Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2009, 10:24 AM

Well, all the other ways.

There. OS X wins.

-t

Doofy · Jan 19, 2009, 11:05 AM

OS X users get more chicks. Unless they're into sausage, and then they get more sausage.

starman · Jan 19, 2009, 11:08 AM

I don't have to f*ck with OS X to make it work properly.

Laminar · Jan 19, 2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by starman

I don't have to f*ck with OS X to make it work properly.

I installed Ubuntu on a PC and spent eight hours trying to get all of the hardware recognized and monitor resolutions correct. I gave up and installed OS X, it worked perfectly with a single, well-documented patch that took all of 30 seconds to install.

Mrjinglesusa · Jan 19, 2009, 11:52 AM

I see what you are doing here. Clever.

besson3c · Jan 19, 2009, 12:23 PM

What's funny to me is that I get called a troll in my thread, and a thread that is intended to mock me will probably thrive without anybody thinking of this thread as trolling.

Oh well, I'm a good sport, I'll join the fun...

One way that OS X is better is that Laminar doesn't have to spend eight hours to get his display resolution set correctly

Railroader · Jan 19, 2009, 12:28 PM

Trolling, a personal attack, and baiting. no, the smiley face does not make it a "joke".

Originally Posted by besson3c

One way that OS X is better is that Laminar doesn't have to spend eight hours to get his display resolution set correctly

Accurate:

One way that OS X is better is that no one has to spend eight hours to get their display resolution set correctly.

Laminar · Jan 19, 2009, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

What's funny to me is that I get called a troll in my thread, and a thread that is intended to mock me will probably thrive without anybody thinking of this thread as trolling.

What if this thread...gasp...isn't trolling? Say a PS3 proponent goes on the PS3 boards and talks about how great his PS3 is. Not trolling. Say a PS3 owner goes on an XBox forum and talks about how great his PS3 is. Trolling. Same content, different venue.

One way that OS X is better is that Laminar doesn't have to spend eight hours to get his display resolution set correctly

Incorrect. The display resolution never worked - the 13,000 suggestions I found by Googling didn't work, so I gave up and installed OS X. On a computer it was NOT designed to work on. And it worked better.

besson3c · Jan 19, 2009, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

What if this thread...gasp...isn't trolling? Say a PS3 proponent goes on the PS3 boards and talks about how great his PS3 is. Not trolling. Say a PS3 owner goes on an XBox forum and talks about how great his PS3 is. Trolling. Same content, different venue.

That would be true if the thread wasn't created as an obvious attempt at humor as an opposite thread of my own. I'm not complaining, whatever, just saying...

Incorrect. The display resolution never worked - the 13,000 suggestions I found by Googling didn't work, so I gave up and installed OS X. On a computer it was NOT designed to work on. And it worked better.

Maybe you should have went for 13,001?

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Maybe you should have went for 13,001?

Apparently, that's what it takes to make Linux work.

Thanks, but no thanks.

-t

besson3c · Jan 19, 2009, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Apparently, that's what it takes to make Linux work.

Thanks, but no thanks.

-t

Why are you looking for a fight turtle? Are you this feisty in real life? Enjoy the nice sunny Indiana winter day and our lovely gray skies! Less than 24 hours now until black Jesus is inaugurated, so cheer up!

Hawkeye_a · Jan 19, 2009, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

What if this thread...gasp...isn't trolling? Say a PS3 proponent goes on the PS3 boards and talks about how great his PS3 is. Not trolling. Say a PS3 owner goes on an XBox forum and talks about how great his PS3 is. Trolling. Same content, different venue.

Incorrect. The display resolution never worked - the 13,000 suggestions I found by Googling didn't work, so I gave up and installed OS X. On a computer it was NOT designed to work on. And it worked better.

Is this my q to bring up the Wii ?

OSX gives me more time to spend at the beach. Linux is sorta like going to the beach cause you will probably get tanned from spending so much time in front of the monitor.... but you miss out on the ocean, waves, surfing, sand...... well you get the idea....

Cheers

PS>> and yes, i would rather pay Apple a premium to provide me with a computer i can use out of the box, than sit at my desk with a bunch of toothpicks and super-glue trying to build a computer.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 19, 2009, 01:58 PM

One thing I've never liked about OS X is how it's so slow. Even on the fastest possible Mac, it's slow because of all the animations that can't be disabled and require a hack just to speed them up a bit.

Linux, Windows, and OS 9 are all snappy. OS X is incapable of being snappy. Even Vista is much faster - not only are the animations a lot more subtle and faster, but they can easily be disabled if you want.

You may not think the animation of a window going into the dock is that bad, and you may think sheets are the greatest thing ever, but have you ever tried, say, saving a large number of files in OS X? Those sheet animations popping out of the title bar add up. Furthermore, as the OS consumes all your remaining RAM, they actually slow down each time. I've timed it.

starman · Jan 19, 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

One thing I've never liked about OS X is how it's so slow.

I stopped reading after this.

P.S. That post took an hour because OSX is so slow.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 19, 2009, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I stopped reading after this.

P.S. That post took an hour because OSX is so slow.

I was referring to all the animations OS X has that can't be disabled. At least Windows lets you disable animations.

OS 9 didn't have any animations and it felt super fast as a result. Try using a computer that has OS 9 on it sometime. You'll be amazed at how quick it is at navigating the Finder compared to OS X. Of course, there are other problems like how there's very little software available for it.

besson3c · Jan 19, 2009, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I stopped reading after this.

P.S. That post took an hour because OSX is so slow.

Why so defensive? This is not personal, so why this sort of response?

starman · Jan 19, 2009, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why so defensive? This is not personal, so why this sort of response?

Because it's a stupid and unqualified statement.

besson3c · Jan 19, 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Because it's a stupid and unqualified statement.

Why? He didn't share with us any benchmarks, so obviously it was his subjective assessment which is no more or less valid than yours. What sorts of qualifications do you need to have to have to make subjective statements? What qualifications do you have to accuse the statement of being stupid?

starman · Jan 19, 2009, 06:05 PM

Considering he DID NOT talk about WHAT was slow, I'd say that his statement is invalid based on lack of actual information.

Chuckit · Jan 19, 2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

I was referring to all the animations OS X has that can't be disabled. At least Windows lets you disable animations.

OS 9 didn't have any animations and it felt super fast as a result. Try using a computer that has OS 9 on it sometime. You'll be amazed at how quick it is at navigating the Finder compared to OS X. Of course, there are other problems like how there's very little software available for it.

What animations? The only basic user interface animation I can think of that blocks action is the folder zoom in icon view — which was taken from the classic Mac OS.

Laminar · Jan 19, 2009, 09:42 PM

The only animations I can think of:

Genie minimizing - can be disabled
Dock reveal and hide
Menus fade after they're unclicked

And of course, the Finder window zoom, but that only happens when a folder is opening into a new window. Besides that, it's pretty obvious that the poster hasn't used OS X in a while and has developed a skewed view of what it really is.

sek929 · Jan 19, 2009, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Is this my q to bring up the Wii ?

Please, no...
wink

sek929 · Jan 19, 2009, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

One thing I've never liked about OS X is how it's so slow. Even on the fastest possible Mac, it's slow because of all the animations that can't be disabled and require a hack just to speed them up a bit.

Linux, Windows, and OS 9 are all snappy. OS X is incapable of being snappy. Even Vista is much faster - not only are the animations a lot more subtle and faster, but they can easily be disabled if you want.

You may not think the animation of a window going into the dock is that bad, and you may think sheets are the greatest thing ever, but have you ever tried, say, saving a large number of files in OS X? Those sheet animations popping out of the title bar add up. Furthermore, as the OS consumes all your remaining RAM, they actually slow down each time. I've timed it.

I disagree.

Sure OS9 felt snappy, but what's snappy about burning a CD and I guess, watching television while that locks up your entire computer till it's finished? At first OSX felt slow because I expected it to work like the old Mac OSes, when I force quit my first app and it immediately went away without crashing the entire system I was hooked.

10.0.4 was molasses, and 10.1 was slightly better on my old QS, but Jaguar, Panther and Tiger ran like liquid awesome on it. This is with a gig and a half of RAM, 733 proc and a 32MB Nvidia Geforce. After I had updated to Panther (and so on) I didn't experience a single system crash for the remaining life of the computer.

Windows does feel snappier™ in general, especially browsing the web, coughflashcough, but I have yet to find a PC that I considered a joy to use. Sure at first they're pumping out 90FPS games and flying through data and then an application performs something illegal (murder?) and it quits. Every time I use Vista I get windows explorer to crash, this is not an exaggeration, it's like it hates me or something. That said I don't mind XP, which is why I'm running it right now.

ort888 · Jan 19, 2009, 10:31 PM

Linux is free...

...if your time is worth nothing.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 19, 2009, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

The only animations I can think of:

Genie minimizing - can be disabled
Dock reveal and hide
Menus fade after they're unclicked

Genie minimizing can be replaced with scaling instead, but it still takes some time. The dock revealing and hiding is a good example. Sheets are the biggest one for me. Menus fading never bugged me.

Originally Posted by starman

Considering he DID NOT talk about WHAT was slow, I'd say that his statement is invalid based on lack of actual information.

Well, actually, I did, and then when you said you didn't read my post, I said it again just in case. Don't tell me what I said and did not say if you're going to claim you didn't read what I wrote (even though I know you actually did).

Originally Posted by sek929

I disagree.

Sure OS9 felt snappy, but what's snappy about burning a CD and I guess, watching television while that locks up your entire computer till it's finished? At first OSX felt slow because I expected it to work like the old Mac OSes, when I force quit my first app and it immediately went away without crashing the entire system I was hooked.

10.0.4 was molasses, and 10.1 was slightly better on my old QS, but Jaguar, Panther and Tiger ran like liquid awesome on it. This is with a gig and a half of RAM, 733 proc and a 32MB Nvidia Geforce. After I had updated to Panther (and so on) I didn't experience a single system crash for the remaining life of the computer.

Windows does feel snappier™ in general, especially browsing the web, coughflashcough, but I have yet to find a PC that I considered a joy to use. Sure at first they're pumping out 90FPS games and flying through data and then an application performs something illegal (murder?) and it quits. Every time I use Vista I get windows explorer to crash, this is not an exaggeration, it's like it hates me or something. That said I don't mind XP, which is why I'm running it right now.

I've rarely had problems with Windows crashing. I agree OS 9 had multitasking issues; that's why I said it felt fast without saying it actually was fast.

Windows XP with all the eye candy disabled is probably one of the fastest OSes I've used, next to System 6 on a 68030. I'm not saying OS X isn't fast, but I'm saying it doesn't feel fast and, to some extent, it can't feel fast because of how it displays things. If you are the kind of computer user who takes it slow and never really rushes anything, then it's fine. But if you are doing things quickly and find yourself outpacing your computer on a regular basis (as I did on several occasions), it does get annoying.

OS X has a lot of benefits, it's just not the best at everything. I've had probably about as many problems with OS X as I've had with Windows. They're different kinds of problems though. To be honest, both are pretty good.

zro · Jan 20, 2009, 12:00 AM

Sounds like you could use more AppleScript.

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Considering he DID NOT talk about WHAT was slow, I'd say that his statement is invalid based on lack of actual information.

Then why didn't you just say this in the first place rather than be so confrontational?

It's really quite amazing that this sort of stuff gets people so defensive and offensive. I don't exclude myself from this, I've definitely taken part in defending and attacking people's tech ideas, but I guess some people just have a harder time than others to keep things in perspective...

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

Linux is free...

...if your time is worth nothing.

Or if you are interested in the areas of computing it serves, as I obviously am (and have to be, at this point in my life). Plenty of money to be had doing Linux/Unix admin gigs too, if you really want to assign a monetary value to the time investment of learning Linux/Unix.

starman · Jan 20, 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Then why didn't you just say this in the first place rather than be so confrontational?

Probably because it's so f'n OBVIOUS.

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Probably because it's so f'n OBVIOUS.

It's quite obvious that OS X doesn't feel comparatively slow to him? Huh?

Laminar · Jan 20, 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's quite obvious that OS X doesn't feel comparatively slow to him? Huh?

It's obvious that he has biased notions about an operating system he doesn't primarily use.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 20, 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

It's obvious that he has biased notions about an operating system he doesn't primarily use.

Hey, I was a Mac user for almost my whole life. Started using OS X in 2002, and I used it as my primary OS until early 2008. I'm not making sweeping generalizations about OS X being slow. All I'm saying is that it has little animations built in that, by definition, take a certain amount of time to play. That's not why I stopped using OS X, it's just one minor complaint I have with it. I know a lot of people here seem to think that OS X is perfect and everything else sucks, but maybe you can accept the fact that the animations in OS X do slow it down, even if they only do so trivially (only if you are really in tune with the OS and are able to "outrun" it).

And before you start talking about "biased notions," remember that a lot of Mac users are very biased against both Windows and Linux even if they've never used them. I haven't used Linux myself so I can't comment on it.

Chuckit · Jan 20, 2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Or if you are interested in the areas of computing it serves, as I obviously am (and have to be, at this point in my life). Plenty of money to be had doing Linux/Unix admin gigs too, if you really want to assign a monetary value to the time investment of learning Linux/Unix.

He's talking about using Linux to accomplish an actual purpose that actual people who aren't Linux sysadmins have.

goMac · Jan 20, 2009, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

One thing I've never liked about OS X is how it's so slow. Even on the fastest possible Mac, it's slow because of all the animations that can't be disabled and require a hack just to speed them up a bit.

10.2 was slow, I remember waiting forever for sheets to come down.

But it was a timing problem, and in 10.3 they sped up all the animations. Been nice and snappy since.

If you don't like animations, don't bother with Vista. Single windows have to animate when they open...

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 12:39 PM

OS X is a sluggish resource hog overall, but I don't think this can be blamed on the animations. Snow Leopard is an obvious concession to this notion being dedicated to improving performance and reducing its footprint.

goMac · Jan 20, 2009, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

OS X is a sluggish resource hog overall, but I don't think this can be blamed on the animations. Snow Leopard is an obvious concession to this notion being dedicated to improving performance and reducing its footprint.

Funny... I have the same complaint about Linux. Four years ago, I installed Linux on a machine with 128 megs of RAM. It ran quite possibly worse than OS X...

Laminar · 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

And before you start talking about "biased notions," remember that a lot of Mac users are very biased against both Windows and Linux even if they've never used them. I haven't used Linux myself so I can't comment on it.

"They are, so I can be too."

Originally Posted by goMac

Funny... I have the same complaint about Linux. Four years ago, I installed Linux on a machine with 128 megs of RAM. It ran quite possibly worse than OS X...

Well why didn't you just compile your own version of Linux? It's a piece of cake.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 20, 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

OS X is a sluggish resource hog overall, but I don't think this can be blamed on the animations. Snow Leopard is an obvious concession to this notion being dedicated to improving performance and reducing its footprint.

I didn't want to comment on that since the last computer I had that ran OS X was a 1.5 GHz G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM. It wasn't really enough for 10.5. In fact, there was never really a great solution for G4 users. I think Panther was about the pinnacle of OS X development for the PPC. After that, Apple focused on Intel. So I'm sure Snow Leopard will be great for Intel Mac users, but G4 users should stick with whatever OS version their computer shipped with... 10.3 or 10.4, whichever is earlier.

Originally Posted by Laminar

"They are, so I can be too."

I never even suggested that. I admit I'm a little biased, not against OS X itself, more against Apple in general, particularly their hardware. I can still recognize the strengths of OS X. I switched for my own reasons but I don't go around telling people OS X sucks and no one should use it. I can't believe you've gotten so angry about my pointing out one minor complaint I had with OS X. You don't honestly think it's perfect, do you?

Oh and like besson3c said, OS X is definitely a resource hog. It's too bad Apple decided to restrict the RAM in the 12" PowerBook to 1.25 GB, otherwise I may have been able to install enough to run Leopard semi-comfortably.

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Funny... I have the same complaint about Linux. Four years ago, I installed Linux on a machine with 128 megs of RAM. It ran quite possibly worse than OS X...

It may have been swapping at 128 megs of RAM, just as OS X may be swapping for Luca, and of course some window managers in Linux are faster than others.

But honestly, I'm not really interested in debating what OS is faster, because there is so much to factor in and at the end of the day it is mostly pointless to debate. It is possible to be a resource hog *and* still seem fairly fast as long as you have the resources to run it. I'm not claiming that OS X is slow, but I think that it is pretty obvious that it is indeed a resource hog and could be made much less so with further optimization. That's my point.

goMac · Jan 20, 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Well why did you just compile your own version of Linux? It's a piece of cake.

Oh yeah, like I want to spend my time compiling Linux on a P3... and I'm not convinced Gentoo would make that much difference...

I was using Debian, which is not exactly a huge resource hog. I just wanted a server with a GUI to do NAT, that was it, pretty simple. After I spent ages getting X11 configured (seems to be a common trend), I finally gave up and went to the early Fedora builds, which were just as slow, but at least the server worked. I used it for a good year as a NAT server before I finally just got a beefier Airport.

goMac · Jan 20, 2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It may have been swapping at 128 megs of RAM, just as OS X may be swapping for Luca, and of course some window managers in Linux are faster than others.

I would blame the window manager, but it was slow even without being in the window manager. Booting that thing took forever.

I upped it to 192 (added a 128 stick but the machine only recognized the first 64 megs) and it was better. Not snappy, but better.

Originally Posted by besson3c

But honestly, I'm not really interested in debating what OS is faster, because there is so much to factor in and at the end of the day it is mostly pointless to debate. It is possible to be a resource hog *and* still seem fairly fast as long as you have the resources to run it. I'm not claiming that OS X is slow, but I think that it is pretty obvious that it is indeed a resource hog and could be made much less so with further optimization. That's my point.

If you don't want to talk about it, why did you bring it up?

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

I didn't want to comment on that since the last computer I had that ran OS X was a 1.5 GHz G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM. It wasn't really enough for 10.5. In fact, there was never really a great solution for G4 users. I think Panther was about the pinnacle of OS X development for the PPC. After that, Apple focused on Intel. So I'm sure Snow Leopard will be great for Intel Mac users, but G4 users will have to stick with whatever OS version their computer shipped with.

I get along fine with my G4 Powerbook, I guess it's all relative to what you do. I code and spend most of my time in an xterm, so a G4 is fine for me. About the only time I really become frustrated with my G4 is when I want to play Flash movies, but Flash sucks horribly on every Mac I have tried it on...

besson3c · Jan 20, 2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

If you don't want to talk about it, why did you bring it up?

I didn't, Luca did. I said that OS X is a resource hog, not that it's slow.

goMac · Jan 20, 2009, 12:59 PM

The G4 was never a great chip, except for when it was brand new. It really got bad after the 500 mhz debacle.

Luca Rescigno · Jan 20, 2009, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

The G4 was never a great chip, except for when it was brand new. It really got bad after the 500 mhz debacle.

Yeah, I agree. Apple kept it around way too long. Don't know if it was because Motorola kept leading them on or if it was a pride issue or what, but it should have been discontinued it much earlier.

Laminar · Jan 20, 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

I never even suggested that.

Yeah, you really did.
Me: You're biased.
You: Before you accuse me of being biased, consider that others are also biased.

I admit I'm a little biased, not against OS X itself, more against Apple in general, particularly their hardware. I can still recognize the strengths of OS X. I switched for my own reasons but I don't go around telling people OS X sucks and no one should use it. I can't believe you've gotten so angry about my pointing out one minor complaint I had with OS X. You don't honestly think it's perfect, do you?

Wait...angry? You call disagreeing with you angry? I haven't even used any exclamation points!

starman · Jan 20, 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I get along fine with my G4 Powerbook, I guess it's all relative to what you do. I code and spend most of my time in an xterm, so a G4 is fine for me. About the only time I really become frustrated with my G4 is when I want to play Flash movies, but Flash sucks horribly on every Mac I have tried it on...

Works fine on every Mac I tried it on since the PPC G5.