        |
|
|
 The Geek Culture Forums
 Confession Booth
 I may be leaving MacLand
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: I may be leaving MacLand |
|
MacManKrisK Super Geek  
Posts: 229 |
posted July 05, 2002 16:39
   
Oy! This is so hard for me to say this. I'm afraid that my next computer will probably not be a Macintosh. I tried, I really did, but I just can't do it anymore! First it was the 68k macs not running OS 8, then it was any PPC built before 1998 not running OSX, not to mention the shitty shitty performance of OSX on ANY mac, but when Apple knocked off the rumor sites...that was TOO DAMN FAR! Every time I look, Apple looks more like Microsoft. Take their Tech support. For years you could call their toll-free number FOR FREE and get help with ANY computer apple ever made. A Mac 128K? No problem! Then apple started charging, is it $25 per call?? Well, that's sorta' understandable, that toll-free number probably DID cost a fortune, but THEN they said "if your computer is older then n, then we won't give you support, in fact, we won't even sell you the parts (unless you live in CA, because then we have to)." I let them rope me into OS X. I actually used 10.0.4, which was before their first "mainstream release" when they went to 10.1. I managed to track down a 10.1 disc (without paying the $29.95 "shipping & handling fee"). 10.1 was better, but it still slowed all of my comptuers (well the 2 out of 15 that it would install on) to a crawl, and it never even worked. Sure, the OS never crashed, but all the iApps did, all the time! iTunes was so processor intensive that I couldn't even use it to play MP3's! It didn't work with my digital camera (QuickTake 110, God forbid I still have one!), and it disabled the internal modem on my G3 desktop. I finally faced up to the fact that OS X, even though it's very cute and pretty and (technically) stable, is a piece of CRAP! Going back to OS 9 has proved difficult, I forgot just how often I used to restart my computer! Besides, Apple isn't going to support OS 9 for much longer anyway. So, I made my conclusion: If Apple is going to force me to use another operating system "because Steve Said So," and if Apple's OS is *NIX based anyway, and if Apple's OS is a BUNCH OF CRAP, then why the hell am I still using Apple's OS? I used OS 9 not for stability, but for useability, it's the easiest OS to use (IMHO), but after expierenceing the wonders of UNIX (i.e. multi-month uptime), Mac OS 9 looks really weak, and it's not supported anymore, so I'm just spinning my wheels biding my time to use it. Also, factor in the fact of Apple's looking more and more like Microsoft and pretty soon it's clear that Apple will be just as evil an empire as MS is already. What is left then? DUH! Linux! So, I concluded to switch to Linux. Hell, it's free! Even more importantly, it's FREE, you know, REALLY free! As in speech, not as in beer, TRUE freedom! The slim(er-than windows) pickings of programs won't really bother me, hell, I've been using a Mac for years and I've survived with THEIR limited selection of software, I'm sure finding adequete programs for Linux won't be that big of a deal. Now, I'm not sure how many of you have used Linux on a Mac before, but compared to using it on a PC, well, it's just not as good. There arn't as many compiled programs for the PPC, and, with me not being a programmer (although I would REALLY like to learn C), it's not exactly easy to compile sources. Now, I'm not going to go and sell off all my macs and take that money and go and buy all PC's, that'd be nuts! I need something to plug my peripherals into (QuickTake camera, Newton, ADB I/O) and they're all Mac stuff. So, for the time being, I'm going to install Linux on the PBG3 and use that until the PB just gets TOO old for me (it's already too old for a lot of people, but I apprecate being able to use "older" systems). Once I need a new comptuer, well...it'd be silly to buy a $1200 iMac (or aMac or uMac or even a yMac) (actually, yMac is a good question to ask yourself right now) and delete OS X off of it to install Linux on it when I can build a (much more capable) PC for $400 or less and not have any pre-installed OS on it (so I could thusly install Linux onto it). And Linux is Linux. KDE and Gnome work the same on a Mac or a PC. So there you have it. I mentioned this to one of my friends last night and he almost choked to death (literally) on his coffee. He was absolutely astonished, as is everyone I've mentioned this to. I'm still suprized myslef! It's kinda' scary! ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
tafkact Highlie 
Posts: 665 |
posted July 05, 2002 22:36
welcome to the light! here you will find stability, all the apps you want, compatibility with 99% of hardware out there, and the freedom to build the computer you want for HALF the cost of "them" see ppl? PC's are the way of the present and the future, not some p.o.s. you gotta reboot everyday or any time an app crashes and takes the ram with it, and isn't licenesed out to various mfrs, so as to be able to lower the price to a level comparable with PC parts and therefore be a reasonable contender (i'm suffering with a ppc 8100/110 and GAWD it takes SOOO LONG to *do* anything... i have a p75 PC that's faster....) IP: Logged |
|
MacManKrisK Super Geek
Posts: 229 |
posted July 06, 2002 08:52
quote: Put Linux on the PPC.... www.MkLinux.org or www.yellowdoglinux.com or (if you're really desparate) www.debian.org ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Snaggy Moderator 
Posts: 1655 |
posted July 06, 2002 09:34
This is because of Linux Lass, isn't it. I know, I know, having a sexy super heroine fighting for your OS is simply irresistable. 
... better reserve LinuxManKrisK maybe. IP: Logged |
|
MacManKrisK Super Geek
Posts: 229 |
posted July 06, 2002 12:58
quote: yuck. That doesn't have quite as nice a ring to it. ::sigh:: I'm still a Mac user at heart, I guess, I just don't like what Apple is turning into, and I'm falling in love with the Open Source movement. I'm a hippy at heart, I guess; in a way, installing Linux is like my own little personal revolution. Hmm... Mr. MacLinux sounds like a good nick... Is there any way for me to transfer my post count to a new UserName? I don't wanna' be a newbie again! Alright, here's the official call...everyone help me find a new nick! Post your suggestions here. Thanks! ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Zwilnik Assimilated 
Posts: 396 |
posted July 06, 2002 17:02
Apple knocked off the rumour sites ? funny, Spymac and MacOS Rumours are still there, and they're the worst offenders. Apple just told them to get normal passes and not Press passes for the Expo, they haven't sent hitmen after them! OveractionManKrisk maybe ? I'm still not convinced by Linux. It's kind of ok if you want to hack around with the system a bit and don't mind the hassle of installing, but if I wanted a command line and gazillions of options I'd use real Unix. IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 500 |
posted July 06, 2002 23:44
Hrm...to an extent, I see MacManKrisK's reaction as despondency based on the ancient grass-is-greener principle (like, I've seen IE on a P450 run more clunkily than it does on my 604e 200, nice reminder to me that PCs aren't perfect either), plus OS mismatching (I'm always suprised just how well matched Windows 3.11 is on my 486, whereas typically OSes tend to be too heavy (9.1 on a 604e is)), but you do also seem to have evidence to suggest you're right. I don't think Macs have to be as unstable as takfact claims (mine isn't). I have, though, been down the I-hate-Macs-and-they-suck route a few times, but having a P4 PC at work (infinitely faster in theory, until it decides to be stupidly slow at half a dozen things) and seeing Windows does help counteract that. Linux...hrm, it is nice, but there are quite a few reasons I don't want to run that. Getting a new PC might help, though. *shrugs* Not sure I have a point, just rambling. The only real point is that the grass always looks greener on the other side. It is too easy to get despondent and not realise that making the best of what you have is the solution. But if you're convinced that there is no future for you and Macs, then best of luck with Linux. - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
MacManKrisK Super Geek
Posts: 229 |
posted July 08, 2002 08:06
quote: The answer to that is fairly simple; port the games yourself, using your own EULA and sell them for Linux! Linux users arn't totally opossed to paying for software, esp. games.
quote: Well, to be perfectly honest, I'd love to have a new dual-propcessor...err..processor ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 500 |
posted July 08, 2002 15:00
I do some of each. I have plenty of Mac apps that are different from their PC counterparts (IQC, IRC clients (all of them), Web browser (iCab), mail client (Outlook Express, so much better than the shabby Windows version) etc. I mostly prefer the Mac versions, but Mac ICQ is terribly lacking. Photoshop is the same on either platform just about, I think, Word 98 for the Mac is plain crap, but I never liked Word anyhow, once I got to know it. SoundApp is the sweetest little sound app I've ever seen, but it loses out to WinampMac for the equaliser. I know there is little truly only available for the Mac (there are a few that might be, e.g. PopChar Lite), but there is more to the computing experience than just applications - the very nature of the OS makes a difference. I'm rather torn between Mac OS, Linux and Windows. I like Mac OS for just being so usable; some of its niceties really do a lot for my mood - I appreciate being told that my files won't fit on a disc before I've copied most of them on, and not after, for example. Windows does offer a lot in terms of software availability, compatibility, and is good for my fragile mind in that I don't feel like an outcast when I'm using Windows, but then, the OS is a freaking mess and I'm eternally glad to be sat on my Mac every time I get an e-mail virus or what not, that feeling of security. As for Linux, it puts you in touch with the machine, what is really going on, and is the best choice IMHO for computer geeks. I won't reiterate my rants against Linux on this machine, though. Perhaps the best solution for me would be to get a cheap PC for Linux (and try and migrate all my 486's software over, too, now that would be fun...), and network it to the Mac. Not that I'd want either machine to have a fake IP, though. Then I've have the best of all worlds (Mac OS 9.1 (it's cool), Linux, and DOS/Windows 3.11 (in case anyone out there ever wants one final game of Worms with me before I die, and Win 3.11 is just cute)). Oh, not to mention that getting Win 9x on the PC would let me connect my palmtop upto a home machine at last (grr, Mac kit seemed to get ditched just after I bought it). Yet, haha, what chances are there of the above? Hohoho, about 1E-20, prolly. As for you feeling let down by OS X, yes, so do I - I've run Carbon apps on my lowly 604e 200, and thus, I should be able to scrape by in a fully Carbon environment, but only just (I mean, it is an emulated API after all), but yet, the weight of the surrounding OS shatters that idea. Yet, it comes down to two simple things - the grass always seems greener on the other side (e.g. Mac OS X -> either weak Adium or slow-as-hell Carbon AIM), and that I always feel left out and insignificant, and thus miserable, around anyone else with anything I don't have, have never used etc. (ask dragonman97). Yet, with no outside influences to make things seem better than they are, I'm happy with Mac OS 9.1. It's far from perfect, but then, everything is. *pats StarMax* - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
maxomai Super Geek
Posts: 131 |
posted July 08, 2002 16:47
quote: Unless you're referring to the original AT&T system, "Real UNIX" is such a bastardized term that it's impossible to really create a good definition for what it is. Even Mac OSX can claim to be "Real UNIX," since it's based on BSD. For what it's worth I've discovered that Linux with Ximian GNOME (all free as in beer once you download everything) gives me all the power of Sequent's OS with many times the goodies. The main problem is that the documentation sucks.
quote: For what it's worth, you may be able to kill two birds with one stone just by developing your games for Windows with an eye towardsWINEX compatibility (this basically gives you DirectX for the X Windows System). The Linux geeks get their Linux port (for all intents and purposes) and you save yourself a lot of bother trying to code for X. You also preserve your right to charge money for the binary without having to release the source code. At least, that's how I'd do it. IP: Logged |
|
Rednivek Alpha Geek Posts: 275 |
posted July 08, 2002 17:19
Funny how people say they try to run OS X on some old piece of hardware and then cry about it... and compare it to running Linux on a P3 or XP on a P4. Want apples vs apples (haha) comparisons? Run XP on a 486. OS X is ROCK solid on my G4.... IP: Logged |
|
Zwilnik Assimilated
Posts: 396 |
posted July 09, 2002 02:01
quote: That would mean porting to Windows though, which is a whole lot of extra trouble and support for very little return in the shareware market. With all the versions and possible setups in Windows, it's similar to all the different distros of Linux that we'd be expected to support if we did that. Neither is too practical for a small shareware outfit. IP: Logged |
|
maxomai Super Geek
Posts: 131 |
posted July 09, 2002 10:42
quote: Ah, I wasn't aware that you were a shareware outfit. That obviously makes all the difference. Although, FWIW, one of the best Mac games of all time (Maelstrom) was ported to Linux, and it works swimmingly. As far as Linux support goes, you can probably get away with a very limited subset (e.g., say you'll only support on Linux Mandrake). IP: Logged |
|
Zwilnik Assimilated
Posts: 396 |
posted July 09, 2002 10:56
quote: Which is sort of what we're doing. We're looking at a possible port of Airburst to BSD once Airburst Extreme is done, but that could be a long time off at the moment. IP: Logged |
|
Akira Super Geek
Posts: 201 |
posted July 09, 2002 13:40
There's a couple of things that may or may not be considered here. First: as stated, there's no point in running OS X on anything less than a G4. I've got a 466 G4 and OS X is useful there -- on the bottom end of the scale, I'm sure, but useful nonetheless. OS X was not now and will never be intended for use on pre-G4 hardware; Steve said as much in the keynote where he introduced it back in January of 2000. It may be supported, but technically a 486/33 supports Win98...running it there will not be a pleasant experience. Second: I've contemplated moving to a different OS a time or two, and have ultimately decieded against it every time for one simple reason: software migration. Best case scenario is that I simply reinvest in my current software crop on whatever the new OS may be; worst case is that I have to hunt down replacements one at a time over the Net and then prey that I can figure out how to compile, install, and use them. The point of a computer, at least in my mind, is a tool that I can use to do cool stuff -- building the tool itself should be a means, not its own end. To those who enjoy tinkering with the computer for it's own end this argument doesn't hold sway, of course, but... Third: OS X may have UNIX underpinnings, but I doubt you will find many outside the hardcore *nix geek crowd who will agree to your description of OS X as essentially UNIX. I have yet to see a *nix box with as coherent an interface as OS X. Period. (And I spent a year working right next to the editor of MaximumLinux.com, so please believe me when I say it wasn't for lack of exposure.) The reason most people are drawn to the Mac is that it offers a quantitatively different experience of interacting with a computer than any other OS, and OS X doesn't change that. Fourth: I have yet to see the PC as capable as a new iMac that was built for $400. Just the tower maybe, but...if you just want a tower, the iMac is not the compuer for you, and I don't think anyone's ever been confused about that. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
- - e r i k - - Newbie Larva 
Posts: 2 |
posted July 15, 2002 02:57
It's true you know, don't even bother with OS X on anything less than a G4 or recent G3. And be sure to buy lots of RAM too, it's cheap. I have a first generation G4 and OS 10.1.5 is rock solid and fast too. In fact I left it on for the two weeks I was on vacation and when I came home I found that it was still playing MP3s of iTunes (and uploading the song title to my website via AppleScript) - I had just put mute on by accident :P And now with Mac OS X 10.2 so close I can still rest easy knowing that I will continue to use a premium platform. IP: Logged |
|
- - e r i k - - Newbie Larva
Posts: 2 |
posted July 15, 2002 02:59
Oh yeah... and my uptime record is currently 59 days: between a system upgrade and a power failure. No crashes at all since OS X 10.1 IP: Logged |
|
spungo Highlie
Posts: 544 |
posted July 15, 2002 07:01
Ooohhh... maybe we could start an uptime thread... my Sparc 20 at work is currently at 552 days, 29 mins... ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
dajt Geek-in-Training 
Posts: 36 |
posted July 15, 2002 07:50
At the moment my uptime is 13:10 'cuz I finally found the time to get my internal ISA modem to work with both OpenBSD 3.1 and the Dell's cranky BIOS. I figure now it'll probably stay up 'till I replace it with an OpenBSD 3.3 box in a year or so. Doesn't that sparc 10 require some security patches? Or is it on a secure internal network? Oh, and Linux (Red Hat 7.3, even!) runs just fine on my P-166s. It's a little slow, but even konqueror is usable on them. I just wouldn't use them as compile engines. Admittedly, it *is* faster on my Athlon XP 1700+, but you don't *need* that horsepower. It just makes compiles faster. IP: Logged |
|
MacManKrisK Super Geek
Posts: 229 |
posted July 15, 2002 09:08
quote: I'm not comparing running Linux on a P3 or P4 to running OS X on my Wallstreet, I'm comparing running Linux on my Wallstreet and running OS X on my Wallstreet, and Linux blows the shit out of OS X. You, however, did make the exact point that I am trying to make here; running OS X on a G4 and running XP on a P4...for both you need the "latest and greatest" (not to mention the most expensive) processors... Apple is becoming more Microsoftish by the minute. I guess in some ways I still yern for the days of 7.5.3 when One system ran on the Mac Plus (pretty well, I might add) AND the newest Power Macs! Don't get me wrong, I do understand that we need to leave older things behind sometimes if we want to move on, but we're getting to the point where it's rediculous. There is no reason that Mac OS X should run so painfully slow on a G3 system, besides the fact that it was programmed (at least the GUI was) so very inefficiently. I wouldn't mind sticking with OS 9, but Apple doesn't want to let me do that, and there is no way I can afford to run out and drop $1299 for a new G4 iLamp just so I can run OS X at an acceptable speed. I guess that my main point for the whole thread is that since I'm now using Linux anyway, why do I need to buy (more expensive) Mac hardware (in the distant future when I finally decide to buy something new) when I can run Linux better on (much less expensive) PC hardware? ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
spungo Highlie
Posts: 544 |
posted July 16, 2002 00:43
quote: Patches? We don't need no stinkin' patches! Hm. Actually I don't know. It's behind a firewall, anyway. Nothing exposed... unlike me. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
dajt Geek-in-Training
Posts: 36 |
posted July 16, 2002 01:23
Famous Last Words: "We have a firewall, so we're completely safe." No, I am *not* paranoid. I just like looking over my shoulder. :-) IP: Logged |
|
Akira Super Geek
Posts: 201 |
posted July 16, 2002 15:52
quote: Repeat after me: OS X NEEDS A G4. Does a Wall Street have a G4? No. Should you therefore run OS X on a Wall Street? No.
quote: I disagree. All operating systems need incrementally more powerful hardware as they mature and gain new features. The difference is how large those increments are. I'd say the analog to running OS X on a G3 is running System 7 on a 68040, which I know a number of people (myself included) tried to do. It was doable. It was stable. It was also slower than molasses flowing uphill in January. Yet somehow I don't remember anyone bitching about it back then. It was understood that if you wanted the new features and the future compatibility, you needed new iron — especially given that new iterations of the software you're using at any given moment will invaribly require new and more powerful hardware as well.
quote: See above, though after my experience running 7.5.3 on a Classic II, I'd be exceedingly dubious about installing it on a Plus. And many people in the windows camp missed the days of Win95 for similar reasons. The world moved on anyway.
quote: With all due respect, what's the basis of this statement? I haven't seen any evidence that this is so, and in fact have heard some programmers make statements to the contrary. Have you examined the source code? Have you spoken with the developers? Have you read an in-depth analysis prepared by someone who has? I'm not trying to call you a liar, but I am genuinely curious as to your source of information, if for no other reason than to expand my own knolwedge of the subject.
quote: Again, I disagree. In the first place, there's abolutely no reason you have to stop using your current setup. No one will sneak in and disable your software. Wall Streets are no longer under warranty anyway. Installing cutting-edge versions of most software packages will do nothing but degrade performance since your hardware is older. There's no reason you can't just leave it as it is until you can afford to move on. I speak from experience on this one -- until September of last year I was using a 4400 clone, limping along on a G3/300 upgrade shoved haphazardly into the L2 cache slot, because I couldn't afford to upgrade either. Then I added one too many upgrades and fried the mobo. Since the clone maker was out of business, replacing the mobo was not an option. Since not having a computer was not an option either, I swallowed my pride, got a loan, and got a G4/466 on sale at CompLUSA for more than what an iLamp costs now. And worked very hard, and did some extra freelance, and paid it off inside of 4 months. Was it easy? No. Was it my first choice, especially during the holiday season? No. Did it entail personal sacrifice and some hard decisions? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes.
quote: Only you can answer that question. The number one point I would raise is simple: can you replicate the tools you need and the niceties you enjoy and expect in Linux? If you can, there's no reason to do anything other than what you've done; if you can't, you've got to look at exploring different options. But Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade. They're just making it clear that, going forward, you have to follow these specific steps if you want to stay compatible with what's current. You know what? This is no different than what happened when the PowerPC chips came out. As I recall, we all made it through that, and in retrospect decided that on the balance it was for the better. I have no doubt that the same will happen here. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 500 |
posted July 16, 2002 17:45
Wow, I almost lost this entire post from iCab going funky on me...that was scary... I run a 200 MHz Mac clone, equivalent to something like a 200 MHz Pentium. Now, I've used both Linux-Mandrake and Windows NT 4.0 on 266 MHz Pentia and certainly under Linux, performance was not bad at all. The 64 Mb RAM could do with an upping, for one thing (I upped my 64 to 144 as of late). Windows NT is a tough call with Novell and a badly set up virus checker draining the machine, but I think with all that gone, and some more RAM (128?), said machines would perform pretty well under both operating systems. Now, where is this leading? Both of those OSes have the two features missing from Mac OS that Mac users would most appreciate - protected memory and pre-emptive multi-tasking. When you consider 9.1, that runs very well on my machine - adding those two features to the OS aren't likely to degrade performate - the latter will actually improve it in many cases. It is a given that Mac OS 9.1 can run many Carbon apps, and if developers (at least those working on upgrades to existing apps) stuck to 9/X friendly Carbon code, and Mac OS 9 gained the two aforementioned features, the most important benefits of X IMO, there would be more new life in 9.1 than there is now. With faster machines, there is probably room for many more improvements of X to go into 9 and still have 9 run very happily on G3s and maybe even my old machine. I'm not so much dragging my heels with 9 as just showing a perspective from which the leap Apple took can be seen as rather drastic for those using 9 and not wanting to drain all their CPU away with translucency, anti-aliasing and drop shadows. What would have been really impressive on Apple's part is a comprehensive interface abstraction system (addressed in code like Java's) where you can use any interface (9, Aqua etc) in bolt-on fashion onto X, so those of us happy in our world of monochrome window UI can save our precious CPU cyles for processing the API conversion overhead of Carbon, and other goodies added to the OS. I have yet to use X, though, so maybe I've not yet had some true swooning experience that those who've used it have, but it does look nice. And the fact that it is UNIX-based is a really nice touch, IMO, though the darker side of my brain is unhappy that Apple couldn't just sort its own OS out. I guess my point is this - OS X is all very beatiful and the like, but Apple may have gone a little overboard in making it more advanced than is necessary, and upsetting a lot of loyal fans who can't afford a new G4 just to keep up with the times (for example, I like ShadowIRC, and am pretty much* forever stuck in the past now as 2.0, while Carbon, uses X-only features such as UNIX sockets), and who rightly realise that an up-to-date, fully functional OS doesn't have to need a G4 or equivalent CPU on which to run happily, and from a brand of computer that makes upgrading quite a challenge, thus making it extra expensive to upgrade parts (like the CPU) when newer versions of the OS do indeed necessitate newer hardware. Annnyhow, Mac OS X has a lot going for it, it looks like, and despite all of its faults, should mature with age and become something most impressive (not to say that it isn't now). It's still in its infancy really, so things should get better from here. - uilleann *It's open source, so in theory people could still go on working it. But there are plenty of other new apps I can't run, although I tell myself that I don't need them, to try keep myself satisfied that my good old 604e is doing me just fine :) IP: Logged |
|
+Andrew Alpha Geek Posts: 257 |
posted July 16, 2002 18:41
quote: Real operating systems typically only need to reboot for kernel upgrades. IP: Logged |
All times are Pacific Time | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
� 2002 Geek Culture� All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e
|
G4 to run OS X on, but there is no way in the world I could afford it. And I guess I just don't understand why I'm to be penalized for using older (but still quite capable) equipment. I may have said this before, but I also realized just how few Mac-only programs I actually use (the only one I can think of is SoundEdit 0.9.2), otherwise, (and this kinda' depresses me) I'm no different from your standard "average" user...web, e-mail, and AIM, oh well, there IS Hotline too, but... Anyway, rambled long enough...