Is there anyone that DOESN'T like apple OSX?

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: 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...

I think it was a German doctor or university or something. That was one of the reasons for the creation of ogg.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Oh, and IEEE having a standard doesn't mean it isn't owned by someone. Look at VRRP, which forced the creation of CARP.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Oh, and IEEE having a standard doesn't mean it isn't owned by someone. Look at VRRP, which forced the creation of CARP.

WHAT?!?
I though IEEE was independant of royalties?

*head asplodes*

Gah, off to read about VRRP. Got a link?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Oh, and IEEE having a standard doesn't mean it isn't owned by someone. Look at VRRP, which forced the creation of CARP.

WHAT?!?
I though IEEE was independant of royalties?

*head asplodes*

Gah, off to read about VRRP. Got a link?

Nothing official really, and I was thinking of the IETF, not the IEEE. Oops. Not sure how much of a difference it will make really though:

We've been working a few years now on our packet filtering software pf(4) and it became time to add failover. We want to be able to set up pf firewalls side by side, and exchange the stateful information between them, so that in case of failure another could take over 'keep state' sessions. Our pfsync(4) protocol solves this problem. However, on both sides of the firewall, it is also necessary to have all the regular hosts not see a network failure. The only reliable way to do this is for both firewall machines to have and use the same IP and MAC addresses. But the only real way to do that is to use multicast protocols.

The IETF community proposed work in this direction in the late 90's, however in 1997 Cisco informed them that they believed some of Cisco's patents covered the proposed IETF VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol); on March 20, 1998 they went further and specifically named their HSRP "Hot Standby Router Protocol" patent. Reputedly, they were upset that IETF had not simply adopted the flawed HSRP protocol as the standard solution for this problem. Despite this legal pressure, the IETF community forged ahead and published VRRP as a standard even though there was a patent in the space. Why? There was much deliberation at all levels of the IETF, and unfortunately for all of us the politicians within eventually decided to allow patented technology in standards -- as long as the patented technology is licensed under RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms. As free software programmers, we therefore find ourselves in the position that these RAND standards must not be implemented by us, and we must deviate from the standard. We find all this rather Unreasonable and Discriminatory and we *will* design competing protocols. Some standards organization, eh?

Due to some HSRP flaws fixed by VRRP and for compatibility with the (HSRP-licensed) VRRP implementations of their competitors, Cisco in recent times has largely abandoned HSRP and now relies on VRRP instead -- a protocol designed for and by the community, but for which they claim patent rights.

On August 7 2002, after many communications, Robert Barr (Cisco's lawyer) firmly informed the OpenBSD community that Cisco would defend its patents for VRRP implementations -- meaning basically that it was impossible for a free software group to produce a truly free implementation of the IETF standard protocol. Perhaps this is because Cisco and Alcatel are currently engaged in a pair of patent lawsuits; a small piece of which is Cisco attempting to use the HSRP patent against Alcatel for their use of VRRP. Some IETF working group members took note of our complaints, however an attempt in April 2003 to have the IETF abandon the use of patented technology failed to "reach consensus" in the IETF.

A few years ago, the W3C, who designs our web protocols, tried to move to a RAND policy as well (primarily because of pressure from Microsoft and Apple), but the community outrage was so overpowering that they backed down. Some standards groups use this policy, while others avoid it -- the one differentiation being the amount of corporate participation. In the IETF, the pro-RAND agents work for AT&T, Alcatel, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, and other large companies. Since IETF is an open forum, they can blend in as the populace, and vote just like all others, except against the community.

Translation: In failing to "reach consensus", the companies who benefit from RAND won, and the community lost again.

Left with little choice, we proceeded to reinvent the wheel or, more correctly, abandon the wheel entirely and go for a "hovercraft". We designed CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol) to solve the same problem that these other protocols are designed for, but without the same technological basis as HSRP and VRRP. We read the patent document carefully and ensured that CARP was fundamentally different. We also avoided many of the flaws in HSRP and VRRP (such as an inherent lack of security). And since we are OpenBSD developers, we designed it to use cryptography.

The combination of pf(4), pfsync(4), and carp(4) has permitted us to build highly redundant firewalls. To date, we have built a few networks that include as many as 4 firewalls, all running random reboot cycles. As long as one firewall is alive in a group, traffic through them moves smoothly and correctly for all of our packet filter functionality. Cisco's low end products are unable to do this reliably, and if they have high end products which can do this, you most certainly cannot afford them.

As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body regulating "official" internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers for CARP and pfsync our request was denied. Apparently we had failed to go through an official standards organization. Consequently we were forced to choose a protocol number which would not conflict with anything else of value, and decided to place CARP at IP protocol 112. We also placed pfsync at an open and unused number. We informed IANA of these decisions, but they declined to reply.

 

[kami333]

I'm neither so I can get my work done but I can't really play around on it much. Apple is really anal about letting their users mess around on their systems.

And what's bad about that? I see it as a good thing.

 

[Mo0o]

Well there is the one small thing of it not being compatible with any game other than wc3...

 

[radiocore]

:thumbsup:

i love OSX. Love my PB15 too

 

[0roo0roo]

anands take on it
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232

 

[helpme]

Apple doesn't need to produce Mac OS X for x86.

Why? They are more like the BMW and Mercedes of computing. They don't care if they have <3% of the market. They cater to the people who want them and make plenty of money from that small percent of computer users (have you also seen their stock price lately?).

OS X doesn't even have a CD-Key or activiation. Why? Apple makes their money selling hardware. You still need to buy a Mac to run it. This is also why they don't need to make it work on generic x86 hardware.

You can learn more than you wanted to know about Mac OS X Here:

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/

The prices on consumer macintoshes aren't too bad. The iBook G4 is 1000$, less if you are a student. The iMac G5 is 1300$ and includes the 17" display. The Pro lineup is another story, though I did buy my 17" Powerbook through their student developer program.

While more expensive that some PC counterparts, you're getting a computer which you don't have to worry about drivers, Operating system/software patches and an operating system that is just as robust (if not more) as Windows and any Unix system.

A few things people might not know about the Operating System, but might find interesting

• When you run Apple's software update (or it runs on the schedule you set), any patches to the Operating system, device drivers, included unix applications, Apple Software, firmware, updates to other apple products you might have (such as iPods and iSights) and Apple applications are available all in one place and can be installed. No matter what model of Mac you have, you don't have to worry about updating any of these things manually, such as video drivers.

• While of course, Windows update does supply alot of this functionality, it's not near as encompassing for hardware and their software other than the OS.

• Something wrong with your installation and you can't boot? Set your Mac into firewire target disk mode by turning it on and holding the "T" key. Your mac is now just like any other external firewire hard disk. Plug it into any other mac (or PC with software to read HFS+) and you can try to mount the hard disk if it has not failed and the files are just corrupt.

• You can also boot your computer from another computer's which is in firewire disk mode, allowing you to access their operating system just as if you were using that computer.

• The filesystem is self defragmenting.

• Most Linux/Unix software can be compiled on OS X or easily ported.

• Expose is great.

• Alot more of the system is standard and open than you might think. USB, Ethernet, 802.11g, Firewire, IDE/ATAPI, Bluetooth are all non proprietary standards. The firmware is an open standard called "Open Firmware", and the core operating system's source is available for download (Darwin). The PPC platform is also open.

• The operating system has built in spell check to any area in native applications (such as a web browser text form). You can probably tell I'm using my windows machine to type this

• The code of the preferred programming languages (Java, Objective-C) is comptable with any operating system and platform that has GCC (obviously Nibs are only good on OS X). Windows .net languages (C++.net, Java.net, C# and VB.net) are usable only on windows systems with .net framework (Mono is trying to change that).

etc...

I think OS X is great, but NOT for playing games. There are only publishers who port the mainstream games, and alot of times they do a piss poor job of doing so.

Of course, if you only can buy one computer, and you want to play games, you're not going to buy a mac

I am fortunate enough be able to have both a windows machine and a Powerbook. The work is done on the Powerbook, while the games are on the PC.

 

[ed21x]

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?

Definitely not. Prior to the OS series, the Macs were still powered by the Motorola 68k risc based processors which were awesome in their own way and could fly through ASM code with the efficiency of pentium computer nearly 4 times its speed. It was Mac that pioneered the elegant Mouse/Icon GUI and continued to refine in throughout system 6 and 7, which came out several years before windows 3.11. In fact, I still have an old LC running system 7.0.11 that still hasn't crashed yet (15 years) and runs every bit as reliably as it did back then. System 6 was a groundbreaking OS that set the model for every subsequent graphical GUI. Comparably, windows 3.11 and 95 were crap, as DOS was never meant to be shell for an entire GUI to be based off us and resulted in some rather unstable file security, which was only mitigated when Microsoft switched to NTFS.

 

[Darien]

I love OS X. Nice GUI + command prompt that doesn't suck.

 

[biostud]

Since I only use Microsoft office and firefox on both OSX and WinXP, it doesn't matter that much. But the mac I'm using (G4 700Mhz 640Mb ram) loads Anandtech forums reaaaaaaly slow (not due to the internet connection since it's at the university), winXP gets my vote.

 

[0roo0roo]

supposedly using the wrong browser does that. look at the anandtech article i linked.

 

[DanRydell]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
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.

While it's bad to judge a product by it's fans, I find that whenever I think of Apples I think of those Mac users. Who (at least the ones I've met) are in fact elite and arrogant a-holes. They do a horrible job of convincing me to use their product (and they always seem to be trying to convince)

I agree with the rest. My Windows has never crashed (only from hardware). I game. And there are a few programs I can't live without (ie, Foobar).

I agree with somebody else (sorry forgot who) that Apples seem to cater either to people who know nothing about computers or people who know everything about OSX/Unix. I am neither. And I like the customizability of Windows.

 

[Fenixgoon]

macs = crap.. that is iall

 

[James3shin]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
macs = crap.. that is iall

Wow....anyway, i love my ibook and i love OSX, can't wait for Tiger.

 

[DaFinn]

I have never used it, so I can with absolutely no credit say: IT SUCKS!

Now, I may be wrong, and I may change my opinion in the future if somebody buys me a MAC...

 

[loup garou]

Personally, I don't like the interface or the way you go about configuring things. I'll admit, I don't have a TON of OSX experience, but working on it just seems "unnatural" to me.

Really, my major peeve comes from trying to set up macs in windows-based offices. Invariably, I'll have a client with an "art department" who "needs" a Mac for "Graphic Design" (usually just one dude who wants somehting to match his iPod). Or a VP who picks up a Powerbook because he/she likes the way it looks. Or somebody who wins an iBook in a contest.

The reason this is such a peeve of mine is not only technical--getting this one OSX machine to cooperate with their Exchange server, network printers, network shares, etc--but also user problems--"what?! I have to pay $400 for another copy of office?! why can't we use the volume license copy (office 2k3) you bought last month?," "where's the start button?," "where is <insert name of crappy windows shareware made in 1995 that hasn't existed since>, I need it, why won't it run on this computer?!," "now that I have a Mac, I want to produce our next company newsletter. It needs to go out this Thursday. Can you install quark and teach me how to use it?"

I know folks are going to say that these people are buying machines for the wrong reason, but it happens. At almost every client I have. People buy these machines without speaking to me first and expect some sort of miracle. They don't realize that the OS is that much different than windows, but what you can or can't do with it isn't. It's just done (or not done ) in a different manner.

So I guess my rant about OSX is more about n00b OSX users than anything, but these are the people I have to support. Every day. sigh.

All that said, if you want to buy a powerbook for your own personal use at home, all the more power to you. As a matter of fact, I highly considered buying one myself earlier this year. But, I work on clients' networks remotely and need to use various windows utilities all the time, so I stuck with a Dell. Would've liked the industrial design of a powerbook, but I can live without it.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
macs = crap.. that is iall

:roll:

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
supposedly using the wrong browser does that. look at the anandtech article i linked.

As far as I can read th IE for OSX is the slowest, then Safari for some things and firefox for others. I've just tried safari, and it seems better for viewing these forums since it scrolls faster, but it's still not like using a pc.

 

[JackBurton]

OSX is AWESOME!

 

[Fritzo]

I support it...and I HATE it. If something breaks, it's done. You have to reapply the OS. No tweaking, no fixing..it works or it doesn't. Ugh.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Spike
OSX

Productivity = Good
Gaming = Bad

WIN XP

Productivity = Mediocore
Gaming = Good

Gaming >>>>>>>>>>>> Productivity

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

I don't know, my desktop has been running for 45 days straight now with no reboot. I run MS Access, Outlook Express, IE, Firefox, and some other custom apps. I don't really understand the need to reboot XP since if something does crash or misbehave, you can shut it down through the task manager. If you're getting hard locks, you have some crappy hardware or something.

 

[Fritzo]

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.

Yes the minidisc is proprietary. They have to pay SONY a license fee to sell that equipment (which is big in Japan).

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Does someone own MP3? I thought it was an IEEE spec, like MP2. Maybe I'm wrong...

I think it was a German doctor or university or something. That was one of the reasons for the creation of ogg.

From: http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html

I want to support mp3/mp3PRO in my products. Do I need a license?

Yes. As for practically any important technology (and particularly for publicly established standards), you should know that patent rights for mp3 exist. Both Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson have done important work to develop mp3 audio compression (before and after it became part of the ISO/IEC MPEG standards). This work has resulted in many inventions and several patents, covering the mp3 standard. Although others may also hold patents, Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson have an important portfolio of patents related to mp3.

Patent licenses under the combined patent portfolio of Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson are granted by Thomson exclusively.

In case your business does not involve the manufacture of relevant products, but importation or purchase of such products from a third party manufacturer, you are advised to check whether the manufacturer is duly licensed by us, as the trade in unlicensed products may expose your company to liability for patent infringement. Accordingly, you are advised to obtain licensed products only.

Fraunhofer is the german guy you were refering to.