Is there anyone that DOESN'T like apple OSX?

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: daveshel
You are out of line because you have become personally vituperative over nothing. So, I should have said the Mac OS X is a cousin of linux, but the fact remains that it bears more resemblance to linux than to previous iterations of the Mac OS, and since when is any of this this any reason to get nasty?

Nasty? I'm pretty sure all I asked was for you to not correct someone when you wrong. The OS-X desktop is not based a linux desktop. This isn't an opinion. You have been told, and linked to information as such, yet you still posting how they resemble eachother.

Please. I can make WXP LOOK like OS-X.

Personally I don't care about you. I just don't like people posting incorrect information, especially when they are trying to correct someone and they are wrong. Perhaps you can see the irony?

BTW, did you ever click on my link and see the top of the page? Really, it should answer this "debate" pretty quick.

Oh, and since your an English nazi, can your limit your use of run-on sentences? That last one is brutal.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I hate it and the dock can go to hell

Even old time Mac users hate the Dock. The Dock is trash.

Lay off the dock, I like it.:evil:

You're the only one.

If the dock is trash, why do windows users want to emulate it so often?

 

[RichieZ]

OSX is hot, i got my ibook about a month ago. Now I barely ever use my Thinkpad anymore. Supprisingly it also has superior battery life

(see sig, thinkpad hasn't been hooked up to LCD since i got the ibook)

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I hate it and the dock can go to hell

Even old time Mac users hate the Dock. The Dock is trash.

Lay off the dock, I like it.:evil:

You're the only one.

If the dock is trash, why do windows users want to emulate it so often?

Only about three people want to emulate it because they think it is cool but it really is crap.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I have never been impressed with any of the other OS. They all seem like a pain in the ass to use compared to windows 95 and newer.

Win95 was a huge pain in the butt. Especially compared to classic Mac OS (which was trash).

So than windows 3.11 must have stabbed you in the back and had sex with your mother? Cause Win 95 was sure as hell a lot better than 3.1!

So? It was better than win3.11. w00t. So was EVERYTHING ELSE.

But what I was wondering is what you compare win95 to as being a pain in the butt? As in it was MUCH better than any other desktop OS at the time so yea it may have been new to learn but I didn't think it was a PITB...

OS 9 is easier to use than Win2k. It was still trash compared to Win2k, but it was easier.

Yea sure but you just jumped like 5 years in the future with OS9... Win95 was a real OS released in 1995 when was OS9 released and what did Macs have in '95? I'll answer. CRAP. You call it trash but say it was easier to use that?s just one hell of a contradiction in my book. How can something be easier to use but still be trash?

Windows 95 was a shell on DOS. It wasn't a new OS.

I used OS 9 compared to Win2k because I have experience with it. I don't have experience with system 7 or whatever was out when win95 was released.

It was easy to use, but lacked in the technology feature departments.

 

[ugopk]

:laugh: :laugh:

maybe we should start calling Darwin a linux distro

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo
I cannot stand using my g/f's Mac laptop its an ibook G3 I think so yea it's on the slow side already but my god is the thing just dog f'ing slow... Everything about that OS is hard to use I dont understand how you guys can say it has productivity advantages over windows. Having to hold ctrl and click just to open a new window or anything else that isn't done with a single mouse button is just f'ing stupid. I haven't been forced to use it long enough to actually get used to the way it runs but going from windows to OSX it was like going from a BMW to a YUGO!

Command N opens new windows generally. Holding the mouse button opens the "right click" menu, I think. I'm used to having a hand on the keyboard, so pushing a button instead of relying on my twitchy fingers works out well.

Ahh see that?s where we differ... see I like to have a free hand on my Johnson the whole time I'm in front of the computer because that?s really all I use it for. J/K'ing!!

I like apple and the products they make I would be willing to give a faster Mac a second chance but I just don't know that faster is going to make it any better.

One thing I do know is that I'm building my g/f a new desktop to replace the Mac because she had to use my machine one day and noticed how much easier it was to use... She's only had the Mac and nothing else for 3 years and was able to jump on the PC and do everything she needed with next to no learning curve. I'm a PC tech with 5 years expierence under my belt and it took me an hour just to get some basic work done.

I jumped on OS X without any issues.

You're just being facetious now You had actually used previous macs by then, I had not used a mac since typing class in middle school.

Not really. The first Mac I have ever owned I bought in 2000. I used them in grade school, and had to sit at one for a semester in college.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ugopk
:laugh: :laugh:

maybe we should start calling Darwin a linux distro

It would only make you look stupider.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I hate it and the dock can go to hell

Even old time Mac users hate the Dock. The Dock is trash.

Lay off the dock, I like it.:evil:

You're the only one.

If the dock is trash, why do windows users want to emulate it so often?

It looks good, but it isn't usable.

 

[Tremulant]

I like the way OSX looks, but from my usage of it, I don't like it. I can't stand working in it and I've found the dock to be rather useless.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I have never been impressed with any of the other OS. They all seem like a pain in the ass to use compared to windows 95 and newer.

Win95 was a huge pain in the butt. Especially compared to classic Mac OS (which was trash).

So than windows 3.11 must have stabbed you in the back and had sex with your mother? Cause Win 95 was sure as hell a lot better than 3.1!

So? It was better than win3.11. w00t. So was EVERYTHING ELSE.

But what I was wondering is what you compare win95 to as being a pain in the butt? As in it was MUCH better than any other desktop OS at the time so yea it may have been new to learn but I didn't think it was a PITB...

OS 9 is easier to use than Win2k. It was still trash compared to Win2k, but it was easier.

Yea sure but you just jumped like 5 years in the future with OS9... Win95 was a real OS released in 1995 when was OS9 released and what did Macs have in '95? I'll answer. CRAP. You call it trash but say it was easier to use that?s just one hell of a contradiction in my book. How can something be easier to use but still be trash?

Windows 95 was a shell on DOS. It wasn't a new OS.

I used OS 9 compared to Win2k because I have experience with it. I don't have experience with system 7 or whatever was out when win95 was released.

It was easy to use, but lacked in the technology feature departments.

Who gives a damn if Windows 95 was just a shell it was still hell of a lot better then any crap macs had out then.

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: iamme
i honestly haven't had a lot of experience with it, to like or dislike it.

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Sony=Betamax, Betacam, MiniDisk, Memory Sticks, ATRAC you name it. Sony=proprietary, sometimes they relax and use standard formats. Their music players just recently started accepting MP3 formats, if that tells you anything.

Thanks for the info.

Lets see. MiniDisc is hardly proprietary. Kenwood, Sharp, Aiwa and other make MiniDisc players/recorders. They just aren't marketed in this country (well, I think they sold the Kenwood MD headunit for a while). So therefore ATRAC isn't proprietary since that's the compression scheme used on MDs. Its far better then MP3 imho.

Memory Sticks used to be proprietary but now there are other manufacturers making them. I know there are a few headunits with MS slots that are not made by Sony.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I have never been impressed with any of the other OS. They all seem like a pain in the ass to use compared to windows 95 and newer.

Win95 was a huge pain in the butt. Especially compared to classic Mac OS (which was trash).

So than windows 3.11 must have stabbed you in the back and had sex with your mother? Cause Win 95 was sure as hell a lot better than 3.1!

So? It was better than win3.11. w00t. So was EVERYTHING ELSE.

But what I was wondering is what you compare win95 to as being a pain in the butt? As in it was MUCH better than any other desktop OS at the time so yea it may have been new to learn but I didn't think it was a PITB...

OS 9 is easier to use than Win2k. It was still trash compared to Win2k, but it was easier.

Yea sure but you just jumped like 5 years in the future with OS9... Win95 was a real OS released in 1995 when was OS9 released and what did Macs have in '95? I'll answer. CRAP. You call it trash but say it was easier to use that?s just one hell of a contradiction in my book. How can something be easier to use but still be trash?

Windows 95 was a shell on DOS. It wasn't a new OS.

I used OS 9 compared to Win2k because I have experience with it. I don't have experience with system 7 or whatever was out when win95 was released.

It was easy to use, but lacked in the technology feature departments.

Who gives a damn if Windows 95 was just a shell it was still hell of a lot better then any crap macs had out then.

Windows 95 was trash, and I wouldn't be comparing it to anything. Seriously.

 

[neonerd]

i don't like it very much...may look pretty, but that's the extent of it

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I would be more apt to buy an Apple computer if Mac users weren't such elite and arrogant a-holes. They tend to view all windows users as morons who just don't know any better. The facts are that most people don't really care what kind of computer they have as long as it is cheap and easy to use. And despite all of XP's shortcomings, the damn thing is still pretty easy to figure out.

Until Apple can compete with PC's in terms of performance, gaming compatiblity, and expansion, I will never buy one. Windows XP can be stable if you take care of your computer (i.e. don't use IE, don't download virus, patch it regularly,etc.) Apple computers are just too expensive compared to their PC counterparts, and IMHO you get a whole lot more computer when you custom build a PC compared to buying an equivalent Apple.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Sony=Betamax, Betacam, MiniDisk, Memory Sticks, ATRAC you name it. Sony=proprietary, sometimes they relax and use standard formats. Their music players just recently started accepting MP3 formats, if that tells you anything.

Thanks for the info.

Lets see. MiniDisc is hardly proprietary. Kenwood, Sharp, Aiwa and other make MiniDisc players/recorders. They just aren't marketed in this country (well, I think they sold the Kenwood MD headunit for a while). So therefore ATRAC isn't proprietary since that's the compression scheme used on MDs. Its far better then MP3 imho.

Memory Sticks used to be proprietary but now there are other manufacturers making them. I know there are a few headunits with MS slots that are not made by Sony.

I never said they weren't licensed by other companies. Sony OWNS those formats, so those companies are paying royalties to use whatever formats. That's what's propietary about it.

It's just like .wma, MS owns that format. Anyone wanting to make a .wma compatible player is licensing the format from MS.

Manufacturers making an MP3 player aren't paying any license fees.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Sony=Betamax, Betacam, MiniDisk, Memory Sticks, ATRAC you name it. Sony=proprietary, sometimes they relax and use standard formats. Their music players just recently started accepting MP3 formats, if that tells you anything.

Thanks for the info.

Lets see. MiniDisc is hardly proprietary. Kenwood, Sharp, Aiwa and other make MiniDisc players/recorders. They just aren't marketed in this country (well, I think they sold the Kenwood MD headunit for a while). So therefore ATRAC isn't proprietary since that's the compression scheme used on MDs. Its far better then MP3 imho.

Memory Sticks used to be proprietary but now there are other manufacturers making them. I know there are a few headunits with MS slots that are not made by Sony.

I never said they weren't licensed by other companies. Sony OWNS those formats, so those companies are paying royalties to use whatever formats. That's what's propietary about it.

It's just like .wma, MS owns that format. Anyone wanting to make a .wma compatible player is licensing the format from MS.

Manufacturers making an MP3 player aren't paying any license fees.

They should be paying a license fee for mp3. You know the compact disc specification is actually owned by a company (or two?)?

 

[EyeMWing]

I prefer OS9 and earlier, to be honest. The cleanliness bothers me to no end.

 

[Anubis]

i hate OSX and OS9, they both suck

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daveshel
I like most linux desktops I have seen but that is one that is too rich for my blood!

OS X has nothing to do with Linux and Linux has nothing to do with OS X.

OSX is based on linux.

Don't correct someone unless your know your right.

Are you splitting hairs? It isn't purely linux, but closer than to previous Mac OSs.

link

We're not splitting hairs at all. I'll read the link in a bit, but Mac OS X has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX. It's that simple. It's a BSD userland, with a Mach and FreeBSD kernel. NOT LINUX.

This is the way I understood it to be as well. I wouldn't put too much faith in that link.

 

[Josh]

I like it. Rockin' my iMAC G5 right now

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daveshel
I like most linux desktops I have seen but that is one that is too rich for my blood!

OS X has nothing to do with Linux and Linux has nothing to do with OS X.

OSX is based on linux.

Don't correct someone unless your know your right.

Are you splitting hairs? It isn't purely linux, but closer than to previous Mac OSs.

link

We're not splitting hairs at all. I'll read the link in a bit, but Mac OS X has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX. It's that simple. It's a BSD userland, with a Mach and FreeBSD kernel. NOT LINUX.

This is the way I understood it to be as well. I wouldn't put too much faith in that link.

The link makes absolutely no sense.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: daveshel
You are out of line because you have become personally vituperative over nothing. So, I should have said the Mac OS X is a cousin of linux, but the fact remains that it bears more resemblance to linux than to previous iterations of the Mac OS, and since when is any of this this any reason to get nasty?

Dear:

[X] Clueless n00b
[ ] Lamer
[ ] Ricer
[X] kid with no clue
[ ] Flamebait
[X] Jackass
[ ] Lazy person
[ ] Me too'er
[ ] Spammer
[X] Idiot
[ ] Asterik-laden adjective
[ ] Pointless Thread Starter

You Are Being Flamed Because:

[X] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You said "me too" to something or "Send ______"
[ ] You asked for w@rez
[X] You don't know what you're talking about
[ ] You posted a thread that deserved pics, and no pics were found
[ ] You posted "postcount++" or any variation
[ ] You suck
[ ] Your post title has nothing to do with the content
[ ] You complained about something you got for free/low cost
[X] You are not the grammer police
[ ] You hate the US or its policies yet will not leave
[ ] You started a flamewar thread
[ ] You are b!tching about something you have no right to b!tch about
[ ] You asked for medical help on a computer forum
[ ] You did not finish your title, making searching futile
[ ] You like ricers
[ ] You are a ricer
[ ] You asked how to mod a honda
[ ] You tried to build a system even though you have NO clue how to do it
[ ] Your sig/alias sucks
[ ] You did not listen to a smarter member or ignored advice
[ ] You need use the damn search button
[ ] You posted in the wrong forum
[ ] You said any version of "repost"
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] You posted a topic/message all written in CAPS
[ ] You posted spam
[X] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You used the words 'suxors' and/or 'roxors'
[ ] You posted "FIRST POST!"
[ ] You are quitting the boards for good...again
[ ] You complained about the Mods

To Repent, You Must:

[ ] Give up your AOL/Euronet/MSN/Planet Internet account
[ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[X] Listen to Moonbeam for 3 hours
[ ] Become friends with Red Dawn
[ ] Kiss Luvly full on the mouth, assuming she can take her foot out
[ ] Pry the Caps Lock and Shift keys from your keyboard
[ ] Read the damned FAQ
[ ] Post some damn pics
[ ] Go hug your parents right now
[ ] Remove the <insert forum here> forum from your list
[X] Read the manual / instructions
[X] Remove your genitalia so you do not breed
[ ] Repenting is not possible. you are banned.
[ ] Use the damned search function
[ ] Post in the right damned forum
[ ] Put your car into a crusher
[ ] Apologize to everybody on these boards
[ ] Actually leave the boards for good
[X] Perform sexual favors on the Mods

Thank you.

BWAA HAAA HAAA :laugh: :beer:

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Sony=Betamax, Betacam, MiniDisk, Memory Sticks, ATRAC you name it. Sony=proprietary, sometimes they relax and use standard formats. Their music players just recently started accepting MP3 formats, if that tells you anything.

Thanks for the info.

Lets see. MiniDisc is hardly proprietary. Kenwood, Sharp, Aiwa and other make MiniDisc players/recorders. They just aren't marketed in this country (well, I think they sold the Kenwood MD headunit for a while). So therefore ATRAC isn't proprietary since that's the compression scheme used on MDs. Its far better then MP3 imho.

Memory Sticks used to be proprietary but now there are other manufacturers making them. I know there are a few headunits with MS slots that are not made by Sony.

I never said they weren't licensed by other companies. Sony OWNS those formats, so those companies are paying royalties to use whatever formats. That's what's propietary about it.

It's just like .wma, MS owns that format. Anyone wanting to make a .wma compatible player is licensing the format from MS.

Manufacturers making an MP3 player aren't paying any license fees.

They should be paying a license fee for mp3. You know the compact disc specification is actually owned by a company (or two?)?

Phillips and someone else own the CD specs.

Does someone own MP3? I thought it was an IEEE spec, like MP2. Maybe I'm wrong...