Back in the mid 80's, Apple(Mac), HP, and Apollo all used Motorolla 68xxx series chips. The Mac used the low end 68000 (32 bit internal, 16 bit buss), and the UNIX boys used the high end true 32 bit stuff, And yes, they were all CISC. This didn't last very long, maybe a year or two. HP switched to their own PA RISC, bought Apollo, and that was the end of the UNIX CISC workstation. About this same time, RISC silicon from MIPS, SUN, and Intergraph were introduced. IBM's Power RISC was a latecomer to the market (around 1990-91).
WOW 68000 transistors !!!!!! My graphics chip has around 40 million
It "WAS" twenty years ago, and your right, it doesn't seem that long (very scary). There was alot more new stuff going on back then, relatively speaking. Pretty hard to keep up with.
By the way, I think it was Sun that bought Apollo, not HP (memory fades). Evans and Sutherland was another big name, very pricey stuff, but then they all were back then.
Abstract thought process? Nice one. Guess that means I am a designer. :-)
3-4 years is a very very long time. FinalCut Studio is outstanding and quickly becoming the industry standard. Why? outstanding technology - both software and hardware. PPC combined with high bus speed + many of the other "standard" hardware features allows realtime editing and filter adjustments. Have a look at the site - some very good user stories.
formatting link
As someone commented, this often has to do with large investments in custom software. There are just as many going the other way.
Of course you should have a hardware firewall - but how many actually do or actually know they should? First line of defense is the OS!
That really is a tired old argument. First, the foundation of the OS assumes security, where windows evolved from a base that did not have security. In addition, one cannot instal or run programs on a mac without entering a password. That in itself makes it more secure.
Of course, you do not advertise you are more secure since it will only make it more fun to attack. But the fact that there were viruses on OS
9, and there are 0 viruses or trojans on OSX after being in the market for 4 years says something.
True. But most of the annoying update-me pop-ups I get from windows are for security. And you cannot instal windows without running web update to install a dozen updates. Yes, there are security updates on the mac, but they feel more proactive than reactive.
Read this - may be interesting to follow.
formatting link
Well, at least in my experience my 3 mac have been significantly more reliable than my PCs. I have replaced mother boards, power supplies, CD drives and graphics cards on my PCs. The only hardware changes on my Mac have been to upgrade to larger hard drives. In addition, OSX is actually faster with each point update. That is part of the reason older hardware lasts longer for productive use.
Not exactly sure what you mean by scalability. If you mean can it be more "pro" hard core, I see no limit. The beauty of OSX is that it is a high end core and great user interface. There are no "home" or "pro" versions. There is one "scalable" version. That is SO much simpler for the end user. You want to run directly in BSD, fine, it's included. Want to run unix programs? fine, X11 is included. That stuff is beyond my geek abilities, but it is there, free of charge
Hmmm. Just checked and I don't have that on my PC.
You do have very detailed error information in OSX. The Console in applications/utilites/console gives you access to all logs for the system - everything from startup, installation, network, crashes - everything is there in one place.
Not just user interface, User Experience. Again, this is a philosophy. One designes the entire "product" experience, or one says, I make this, you make that, and lets see if they fit and maybe someone can use it. But I think we will continue to disagree on this.
Ouch.. I have both, and I do not agree on this at all. there is so much more to set up on a PC than one must on a mac. But again, I am sure will not find agreement here.
That really is the most bizarre argument I have heard, but OK.
Apple has always been a hardware company too. And has always built outstandingly well engineered hardware. Remember it was apple who made Firewire (IEEE-1394), CD burners, Laser Printers, WiFi, and BlueTooth standard before most other PC hardware companies.
And hardware makes a Big difference. For example, if you want to edit video, and your PC does not have Firewire connections, what do you do? You adda card and drivers. On a mac, you get down to editing the video! Every mac includes these by default. No user intervention = hardware is important. This is why News organizations use PowerBooks and FinalCutPro for field reporting - it is the combination of hardware and software that makes that practical. It is much easier to engineer the software when you know you have the best hardware, and it is easier to define the hardware when you know what the software needs are.
You are right, some users give off computer fear pheromones.
On a PC, you can instal a program that can overwrite functioning DLLs and kill your system. you cannot do that on OSX.
I like help systems. I tend to glance through manuals and I will go to help first, before asking. However, again, the difference in help systems between PC and Mac is telling. On a PC, you will usually find very cryptic language, and after one or two levels of search and links, you will be confronted with the message that you should consult your PC specialist! Huh? I am my PC specialist! On a Mac the help is actually helpful, and clearly written. This is doubly true if you visit the support sites for Windows or Mac. Help should help, not redirect to paid consultants.
Sorry, this simply is not true today. I also think you cannot take the software and OS usability completely out of the equation.
without knowing the specific, it is hard to comment other than to agree s*** happens and some users as you say are more dangerous around some computers than others.
See, that is the point. it is the user interface that makes it easy or hard. You talk about making windows aligned. On a mac, you can set Expose so that a quick mouse or keyboard action shows all windows , or the desktop, or all of one applications windows, so that you can grab something (text, image, video...) and instantly find the window you want to drop it on. Since I normally have 5-10 applications running on my mac at the same time, it is very fast and efficient. And because it work everywhere, I never think twice about doing it. On a PC, that is not possible, and it is harder to navigate to different windows or applications.
I know you may think, that Expose sounds like a gimmick -well, after a few hours using it I cannot do without it. It is so useful - but it must be used to understand.
formatting link
What I mean is that because the basic Quartz graphic display language of OSX (for on screen display) is based on PDF technology, it enables any application to output perfect PDF documents without Acrobat. In any application, you can select >print>print to PDF. Simple. I never give my clients anything else than PDF documents.
formatting link
Not missing at all. I use a 5 button itellemouse from Microsoft (perhaps the one product I really like from MS). Just because the give you a one button mouse does not mean you should use it! So all the things you mention there are always available via the contextual menu. Even if you have only the one button mouse, you simply press Control+LMB to get the menu. This has always been there, even in OS 9.
It is the way you integrate: can your competition install there products without breaking anything? Do you install features that break your competitions products?
Hmmm. That's true, Location profiles can be confusing and non-obvious. However, I think I have not found that on my PC either. Seems that it is not easy on a PC to have multiple network settings and switch between them - one always kills the other. But then, I only had to deal with that when other people come to work for me with PC laptops.
I think that may be more to do with lack of familiarity. Other people born and bread on PCs will find things there that I also think are non-intuitive.
True, you can modify the visual appearance of windows more easily than on a mac. That is a small (I think) sacrifice to ensure a degree of consistant user interface. But then, the mac handles more UI features on the graphics card, so there is less processor hit than on a PC.
If the computer understands it, and knows it, why does the user need to? Build the intelligence into the software, not add more information for the user to learn or understand, that is the point.
Look again. 80-90% is adding hardware to match. And why should a user have to search for basic software to install? And worst on a PC is that most of these free programs are the main source of spyware. But if you want, there is plenty of free software for mac too.
I really do not know where you are getting this idea, other than from past impressions.
Correct, I do prefer nondescript boxes that rack mount well, or at least fit well on a rack shelf.
The user experience is different things to different people. To me I find the MAC user experience to be frustrating - infuriating as I find much of the UI design illogical and strongly dislike the lack of hardware options. To those who are more abstract thinkers the UI probably makes more sense and they probably don't care about the hardware.
Again it comes down to the user type. Presumably you are more of an abstract thinker and hence the MAC provides a better experience. I am more logical and therefore I find the opposite.
Not at all, in fact it's exactly the same concept as Apple's "Think different" ads.
The abstract thinker concept is often referred to as creative minds. I don't use that term since technical minds are just as creative. It's really closer to artistic vs. technical.
Note that I said companies with expertise in producing hardware. Apple has indeed "done" hardware, but they have developed very little.
Being an early adopter of technology developed by others does not make you a company with hardware expertise. Additionally a few of those technologies they adopted did not work as advertised until a few version had passed.
Very bad example as I spent around 15 years in the professional video world. The "real" video world does not revolve around firewire. It's made some inroads, particularly as the "pro-sumer" cameras have reached a quality level that is useable for some programming where absolute quality is not as critical.
Additionally the quality of virtually all video I have seen that was produced on a MAC with the standard components was full of technical issues such as video glitches, audio level issues, etc. The only "useable" video I've seen from a MAC was from systems using dedicated video hardware.
The aesthetic quality of the MAC produced videos was on par with any other amateur produced video produced on other systems. The same poor shot composition, poor editing technique, excessive use of transition effects, etc.
News organizations are one of the few in the professional video arena where the pro-sumer equipment has an advantage. The small size and low cost work well for field reporting where the content is far more important than absolute quality. This advantage was first seen on a large scale during the first gulf war where the pro-sumer gear was considered disposable and allowed a large volume of coverage from very dangerous situations (to the equipment).
If the $3k pro-sumer camera survived the desert heat and dust for a couple weeks while providing useable footage to be edited on the "real" equipment in a climate controlled facility and saved a $40k camera from damage then it was a success. The compact size and ability for reporter to also operate the camera helped to convince the military to allow them to tag along on more missions as well.
The use of pro-sumer cameras and powerbooks for field reporting has far more to do with cost cutting than any technical superiority.
Point 1 is not really true these days in the Windows world. It was somewhat true a few years back, but since W2K there is much greater protection from this. The consistent use of proper install utilities has largely eliminated the problem.
In the OS-X world it is really no different. It's the install utility that provides the bulk of the safety for the installation, not the OS. Poorly written code that doesn't use the proper install utilities can hose a MAC just as easily as a Windows system. I have see this firsthand with ISP provided software on OS-X that required a near complete rebuild of the system to repair.
The online help in Windows is lousy at best, however I have not seen the online help in OS-X to be any better. When looking in the online help to try to sort through the WiFi profile issues I did not find anything that helped explain why it was not saving the profile. It also continued to incorrectly refer to the encryption key as a password while not providing enough of an explanation to see that they were really referring to the encryption key.
Most Unix systems also have rather mediocre online help as well. Linux and it's variants have thoroughly inconsistent and disjointed help due to the wide number of sources and the lack of tech writers to proof and organize it. Even the commercial Unix versions aren't a lot better. For real useable online help try a VMS system.
It is from what I have seen. I can purchase a complete PC from any of the name brand players and get more capable hardware than an Apple system of the same price. The gap is not as large as it has been in years past, but it is still there.
You can take the OS out of the hardware equation when we reach the point of a single unified hardware platform for all the various OSs, which is what my thread began referring to and what Apple's most recent moves seem to be pointing in the direction of.
Not true, auto-raise utilities have been available for Windows for ages. I've used them and really don't care for them. Virtual desktop type utilities are also available that give you larger desktop space and a CDE like multi desktop ability. You can also readily do a multi display seamless desktop on any of the recent Windows versions. I use a dual display desktop on the system I do most CAD and similar work on.
Ok, I still don't see that as any advantage. So Apple licensed PDF generation from Adobe and bundled it into the OS. If Microsoft did the same thing someone would sue them.
If I were to buy Adobe Acrobat I would have the same capability. I don't because I find PDF documents are inappropriate for nearly every document I might generate.
Um, doesn't that break the rule of having to purchase additional stuff to get the functionality?
The competition can indeed install their products without breaking anything if they follow the rules. If they code poorly then they certainly can break things. This works in both directions as well.
I haven't found that at all. I've used several different brands of WiFi cards on Windows, each with their own drivers and in all of them I had no problem saving multiple profiles, the encryption keys were called encryption keys, the options to select different key numbers were there which I didn't find on the MAC, etc.
For hardwired network connections on Windows it is usually best to go with DHCP which does just fine for 99% of the cases. When you are on your home network you can configure your DHCP server to always assign the same IP to make it easy to connect to the machine via FTP or whatnot. The $75 broadband firewall router that you should have on your network for security anyway will handle this DHCP task just fine.
I'm not sure about that since the native MAC user wasn't able to point me to those items either.
They aren't much of a processor hit on Windows either since nearly all of them occur while the system is predominantly waiting for the user anyway. It's mostly that I find them very annoying personally.
Perhaps it's just me, but since you can name a file anything I like to have an extension that indicates what the darn thing is. It can also present a security issue as well. If you get a file attached to an email and it's just a nondescript name it makes it more difficult to determine the risk level.
If you have to click to launch it and rely on the OS to decide what it is you're at risk. If I look and see that it's a .txt I know I can safely open it with good old Notepad, if it's an .exe I know it's risky and should get a good virus scan or just trashed.
If you are relying on the OS to decide what a file is and visually code it's icon to match the type then you're still relying on the same information as the extension.
Examples? I don't count choosing options during the initial purchase adding hardware to match. It's the difference between ordering your car in red vs. buying a blue car and having it repainted. I also don't consider giving the purchaser few options a plus.
Why should the user on Windows have to search for "basic" software to install? Two reasons - 1. Because they should not be saddled with system bloated with components they may not want from companies the may choose not to support, and 2. Because the government won't let Microsoft bundle the same things that the let Apple bundle.
I get it by looking at the offerings of Apple, Dell, HP, etc. and comparing the actual specifications and the prices.
I'm afraid I'm not impressed by one off custom configurations. Most any company can do the same. What counts is how a companies off-the-shelf standard systems perform. Take a look at the HP "Marvel" systems as an example of extreme performance in an off-the-shelf system. Granted the current Marvel systems are Alpha based, but the next generation to come after Marvel is Itanium based.
In other words, they switched over to PC's because of cost. I guess I will also put in my opinion of how dumb Apple was when the Mac first came out. If any of you recall, they shot themselves in the foot because they wanted to controll all aspects of the Mac, from hardwear to who wrote software. Becaue of this they alienated a lot of software and hardware people, which then drove people to the less expensive PC market. It wasn't because the PC was better, only cheaper (at the time). I wonder what would have happened if Apple had made similar decisions that IBM made with the PC.
Too bad nobody, not even LINUX has been able to come up with a hardware/software/OS PC system that is truely crash proof.
20 years ago I had one of these, found it in a junkpile so I borrowed a shopping cart and took it home. Data General Nova Minicomputer
formatting link
RDOS on a NOVA, did it have this I can't remember, sure was exciting to hear that puppy whirrr up in my bedroom, remember the size of those capacitors, touch one of those puppies and your head hits the ceiling.
formatting link
I found my TRS Model 80 more helpful, PC's were just becoming popular so after I broke a few keys on the DG trying to figure out what worked it sat around kind of got dusty until I sold it, it needed a new keyboard.
Cost was certainly one factor. Additionally since all of the software they were running on the MACs was available on the PC there was no compelling reason to use the MACs at all.
Apple did indeed do a lot of damage to themselves by trying to control everything. Their closed mentality kept them from benefiting from all of the third party development than made the PC shine.
They didn't get the high end graphics applications like CAD, that all went to PC and Unix systems with specialized graphics hardware. They didn't get the scientific and industrial users who needed the specialized I/O cards that were available for the PC. They didn't get the telecom related users who needed the Dialogic voice and Brooktrout FAX cards that were available for the PC. The list goes on and continues to go on.
Had Apple continued to embrace an open architecture then the MAC would look just like the PC does today, better hardware, massive amounts of third party hardware and software available, huge user base, etc. Instead, all they really did was bring the GUI (which they swiped from Xerox anyway) to the mass market. All of the true innovation in the computer world after the very early Apple days was outside of the Apple space, in the PC and midrange worlds.
Apple's legitimate early successes up through the II+ went to their heads and egos and this caused them to get mired in their own weaknesses instead of letting others help advance their products. To this day they are still trying to cling to that early reputation and pass off packaging as innovation.
Apple's UI conventions do work well for a certain set of users who, as the ads say "think different", and I don't bash the OS for catering to that market.
The two things I do bash are:
Those MAC users who claim that the MAC OS is superior to Windows since it is not. Up until OS-X the Windows OS was superior since despite it's flaws it did have such things as memory management. Post OS-X and W2K/XP the two are fairly comparable for stability and functionality with the UI being the only significant difference.
Those MAC users that claim that Apple's hardware is superior to PC hardware since it is not. Apple's hardware does not provide higher performance than is available in the PC world, nor does it provide better reliability than the mainstream PC world (better than some low end off brands of course). Didn't Apple have flaming notebooks not too long ago? A design flaw in the earlier iMacs that caused display failures? The same friend who had her entire 17" laptop replaced when it was only a few months old also has an iPod that I have personally seen lockup and have to be hard reset on at least five occasions. PCs have hardware problems and so do MACs.
No, the truly crash proof fault tolerant OSs are in the midrange and mainframe space where there is sufficient profit to fund the best systems engineers. When you pay $10k+ for an OS that has a 20 year history and huge teams of some of the best minds out there working on it you get a lot better than you'll ever get out of a $200 mass market OS.
Suffice it to say that I've seen many very good artistic folks computers and many technical folks computers. One thing that I see consistently between the two is the way that their computer desktops are organized.
The artistic types typically have their icons in little clusters that have no discernible (at least to me) organization, where the technical folks have their icons arranged in a rigid grid and grouped according to either function or frequency of use. It really is a different though process behind it.
That's rather what I expect will happen eventually. With OS-X the MAC OS is not a lot different than any of the other various Unix/Linux desktop shells that are available, and any Unix code for the particular hardware architecture should run just find on the underlying Unix OS.
That is fundamentally my point, there are two quite different though processes out there, rather a left brain / right brain thing. One UI works better for one type and the other UI works better for the other type. Neither is "better", just different.
Pre OS-X, Windows *was* better from a technical standpoint regarding the underlying kernel. Post OS-X there is not a lot of difference between them technically, the primary difference is the UI.
Um, not at all. The VMS online help is essentially identical to the hard copy manuals such as the DCL dictionary and the regular user guides. It does not extend to the level of the system managers manuals or installation guides, nor should it, but those guides are available in their entirety on the VMS doc CD which is conveniently multi format so you can use it on your PC.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.