[besson3c]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Third rate? As opposed to what? Linux? You've got to be kidding. Linux is UNUSABLE to anyone who isn't a computer geek. Even if you venture into it, you soon realize that software is a nightmare to deal with.

Third rate to Macintosh? Macintosh has a nice GUI, but it's slow on the average computer. Software is better than you would expect, but lacks the availability/support on windows.

Third rate to Unix? Maybe you ought to realize that the majority of people who use computers aren't telephone company technicians.

Windows is the only widely used/supported OS that there is. Saying it is "third rate" is really brainless.

Telephone company technicians? WTF? Do you have *any* idea what you are talking about? Hint: go check out monster.com or something, you'll find out that a ton of people rely upon Unix, which includes HP/UX and Solaris.

As far as Linux being unusable, more BS. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? It works just fine for email, word pro, web surfing, all the usual sorts of basics people use a computer for. It comes with a software installer that automatically downloads and installs open source software. I've watched newbies negotiate Ubuntu just fine (once installed, setup and ready to go), it's not a big deal. We have literally hundreds of students in our local high school using it each day.

It's okay to have criticism of Linux, I'm fine with that... However, it's so annoying when people whine about all of the Mac FUD that annoys them, and then spew out Linux FUD.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

dude, the only terminal command I have mastered in Linux is apt-get (Ubuntu). It depends on the distro. The new version of Ubuntu, which came out yesterday, is pretty damn slick. The installer rivals OS X's installer, it will import your docs from your old Linux system. With the package manager installing and uninstalling is a breeze. I haven't had a prob with anything yet.

And there is a GUI for apt-get too..

[cwosigns]

I installed Vista Home Premium on my C2D MacBook 2 GHz with 2 GB RAM and I find myself WANTING to use it for web browsing. IE7 is speedy when compared to Safari. Safari is just too slow.

I like the eye candy in Vista, but again I only use it for internet and email. I don't have any word processing softare on it. I use Office 2004 and Pages in OS X for work.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

dude, the only terminal command I have mastered in Linux is apt-get (Ubuntu). It depends on the distro. The new version of Ubuntu, which came out yesterday, is pretty damn slick. The installer rivals OS X's installer, it will import your docs from your old Linux system. With the package manager installing and uninstalling is a breeze. I haven't had a prob with anything yet.

You've only had it for a day. Give it time for the package manager to start installing busted versions of software, then you need to use some obscure Linux-specific command-line tool and edit your X configuration file to make it properly recognize a new display, then a new version comes out and your previously supported video card starts throwing out all manner of bizarre wackiness…oh, and it makes this REALLY ****ING ANNOYING noise when you start up the computer. Like, people complain about the Macintosh beep, but geez.

If I wanted to run a Web or e-mail server, Linux would be on there, no doubt. But I ain't buying it anymore when it shows up at my door late at night going, "I'm sorry, baby. You know I need you. I swear I'll be usable this time!"

[Jawbone54]

I've played around with Vista quite a bit...

Pretty, but the file explorer, mac128k-1984 said, is ridiculously difficult to navigate. I won't be "re-switching" anytime soon, and certainly not on the merits of Vista.

Like I said, I think it is very pretty to look at. In my personal opinion, I think it's even easier on the eyes than OSX. But when I start opening and using applications, I find that the prettiness =/= ease of use. Microsoft took a few steps forward, and a few steps back.

And just to throw it in...the obligatory "Meh™!"

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You've only had it for a day. Give it time for the package manager to start installing busted versions of software, then you need to use some obscure Linux-specific command-line tool and edit your X configuration file to make it properly recognize a new display, then a new version comes out and your previously supported video card starts throwing out all manner of bizarre wackiness…oh, and it makes this REALLY ****ING ANNOYING noise when you start up the computer. Like, people complain about the Macintosh beep, but geez.

Linux STILL has this problem?

10 years since I first complained about it and they still can't get it right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You've only had it for a day. Give it time for the package manager to start installing busted versions of software, then you need to use some obscure Linux-specific command-line tool and edit your X configuration file to make it properly recognize a new display, then a new version comes out and your previously supported video card starts throwing out all manner of bizarre wackiness…oh, and it makes this REALLY ****ING ANNOYING noise when you start up the computer. Like, people complain about the Macintosh beep, but geez.

If I wanted to run a Web or e-mail server, Linux would be on there, no doubt. But I ain't buying it anymore when it shows up at my door late at night going, "I'm sorry, baby. You know I need you. I swear I'll be usable this time!"

No doubt these sorts of issues are apparent, but then again, if you were to create a Linux build and set it up for normal users in a managed environment, or create some sort of appliance that didn't warrant upgrading software unless a new feature was desired, this really wouldn't be an issue.

I would like to know how many regular users are actually this diligent about upgrading their software on a regular basis - not for the purpose of trying to score some points in some sort of argument with you, just out of my general curiosity?

The Ubuntu approach is good: you get quarterly major monolithic OS upgrades that are tested and stable. I'm not using Ubuntu now, but if they have it down to where these upgrades are pretty quick and painless without having to wipe/reinstall, this would be the way to go. Libraries are updated literally every day, and updating them as they come in results in the sorts of problems it sounds like you've experienced. However, rolling all of these updates into a stable monolithic release in this fashion ought to solve a lot of these problems. In between major releases, they could push across security updates too.

It sounds like you would very much prefer releases rolled out like Apple does, and you don't really desire the flexibility of being able to upgrade libraries at your own pace to be on the bleeding edge. Of course, Apple has had hiccups in breaking things across updates too, but for the most part this has worked out well for OS X.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Vista has an easy to use calendar, a very nice widget system,

Don't you mean "gadget" system

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Well duh it won't run fast on a 'average computer', OS X Doesn't run on a average computer! Unless you hacked it and have it on a PC, it will still run slow from the hacking.

I'd assume you're not speaking from experience.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Vista is hardly what all of you are making it out to be.

In fact, it is much easier to use than XP ever was and has everything a computer users needs in its out of the box configuration (Ultimate is obviously the best). XP does not have that.

Vista has an easy to use calendar, a very nice widget system, flip3d, photo gallery software, easy configuration, a great file browser, complete disk image backup in Ultimate, vastly improved user interface, and easy networking. Not to mention that most software is now Vista compatible or can be run as is.

I just don't see what the hatred of Vista is about. After all a computer is only a tool to get work done. While OS X was very good with its user interface for awhile, Vista is now a worthy competitor.

Considering that I have been using it for a full month I think it is exactly what I am making it out to be. Sadly I don't have a full version of XP to re-install (my computer came with it pre-installed from HP and they actually force you to do your own back-up if you want any sort of discs with the OS on it). So I suppose I *could* go back to XP it just seems like such a hassle. Though my wife would be happy with the computer again... maybe I will go back now that I think of it that way.

I have heard that the full version/clean install works well, but the "upgrade" sure jacks everything up.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Don't you mean "gadget" system

I wondered if everyone was just going to let that go.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And there is a GUI for apt-get too..

Oh, i know, I was making a point on how I was a n00b and could work with it fine.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You've only had it for a day. Give it time for the package manager to start installing busted versions of software, then you need to use some obscure Linux-specific command-line tool and edit your X configuration file to make it properly recognize a new display, then a new version comes out and your previously supported video card starts throwing out all manner of bizarre wackiness…oh, and it makes this REALLY ****ING ANNOYING noise when you start up the computer. Like, people complain about the Macintosh beep, but geez.

If I wanted to run a Web or e-mail server, Linux would be on there, no doubt. But I ain't buying it anymore when it shows up at my door late at night going, "I'm sorry, baby. You know I need you. I swear I'll be usable this time!"

Uh, you can turn the volume down..... And I have had no probs with graphics and I haven't had any problems with packages (other than OpenOffice, which I hate anyway)

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I'd assume you're not speaking from experience.

Hacking? Nope, but i do know people down under who have done it.

[mitchell_pgh]

I think Apple does a great job of giving good reasons to upgrade. Vista really doesn't add many end user reasons for the bump. Every OS X upgrade has at least a few "wow, that will be cool" things... I'm really looking forward to Time Machine in Leopard.

I couldn't say the same thing for Vista.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Hacking? Nope, but i do know people down under who have done it.

Like...Australia? Either way, I'll let you know that it's quite possible to have a computer that's not "slower."

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I think Apple does a great job of giving good reasons to upgrade. Vista really doesn't add many end user reasons for the bump. Every OS X upgrade has at least a few "wow, that will be cool" things... I'm really looking forward to Time Machine in Leopard.

I couldn't say the same thing for Vista.

Indeed, when microsoft first announced longhorn, it contained a long list of innovative/exciting changes. Unfortunately Microsoft being Microsoft over promised and under delivered. It jettisoned just about every reason why it was doing the upgrade. I mean being 5+ years in the making it should have been able to deliver more then the aero theme and cancel/allow nagware.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Indeed, when microsoft first announced longhorn, it contained a long list of innovative/exciting changes. Unfortunately Microsoft being Microsoft over promised and under delivered. It jettisoned just about every reason why it was doing the upgrade. I mean being 5+ years in the making it should have been able to deliver more then the aero theme and cancel/allow nagware.

You have just made a negative statement about Vista. Cancel or Allow?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would like to know how many regular users are actually this diligent about upgrading their software on a regular basis - not for the purpose of trying to score some points in some sort of argument with you, just out of my general curiosity?

I'm not sure how diligent you mean by "this diligent," but Ubuntu has a software update mechanism similar to OS X's Software Update, only I believe it's based on the apt repository (and thus manages all software installed in the standard way). Like Software Update, it pesters you to install the updates, so I imagine most people probably do take advantage of it. (This is as I recall, anyway. The last version I used was Dapper.)

[besson3c]

Hmmm... I'm not using Ubuntu right now, like I said, although I've been tempted to. I know that each major release keeps on getting significantly better. It seems like there is a lot of momentum to start replacing a lot of Windows boxes there.... you can't compete with free, as long as the free alternative can get the job done just as efficiently!

[passmaster16]

Originally Posted by starman 

Linux STILL has this problem?

10 years since I first complained about it and they still can't get it right.

I think it's come a long way in terms of ease of setup but there are still shortcomings. I made the mistake of trying to use a netgear wireless card with Fedora Core 5. It didn't work. I tried to be patient with it to get it setup, but I just didn't feel like dealing with it. There are no native drivers, and while I know I could have tried ndiswrapper, it just wasn't worth it. Linux is ok for basic stuff until it breaks. If it does, it can be frustrating.

As far as Vista goes, I'm not overly impressed. I think one issue here is that XP was actually pretty decent for M$. It's going to take time before corporate customers are going to be willing to upgrade and obviously most home users don't really care what OS they run. We still have home users that want remote access to our corporate network using Win98/ME. Until XP goes out of mainstream support, I don't think the adoption rate of Vista will be close to that of XP. There isn't enough incentive to upgrade. The only people that are getting Vista are the ones buying new PCs with it preloaded.

[passmaster16]

Originally Posted by cwosigns 

I installed Vista Home Premium on my C2D MacBook 2 GHz with 2 GB RAM and I find myself WANTING to use it for web browsing. IE7 is speedy when compared to Safari. Safari is just too slow.

Have you tried Camino or Firefox on OS X to see if it's any faster than Safari. I've always found Safari to be a bit slower than Camino on a fast machine. Sometimes I wonder if IE just renders faster in general because most sites are optimized for it...not really optimized but browsers that are truly standards compliant could run slower with all the crappy IE coding out on the web.

[anonymac]

Originally Posted by passmaster16 

I think it's come a long way in terms of ease of setup but there are still shortcomings. I made the mistake of trying to use a netgear wireless card with Fedora Core 5. It didn't work. I tried to be patient with it to get it setup, but I just didn't feel like dealing with it. There are no native drivers, and while I know I could have tried ndiswrapper, it just wasn't worth it. Linux is ok for basic stuff until it breaks. If it does, it can be frustrating.

As far as Vista goes, I'm not overly impressed. I think one issue here is that XP was actually pretty decent for M$. It's going to take time before corporate customers are going to be willing to upgrade and obviously most home users don't really care what OS they run. We still have home users that want remote access to our corporate network using Win98/ME. Until XP goes out of mainstream support, I don't think the adoption rate of Vista will be close to that of XP. There isn't enough incentive to upgrade. The only people that are getting Vista are the ones buying new PCs with it preloaded.

More smoke and mirrors from Macintosh fanatics to try to downplay Vista's ease of use, much better GUI, and many more features over XP.

OS X of course doesn't have this problem with upgrades because Apple just completely drops support for anything but their current OS. While there was some outrage when Apple first started doing this, they have now lined up like sheep to buy the latest OS.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Microsoft just gave me a nice raise.

Fixed.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

More smoke and mirrors from Macintosh fanatics to try to downplay Vista's ease of use, much better GUI, and many more features over XP.

OS X of course doesn't have this problem with upgrades because Apple just completely drops support for anything but their current OS. While there was some outrage when Apple first started doing this, they have now lined up like sheep to buy the latest OS.

Um, as much as you seem to love the Microsoft sausage, have you noticed that there are quire a few hardcore MS guys from 3.1 that are switching OS's? Not just to OSX but also Linux.

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

More smoke and mirrors from Macintosh fanatics to try to downplay Vista's ease of use, much better GUI, and many more features over XP.

Vista has no ease of use. There's a frikken learning curve to Vista, the GUI made even brand-new laptops laggier than my Mac mini, and I don't think incessant security question windows count as features. If Vista's so superior to xp, why are so many people trying to revert to xp? Even I wouldn't get a computer with Vista. If I go back to Windows, I want xp. The eye candy just isn't worth the frustration.

[passmaster16]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

More smoke and mirrors from Macintosh fanatics to try to downplay Vista's ease of use, much better GUI, and many more features over XP.

Smoke and mirros? Not hardly. I use Windows more than OS X, and I was using Windows long before Macs. I didn't get into Macs until 10.1 came out. As an systems administrator for 1300 corporate workstations, I see no advantage to move to Vista at this point. In fact we can't do it because we still run Novell, which there is no production Novell client for Vista, and many of our legacy applications won't run on Vista. Also, our customer is not going to be happy about the performance decrease with Vista on two year old hardware.

Point being, there are many customers who don't care about the GUI. They want the GUI to look the same has Windows 95/NT. We make classic the default interface in XP because the majority of people complained about XP's new and improved interface. I'd find it tough to argue that XP was Microsoft's most stable OS to date. Maybe Vista will be better but it will take some time to tell. Unless people need to be cutting edge and are willing to spend the money to upgrade hardware, why switch at this point? What features from a business standpoint are in Vista that are significantly better than XP? I guess the firewall is better. And maybe the security is better because of constant prompting for user action. It always has to be price vs benefit analysis. Vista is probably better than XP in pure features as it should be because it's the latest OS, but is it good enough to invest in not only the software but the hardware to run it effectively?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by passmaster16 

And maybe the security is better because of constant prompting for user action.

I still argue that this is not really a security feature. If anything, it's a social engineering function to make people click through dialogues even more blindly than they do now.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you ever tried Ubuntu?

After my experience with it yesterday I'll take Windows 95 or Mac OS 7.5.5 over it any day.

[forkies]

omg why does your user name have to be my name!?!? it's so confusing

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by forkies 

omg why does your user name have to be my name!?!? it's so confusing

You're a double A, that name with the missing H. Let's, er, stick a forkie in it and move on with how sublime Guano Linux is. I mean, Ubuntu.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

More smoke and mirrors from Macintosh fanatics to try to downplay Vista's ease of use, much better GUI, and many more features over XP.

Two words - file explorer. As I mentioned in my prior post, microsoft took a perfectly serviceable program and made it worse.

I'll grant you that the gui is faster, but ease of use, what over win 3.1
I work on windows and for my job and I maintain 10 servers and let me tell you that the windows environment is not superior to osx in any stretch of the imagination.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by passmaster16 

Until XP goes out of mainstream support, I don't think the adoption rate of Vista will be close to that of XP. There isn't enough incentive to upgrade. The only people that are getting Vista are the ones buying new PCs with it preloaded.

Yeah, My organization (7000+ employees with 8000+ PCs) is forbidding any upgrades to XP. In addition, our central IT group are working with Dell so that our annual PC buys--we are on a 4-year replacement cycle--can get XP for at least one more year if not two more years. In my unit, I have circumvented the rules and put IE7 on all our PCs but I tested the hell out of the master image before we began deploying this past January and it works OK. (My organization uses a master Ghost image on all the PCs and then individual units can tweak the image to add pre-approved unit-specific apps.)

In my unit, the number of service tickets we have gotten over the past year have dropped dramatically now that everyone is running new hardware with XPsp2, Outlook for messaging, and AD for authentication/network access. But XP--in an all-AD environment that is "locked down" centrally by group policies--works great and I see no reason why to change.

[Evoken]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

Vista has no ease of use. There's a frikken learning curve to Vista

OS X also has a learning curve. Vista (and XP) can be more user friendly and intuitive than OS X in some areas.

If Vista's so superior to xp, why are so many people trying to revert to xp?

Aside from the anouncement by Dell, where else have you heard it that people are trying to rever to XP? Besides, your question assumes that people want XP because Vista is bad, and not because of some other reason, like some software/hardware they use is still not compatible with it.

Even I wouldn't get a computer with Vista. If I go back to Windows, I want xp. The eye candy just isn't worth the frustration.

Have you actually used Vista? I mean, I am a Mac fan, but I think that being honest is important. Vista is more than just "eye candy" or "the aero theme and cancel/allow nagware" as someone else said and is certainly not as bad as people in this thread make it out to be. It is also superior to XP.

For starters, Vista is hardware accelerated and takes adventage of your graphic card. That means no more messy windows redrawing as in XP. I use XP at work and sometimes when I am working in Photoshop and InDesign with large files and I switch to any of them, there is a serious lag that takes place because XP is trying to redraw every single icon in each of the toolbars. This does not happens in Vista. And my computers is quite powerfull (2gb RAM, PIV 3.2 GHz, 256 vRam, 250GB, etc).


Evo

[Aron Peterson]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Evoken 

OS X also has a learning curve. Vista (and XP) can be more user friendly and intuitive than OS X in some areas.

Only if you're coming over from Windows and have to adjust to the Mac way of doing things. Once learned there's no going back. A Mac user going across to Windows finds him/herself slapping their forehead every time they come across bad GUI design, the Flip 3D rolodex one has to flip forward through (but not backwards), pop up messages, and cluttered control panels that should have been tidied up by now.

If you're a beginner it's much easier to pick up and use a Mac than Vista.

Aside from the anouncement by Dell, where else have you heard it that people are trying to rever to XP?

If I was a Windows user I'd revert premanently to Windows 2000 if it had a firewall.

For starters, Vista is hardware accelerated and takes adventage of your graphic card. That means no more messy windows redrawing as in XP. I use XP at work and sometimes when I am working in Photoshop and InDesign with large files and I switch to any of them, there is a serious lag that takes place because XP is trying to redraw every single icon in each of the toolbars. This does not happens in Vista. And my computers is quite powerfull (2gb RAM, PIV 3.2 GHz, 256 vRam, 250GB, etc).

OS X has had this way back when Macs were running at only 1Ghz. Vista comes along much later and demands hardware several multiples of magnitudes faster to run Aero and charges $300 for it, and if you don't have the hardware for Aero you have to buy a cheaper version of Vista with features (including security features) cut from it.

Mac OS X comes in one workstation flavor for one low price and has almost the same GUI effects on low and high end Macs, and never compromises on security just because a low end Mac has a weak graphics chip.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

OS X of course doesn't have this problem with upgrades because Apple just completely drops support for anything but their current OS. While there was some outrage when Apple first started doing this, they have now lined up like sheep to buy the latest OS.

Like YOU have a clue what you're talking about.

Dated Apr. 19, 2007:
Security Update 2007-004 (10.3.9 Client)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

After my experience with it yesterday I'll take Windows 95 or Mac OS 7.5.5 over it any day.

You need to do some homework before randomly trying to install an OS on your computer, especially considering that you didn't even have to. I advise you to stay within the comfortable Apple bubble.

1) You tried to install Ubuntu on an HFS volume
2) You did not research the extent of hardware support for your PPC machine
3) You did not bother trying the Live CD, rather, you just installed and hoped for the best

[Aron Peterson]

1) You tried to install Ubuntu on an HFS volume

No I didn't. You know full well I partitioned my drive and had Ubuntu format its own partition. I outlined everything I did before and after. Does it even install on a HFS volume? Don't think so.

2) You did not research the extent of hardware support for your PPC machine

Incorrect. I expected Ubuntu would know what a trackpad is. That's the only hardware it didn't support or have a solution for, as well as Bluetooth that Ubuntu installs a driver for but no control panel.

3) You did not bother trying the Live CD, rather, you just installed and hoped for the best

Unless you're developing goldfish memory I answered this already one hour ago and also told you two days ago the installer is something you click on after you boot and try the Live CD.

You're twisting my words and telling me to do my homework for what reason? Just two days ago you were the one who said Ubuntu was dropped for PPC ages ago. Now suddenly you're the expert and haven't tried Ubuntu yet

Giving me sh!t for no good reason, sheesh.

[besson3c]

It just irritates me when people make strong assertions that cannot be backed up, and insist on arguing things with people who know more than they. As I've expressed in the past, the attitudes of Mac users that have been so duped into thinking that the Apple bubble represents the pinnacle of all computing, and reinvest in the Mac religion based on a mixture of partial truths, company propaganda, narrow mindedness, and ignorance also irritates me. It irritates me when Mac users get frustrated at the sort of partial truths that Windows users run with in criticizing OS X or Apple, yet do the same thing in criticizing Linux or Windows.

I'm not saying this all applies to you, but this is in part the vibe I've been getting.

I don't care if you criticize Ubuntu, it's just an operating system, I'm not emotionally invested to it or any other OS. You don't like Linux, fine... However, there is a legitimate population of users that do for various reasons. Not all of these computer users operate in 1999 mode, like you say. There is a lot of really cool stuff going on outside of the Apple bubble that involves Linux and open source. Not everything involves debate over the nicest looking gradient or pretty water ripple effects. A CLI environment has its uses, and not everybody wants to avoid them at all costs.

If none of it is of interest to you, fine, but don't go on pretending that you are better than these people, and that their tastes and justifications are inferior and flawed.

I have to live in both user-mode and systems admin space, I'm also a web developer that benefits greatly from the Unix CLI environment. At times, OS X can be downright frustrating. On many occasions I have strongly considered a switch to Linux. I still feel that our tax dollars are better spent building up Linux infrastructure than Windows infrastructure. I have my needs, my beliefs, and my own rationale for all of this. I'm not an idiot.

This is not directed directly at you.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It just irritates me when people make strong assertions that cannot be backed up, and insist on arguing things with people who know more than they.

That coming from a man who two days ago didn't know Ubuntu still existed for PPC and plain-to-see twisted my words to create and win an Internet Argument™ is irony defined.

Thanks, Sweet Bess. You're not the first person who has tried to create and win internet arguments. Seen so many and always wondered what their problems are. They have odd ideas that's for sure. Next time try going here first:

How to Win Any Argument On the Internet || kuro5hin.org
Internet Argument Generator

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It just irritates me when people make strong assertions that cannot be backed up, and insist on arguing things with people who know more than they. As I've expressed in the past, the attitudes of Mac users that have been so duped into thinking that the Apple bubble represents the pinnacle of all computing, and reinvest in the Mac religion based on a mixture of partial truths, company propaganda, narrow mindedness, and ignorance also irritates me. It irritates me when Mac users get frustrated at the sort of partial truths that Windows users run with in criticizing OS X or Apple, yet do the same thing in criticizing Linux or Windows.

If you run Mac OS X on a system it claims to support, a system with no problems, and that system doesn't even work on a basic level, I will consider you completely justified in saying that's a problem. What you are doing is proving people's complaints about Linux right: It often requires an obscene amount of research ("Well, they say it's supported on this platform, but are they actually lying?" "Does it have, y'know, basic pointer functionality?"), tinkering and general babysitting to make it work. It's not a half-truth that his experience with Linux, on a supposedly supported platform, was negative through no fault of his own. He didn't hack the system to make it not perform up to spec. It just didn't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you run Mac OS X on a system it claims to support, a system with no problems, and that system doesn't even work on a basic level, I will consider you completely justified in saying that's a problem. What you are doing is proving people's complaints about Linux right: It often requires an obscene amount of research ("Well, they say it's supported on this platform, but are they actually lying?" "Does it have, y'know, basic pointer functionality?"), tinkering and general babysitting to make it work. It's not a half-truth that his experience with Linux, on a supposedly supported platform, was negative through no fault of his own. He didn't hack the system to make it not perform up to spec. It just didn't.

Is there a Ubuntu page that claims that PPC Macs are fully supported? If so, shame on them. However, I'm willing to bet that the PPC support is moreso "it is what it is", "take it or leave it". If Ubuntu were not a community driven project but rather a project managed by a commercial mothership, say Red Hat or Apple, they would simply say "sorry, no support from us, this will not work properly", and it would be very clear to the user what to expect.

Because Ubuntu is a community project, it is up to the community to make these sorts of decisions, and there is certainly benefit to providing access to a work-in-progress. All software is a work-in-progress, there is no perfect software, there is just some software that is stable enough to be supported and for some sort of limited guarantee to be provided. Open source cannot be guaranteed, but if you are building a system, what can be guaranteed are things such as:

- The provider will not raise rates or cut off support purely based on business decisions

- If there is enough interest in the product going in some sort of political direction, the project may fork, giving you support and a less stressful plan of action.

- You do not worry about a company going bankrupt

- There is often a wealth of support available free of charge if the project is popular enough

- The product is usually open ended in its design, providing you with a great amount of capability and customization for your environment.


There is no point in hoping for Ubuntu to become a commercial/proprietary product, it is what it is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

That coming from a man who two days ago didn't know Ubuntu still existed for PPC and plain-to-see twisted my words to create and win an Internet Argument™ is irony defined.

Thanks, Sweet Bess. You're not the first person who has tried to create and win internet arguments. Seen so many and always wondered what their problems are. They have odd ideas that's for sure. Next time try going here first:

How to Win Any Argument On the Internet || kuro5hin.org
Internet Argument Generator

I'm not the one that installed Ubuntu on my machine, I have never done so, so why would this warrant research on my part?

There has been a lot of discussion in the future of PowerPC for a while, see:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCReview

I was wrong, but I had not done any research like I would have if I really wanted to install the OS on my own machine.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was wrong, but I had not done any research like I would have if I really wanted to install the OS on my own machine.

I installed Ubuntu to give you a first hand account of it for your Beryl/XGL thread. I had thought about installing it exactly a year ago and at the time downloaded an x86 CD for use in Virtual PC, but that CD wouldn't work in VPC at all.

Though XGL wouldn't work in Ubuntu on my Geforce card (they admit it is a technology preview so I didn't expect it to considering a lot of stuff in Linux distros don't work like they should), I would have kept Ubuntu on one partition because I heard that Ubuntu's next major release in October will be quite an upgrade.

You do agree that it is no fault of my own and entirely Ubuntu's that it didn't recognise a trackpad, when it is one of the simplest hardware devices to get working? And again, it had a profile for Mac keyboards yet the Command key doesn't work. How hard is that to get working?

The other problems I had were not PPC specific. They would be there on any Intel machine too, so digging up articles about PPC support doesn't apply. There's simply no control panels for configuring Bluetooth devices or assigning a right-click modifier. That is dreadful.

And then when it installed Yaboot on to the Mac HFS+ partition it also formatted the drive so that OS X couldn't boot anymore. Clearly this wasn't a PPC issue - a Yaboot install bug that would have hosed a HFS+ partition on an Intel Mac too. Fortunately I back up my work and emails.

I'm glad anyway that it did hose my Tiger install. It has been on my drive since Tiger came out and accumulated little haxies and full caches. My reinstall of Tiger and my apps has been really good. My system is tidy tidy tidy.

I want to add one more thing. When I reinstalled Tiger 10.4.0 the machine felt kinda sluggish. Whenever we get our incremental updates we never really notice the improved snappiness because the Open GL and Quartz improvements come a little bit at a time. It really is quite surprising to see how fast 10.4.9 is compared to 10.4.0.

If only Linux distributions could improve so much so quickly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

You do agree that it is no fault of my own and entirely Ubuntu's that it didn't recognise a trackpad, when it is one of the simplest hardware devices to get working? And again, it had a profile for Mac keyboards yet the Command key doesn't work. How hard is that to get working?

Failing marks in out-of-the-box support, sure, but did you actually try to get it working, or were you only trying to test out-of-the-box support? Seeing as how newer machines have trackpads that work just fine, and seeing as how your machine is far less supported (only 1-2% of all Ubuntu downloads, way back when dropping PPC support was initially being contemplated), is this a big surprise? There have been hardware changes to the trackpad.

The keyboard thing I don't know.. a bug maybe?

The other problems I had were not PPC specific. They would be there on any Intel machine too, so digging up articles about PPC support doesn't apply. There's simply no control panels for configuring Bluetooth devices or assigning a right-click modifier. That is dreadful.

Don't know anything about the extent of Bluetooth support. What do you mean by right-click modifer? A key to invoke a right click like the Mac has?

And then when it installed Yaboot on to the Mac HFS+ partition it also formatted the drive so that OS X couldn't boot anymore. Clearly this wasn't a PPC issue - a Yaboot install bug that would have hosed a HFS+ partition on an Intel Mac too. Fortunately I back up my work and emails.

That seems like a pretty significant bug. Have any other users experienced this? Have you considered that maybe your MBR was all that was affected by Ubuntu installing grub, or whatever Ubuntu uses? There are a lot of articles about dual booting Linux with OS X, such as this one:

"Ubuntu Linux, Yellowdog Linux and Mac OS X, all on one PowerBook?" from The Intuitive Life Business Blog

I want to add one more thing. When I reinstalled Tiger 10.4.0 the machine felt kinda sluggish. Whenever we get our incremental updates we never really notice the improved snappiness because the Open GL and Quartz improvements come a little bit at a time. It really is quite surprising to see how fast 10.4.9 is compared to 10.4.0.

Why is it that my system gets progressively slower until I reboot or install an OS update?

If only Linux distributions could improve so much so quickly.

What was the last Linux dstro you tried? Did you give up after your out-of-the-box experience on less supported hardware didn't work as well as you expected?

[Aron Peterson]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Failing marks in out-of-the-box support, sure, but did you actually try to get it working, or were you only trying to test out-of-the-box support?

Of course I would have tried to get the right click and trackpad to work like they should. I read about Ubuntu PowerBook installs and problems on two blogs (one of them you linked to). Both said you have to go tinker, hack and even compile files. This doesn't make Ubuntu look any better to end users.

I would never have gotten a mouse to work. There wasn't a Bluetooth control panel to do so. It's not a PowerBook or PPC issue.

But when I found out Yaboot hosed my Tiger partition my priorities changed. I wrote about my experience thoroughly enough to illustrate what happened. I tried to fix my Mac partition with recovery tools and found out I couldn't. When that happens there's no point booting back into Ubuntu to tinker with config files (that I couldn't find with Linux's version of Search anyway.) when you want to recover your main system and apps. The only way I could recover them was too repartition and format the drive from scratch because Tiger's installer wasn't seeing a drive to install on to. So Ubuntu had to go.

What was the last Linux dstro you tried? Did you give up after your out-of-the-box experience on less supported hardware didn't work as well as you expected?

I've installed it three times before on one home built PC in 1999 (a successful install but ultimately useless), my brother's PC in 2001 (same results but my brother hated it and asked for it to be removed), and an old Thinkpad in 2005 (the distro installed the wrong graphics driver, didn't support infra-red, CD-RW or auto sleep/suspend, so had to be reinstalled with Windows. No solutions were available).

In the first two cases, it was back when there was less hardware to support - just a graphics card, sound, keyboard, mouse, DVD drive. No trackpad, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth back then to complicate matters.

We're now in 2007. Ubuntu should have the basics sorted out and not be hosing other partitions.

[besson3c]

It was also back in 1999 and 2001, but fair enough, you haven't had success with automatic hardware detection, that is certainly a weak spot...

As far as your partition issue, do you understand what the MBR is?

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as your partition issue, do you understand what the MBR is?

Yep, you're really underestimating me (I'm not the Linux noob you've been thinking I am) and making me go in circles saying the same thing over and over again. Saying MBR might sound smart if you are being patriarchal to a noob but to someone like me you say, master boot record. There's no defense for what Ubuntu unavoidably did on its own accord.

btw, best experience I had with something "Linuxy" would have been in 2002. I installed Fink on 10.1 and used it to download KDE. KDE ran on top of Aqua and allowed Linux PPC apps to run on OS X's desktop. It really was good. Much better than a real separate Linux install.

I tried that again with Fink a month ago but it's no longer showing KDE for download. To get that working back in 2002 required manually editing config files for X Windows. I'm not teh n00b

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is there a Ubuntu page that claims that PPC Macs are fully supported? If so, shame on them. However, I'm willing to bet that the PPC support is moreso "it is what it is", "take it or leave it".

Ubuntu claims that there is no less supported version, except that their LTS releases have a longer period of support. I certainly can't find any obvious place where they disclaim the PPC version. The download page lists it right alongside all the other versions without any warnings or anything. PowerPC is definitely supposed to be supported in 6.06, which was released before they even contemplated dropping support, and carries a promise of support for three years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Ubuntu claims that there is no less supported version, except that their LTS releases have a longer period of support. I certainly can't find any obvious place where they disclaim the PPC version. The download page lists it right alongside all the other versions without any warnings or anything. PowerPC is definitely supposed to be supported in 6.06, which was released before they even contemplated dropping support, and carries a promise of support for three years.

Wasn't 7.04 what was installed? I can't remember...

At any rate, point taken, I won't argue that Ubuntu is flawless at detecting hardware, although certainly the task at detecting a wide range of hardware is more of a challenge than it is under OS X. I have heard that hardware support is improving however, and certainly there has been a rapid amount of improvement in the functionality of the OS itself, from what I've heard... Obviously hardware detection isn't up to where Windows and OS X is though...

I also apologize to Aron for treating him like a newb. I got the wrong impression from his posts.

[cwosigns]

[QUOTE=Aron Peterson;3361955]

A Mac user going across to Windows finds him/herself slapping their forehead every time they come across bad GUI design, the Flip 3D rolodex one has to flip forward through (but not backwards), pop up messages, and cluttered control panels that should have been tidied up by now.

Speak for yourself. I am a Mac user through and through, and I just put Vista Home Premium on my Macbook. I had some familiarity with XP, and Vista was and is very easy to use. That's just my experience. And that's the thing...user experience is largely subjective. I can't understand the vehemence in some of these posts. Some prefer XP over Vista, or OS X over Linux. Big deal.

[Aron Peterson]

[QUOTE=cwosigns;3362162]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Speak for yourself. I am a Mac user through and through, and I just put Vista Home Premium on my Macbook. I had some familiarity with XP, and Vista was and is very easy to use. That's just my experience. And that's the thing...user experience is largely subjective. I can't understand the vehemence in some of these posts. Some prefer XP over Vista, or OS X over Linux.

It's still cluttered compared to Windows 2000. MS had it just right back then. In terms of stability and speed it was ahead of where the Mac was at the time. All 2000 needed was security and all these new networking and visual technologies. Instead they cluttered it all up and gave different parts of the OS to different coding departments around the world who were badly organised and lacked coordination with other departments. Win XP with all effects turned off and the Start bar set to classic is the closest it comes to what I wanted 2K to be. Vista, well they got some things right but looking at the versioning, pricing and hardware requirements, (classic argument now) it's messed up.

I was a Windows man before a Mac one. Everything I learned was on Windows (Photoshop, 3D, animation, illustration, design, networking, blah blah). I moved to the Mac because I didn't like how messy Windows was getting. Now Linux is following in Windows' footsteps.

Ironically the best XGL/Compiz theme for Gnome is a Vista one

[Evoken]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

A Mac user going across to Windows finds him/herself slapping their forehead every time they come across bad GUI design

What bad GUI design? There are quite a few small things that are nicer in XP/Vista, the simplicity of burning a CD, sending a file as an attachment via email, accessing your applications, making an audio cd, etc.

I mean, right click on any item in the finder in OS X, which options you get? Almost nothing, if you want to send a particular file as an attachment, for example, you would need to go to the FInder Menu -->Services-->Mail-->Send File. In Windows it is just right click-->Send To-->Mail Recipient. It is the same step to burn files to a CD, Send To-->CD. Or just click on the task panel on the right. In Mac the process is more convulted and less intuitive.

the Flip 3D rolodex one has to flip forward through (but not backwards)

You can flip forward or backwards with the mouse wheel.

and cluttered control panels that should have been tidied up by now.

Last time I looked, Vista (and XP) offer you the option to view control panels by category, which is neatly organized. It also offers you the option to switch to classic mode.

OS X has had this way back when Macs were running at only 1Ghz. Vista comes along much later and demands hardware several multiples of magnitudes faster to run Aero

Granted, Apple had this first, but that is not what we are talking about The thing is that this is one feature and improvement that Vista has over XP. So, as you see it is a bit more than just eye candy.


Evo