wizards' like Windows XP, Longhorn and many Linux distributions.
Compatibility is actually a strong point of OS X, as it allows you to run many commercial as well as OSS/free software, Mac OS Classic software and Windows software with VirtualPC (and soon Darwine).
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Compatibility is actually a strong point of OS X, as it allows you to run many commercial as well as OSS/free software, Mac OS Classic software and Windows software with VirtualPC (and soon Darwine).
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
What about the limitations of the architecture of a mac.
GNU is meant to be an entire free system.
Not only partly...
PS: Does that pearpc emulator also emulates the money to buy a mac and OSX?
(If I had a mac, I whould still run Linux on it.)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
What about the limitations of the architecture of a mac.
As opposed to the limitations of the x86 architecture?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
As opposed to the limitations of the x86 architecture?
I mean functionality.
(adding extra hardware and stuff)
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
I mean functionality.
(adding extra hardware and stuff)
What about it? Powermacs are just as customisable as any other hardware. You can even build your own Mac.
http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/ (http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
What about it? Powermacs are just as customisable as any other hardware. You can even build your own Mac.
http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/ (http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/)
I said extra.
Like a all Sony MP3 players, ...
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
That's only one aspect, and as I have said it doesn't necessarily concern you.
So what is there that is of interest to me? What compelling reason could I have to switch?
quote:
the best part is that the user-friendliness is implemented in a way that maximises flexibility for everyone (not just the hardcore command line users, though that option is fully available),
I understand that OSX has everything a UNIX system has, but then what's the point in using it if that's all you're going to use (which would probably be true in my case)?
quote:
Compatibility is actually a strong point of OS X, as it allows you to run many commercial as well as OSS/free software, Mac OS Classic software and Windows software with VirtualPC (and soon Darwine).
The point about compatibility is this; when you have the type of user friendliness you get with operating systems like OSX and Windows, you always have to sacrifice flexibility. For example, you can make hardware and software installation relatively easy on those systems as you know the end user is always (or at least usually) going to be using a stock kernel without modifications, so you can give them binary drivers. Similiarly, software installation can be made easy because you know they'll always be running one standard version of the Operating System, with a standard windowing environment, etc. And Aqua, or the Windows shell, can be designed so that applications can all integrate with each other and share resources like a clipboard.
Unfortunately that all results in loss of flexibility. For example, you can choose not to use Aqua, but then you can't use all of the Aqua applications. If you decide to radically reconfigure your system then all of the user-friendly features that depended on that standardisation won't work anymore. All of which presumably would defeat the object of using OSX in the first place.
IMHO the major advantage of Unix is in the cross-platform compatibility i.e. in most cases software written for one Unix type system will compile and run on any Unix system, on any hardware. You can't have this type of compatibility if applications are all released as binary packages, and designed to be installed on a single very specific system. Similarly, you can't rely on programs running anywhere if you demand that a particular fancy WM is available. This is why I don't have KDE or GNOME installed. I don't like to tie myself to a specific WM, let alone an OS.
-
quote:
So what is there that is of interest to me? What compelling reason could I have to switch?
I don't know what your needs are. You probably have no reason to switch to the Mac (unless you want to save time by using a development tool that completes your code and compiles it as you type it (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/)), but that doesn't mean others might not be missing a platform that would suit their needs than the one they're currently using.
quote:
Like a all Sony MP3 players, ...
Oh, really? (http://home.earthlink.net/~mac-minidisc/)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
I don't know what your needs are. You probably have no reason to switch to the Mac
So then basically it isn't "my loss"?
quote:
(unless you want to save time by using a development tool that completes your code and compiles it as you type it)
I don't. I hate code completion (I've always turned it off in any IDE I've been using) and I don't really see the value of that 'predictive compilation' feature. That's why after having used IDEs like Visual C++, Delphi, KDevelop, Netbeans and others I'm back to coding using a text editor and a command line.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Oh, really? (http://home.earthlink.net/~mac-minidisc/)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Yes, really!
Most of them are only pc compatible.
Same thing with most cheap webcams, cheap printers, cheap beatboxes, cheap ...
Companies don't make cheap things for a very expensive architecture.
A (rich) friend of me has mac, but also just bought a pc to run all those things.
Mac has a very big compatibility problem.
It's just to limited!
Also, do you actually claim, OSX is a better(or even just as good) platform for programmers?!
(unless you're a graphical designer)
PS: Bashing any OS is always easy.
A perfect OS simply doesn't exist.
Just accept the fact that different people have different needs. ;)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Most of them are only pc compatible.
They CLAIM they are only PC compatible, but it's not like most of them claim to be Linux compatible, either.
quote:
Companies don't make cheap things for a very expensive architecture.
That's a ridiculous argument. There is plenty of cheap hardware that is Mac only. All companies need to do is write the drivers and use USB. There are even open source drivers for OS X.
quote:
Also, do you actually claim, OSX is a better(or even just as good) platform for programmers?!
Yes. At least just as good.
quote:
A perfect OS simply doesn't exist.
I didn't claim that. For people who use command line there is little point in using OS X.
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Yes. At least just as good.
Keep dreaming.
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
They CLAIM they are only PC compatible, but it's not like most of them claim to be Linux compatible, either.
Did I mention Linux?
I was only talking about PC and Mac.
But still, I've never seen somting that I couldn't connect with Linux (This is mostly a legal matter, if it runs on PC, it will run on linux).
quote:
That's a ridiculous argument. There is plenty of cheap hardware that is Mac only. All companies need to do is write the drivers and use USB. There are even open source drivers for OS X.
We must have a different opinion about 'cheap'!
quote:
I didn't claim that. For people who use command line there is little point in using OS X.
You did claim all people would change to OSX once they've seen it. I don't see the difference.
PS: Sorry about the many late editing I just did.
;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Well, it looks like a PPC emulator has finally been created.
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html)
Screenshots,
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html)
There is a version of the emulator for Windows and Linux. This is the first release of the emulator, it will only get better over time. (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
:eek:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
stuff
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
stuff
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
stuff
Lets just say that OSX is great for old people who do not know how to use a mouse and for advanced users you use the command line a lot. And if you can not afford a mac, then fine. Do not buy one. I have one, and I like it very much.(Actually I have many macs from over time)
-
quote:
You did claim all people would change to OSX once they've seen it. I don't see the difference.
Sorry about that. What I really meant was that it would give Windows and Linux users without a Mac the chance to see the merits of OS X. I was assuming that people who would use OS X on a PPC emulator would do it to try out OS X, and hardcore UNIX users would probably keep their OS.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Sorry about that. What I really meant was that it would give Windows and Linux users without a Mac the chance to see the merits of OS X. I was assuming that people who would use OS X on a PPC emulator would do it to try out OS X, and hardcore UNIX users would probably keep their OS.
O.K.
No problem with that.
;)
-
quote:
At least not when it's at the cost of flexibility/compatibility, which user friendliness always is.
What flexibility and compatibility would that be? I can run *nix, Cocoa, Carbon, Classic, GNUstep, Windows, Linux... and an endless list of other platform apps.
Oh no! Limited compatibility!
quote:
What about the limitations of the architecture of a mac.
The same limitations as x86 PCs?
quote:
GNU is meant to be an entire free system.
Not only partly...
Who gives a shit? OS X, like the other STEPs before it use BSD code for the UNIX layer. BSD is "open and free" as well.
quote:
(If I had a mac, I whould still run Linux on it.)
And you would receive no benefits of the machine. That would be like buying a Mercedes turbo diesel sedan and then putting a 4cyl engine out of some crappy american rustbucket >COUGHFORDCOUGHFOCUSCOUGH< in it.
quote:
I said extra.
Like a all Sony MP3 players, ...
Who gives a fuck about Sony?
quote:
I understand that OSX has everything a UNIX system has, but then what's the point in using it if that's all you're going to use (which would probably be true in my case)?
It has more. See, you're stuck in the mindset of "good ol' timey UNIX" and can't see past your turned up nose. OS X is a STEP, and therefore is superior in every way, thanks to its heritage.
Just as GenSTEP atop Komodo is a definite forwarding of Linux, so the classic STEPs are the evolution of UNIX. The STEP concept is to implement advanced object-oriented ideas and structures atop an advanced core.
OS X's core and UNIX layer are easily more advanced than the current incarnations of the Linux kernel and uninspired distros that now exist.
Mach and Linux are easily technologically equal, but once you get past the kernel, forget it. OS X makes all but a few Linux distros look like shit.
quote:
as you know the end user is always (or at least usually) going to be using a stock kernel without modifications, so you can give them binary drivers.
God knows you need so many kernels to choose from. If you can't pick between 50 different possibilities, then you're getting shafted.
quote:
they'll always be running one standard version of the Operating System, with a standard windowing environment, etc. And Aqua, or the Windows shell, can be designed so that applications can all integrate with each other and share resources like a clipboard.
Which is good. CONSISTENCY IS RULE ONE.
You stand for a legacy of inconsistent, poor UI design, flakily designed apps, and piss poor implementation. You're defending a legacy which brought us the pop-up menu, focus-follows-mouse, and other such heinous interface crimes.
quote:
Unfortunately that all results in loss of flexibility.
Good. The hallmark of good UI is flexibility within bounds. I don't see the ability to completely change desktop apps on-the-fly to be a great feature.
quote:
For example, you can choose not to use Aqua, but then you can't use all of the Aqua applications.
Want me to show you a screenshot of OS X running an appearance other than Aqua? It's easy. I think you mean without Quartz. Good fucking luck. I challenge you to easily stop CoreGraphics from starting... without breaking the entire system.
quote:
If you decide to radically reconfigure your system then all of the user-friendly features that depended on that standardisation won't work anymore.
I wonder... could that mean you shouldn't fuck around with the OS? Yes, I think it does.
quote:
All of which presumably would defeat the object of using OSX in the first place.
That's right, as the object of running OS X is to glean its benefits, which are
1) Consistency
2) Superior design
3) Superior implementation
4) STEP Heritage
quote:
IMHO the major advantage of Unix is in the cross-platform compatibility i.e. in most cases software written for one Unix type system will compile and run on any Unix system, on any hardware.
I guess now would be a bad time for me to show you some KDE apps running on OS X?
quote:
You can't have this type of compatibility if applications are all released as binary packages,
Who gives a shit? People don't give a fuck about that. They want to be able to run their software easily. It's that elitist mindset that's holding Linux back. It's our forward-minded ideas that drive GenSTEP and Komodo that will do what you never thought Linux could do. Compete.
quote:
and designed to be installed on a single very specific system. Similarly, you can't rely on programs running anywhere if you demand that a particular fancy WM is available.
Sure you can... as long as there's a standard API. Linux needs this. "Freedom of Choice" is hurting adoption because there's chaos for developers and end-users.
quote:
This is why I don't have KDE or GNOME installed. I don't like to tie myself to a specific WM, let alone an OS.
Okay.
quote:
I'm back to coding using a text editor and a command line.
Fortunately, the rest of us choose not to live in the 1970s. For us there is Xcode, and GNUstep's Project Center.
quote:
Also, do you actually claim, OSX is a better(or even just as good) platform for programmers?!
Yes.
1) Cocoa
2) Carbon
3) Objective-C
4) Xcode
5) Standard APIs
quote:
Keep dreaming.
I will. I dream that one day everybody will know the benefits of the STEP way.
quote:
PS: Bashing any OS is always easy.
A perfect OS simply doesn't exist.
Just accept the fact that different people have different needs.
How true!
But, a perfect OS does exist. It is called OPENSTEP.
Bode bode bode bode!
I WIN AGAIN!
As always, I am right.
You will all soon learn the error of your ways, and see the light. GenSTEP and Komodo march ever onward... toward release, and a BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR TOMMORROW!
-
Euhm...
Are you drunk?
PS: I finally managed to make komodo ap1 work on my system. (http://smile.gif)
I'll post some results tomorrow(I still don't really understand why it suddenly works).
-
quote:
Fortunately, the rest of us choose not to live in the 1970s. For us there is Xcode, and GNUstep's Project Center.
The rest of "us"? So you're a programmer?
quote:
I wonder... could that mean you shouldn't fuck around with the OS? Yes, I think it does.
...
People don't give a fuck about that. They want to be able to run their software easily.
...
That's right, as the object of running OS X is to glean its benefits, which are
1) Consistency
2) Superior design
3) Superior implementation
4) STEP Heritage
Ok, let me explain something. What you consistently fail to recognise is that:
1) user-friendliness does not necessarily equal (in fact, is often at odds with) usability
2) despite what you seem to believe, computers weren't invented so that people like you can listen to Garth Brooks MP3s and surf the web. They actually have a serious, practical purpose. That purpose is better served with flexible, usable, configurable software. Not consistency, not user friendliness, not eye candy, not media players with integrated cd burning and tea making facilities, and not this "STEP Heritage" (whatever the hell that actually means) that you're unable to shut up about.
It's like a kid telling an adult that they think all cars should be replaced with go-carts, because then they'll be able to drive too. Don't get me wrong; it's good that user friendly software exists, because it enables the average user to use computers. But don't make the mistake of being arrogant enough to assume that, just because you find it easy to use, it's a better system.
I think your hero Maddox says it quite well:
quote:
...vi in unix. Anything else is for failures
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Who the fuck said that 'If Apple wanted the marketshare Microsoft has they would have it'! That is so damn stupid. Apple is a propieratry company just like Microsoft and would love nothing more than for 90% of people to use it's products. But only 2% of people use a Mac... so obviously that is a load of bullshit.
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Mandrake ]
-
Ah, it's good to see a good ol' fashioned jimmyjames literary beating handed to someone who really deserves it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:COUGHFORDCOUGHFOCUSCOUGH
:D
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Paladin9 ]
-
quote:
Ok, let me explain something. What you consistently fail to recognise is that:
1) user-friendliness does not necessarily equal (in fact, is often at odds with) usability
Agreed. That's why this new "task-based" concept, while "user friendly" is not very useable. I understand the difference in user friendly and useability. Mac OS (System 1 through OS 9.2.2) were THE standard for useability. I however, would say that there were some parts of them that were not very friendly. Many times, as you say, being user friendly gets in the way of real functionality. Any time you oversimplify something so to be useless to knowledgable users, that's killed it. UI design walks a fine line.
quote:
2) despite what you seem to believe, computers weren't invented so that people like you can listen to Garth Brooks MP3s and surf the web.
No shit.
quote:
They actually have a serious, practical purpose. That purpose is better served with flexible, usable, configurable software.
It's best served by software that's well-designed enough to begin with that it doesn't have to be tweaked. DESIGN IS KEY. We're not talking about what kinda cutsey graphics you've got, but real design... check out a UI design concept book, and you'll learn about cognitive science. This is the study of how people think, nothing more or less. To fully understand the way people interact with a computer, not just the UI, but the way they understand all of the concepts that go into using it... you first have to know how people think. The best software works how you think.
Case in point. Software installation. This is my number one thing, by the way. A well-designed system will make even the most difficult tasks simple.
How does Linux do it? God only knows. It depends on what Linux distro you run, and then it most likely relies on some terminal command or control panel app. If you're lucky, your app has an installer and it doesn't crash and burn.
You might not be so lucky.
How did Mac OS do it? Application has icon, you double click icon, no matter where it is, it runs.
How does Mac OS X do it? Application bundle has icon, you double click it, no matter where it is, it runs.
Now... tell me something. Does being able to run the app NO MATTER WHERE IT EXISTS hinder useability?
quote:
Not consistency
INCORRECT.
Consistency across the entire system is the very HEART of good design, and that's what I'm talking about. Over 80% of the people that use computers... wait for it... are you ready? THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT COMPILING KERNELS, OR PROGRAMMING, OR ANY OTHER ADVANCED TASK.
Your rather derisive and elitist statement makes it sound as though all those people are just some kind of low, second-class persons. Hey, I hate to break it to you... THEY DRIVE THIS INDUSTRY. They're your CUSTOMERS. It's your duty and your job to serve them well, with well-designed, well coded apps.
I have no doubts in your coding abilities, I've got no room to say anything, as I can't code to save my ruttin' life. However, I think that your low opinion of good design would hobble your apps.
quote:
not user friendliness, not eye candy, not media players with integrated cd burning and tea making facilities, and not this "STEP Heritage" (whatever the hell that actually means) that you're unable to shut up about.
No, it is all about the STEP. NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody, Mac OS X, and soon GenSTEP. As the ultimate evolution of the STEP concept, GenSTEP has all of the advanced OpenStep-layer goodies, plus a very advanced, next-generation UNIX layer, powered by the Linux kernel.
Insomnia's got it running... why don't you ask him? He's trying out Komodo (GenSTEP's Linux core)... see just how good Linux can be once you give up on the outmoded, ole-timey ways of doing things and embrace the future. It's not so alien as you obviously believe. It's different enough to be better, though.
quote:
It's like a kid telling an adult that they think all cars should be replaced with go-carts, because then they'll be able to drive too. Don't get me wrong; it's good that user friendly software exists, because it enables the average user to use computers. But don't make the mistake of being arrogant enough to assume that, just because you find it easy to use, it's a better system.
I do not assume that it's better... I know it is. This is not opinion, but fact. Superior in every way. GenSTEP is better still.
I sincerely hope that you can let go of the withered past and step into the future, or at least the present. Nobody will force you to give up the tools you've always used. You can keep using vi, and whatever other tools you prefer... but don't shut yourself out from the benefits that the NeXT-generation ( :D ) OSes bring.
-
quote:
Any time you oversimplify something so to be useless to knowledgable users, that's killed it. UI design walks a fine line.
I don't particularly mean that. User friendliness is about complicating an interface, not simplifying it. The best example is command line applications, which have incredibly simple interaces. They're not intuitively easy to use, and have a relatively steep learning curve, but the interface is simple. I don't know where console apps fit into your definition of "consistency" or "UI design", but they illustrate best my point about usability over user friendliness.
quote:
It's best served by software that's well-designed enough to begin with that it doesn't have to be tweaked. DESIGN IS KEY.
...
Consistency across the entire system is the very HEART of good design
Let me clarify what you mean by "bad design". When you say "design", are you actually just referring to interface design? And, if so, do you really just mean GUI design? And if you mean that, then when you say "bad design" do you really just mean "user-unfriendly design"? It's rather a bold statement to suggest that a tried and tested Unix application (graphical or otherwise) is badly designed, just because it's inconsistent with other applications, or it's not easy for beginners to use.
quote:
check out a UI design concept book, and you'll learn about cognitive science. This is the study of how people think, nothing more or less. To fully understand the way people interact with a computer, not just the UI, but the way they understand all of the concepts that go into using it... you first have to know how people think. The best software works how you think.
Again, does this refer only to graphical applications? If it does then I still think you're missing the point. All of this HCI crap is irrelevant to most of the programs I use, because they don't really even have an "interface" (i.e. a GUI) as you understand it.
quote:
Your rather derisive and elitist statement makes it sound as though all those people are just some kind of low, second-class persons. Hey, I hate to break it to you... THEY DRIVE THIS INDUSTRY.
I hate to break it to you, but they don't. Even Microsoft, king of the flowery kiddy-proof interface, makes most of its money from corporate customers, selling server software and programs that will be used in an environment in which users aren't sitting at home on their own, with no support.
quote:
I sincerely hope that you can let go of the withered past and step into the future, or at least the present.
You're assuming that's what's best for you is best for me. I don't care if the average user finds it easier to use winzip than tar/gzip, or a word processor rather than latex. I prefer to use command line tools when I can, and I prefer the fleixibility of unix over a tightly-integrated, but user friendly, interface. I used windows for years before I switched to unix and realised that I could get everything done much more quickly using command line applications, and a "user unfriendly" OS. If you don't like them, then don't use them, but don't assume that user friendliness is good for everyone.
-
seriously, I do not have the attention span to read all of these posts.
I just want to say that I really like the old mac os becuase it was so easy to work with and fix. I became vary familiar with it, and becuase of the way it works, it is really easy to troubleshoot and fix problems. That is, on the rare occasion when something went wrong.
-
Just what do you mean by 'usability', flap? Do you mean that you find command line interfaces more efficient than graphical interfaces? Just because Windows and many other systems put user-friendliness before usability (the 'flowery kiddy-proof interfaces') doesn't mean that some graphical interfaces are not sometimes more efficient than command line.
You may be used to command line and have experienced clunky, convoluted interfaces, but sometimes graphical interfaces can be very efficient and complex in their own ways. For many software writers 'user-friendliness' is all about gaudy graphics and frankly inefficient hand-holding wizards. However, Mac OS has amongst other features an intricate language of keyboard shortcuts and drag-and-drop features, much more involved than any other system (at least graphical ones).
Mac OS, is not only 'user-friendly', it is also acclaimed for being the most efficient graphical interface. That was my whole point about interface ergonomy.
Of course, it is up to the user to decide whether the most efficient option is to put up with Winzip wizards and windows, type gzip -xzvf ./foo.gz or just slide the file on the Stuffit icon.
-
quote:
Just what do you mean by 'usability', flap? Do you mean that you find command line interfaces more efficient than graphical interfaces?
Yes. Obviously I acknowledge that this won't be the case for most people - many people won't want to bother learning an application's switches, or maybe they simply can't type that quickly. But those who do choose to use console apps don't do so because they're 'stuck in the past'. It isn't the case that command line programs are 'archaic' and GUIs are 'modern' and up-to-date. It's simply that one type of interface has been around longer than the other.
quote:
doesn't mean that some graphical interfaces are not sometimes more efficient than command line.
I agree. Non-interactive tasks (finding files, grepping through files, copying/moving/deleting files, compiling etc) are more quickly accomplished, in my opinion, using the shell. But many interactive tasks are more suited to a graphical interface. For example I use xcdroast to create cd images (though I still burn them from the command line), a graphical media player, a graphical browser etc.
quote:
sometimes graphical interfaces can be very efficient and complex
I know they can be complex, that's the problem.
quote:
Of course, it is up to the user to decide whether the most efficient option is to put up with Winzip wizards and windows, type gzip -xzvf ./foo.gz or just slide the file on the Stuffit icon.
Exactly. For me it's easier and quicker to type a command than to open up a new program and click some buttons, or drag an icon. I can type a command to tar up a directory almost as quickly as I can think it. When you become used to using them command line then (provided you can type quickly enough) it becomes more intuitive than using a GUI. Using a GUI is like using a multiple choice interface. It's easy but your expressiveness is limited. With the shell, you just tell the computer what to do and it does it. You can bolt programs together, combining their functionality; you can issue batch commands so it does a number of things at once; and best of all you can automate all of this using scripts.
-
re: design...
Design at every level. In an OS, that's everything from filesystem layout, to how errors are handled, to something as seemingly meaningless as what color things should be, be they graphics or text.
UI design is only one part of overall design. And UI design is not about making the pictures, but about mapping things out, and determining the best way to arrange objects for maximum useability. That can be anything from determining the syntax for a terminal command, to laying out menus in a GUI app.
re: users...
This is the beef I've got... you're pretty much saying that *what you like is better*. No qualifications... just better. We will assume that you mean that it's better for EVERYBODY. You hadn't really said otherwise, so this is what we're led to believe.
Now, despite your apparent hatred for "users", they're the focus of things. Nobody gives a fucking shit about some back-line server apps. They can be as ugly and poorly made as you want. They're designed to be set once, and left alone. However, something that people use every day doesn't have that luxury.
From how you talk, everybody is a mongrel, halfwitted fool for using these "kiddie-proof" GUIs. You're obviously just trying to make yourself sound all cool.
So, here's an idea.
Get along with everybody, love your brother and smoke lots of ganja.
I edited this because somebody whined. We need less whiners.
[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]
-
One more thing...
Bundles are Better
[img]http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/bundvscrap.jpg[/i]
I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it.
Edit: Huge images and triple posts deleted. Jimmy James, post that crap again and I will recommend you for troll status.
[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
You seem to alternate between reasonable posts and childish rants. If the pattern continues your response to this should be quite amicable.
quote:
Design at every level. In an OS, that's everything from filesystem layout, to how errors are handled, to something as seemingly meaningless as what color things should be, be they graphics or text.
You're still referring to interface design, or at least the design decisions that the user will be aware of. The most important aspects of software design are those that relate to how the software is actually built and implemented.
quote:
This is the beef I've got... you're pretty much saying that *what you like is better*.
Uh? I thought that was what you were saying. What I actually said was
quote:
it's good that user friendly software exists, because it enables the average user to use computers.
...
If you don't like [user-unfriendly programs], then don't use them
For the record, I have no interest in what type of interface or what programs you use. You can use a speak and spell for all I care. You're the one proselyting on behalf of OSX. I never tried to convince anyone else to use what I use.
quote:
You're obviously just trying to make yourself sound all cool.
No, that comes without effort.
[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it.
Yes Jimmy, you truly outsmarted Flap with your fancy picture and your big letters.
(http://smile.gif)
-
Also, flap, it's not your place to judge my posts. I find yours to fluctuate between uniformed to elitist and rude.
Just simply halfass.
quote:
Yes Jimmy, you truly outsmarted Flap with your fancy picture and your big letters
it isn't hard! all you have to do for some of these people is have some flashing lights and colors and they'll stare back, vacuous and blank!
Edit: Posts merged.
[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
So, here's an idea.
(http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/shutup2.jpg)
Nobody asked your opinion in the first place, so fuck off.
Jimmy, if you keep this up, I WILL bin this post. It is ok to argue and disagree with people, but you must stop calling people morons and saying "fuck off". This is what makes someone a troll.
-
Come to the MES Forums, where everything makes you a troll.
-
I'm not gonna spend a whole lotta time quoting everything and giving an all out rebuttle. Just one quote and an analogy.
quote:
You're still referring to interface design, or at least the design decisions that the user will be aware of. The most important aspects of software design are those that relate to how the software is actually built and implemented.
I disagree. Maybe now, how well a program is programmed is important and how it is implemented is important. But I believe soon the difference between "good" software and "bad" software will almost be eliminated. People will get better at programming and more people will expect higher quality than they do now. My analogy is of course, as always, to the automobile industry.
50 years ago you bought a Buick because it wasn't ever gonna break, ever. You could get a Jaguar is you wanted.... to fix it every month. But as time went on the difference between cars, mechanically, shrank. Pretty much all cars last as long and work just as good as any other cars. Although, now the American market seems to be behind, it is essentially all the same. The only difference between what sells and what doesn't sell is looks. Some very good examples of this are the PT Cruiser and the VW Bug. The PT Cruiser is a Dodge Neon with a new skin. It has the same tranny, engine, and drive system. Why do PT Cruisers sell for much more and in much higher quantity than Dodge Neons? because they look good. Same with the bug. The Bug is a VW Golf, yet more copies of the bug have been sold for much more than the golf... why you ask? because it looks good.
Now apply this to future software. When Microsoft Word and Open Office can do the same shit and are equally stable which one will people buy? Now people with no money will have to go with OpenOffice, but a normal consumer will buy MS Word because it has a better UI than OpenOffice does, because it is easier to use and looks better. When Photoshop and Microsoft Photohut (hypothetical) come out which one will be bought by the masses. Even if the MS one has a higher price tag, it will sell because it will look nicer and be easier to use than Photoshop.
So in the very near future when programs are stable and can do the same shit equally well, the one with the superior UI wins outright.
-
Why are you assuming people will get better at programming?
-
tell me again, WHY is defending Mac OS in the Mac OS forum trolling?
but blindly bashing it in it's own forum not?
flap and insomnia are the real trolls.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Come to the MES Forums, where everything makes you a troll.
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron: Troll Warrior:
tell me again, WHY is defending Mac OS in the Mac OS forum trolling?
but blindly bashing it in it's own forum not?
flap and insomnia are the real trolls.
Did you guys actually read my whole reply? Having an opinion does NOT make you a troll. flap and insomnia can bash the mac all they want. HOWEVER, saying "fuck off" and shit like that is not ok. This is the kind of thing that starts flame wars, and if this thread turns into another one, then I will can it.
-
Yaw yaw yaw yaw yaw.
YOU are turning into one now with your brainless troll shit.
You whiney people ruin more threads with this crap.
Welcome to MES where the moderators are trolls.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Yaw yaw yaw yaw yaw.
YOU are turning into one now with your brainless troll shit.
You whiney people ruin more threads with this crap.
Welcome to MES where the moderators are trolls.
How old are you? You seem to be as mature as a 10 year old.
-
No, you seem to be as mature as a 10 year old. You're the one who comes and says "I THINK YOU'RE MEAN!"
No, sorry, I'm what's known as an asshole and I love treating people like shit when they deserve it. When you learn that, everybody's life will be better.
I want to thank you once again for killing this thread, Mr. Policeman. Glad you're looking out for us to make sure that we're polite and well-behaved.
-
I wonder the efficiency of the emulation software. I could see mac games running in linux, unless it is very inefficient. None the less, it is about time someone did this. My question is, is it possible to run programs optimized for a different processor/architecture with any efficiency?
-
Likely not. I can see Mac OS X being especially slow, as it relies heavily on AltiVec. Even natively on PPC750 (G3) it's still laggy in the graphics department, as they chose to use AltiVec acceleration over true graphics acceleration.
-
I find it hard to beleive that this emulator would work well running any mac software. Macs use their own hardware, so it must be very difficult to emulate it or port it.
-
yay! back on topic!
Paladin, this IS emulating the mac hardware.
you run OSX on top of this. which runs mac hardware.
there have been mac emulators before, but they emulate the Motorola Corporations 680x0 line of chips, which is what Mac's ras on until System 7/OS 8.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Sauron: Troll Warrior:
Paladin, this IS emulating the mac hardware.
I know.
-
i think i saw a bit on this on the screen savers today.
aparently it is very unstable and very slow
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
aparently it is very unstable and very slow
No suprise. Look at how long it took for virtual pc to get any good. And that is made by a normal software company.
-
Update...I just got hold of PearPC 0.1.2 and OSX 10.3 today (http://graemlins/macos.gif)
I have a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz, and the emulation is indeed rather slow, but usable. It takes about five minutes to boot the image. Moving windows around and minimizing/maximizing lags somewhat as well. However, I can use it without getting a headache. ;) I found I could speed up Finder a crapload by clicking on that oval-shaped thing in the right-hand corner (lol...what's it called?) so that it looks like the old Finder, and using new windows each time. There's no networking support for Windows yet, so I can't test out Safari.
But I must say, OSX is quite an amazing package. It's like the classic OS with an opening to the internals, thanks to the terminal and Activity Monitor. (http://smile.gif) Just one thing...how do I make the Unix hierarchy appear in Finder? :confused:
Still, emulating a G3, standard graphics, no USB, etc., I wouldn't recommend any less than my current CPU right now. (http://redface.gif) It's early yet, so PearPC may speed up in the future.
-
I just got a BSOD in Win2k while running this. UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP. :mad:
-
I tried same as you WMD, but on Linux. I got it to install but the installation wouldn't boot.
I gave up and took my 3GB disk space back.
May give it a try again when it has progressed a little. I have some got nice screenies from using it though (http://smile.gif)
-
Hey, does anyone have copies of PearPC 0.1.2, Mac OS X, and Virtual PC?
-
quote:
Originally posted by M51DPS:
Hey, does anyone have copies of PearPC 0.1.2, Mac OS X, and Virtual PC?
I have Virtual PC (the last non-MS version)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
I tried same as you WMD, but on Linux. I got it to install but the installation wouldn't boot.
I couldn't get it to boot either, until I used a config frontend program from the PearPC site. However, it's only for win32. :(
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?FrontPage (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?FrontPage)
-
why do you PC guys bash us with all of these myths?? Fact is , OS X can do almost everything that you guys can! I have a linux PC at home AND a mac running panther, and i would choose the mac. Plus, macs come with loads of free stuff, such as tony hawk's pro skater 4, none of those demo versions that the windows boxes come with. (http://graemlins/macos.gif)
-
quote:
how do I make the Unix hierarchy appear in Finder?
Why in blue blazes would you want to do that?
-
Was expecting that reply. (http://tongue.gif) I'm much a Linux/Unix guy and I want to play around. It's only an emulated version, so I don't mind if I mess it up. ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by nukinfutz:
why do you PC guys bash us with all of these myths?? Fact is , OS X can do almost everything that you guys can! I have a linux PC at home AND a mac running panther, and i would choose the mac. Plus, macs come with loads of free stuff, such as tony hawk's pro skater 4, none of those demo versions that the windows boxes come with. (http://graemlins/macos.gif)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
vmac ppc is cool. I have OS 1.1 running on it. It is only for osx as far as I know, and I had to find a rom file to get it to work. I found that in os 1.1 if you highlight the trash can or open it, then click on the menu bar and it will crash with the all too common "sorry, a system error has occored..." I am not sure if this is because of the emulator, or if os 1.1 really did that.
-
System 1.1 really did that. It does that on my original Mac
-
Now what would be neat is to run OS X emulated under windows with PearPC, which is emulated on a Mac with VirtualPC. It would be horribly, ridiculously slow, but just think about how cool that would be....
-
^ Someone posted a pic of that at Slashdot.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
System 1.1 really did that. It does that on my original Mac
Wow. Really?
-
yeah. my favorite system version for those ancient machines is system 4, though. I run 6.0.8 on my SE/30 and it's flawless... an amazing system. I run 7.5.5 on it when I use it for internet stuff, though.
Yes. an SE/30 on the internet. I've even used it for AIM.
-
I had an SE/30 with 7.5.5 but I tore it apart.
-
>sniff<
Poor SE/30
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Just accept the fact that different people have different needs. ;)
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
Ultimately, this is what it should come down to. For many people, however, pretty much any OS or hardware architecture will work for them, but they just may not realize this. For me, Mac OS X is what works best for me. Before I moved over to Mac OS X full time, I used a mix between Mac OS 8/9, Linux, and perhaps a little Windows (games, generally). With the UNIX core of OS X, this allowed me many of the tools and programs I enjoyed with Linux, but the ease of a Mac. When I first got OS X, I used it to set up a web server (Apache) with PHP and MySQL. Because of the early betas, people had already made OS X installers for several of these utilities, which is much easier to get things running than having to wade through plenty of Linux documentation if something doesn't work quite right.
A guy I knew at a LUG was a command-line type of guy who rarely even used a GUI, so Linux worked well for him and he didn't need some colorful X or XP interface. This is just what worked for him.
As far as a PPC emulator, I do not know if this will ever have any truly useful application, or if it will be seen more as an interesting toy for experimentation. Maybe if I was at a job where I only had a PC, it might be nice to have an OS X emulator, but the emulator would need to be beefed up performance-wise for it to be even useable. This is a major problem with x86 emulators, that emulation is a slow process.
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
>sniff<
Poor SE/30
I know. I really wish I did not do that. I still have the CPU though (68030) (http://smile.gif)
-
ive tried it.
slow but it works.
id buy a real mac but i cant afford to pay what they cost and i cant find any older ones in pawnshops or yardsales.
-
Update.
PearPC 0.3.1 is out. The emulated CPU has gotten MUCH faster - nearly 3 times as fast. It also now uses SDL to speed up the graphics somewhat; certainly less laggy for me. Also, they fixed the system timer - before, the clock ran too fast (20sec. = 1min.) and it would always report "0Mhz G3" in the About This Mac window. Now, on my 2.8Ghz P4, it reports different numbers each bootup, ranging from 791-875Mhz (though it runs much slower than a real G3 at that speed). I'd say I'm getting 200Mhz G3, or so. Oh, and it no longer uses CPU time while emulated CPU is idle, so I can run it all the time without my fans throttling up while I'm sleeping.
There appears to be a setting to allow ID'ing as a G4, but it crashes while booting for me.
Although still no easy networking for Windows, no USB, no sound, no AltiVec, etc., this is still a big improvement. I'm loving it! (http://graemlins/macos.gif)
-
No easy networking? It was a breeze for me to get it working.
http://dev.realistanew.com/win32net/ (http://dev.realistanew.com/win32net/)
-
I'm hoping PearPC will let a few PC people experiment with OS X, then come to the realization that they need the real thing.
Though my elitist side hopes Apple shuts this down come Tiger. OS X is a pleasure that doesn't need to be tainted by ignorant masses.
-
Good god. Hey, let's gas all the PC users while we're at it. A little genocide by the chose ones.
-
I never actually tried Mac OS X... maybe I'll even buy it now (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
Good god. Hey, let's gas all the PC users while we're at it. A little genocide by the chose ones.
Yes, I feel the same way.
Actually, Hitler would probably not be a Mac user, since he was always bitter about flunking out of art school in Munich, and held a grudge against 'creative' types ever since.
Hitler would probably run Windows. He already had good ties (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/ibm-j27.shtml) with IBM, and in our modern climate, Microsoft is basically the same cold corporate giant IBM once was. Not to say that they still aren't, but stuff like this (http://www-136.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/index.html) is a step in the right direction.
[ October 04, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
No easy networking? It was a breeze for me to get it working.
http://dev.realistanew.com/win32net/ (http://dev.realistanew.com/win32net/)
I know about that...it didn't work for me. Upon turning on ICS, it insisted I change my IP to 192.168.0.1, which I can't, since that's my router box's IP. I don't have the direct connection. With Basilisk II, I just needed the MAC address of my card for it to work - no virtual connection crap.
quote:
I'm hoping PearPC will let a few PC people experiment with OS X, then come to the realization that they need the real thing.
I know, I really want a Mac. Panther blows my mind.
quote:
Though my elitist side hopes Apple shuts this down come Tiger.
On what grounds?
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
On what grounds?
They don't need any grounds. All they need to do is change something in the OS that makes it not work with PearPC anymore.
-
Oh. I thought you meant sue PearPC. (http://redface.gif)
(Tiger Dev. Preview works on PearPC already.)
-
quote:
Originally posted by bedouin:
Though my elitist side hopes Apple shuts this down come Tiger. OS X is a pleasure that doesn't need to be tainted by ignorant masses.
Your elitist side should be using an OS that isn't all eye candy and "user friendliness".
quote:
All they need to do is change something in the OS that makes it not work with PearPC anymore.
What makes you think they'll be able to do that?
[ October 04, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Ah, flap back for Round 2 against OS X. (http://tongue.gif)
There's some great things besides eye candy and user friendliness in OS X. The underlying system, for one, is a interesting combination of BSD, Mach, and NeXT, taking good ideas from all. Most dramatic the the way it deals with application packages (taken from NeXTStep) - there's one folder called /Applications, which contains one "bundle" file for each app. The bundle contains everything need to run in a single file. So, to install/uninstall, only one file is dealt with - and all apps total up to a few dozen files. Totally wonderful to work with.
I'd go on but I have studying to do...I'll leave this to Laukev or someone. ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Your elitist side should be using an OS that isn't all eye candy and "user friendliness"
Yeah, then I could be a Linux elitist instead!
-
Well that's what I'm suggesting, yes.
-
Beware Redmond, Mac OS X is here and faster than ever! http://www.cherryos.com/ (http://www.cherryos.com/) Cherry os, much faster than pearpc, brand new
-
quote:
Originally posted by Legodude522:
Beware Redmond, Mac OS X is here and faster than ever! http://www.cherryos.com/ (http://www.cherryos.com/) Cherry os, much faster than pearpc, brand new
Who still cares?
Both Linux and BSD are still better. (http://tongue.gif)
EDIT
IMO, Mac is for people who are are willing to pay a lot of money for an already perfect hardware tuned unix-like system.
This simply can't be ported to non OS X optimized hardware like x86 systems.
Just use Linux(or BSD) on your PC.
[ October 13, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Who still cares?
Er, people who actually have taste?
quote:
Both Linux and BSD are still better.
Hahahaha. I'm sure Jordan Hubbard would love to hear that.
quote:
IMO, Mac is for people who are are willing to pay a lot of money for an already perfect hardware tuned unix-like system.
Try actually using a Mac before spouting your ignorant nonsense, you might come across as less asinine. Firstly, Macs are not significantly more expensive than other computers with all features compared. Even Linux Insider (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html) agrees on that. Secondly, it is beyond me why you are arguing about hardware costs when we are discussing emulators. Unless you are simply trolling.
quote:
This simply can't be ported to non OS X optimized hardware like x86 systems.
Darwin has been ported to x86 years ago. :roll:
quote:
Just use Linux(or BSD) on your PC.
Um, no thanks. I already have, and I'm switching away. All I have to do is upgrade my 9500 to a G4. (http://graemlins/macos.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Legodude522:
http://www.cherryos.com/ (http://www.cherryos.com/) Cherry os, much faster than pearpc, brand new
So far, widely regarded as vaporware.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
So far, widely regarded as vaporware.
I'm going to make a prediction. I predict CherryOS will turn out to be nothing but a re-branding of PearPC with a somewhat simplified installation process, sort of like what WinTel (http://openosx.com/wintel/) did with Bochs.
Or, it is just vaporware.
-
I will officially laugh my ass off if Cherry turns out to be a theme package.
-
Could someone delete Laukev7's last post in this tread for trolling.
Edit: ...or just leave it as an example of stupidity...
As a moderator he should know more about his own system.
Darwin may be portable(after all, it's based on an x86 system) but not OSX.
From Aplle's Darwin faq:
quote:
Q. How does Darwin relate to Mac OS X?
A. Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. All software built for Darwin should be able to run unmodified on Mac OS X. However, because Darwin by itself does not encompass all of the features of Mac OS X, software that depends on higher-level features of Mac OS X (such as the Cocoa and Carbon toolkits) will not run on a stand-alone Darwin system.
The way he keeps ignoring the simple fact that PCs are cheaper is just childish.
It's also weird to see a mod trying to start flaming in his own section...
[ October 14, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Could someone delete Laukev7's last post in this tread for trolling.
Please. I'm not the one who came barging in the thread to spread FUD about another operating system, OK? You came here to flame people and insult them for their choices, which is considered trolling according to the forum's definition of trolling:
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=002054 (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=002054)
quote:
intentionally naive or politically contentious message (example: "The Republican party is the best/worst party!") without any arguments to support their message
As for me, I simply stated the facts:
- It is a fact that the former lead developper of FreeBSD is now working for Apple, despite your claims of OS X being 'inferior';
- It is a fact that the 'Macs are more expensive' myth has been debunked over and over, even by Linux users;
- It is a fact that hardware costs have little to do with choosing to emulate an OS, and that OS X itself can hardly be considered expensive;
- And lastly, it is a fact that Darwin works perfectly well on x86, and that an x86 version of OS X has been maintained internally since ages ago.
And given that I am at the moment the only regular moderator of the Mac OS section, and that moderators are not allowed to bin threads without posting a date and a justification, let alone arbitrarily deleting posts, I doubt that your request will have much consequence. And I am very confident that Refalm has as much respect for freedom of speech as I do. ;)
-
See my last edit.
As a mod, you're very bad(that is, on this topic).
I'm sure you're a nice person tho (http://smile.gif)
[ October 14, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Sorry, even OS X has already been ported to x86. See this Slashdot discussion:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/31/195208.shtml?tid=179 (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/31/195208.shtml?tid=179)
Think what you want about the existence of Marklar, but early OS X versions (or Rhapsody) were available for x86. And nothing in the Darwin FAQ says that OS X is not portable.
quote:
The way he keeps ignoring the simple fact that PCs are cheaper is just childish.
I haven't said that PC's aren't cheaper. I said that for similar configurations, Macs are not significantly more expensive than PC's. It's true that Apple doesn't sell computers as low-end as other OEMs do, but saying that they are 'expensive' is false. Price differences between hardware manufacturers cannot be considered a 'simple fact', and saying that Macs are more expensive than PCs is a generalisation that ignores many important factors.
And that doesn't address my other point: what do hardware costs have to do with emulation?
quote:
It's also weird to see a mod trying to start flaming in his own section...
Unless we misunderstand each other, I found the tone of your original post very inflammatory, especially with your 'who still cares' rhetorical question.
The fact that I am a mod does not preclude me from giving my opinions. If you don't want me to post angry answers, then tone down the rhetoric.
quote:
As a mod, you're very bad(that is, on this topic).
Just because I have strong opinions on a particular topic does make me a 'bad' mod. You would have been right if I had tried to censor you for your opinions, which I haven't. By contrast, you requested that my post be censored without giving a valid reason. Your unqualified 'linux is better' statements, on the other hand, seems to correspond to the troll criterion I mentioned in my last post.
quote:
I'm sure you're a nice person tho
I'm sure you are, too. I have nothing personal against you, but tone down the rhetoric. Being a social worker, surely you understand that making blanket statements will provoke angry responses? Have you never experienced similar conflicts, as a football fan?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
Sorry, even OS X has already been ported to x86. See this Slashdot discussion:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/31/195208.shtml?tid=179 (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/31/195208.shtml?tid=179)
Read it's comments.
It's probably untrue.
Not that anything that Apple does in secret has anything to do with this.
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
Surely you understand that making blanket statements will provoke angry responses?
You haven't done anything else in your last posts.
I stated(and still do) that this PearPC will never
replace a real mac and that OSX will never be fully ported to PC(remaining Linux and BSD as your best PC choice).
I've also explaint why this only counts for OSX and not Darwin(still not perfect on PC).
As for the price.
I bought a P4 for 420 Euro
My software and administration costs: 0 Euro
Can you find me a new Mac for that price?
What's so blanket about all that?
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
Have you never experienced similar conflicts, as a football fan?
That's what football is all about.
It's dumb but it's fun.
;)
-
quote:
Read it's comments.
It's probably untrue.
Not that anything that Apple does in secret has anything to do with this.
Yes, that's why I said, believe what you want about that. But Rhapsody x86 has in fact existed, since I have it on CD.
quote:
I stated(and still do) that this PearPC will never
replace a real mac and that OSX will never be fully ported to PC(remaining Linux and BSD as your best PC choice).
I've also explaint why this only counts for OSX and not Darwin(still not perfect on PC).
So you meant that OS X cannot be properly emulated on x86. OK, that I can agree with.
quote:
As for the price.
I bought a P4 for 420 Euro
My software and administration costs: 0 Euro
Can you find me a new Mac for that price?
OK, let me restate my point. Yes, Apple does not sell computers at that price, but saying that people who buy Macs 'pay a lot of money' is a gross exaggeration. And as the article I posted has shown, PCs equipped with similar hardware as Macs are not significantly less expensive.
And as a matter of fact, yes, it is quite possible to get a Mac for that price. First, find a Powermac 9500 for 20
-
Because an hardware emulation is only about 10% efficient it sucks horribly at running new software, the only real use for it in my opinion is for running old software for example old arcade games. In general emulation is only good for running 8 year old software on. I know processors develop at a faster rate than this but memory access speeds are progressing at a far lower rate an it takes time to develop good emulation software. Apple have nothing to fear unless PCs suddenly become 10 times a powerful as Macs.
-
CherryOS proven a copy of PearPC:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/10/18/2137253.shtml?tid=179&tid=3 (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/10/18/2137253.shtml?tid=179&tid=3)
Prick.
-
CherryOS is a GPL violating copy of PearPC.
[ October 18, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]