 |
 |
More Mac hatin'
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...402&page=1
Well, OK, not so much hating (well, there's one guy who says something like, "I have a BS in CS, so Macs suck..." obviously, not a degree in scientific logic), as an interesting discussion based on one field.
A) how would you refute some of these points?
B) I think the majority of these folks don't photograph professionally (my original point-- all my peers and colleagues from a wealth of creative backgrounds all use... guess what... ). So are their specious, trivial points justified?
Really just wondering; I've posted a few things, but there's only so much time in a day.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Millions of people says stupid things. Getting upset because someone doesn't like what you like is going to make you age very quickly.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't really see any points. It looks like everybody either a) agrees a Mac is better, b) just prefers PCs, or c) feels entitled to talk out their ass because they have a BS in comp sci.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
"She's gone from suck to blow!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Strupat--nobody said I was upset.
Anyway, it's interesting because it's always the same-old-same-old FUD spin cycle, usually by one or two garage tweakers who feel their expertise in connecting S-ATA II drives somehow provides them authority in completely dismissing Macs, in all the boards across the Intarweb. Meanwhile, the rest of us are working on our functioning Macs. Speaking of which…
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Some dust-bowl of a planet
Status:
Offline
|
|
I see a thread of mostly sensible opinions. Nothing to see here, move on...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
You're always going to run into this, it doesn't really matter. A small vocal minority doesn't maybe keeps a few people from switching. Who cares. There are Mac Zealots out there that swear that Windows XP crashes daily... I don't like it too much, but it's nota bad OS, and Vista is going to be pretty dang good.
So all I can say is "Who cares?" The days of the OS wars are long past. Those still fighting them need to catch up...
|
|
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
i said it before, and i'll say it again.
as long as the world keeps turning, i (and you as well) couldnt give a damn
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by SirCastor
You're always going to run into this, it doesn't really matter. A small vocal minority doesn't maybe keeps a few people from switching. Who cares. There are Mac Zealots out there that swear that Windows XP crashes daily... I don't like it too much, but it's nota bad OS, and Vista is going to be pretty dang good.
So all I can say is "Who cares?" The days of the OS wars are long past. Those still fighting them need to catch up...
How would you define a bad OS?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
How would you define a bad OS?
Point taken, but still, it's more solid than 98 or 95. It's more solid than OS 7-9.
|
|
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by SirCastor
Point taken, but still, it's more solid than 98 or 95. It's more solid than OS 7-9.
Is stability how you define a good or bad operating system?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
No, but stability, functionality, and user experience are strong points of a Good OS. Windows XP fits these criteria better than it's predecessors. It's by no means perfect, but it's pretty good.
|
|
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Windows has a lot of flaws that keep it from being less stable than OS X. OS X used to have a few holes leaving it open for viruses, but these only worrying sections of OS X were made secure in OS X Intel.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Who cares,
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. If some people prefer Dells over Macs or Windows over XP that's their right. For me Macs and OSX is superior, not perfect by any stretch of the word but better then XP.
I use XP everyday at work and I can tell you its a lot more stable then NT was (win2k wasn't too bad but xp is better). I cannot recall when I last got a BSOD with XP and I put the laptop in sleep mode as opposed to shutting it down, so it stays running for months on end w/o a reboot. OSX can do the same so which is better?
|
|
Michael
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Cue RailHead's rat's ass pic.
-t
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by SirCastor
No, but stability, functionality, and user experience are strong points of a Good OS. Windows XP fits these criteria better than it's predecessors. It's by no means perfect, but it's pretty good.
I guess my point is that each of us have our own needs for an operating system. To me, security and functionality are very important, to which Windows gets a very poor grade (I'm also not sold on the overall Windows interface and "applications are windows" concept). If I was into games or possibly something else, it would be a great OS.
I think that people's inability to look at an OS critically and assess its design strengths and weaknesses are where these debates tend to break down to becoming (usually) pointless.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by goMac
Windows has a lot of flaws that keep it from being less stable than OS X. OS X used to have a few holes leaving it open for viruses, but these only worrying sections of OS X were made secure in OS X Intel.
How did going to Intel increase security?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
How did going to Intel increase security?
They locked down a lot of security holes related to application patching.
It's not an Intel specific thing per say, it's just that only the Intel builds come with this protection enabled. I'm sure in 10.5 they'll enable it on all platforms.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by goMac
They locked down a lot of security holes related to application patching.
It's not an Intel specific thing per say, it's just that only the Intel builds come with this protection enabled. I'm sure in 10.5 they'll enable it on all platforms.
What do you mean by "application patching"? Could you be more specific.. just curious.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
What do you mean by "application patching"? Could you be more specific.. just curious.
Under previous versions of OS X, any application could insert code into any other running application. The security problems with this should be obvious.
Under Intel Mac OS X, they implemented security levels where only applications elevated to another level can patch other applications. At users discretion, the user can even block all programs from being able to insert code into another.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by goMac
Under previous versions of OS X, any application could insert code into any other running application. The security problems with this should be obvious.
Under Intel Mac OS X, they implemented security levels where only applications elevated to another level can patch other applications. At users discretion, the user can even block all programs from being able to insert code into another.
So each Application runs in a jail? Do you mean that applications respect the locks other applications have on data files so that they can't write to the same file simultaneously, and therefore inject data into an app?
Do you have an article I can read? Just curious where you read this...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
So each Application runs in a jail? Do you mean that applications respect the locks other applications have on data files so that they can't write to the same file simultaneously, and therefore inject data into an app?
Do you have an article I can read? Just curious where you read this...
No, it's not so much a jail thing. Mach has methods for letting one process poke at another process. Apple simply added security to these methods. Mach won't let you call those methods unless you're running at a high enough level.
Mach actually has functionality that lets you take any process on the system and inject your own code into it. It's not a file thing at all. It's functionality built into the OS. This is how APE, Mach_Inject, and the rest of those type of apps work. Under Mac OS X Intel they have to obtain a special run level.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by goMac
No, it's not so much a jail thing. Mach has methods for letting one process poke at another process. Apple simply added security to these methods. Mach won't let you call those methods unless you're running at a high enough level.
Mach actually has functionality that lets you take any process on the system and inject your own code into it. It's not a file thing at all. It's functionality built into the OS. This is how APE, Mach_Inject, and the rest of those type of apps work. Under Mac OS X Intel they have to obtain a special run level.
That makes sense.. Thanks for the explanation! I'm not terribly hip to the differences between kernels.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Out of curiosity, are we talking about proteted memory and an apllication's space in memory ?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Out of curiosity, are we talking about proteted memory and an apllication's space in memory ?
Mach exists above protected memory. It's actually what manages protected memory, and therefore Mach itself is not bound by any rules associated with protected memory.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
yup yup. i know its the kernel. but when ur talking about processes, etc...ur referring to mach's handling of protected memory(for an individual process) right ? never heard of terms like "inject" when referring to this sort of thing
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
yup yup. i know its the kernel. but when ur talking about processes, etc...ur referring to mach's handling of protected memory(for an individual process) right ? never heard of terms like "inject" when referring to this sort of thing
I suppose. Mach just provides ways for programmers to take code they've written and put it into other programs. This is how all the APE based stuff works. APE detects when a new application is launched, and then tells Mach to take WindowshadeX's code or whatever, and inject/insert it in the newly launched application. Injecting through Mach is literally re-writing an application on the fly. This is why a lot of programmers don't like it. They can't support their applications if their code is being changed.
Fortunately in 10.4 Intel Apple blocked this functionality for normal applications. Funny, I just had an email on this topic today.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
